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: cnyndwllr who wrote (224023)	3/13/2007 10:53:34 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

We lost the only battle that counted, the hearts and minds battle.... That is what they (people who think that Vietnam was lost by anti-war protesters) don't get. And they don't get that we NEVER could have won that battle. Especially after we picked up the French cause. It was, to put it politely, nuts. I've had people tell me, oh they know a Vietnamese in ... Detroit, wherever,... who was bitter that we let them down. Well, guess what, the French had some Vietnamese supporters, and the US inherited them. But they were a distinct minority of the population. And they didn't have the moral high ground in that battle. Yeah, a lot of people died and were killed after we left. Well, duh, they had civil war and people died. What a shock. Ho was a butcher, some say. Do they call Lincoln a "butcher"? Jefferson Davis? Lee? Grant? Sherman?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (224023)	3/18/2007 1:00:28 AM
From: steve dietrich	Respond to of 281500

That may be the end game being run now, a bargain struck with Al Sadr to go underground and hide out while we try and get the Sunni insurgents, and maybe a few Al Quida types. We lose some troops, Bush saves face, and we start to pull out, and maybe still support the current govt.in other ways.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (224023)	3/18/2007 1:33:41 AM
From: Lou Weed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<<What does that mean? First, it means that you have to define a "goal" that the locals will want badly enough to fight for. Second, the locals who buy into your mission have to be more committed and more powerful than the locals on the other side. Third, in the conduct of the "war" you have to be sure that everything you do, from defining the mission, to conducting the mission and to improving the everyday lot of the locals, is designed to foster more aid, more support and less resistance.>> Very well put.....just finished a book called "Rome Inc." and what you just described was exactly how the Romans controlled conquered lands, to a large extent. They took the bulk of the spoils for themselves however, they made the powers that be of the newly conquered region, Roman citizens. That included giving them all the privileges that citizenry entailed. The new "Roman citizens" realized that its better to be a fat and happy Roman than a starving Hun and they kept their own subordinates in line. The Romans also built up their land's infrastructure and basically improved the everyday lot for everyone, as you stated above. This was understood 2000 years ago.......what happened in the meantime?!? Watch Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" and the scene where the peoples front of Judea are discussing "What have the Romans done for us?". Explains this point beautifully..... mon.