Afghanistan - Why ?

[juststarting]

no offence but you are in there because you kiss US' ass.

[minestrone]

would you like them alphabetically or chronologically?

alphabetically.

[minestrone]

no offence but you are in there because you kiss US' ass.

Exactly, and the US complain we do not do enough. It is like asking a friend round to help you move house and then moan at him because he is not strong enough to lift his side of the sofa.

[EternalOptimist]

alphabetically.

Chronologically it is then
(I forgot to mention I am an historian - alphabetically is tough for me)

off the top of my head
Eygpt occupies and pacifies Sudd
Eygpt occupies and pacifies Sainai
Eygpt occupies and pacifies Palestine
Hittites occupies and pacifies Palestine
Philip of Macedon - occupies and pacifies Northern Greece (c 350 bc) -10
Philip of Macedon - occupies and pacifies Southern Greece (c 350 bc) - 8
Alexander - occupies and pacifies Thebes (c335 bc)
Alexander - occupies and pacifies Asia minor (c330 bc) - 30
Alexander - occupies and pacifies Afghanistan (c328 bc)
Alexander - Persia - 20

etc etc etc


Rome - etruscans
Rome - Gaul
Rome - Spain
Rome - Carthage
Rome - Greece
Rome -Britannia

etc etc etc

Saxons - England
Danes - N.England
Normans - England
England - Wales
Russia - Poland
Russia - Ukraine
Russia - Finland

etc etc etc

Japan - Manchuria
Japan - large part of China
Germany - Belgium
Germany - Holland
Germany - France

etc etc etc

All of these occupations had insurgencies or revolts of one type or another
of differing scale.

[minestrone]

All of these occupations had insurgencies or revolts of one type or another
of differing scale.

And that is exactly what I was saying, you have agreed to my first point, you can occupy but never pacify.

The Romans built Hadrian's wall for a reason and the Germans killed 10 random civilians for every one of their Soldiers killed by the resistance.

Do you think Caesar convinced the citizens of Rome that invading Britain would make Rome a safer place? Do you think he stood and told the senate that a pict spear could land in Rome in 45 minutes? The whole thing is a load of balls and too many people are too stupid to see that.

[EternalOptimist]

And that is exactly what I was saying, you have agreed to my first point, you can occupy but never pacify.

The Romans built Hadrian's wall for a reason and the Germans killed 10 random civilians for every one of their Soldiers killed by the resistance.

Do you think Caesar convinced the citizens of Rome that invading Britain would make Rome a safer place? Do you think he stood and told the senate that a pict spear could land in Rome in 45 minutes? The whole thing is a load of balls and too many people are too stupid to see that.

I think I have answered your assertion that Burma was the only occupation and pacification ever. All of the examples I gave have the same pattern, conflict-occupation-revolt-pacification.

As a point of interest, I remember reading a report written at the height of the British empire. After a particularly disastrous foray into Afghanistan, through the Khyber, an army intelligence officer wrote that in his 'opinion, the only way to pacify the country would be to march an army, slowly, up and down the country a few times'

[RichardCranium]

I think I have answered your assertion that Burma was the only occupation and pacification ever. All of the examples I gave have the same pattern, conflict-occupation-revolt-pacification.

Wasn't the Norman invasion of England extremely successful? I was under the impression their forts in combination with the genocide - or at least mass extermination anywhere there was a hint of resistance - was an effective pacification of the country that was almost simultaneous with the invasion.

[minestrone]

I think I have answered your assertion that Burma was the only occupation and pacification ever. All of the examples I gave have the same pattern, conflict-occupation-revolt-pacification.

I'm not sure the example you gave of Germany France held to that pattern.

I think it might have been conflict-occupation-revolt-conflict-self determination.

If you hold to your model then Germany would still be in power there, I suppose if you were right then there never have been a war, Germania would never have invaded Gaul because why would one subservient Roman outreach want to invade another?

[EternalOptimist]

Wasn't the Norman invasion of England extremely successful? I was under the impression their forts in combination with the genocide - or at least mass extermination anywhere there was a hint of resistance - was an effective pacification of the country that was almost simultaneous with the invasion.

Absolutely.

Periods of resistance are usually brief where there is no strong identity in the conquered population. Before Nationalism, strong identities were rare and usually religious. Many revolts were not FOR something but were against something, e.g. cruely or taxation and usually had no chance of success anyway.

so where does all this leave us vis-a-vis Afghanistan

[EternalOptimist]

I'm not sure the example you gave of Germany France held to that pattern.

I think it might have been conflict-occupation-revolt-conflict-self determination.

If you hold to your model then Germany would still be in power there, I suppose if you were right then there never have been a war, Germania would never have invaded Gaul because why would one subservient Roman outreach want to invade another?

France. Conflict (shock defeat) - very minor restistance(no insurgency, no revolt) - pacification(major collaboration) - Occupiers ejected by third party


No one said a country could only go through the process once