Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

What’s wrong with us?

Just find the bad actor and put him down. Immediately. Should have been done years ago.

No, we have had to pussy-foot with the Iraqi Shiites while shutting out the Sunnis (not to mentione the Christian Assyrians!).

The stupidity continues.

How many people need to pray for George W.?


15 posted on 03/26/2008 9:50:31 PM PDT by unspun (Mike Huckabee: Government's job is "protect us, not have to provide for us." Duncan Hunter knows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: unspun
al Maliki needs to arrange a meeting for al Sadr with some of the Brit SAS and US Spec Forces....for about an hour or so.

He'd either see the Mahdi.....or not.

17 posted on 03/26/2008 9:58:34 PM PDT by HardStarboard (Take No Prisoners - We're Out Of Qurans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: unspun

Yeah, the idea that Huckabee would do better is a real snorter.


28 posted on 03/26/2008 11:10:47 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: unspun

“The stupidity continues.”

The stupidity continues alright. I still have not ever been given a good answer as to how it can be that Iraq has always been a secular nation, if during their elections, not one secularist leader won a single seat. When they got a chance to vote, they voted to put in a bunch of Islamic clerics. That alone blows a hole the size of the Grand Canyon in the theory that Iraq is a secular country by nature of the people there. It makes far more sense that the sectarian conflicts were contained under Sadam, just as we have been trying to contain them since he was taken out. It blows a hole in the theory that most of the violence is because of outsiders coming into Iraq unless of course they were the only ones or mostly the ones that voted.

This is what happens when you go to war in a country with the goal of making things better for the people there, rather than to conquer it so it is rendered incapable of harming your own people.

There has only been one successful counter-insurgency in modern times (and by modern I mean since gun powder) and that was accomplished with brutal force. The British Colony of Malaya is the only one and while they did not kill every last person, they used the kind of brutality we could never get away with now. They separated people and put them in internment camps for one.

Back in the old, old, days insurgencies were easy to put down because they just killed every last person in the insurgency, took over their land and had their own people take over the place. That’s not what I’m advocating as a goal of warfare obviously. Just pointing out that there are those who believe this can work and those who believe it can’t but the history of warfare shows it never has without using far more brutal force than we ever will now.


60 posted on 03/27/2008 10:09:18 AM PDT by LaurenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson