If We Don't Keep the Territory, Why Fight?

self ^ | self

[farmer18th]

When the Children of Israel moved into Jericho, did they walk away after the walls fell down? When William the Conqueror landed at Hastings, did he mop up and then head back to Normandy? When American settlers pushed back savage Indians, did they settle for a few surgical strikes with their Kentucky rifles and then go back home?

If a culture is incapable of sustaining western style representative government, why would we think that replacing a Hussein or eliminating a Bin Laden will solve our long term problems? If a culture is known to produce one charismatic tyrant after another, each with his own version of "America, the Great Satan" rhetoric, why would we think that the war on terrorism could be over, ever?

Isn't it time for a new century of enlightened imperialism? Shouldn't we go over, occupy, and then declare a new homestead act? When Washington fought the French and Indians, his men were promised lands in the Ohio. Shouldn't we promise our boys an oil field or two?

I'm serious. Absolutely serious. Your comments.

[Marauder]

Works for me; I don't see any harm in keeping the territory, either Afghanistan (got to change the name, too hard to type) or Iraq. Do you think we should make Iraq a possession, or a state?

[farmer18th]

Definitely a territory. We could send out Bob Dornan as the territorial governor.

[farmer18th]

Not yet there aren't.

[secretagent]

Well, I see a problem with dealing with the current inhabitants. Expulsion or extermination seem like the only ways, unless you intend to enslave them.

[Stew Padasso]

I totally agree. They started this and they can pay for it.

But I also think we should turn our attention to the countries who armed our enemies(once we control the oil).

[fire_eye]

Don't overlook the other alternative, which is to simply render the conquered territory uninhabitable, as the Romans did.

[Nogbad]

I have long believed that the recolonization of the Middle East and Africa
(to begin with)
is inevitable.
But it will not begin until the next terrorist attack,
which will be nuclear or biological (or both).

I received a lot of flack on this forum 3 years ago for expressing this opinion.

[farmer18th]

Expulsion or extermination seem like the only ways, unless you intend to enslave them.

We teach the gospel to them, and before long the mosques would get rented out to Chuck Smith and his boys.

[Rome2000]

W is too

[cicero's_son]

I disagree.

We didn't "keep Japan" because we didn't need to. We tore down their sick, backward, and dangerous society and rebuilt it on our own image.

That is what we should do in this conflict. Destroy Islamic fundamentalism and you destroy the system that produces these monsters.

[Publius6961]

If We Don't Keep the Territory, Why Fight?

If you have to ask the question, farmer, you better keep your day job.

Your are either promoting the lie of American "Colonialism", or haven't noticed this isn't th 9th century.

[farmer18th]

Is that a Templar up there?

[N00dleN0gg1n]

Shouldn't we promise our boys an oil field or two?

I think our soldiers deserve a better reward than a bunch of radioactive wasteland.

[farmer18th]

I'm not sure you read the premise very carefully. I wrote "if a culture is incapable of sustaining western style self government," then...

Japan was obviously a good bet. They're playing better Mozart over there than we are.

The Middle East, however...

Do you really think the departure of a Bin Laden will keep the new weeds from popping up?

[farmer18th]

Your are either promoting the lie of American "Colonialism", ..

Got it. If you have a better idea, let me know. But a prolonged war against an ideology that is bent on our destruction doesn't sound like a good bet. We need to convert the enemy eventually, and that will mean Westernization.