Moderator: Edi
Hardly. The Indians had the same equipment as the British before the conquest was completed, for example. The reason the great Empires of the West were created was more cultural than technological.Enlightenment wrote:
That was back when the imperial subjects had machetes and spears while the imperialists had machine guns. Things have changed since then.
Lol, Britain used the age old principle of divide and conquor, as you well know. And India, the crown jewl was primarily garrisoned by Indian troops, most of the colonies were, other than the English speaking ones who took care of themselves.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Britain had the manpower to garrison half the world. The political will would exist in any situation that arose whereby we would be driven to it - IE, a general movement towards fundamentalism in all the major States.Darth Wong wrote:I am rather shocked that Marina would seriously argue that the US has the manpower and political will to garrison the entire Middle East.
I don't think it will happen, though. We saw a surge like this in Al-Qaeda membership after 9/11, which dissipated after we took down Afghanistan. This surge will also dissipate after we take down Iraq. They fear us, and the display of our power will be sufficient to prevent any popular movement from forming.
Stuart Mackey wrote:
Lol, Britain used the age old principle of divide and conquor, as you well know. And India, the crown jewl was primarily garrisoned by Indian troops, most of the colonies were, other than the English speaking ones who took care of themselves.
If you seriously think that the Islamic world fears you, you have to be kidding yourself. Invade the ME in general and you will become far to spead to cope with half the people taking pot shots at your troops.
There is adifference between what a government says and what its people think, you should know that, this recent incident in Kuwait is a prime example. How long do you think these so called allied governments will last if their own people want to get rid of them?The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Stuart Mackey wrote:
Lol, Britain used the age old principle of divide and conquor, as you well know. And India, the crown jewl was primarily garrisoned by Indian troops, most of the colonies were, other than the English speaking ones who took care of themselves.
If you seriously think that the Islamic world fears you, you have to be kidding yourself. Invade the ME in general and you will become far to spead to cope with half the people taking pot shots at your troops.
Of course the Islamic world fears us. And aren't we already dividing and conquering them? Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Jordan.. They're our allies in this conflict. The Muslim world is hardly united against us.
They pretend to be your allies so that you will leave them alone. They are hardly real allies. They despise you. That article I posted about an Islamic militant being freed and congratulated after murdering a westerner in Kuwait should be a slight hint.The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Of course the Islamic world fears us. And aren't we already dividing and conquering them? Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Jordan.. They're our allies in this conflict.
They just might be, if the scenario you describe plays out. And then you have to ask serious questions about America's will to wage war. Would they bring back the draft? Would millions more people voluntarily sign up to garrison far-off countries for indefinite periods?The Muslim world is hardly united against us.
That's the definition of alliance - a temporary arrangement to achieve a purpose. The idea of alliances being permanent is false and foisted upon us by the duration of the Cold War. And as long as these temporary alliances - no matter how much they shift - keep the Muslim world divided, they're working just fine.Darth Wong wrote: They pretend to be your allies so that you will leave them alone. They are hardly real allies. They despise you. That article I posted about an Islamic militant being freed and congratulated after murdering a westerner in Kuwait should be a slight hint.
I think it really depends on the circumstances.They just might be, if the scenario you describe plays out. And then you have to ask serious questions about America's will to wage war. Would they bring back the draft? Would millions more people voluntarily sign up to garrison far-off countries for indefinite periods?
There are good alliances and bad ones. A good alliance involves nations whose societal outlook and long-term goals mesh reasonably well. A bad alliance is one formed of temporary convenience with someone you hate. Such alliances rarely turn out well.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:That's the definition of alliance - a temporary arrangement to achieve a purpose.Darth Wong wrote: They pretend to be your allies so that you will leave them alone. They are hardly real allies. They despise you. That article I posted about an Islamic militant being freed and congratulated after murdering a westerner in Kuwait should be a slight hint.
Both can turn out to be equally useful in the short term, however.Darth Wong wrote: There are good alliances and bad ones. A good alliance involves nations whose societal outlook and long-term goals mesh reasonably well. A bad alliance is one formed of temporary convenience with someone you hate. Such alliances rarely turn out well.
Couldn't you raise the Finnish flag instead? Pretty please?The Duchess of Zeon wrote:We wouldn't need to invade Kuwait - We could just have a gunboat bombard the Emir's palace for a few hours and then send a battalion of troops to raise the American flag over the ruins.Crown wrote: There is no such thing as a 'government' of Kuwait. It's run as the personal fiefdom of whatever his name is. Women have NO rights at all. I suggest that when America does invade Iraq (and they will) they should invade Kuwait at the same time.