Insurgents in control

[Sava]

your welcome?

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


What replaced Pax Romanum?

My only wish is that those who yearn for the decline could be left alone to feel the effects. Unfortunately, that's not how it's gonna work.

What Pax Romanun? You mean the few centuries when the Empire wasn't bloodily expanding?Or the times it wasn't at war with the Parthians? or not crushing some internal revolt?

But of course comparisons to the Pax Romanun are irrelevant as the US does not have anywhere near the relative power of Rome at that point. The uS has , nor can;t, in any way enforce peace worldwide.

The only question here is the LOCAL power balance in the ME, and it was the US invasion that threw that up in the air. AND THAT WAS THE US GOAL!

See, that the thing, you can;t possibly be arguing for the war based on a notion of stability, since the whole point of the war was from day one to throw the entire area into turmoil, with the theory being that the US, being so powerful, could then shape the situation to its liking, and make for itself a better, more US friendly, ME. In invading Iraq, and making it our nice example of how great we were, Syria and Iran were to crumble, and then our repressive Saudi and Egyptian allies would follow, and in the end, the uS would get all the oil and no terrorist...how simplistic.

What is going on is that the neo-conservative notion of the power of US military power has been discredited, and now the uS, having intentionally sought chaos, now finds itself increasingly powerless to shape the outcome according to it whishes.

So you want to know about your "Pax Romanun" Then e-mail the chimp in chief and ask why he wanted to end it.

[Patroklos]

Also, according to Hersh, the insurgents are saving themselves for a nationwide "Tet" offensive.

So what third power is going to continue the fight when the insurgents are decisively defeated militarily and politicaly?

[Ted Striker]

Speculation

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by GePap

See, that the thing, you can;t possibly be arguing for the war based on a notion of stability, since the whole point of the war was from day one to throw the entire area into turmoil, with the theory being that the US, being so powerful, could then shape the situation to its liking, and make for itself a better, more US friendly, ME.

What is going on is that the neo-conservative notion of the power of US military power has been discredited, and now the uS, having intentionally sought chaos, now finds itself increasingly powerless to shape the outcome according to it whishes.

The concept of 'Creative Destruction' might thrill the Cabal's chicken-hawk attendees of 'Black Coffee Briefings' but it was never properly defined or thought through, and it was never going to work.

The problem is that democracy works best, if at all, when home-grown. Attempts to impose it through the barrel of a gun upon a people with no historical development of democratic forces and principles can only end in tears.

Even if, somewhere down the road, Iraq 'stabilises' in some way, there's no guarantee that what ends up will be any better than what was before. The grotesque nature of the so-called 'resistance' may not be to the invaders design, but the occupying powers can't pretend that these forces are nothing to do with their actions.

I kind-of sympathise with people who are putting a brave face on the Iraq situation, even if I disagree with them on the whole principle of interventionism. I'd just stress my point that we cannot fix the world through projection of military power.

Thats not 'self-loathing' by the way. Opposition to misguided foreign adventures is very different to rolling over to the ideology of bearded fascists when they attack your own country.

Thanks

[Sikander]

Originally posted by alva
"Bin Laden and Co. are right, I fear; the West is weak and doesn't have the stomach for even a slightly difficult fight."

Also known as "civilised".

If that is the price we must pay for world peace, then so be it.

No the price you'll pay for illusory peace will be much greater Ahmed.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I know the exact facts about Tet, so sorry to spoil you and Dinodoc's "I think I know something that someone else doesn't even though it's really common knowledge" game.

The POINT is eventually the whole war was lost, and the US did retreat and was overrun.


LOST

Thanks

The U.S. withdrew and was never overrun. The war was lost 3 years after the last U.S. ground forces left the country.

Oh, and this thread has been Stricken!

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Sikander
The U.S. withdrew and was never overrun. The war was lost 3 years after the last U.S. ground forces left the country.

Still lost though...

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, because after the Vietcong were all killed there was still the NVA. There is no equivalent in Iraq.

[Ramo]

So what third power is going to continue the fight when the insurgents are decisively defeated militarily and politicaly?

Because Iraq mirrors Vietnam?

[Kuciwalker]

That's the underlying assumption in a comparison to Tet, isn't it?

[Ramo]

No. The comparison to Tet is that the attack will be nationwide.

[Kuciwalker]

And if it goes like Tet did, the US will come out on top.

[Ramo]

There's absolutely no basis on which to say that it will go like Tet.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Yes, because after the Vietcong were all killed there was still the NVA. There is no equivalent in Iraq.

Iran?

Especially if you carry on threatening and pissing them off...