Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (131784)	5/6/2004 1:23:44 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So counter-insurgency will never work in a jungle environment, is that what you're trying to say? Did you just do a "border shift?" I'd of sworn that you had that pistol in your right hand and now it's in your left. The short answer, however, is that "no," I never said that. I never said anything like that. We weren't talking about that. It seems the subject has changed. But since you asked; an insurgency CAN BE put down by a foreign occupier. History is replete with examples of workable techniques. Should we line up the innocent with the guilty and shoot every 3rd one? Should we take hostages and kill them on the day following the next attack? Should we starve the population into submission? What would be your first choice? Are the benefits worth the cost? If you cannot secure the cooperation of the general population to aid in the destruction of the insurgency, and if you're not willing to take such drastic measures, then either go home or accept continuous losses in a losing battle. I'm not well versed in events in Malaysia nor Peru.