Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've read a number of the more thoughtful books on al Qaeda, 9/11, the Iraq invasion et al
Well I've read a thoughtful book from time to time myself And I'm just not buying the macho man argument.
Throughout history terrorism always fails and is proven to be counter-productive.
By the way, why do I get the feeling that your thoughtful books have more to say about state sponsored terrorism, which wasn't a essential problem for the U.S. despite the neo-con insistence that pervaded the Republican Party from the 1990's on and not the average terrorist in training?
Throughout history terrorism always fails and is proven to be counter-productive.
Really? You overlook the American example. Our revolution got started in Massachusetts employing terrorist tactics. The Sons of Liberty were composed largely of unemployed or under employed Bostonians who were organized by Samuel Adams and used to intimidate crown officials. They went about as a mob, showing up at the homes of appointed tax collectors and revenue agents, forcing those residents to flee, and then their homes were destroyed via arson or looting.
It was incredibly effective. We think of our revolution as beginning at Lexington and Concord, but in fact the colony of Massachusetts had already vanquished crown authority everywhere in the colony save the city of Boston a full year before the shooting began. British officials could not venture anywhere outside of Boston unless accompanied by armed troops. The crown's authority did not exist outside of the port city and no taxes were being collected at all from the countryside.
Quote:
By the way, why do I get the feeling that your thoughtful books have more to say about state sponsored terrorism, which wasn't a essential problem for the U.S. despite the neo-con insistence that pervaded the Republican Party from the 1990's on and not the average terrorist in training?
I don't know why you get feelings about what you get feelings about. Not really my department.
Saddam engaged in war with Iran from 1980-1988, invaded Kuwait and called it a province of Iraq, lobbed SCUD missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia, was under a no-fly zone from 1991 - 2003 so he could no longer harm his own citizens. Millions of innocent people were murdered by Saddam Hussein. American soldiers do not occupy, they liberate!
President George W. Bush was right!
Saddam was tried and executed for crimes committed in 1982 and 1988. We were a bit late in 2003 for liberating anyone.
The same onhes drawn from so mnay toehr wars. that it willtake more than ten eyars to see what it meant. We might just find it meant chnages i teh word we approve of in the end.te eyars afterward most thought still that WWI ended wars in europe but learned different.
So, after ten years, what sorts of lessons (political, social, military, or otherwise) should we start to draw from the Iraq experience? I think it's fair to say that the war didn't turn out as well as many had hoped back in March of 2003.
Lesson: American leaders should watch the 1987 movie The Princess Bride
Quote:
Vizzini: Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia"
Really? You overlook the American example. Our revolution got started in Massachusetts employing terrorist tactics. The Sons of Liberty were composed largely of unemployed or under employed Bostonians who were organized by Samuel Adams and used to intimidate crown officials. They went about as a mob, showing up at the homes of appointed tax collectors and revenue agents, forcing those residents to flee, and then their homes were destroyed via arson or looting.
It was incredibly effective. We think of our revolution as beginning at Lexington and Concord, but in fact the colony of Massachusetts had already vanquished crown authority everywhere in the colony save the city of Boston a full year before the shooting began. British officials could not venture anywhere outside of Boston unless accompanied by armed troops. The crown's authority did not exist outside of the port city and no taxes were being collected at all from the countryside.
However, would those kinds of tactics alone have secured US independence? The revolution certainly started with such tactics, but it ended with field armies clashing and the intervention of another European power on our behalf.
Terrorism can certainly be an effective tool, but I am want to think of an example where terrorism alone managed to accomplish the stated goal of those employing it.
However, would those kinds of tactics alone have secured US independence? The revolution certainly started with such tactics, but it ended with field armies clashing and the intervention of another European power on our behalf.
Terrorism can certainly be an effective tool, but I am want to think of an example where terrorism alone managed to accomplish the stated goal of those employing it.
The revolution in New England was a tax revolt, the revolution supported by the remaining colonies was not, it was a revolt against the restrictions on westward expansion. Had there been no tax revolt in New England, it is doubtful that there would have been one just over the land issue.
As such, we can identify the terrorism employed by Adams and the Sons of Liberty as the spark to it all. It of course was not sufficient by itself to bring about independence, but it was sufficient to help trigger the events which did.
In the same manner Israel's employment of terrorism against their British landlords was sufficient to persuade the Brits to get out of the Israel sponsorship business. It was not sufficient to establish and sustain Israeli independence, but it was a contributor.
If we postulate "The bomb went off and the other side immediately gave up" as the standard by which we judge the effectiveness of terror tactics, then no, those tactics do not achieve goals. If however we allow room for indirect or long term impacts, and view the employment of terror as one stage in a series of events, then we get a different answer.
In the same manner Israel's employment of terrorism against their British ...
That is a far more legitimate claim.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I'm just not buying the macho man argument.
Ten years later... what lessons can or should we draw from the Iraq war?
