Iraqis evicted the British, Afghans evicted the British then the Russians, Why will the USA be any different?

Answer 1

To learn from history you have to be aware of it.
This administration is painfully short of knowledge of our own history not to mention other countries' - as embarrasingly demonstrated by our president on this occassion.
"Together our soldiers liberated the Philippines from colonial rule. Together we rescued the islands from invasion and occupation."
Bush was not even aware when addressing the Philippines congress of the Philippine American war in which 200,000-500,000 philippino civilians were killed. Or of American's purchase of the Philippines from Spain - hardly giving them freedom - buying them in an end of an Empire fire sale. Or of 40+ years of colonial rule following that, only ending when the Japanese arrived (and even then we tried to prevent them declaring independence at the end of WW2).
And Bush has used the "liberation" of the Philippines as an example of what we want to do with Iraq. No wonder the Iraqis are fighting back - up to half a million dead, half a century of oppressive rule ended only by another country invading - I wouldn't want that sort of "liberation" either.

Answer 2

When the body count raise to the point that the sub ruling class must choose between going over there and risking there own butt or saying to the rulering Government that it's time to stop so they don't have to go!
At this point there will be a tactical withdrawal (rose by any other name) and it will be all forgotten as will the men who served their country so valiantly remember Vietnam!
So in short no it wont be any differant in fact, but it will in name as are many things in todays world!
You I would how people who support this police action! have ever read, thought about and understood simple books like First blood ( they most likely waited for the film) and1984

Further points:
Differant people have differant values think you can buy the people of Iraq with your aid will not work, to win a people you must win their hearts! The Great Khan

Answer 3

Back in 1929, Lawrence of Arabia wrote the entry for "Guerrilla" in the 14th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It is a chilling read - and here I thank one of my favourite readers, Peter Metcalfe of Stevenage, for sending me TE's remarkable article - because it contains so ghastly a message to the American armies in Iraq.

Writing of the Arab resistance to Turkish occupation in the 1914-18 war, he asks of the insurgents (in Iraq and elsewhere): "... suppose they were an influence, a thing invulnerable, intangible, without front or back, drifting about like a gas? Armies were like plants, immobile as a whole, firm-rooted, nourished through long stems to the head. The Arabs might be a vapour..."

How typical of Lawrence to use the horror of gas warfare as a metaphor for insurgency. To control the land they occupied, he continued, the Turks "would have need of a fortified post every four square miles, and a post could not be less than 20 men. The Turks would need 600,000 men to meet the combined ill wills of all the local Arab people. They had 100,000 men available."

Now who does that remind you of? The "fortified post every four square miles" is the ghostly future echo of George W Bush's absurd "surge". The Americans need 600,000 men to meet the combined ill will of the Iraqi people, and they have only 150,000 available. Donald Rumsfeld, the architect of "war lite" is responsible for that. Yet still these rascals get away with it.
In the minds of men converted to its creed. It must have a sophisticated alien enemy, in the form of a disciplined army of occupation too small to fulfil the doctrine of acreage: too few to adjust number to space, in order to dominate the whole area effectively from fortified posts.

"It must have a friendly population, not actively friendly, but sympathetic to the point of not betraying rebel movements to the enemy. Rebellions can be made by 2 per cent active in a striking force, and 98 per cent passively sympathetic ... Granted mobility, security ... time, and doctrine ... victory will rest with the insurgents, for the algebraical factors are in the end decisive, and against them perfections of means and spirit struggle quite in vain."

Answer 4

I think it will be different. I'm thinking that the R party is going to make sure the next election is won by a Democrat that will refuse to get the troops out of Iraq. If you listen close, all the Democratic candidates, except Kucinich, are already saying we will need presence there until at least 2012.

Anyways, the pt is that I think the difference is that Saddam is dead. In the conflicts you mentioned, the leaders survived. Now, not only is Saddam gone but his Baathist party is gone. Add to the top that the USA is dictating who the new leadership is... so who fails... how does the USA fail when even if we have to leave, the ppl Bush wanted in power, are in power.

Answer 5

In a nutshell, it won't be any different. The US needs to learn to mind its own business and to stop interfering in the affairs of other countries.

Answer 6

You could be right to ask this. It makes sense, but we come with a shi\ load of aid maybe the money will make a difference.

Answer 7

Evicted? lol I'm thinking of this like Big Brother..

"This week I'm going to vote for Britain! Praise Allah!"

Answer 8

Good point, and very true, they could be invaded, but they won't remain occupied, and eventually kick the invaders out?!

Answer 9

Decode this lyrics " Bad Moon Rising"
Mission Impossible one, two and three in one.
Different time zone.
Different games.
Different team.
Revealation 16.14
What do you think?

Answer 10

Cause come on bud... we ARE the United States of America... we can handle more ****.

We The People