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 (181281)	2/11/2006 4:53:11 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Harassing your oppressor is not the same as winning your independence. And while many Americans fought "guerilla-style", the majority of battles were traditional rank and file battles where muskets were more valuable than rifles (which required additional practice and were more unwieldy in size)." Any military text on guerilla war will tell you that harassing your opponent until he tires of dealing with you is exactly how you win your independence. It's been done time and time again all over the world. And you should realize that the reason the US won those set piece battles was because the patriots retained control of the countryside, and the reason they retained it was because of guerilla warfare. Let me put it this way. How the hell do you think the British got bottled up at Yorktown? If the countryside wasn't in rebellion against them, they could have spread out over a much wider region and they would have avoided being pinned to the mat. Same with Saratoga etc. And by the way, how many set piece battles did the US lose in Vietnam? What matters in revolutions is control of the population and the patriots always retained control over that during the Revolution. The reason was the simple threat of guerilla actions against small British units. Re: "I happen to believe there's a lot at stake here." Yes, there is. Re: "If we permit Islamo-Fascism to take root in Iraq and control that countries population and resources, we're in a "sht-load" of trouble down the line.*" Unfortunately, Bush's actions so far have been exactly in the opposite direction. Bush's war has inflamed the locals against us in a manner that, as the region becomes more and more democratic, creates more and more governments against us. Look at the opinion polls. Who is more popular anywhere in the Arab lands, Bush or bin Laden? -- Carl