Islamic State Crisis Megathread (ISIS/ISIL/IS) II

[Novus America]

Yeah, what about the right to not starve?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

This article states that, apart from the war famine of 1943 caused by the Japanese, the last famine under British rule ended in 1906, about half a century before independence.

Caused by a colonial war. But the point is Brtish rule was very harmful to millions. Moreover India despite problems is one of the fastest developing economies.

And much of the problems in India was the British failing to devolope working self rule. Compare India in the 30s to the Phillipines. The Phillipines was the second richest place in Asia and largely autonomous.

[HMS Vanguard]

Ah, I read "nuclear weapons". Automatic... so what?


Of course it wouldn't have happened "as it happened". Saying that specific circumstances would be different given a massive alteration in the course of history is obviously true and uninteresting. But it would have happened, or else (more likely) India would have had conventional ethnic wars, in which millions or tens of millions would have died. The British did not invent the Hindu-Muslim hatred; the British came to India just as an Islamic empire was falling apart, rolling back a tide of Muslim conquest to the areas actually inhabited by Muslims. The British froze this conflict, temporarily creating an India with something like free movement.

I'm gonna have to hammer my point in with a sledgehammer aren't I.
PEOPLE DON'T LIKE BEING DOMINATED ON AND WILL USE FORCE WHEN THEY HAVE TO IN ORDER TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.
THESE EMPIRES YOU LOVE SO MUCH CAN EXIST ONLY SO LONG AS THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH SUPPRESSING THE NATIVE UPRISINGS.
IF THE NATIVES SUDDENLY HAVE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS THEN THEM EMPIRE IS GOING TO LOSE.

DO...YOU...COMPREHEND...ENGLISH!?

I don't think it would lose.

[Novus America]

Ah, I read "nuclear weapons". Automatic... so what?


Of course it wouldn't have happened "as it happened". Saying that specific circumstances would be different given a massive alteration in the course of history is obviously true and uninteresting. But it would have happened, or else (more likely) India would have had conventional ethnic wars, in which millions or tens of millions would have died. The British did not invent the Hindu-Muslim hatred; the British came to India just as an Islamic empire was falling apart, rolling back a tide of Muslim conquest to the areas actually inhabited by Muslims. The British froze this conflict, temporarily creating an India with something like free movement.

I'm gonna have to hammer my point in with a sledgehammer aren't I.
PEOPLE DON'T LIKE BEING DOMINATED ON AND WILL USE FORCE WHEN THEY HAVE TO IN ORDER TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.
THESE EMPIRES YOU LOVE SO MUCH CAN EXIST ONLY SO LONG AS THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH SUPPRESSING THE NATIVE UPRISINGS.
IF THE NATIVES SUDDENLY HAVE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS THEN THEM EMPIRE IS GOING TO LOSE.

DO...YOU...COMPREHEND...ENGLISH!?

Had India remained British something like Vietnam was likely.

[Genivaria]

I'm gonna have to hammer my point in with a sledgehammer aren't I.
PEOPLE DON'T LIKE BEING DOMINATED ON AND WILL USE FORCE WHEN THEY HAVE TO IN ORDER TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.
THESE EMPIRES YOU LOVE SO MUCH CAN EXIST ONLY SO LONG AS THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH SUPPRESSING THE NATIVE UPRISINGS.
IF THE NATIVES SUDDENLY HAVE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS THEN THEM EMPIRE IS GOING TO LOSE.

DO...YOU...COMPREHEND...ENGLISH!?

I don't think it would lose.

Then you completely ignorant of the history of Empires.
Or have you not noticed that the Roman Empire isn't around anymore.

[HMS Vanguard]

I don't think it would lose.

Then you completely ignorant of the history of Empires.
Or have you not noticed that the Roman Empire isn't around anymore.

I know a lot about the history of the Roman Empire. It didn't fall to armed protesters.

[Novus America]

Then you completely ignorant of the history of Empires.
Or have you not noticed that the Roman Empire isn't around anymore.

I know a lot about the history of the Roman Empire. It didn't fall to armed protesters.

French Vietnam and the Dutch East Indies did.

[Genivaria]

Then you completely ignorant of the history of Empires.
Or have you not noticed that the Roman Empire isn't around anymore.

I know a lot about the history of the Roman Empire. It didn't fall to armed protesters.

And I'm done, I can see that talking to you is pointless.

[HMS Vanguard]

I know a lot about the history of the Roman Empire. It didn't fall to armed protesters.

French Vietnam and the Dutch East Indies did.

No they didn't.

[Novus America]

French Vietnam and the Dutch East Indies did.

No they didn't.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu

Armed protestors become armies.

[Genivaria]

French Vietnam and the Dutch East Indies did.

No they didn't.

You fell asleep in history class alot, I can tell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

[HMS Vanguard]

No they didn't.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu

Dien Bien Phu was fought against a conventional army including artillery.

[Novus America]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu

Dien Bien Phu was fought against a conventional army including artillery.

Yes. That started out as armed protestors. Armed protestors can become armies.

[Genivaria]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu

Dien Bien Phu was fought against a conventional army including artillery.

I know this might surprise you, but native uprisings are often more then just spears and bows.

[Armed Nation of Apocalypse Believers]

I am a person who excels in history and a person who could be legally drafted in a few months, if necessary. I can honestly say that wars are won by boots on the ground, not bombing them into submission. THE ONLY TIME BOMBING THE ENEMY INTO SUBMISSION WORKED, WAS AGAINST JAPAN, BACK DURING WORLD WAR 2. THE REASON WHY IT WORKED ID BECAUSE THAT WAS AN ISLAND NATION AND WE BLASTED THE HELL OUT OF THEIR HOME ISLANDS, SORRY IF I OFFEND ANYBODY, AND IN ORDER TO FINISH ZED BLASTING, WE HAD TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE PROCESS. ISIS IS DIFFERENT. THEY ARE A NATION SURROUNDED BY LAND. WE CANNOT ISOLATE THEIR TERRITORY, AND LOOK AT ALL THE VERY THINGS THAT U.S. MARINES AND ARMY PERSONNEL LOST SO MANY YEARS AFTER FIGHTING FOR IT. THOSE BOYS PUT THEIR BLOOD, SWEAT TEARS, AND IN SOME CASES, THEIR LIVES INTO FREEING THAT COUNTRY FROM TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION, JUST FOR IT TO BE THROWN AWAY, IN 2014. THERE ARE ONLY TWO WAYS THIS THREAT WILL END. NUCLEAR ATTACK KILLING ISIS, AND CIVILIANS IN THE PROCESS, OR INVASION OF THE TERRORIST TERRITORY AND GET RID OF THEM THE WAY IT'S BEEN DONE FOR CENTURIES, WITH BOOTS ON THE GROUND.

[HMS Vanguard]

Dien Bien Phu was fought against a conventional army including artillery.

Yes. That started out as armed protestors. Armed protestors can become armies.

No they didn't. The Viet Minh and similar groups in Indonesia were only possible because of the Japanese occupations.

[Genivaria]

Yes. That started out as armed protestors. Armed protestors can become armies.

No they didn't. The Viet Minh and similar groups in Indonesia were only possible because of the Japanese occupations.

"the sky is blue"
"no it isn't"
"ww2 happened"
"no it didn't"
"water is wet"
"no it's not"

That's what this conversation with you amounts to.

[HMS Vanguard]

No they didn't. The Viet Minh and similar groups in Indonesia were only possible because of the Japanese occupations.

"the sky is blue"
"no it isn't"
"ww2 happened"
"no it didn't"
"water is wet"
"no it's not"

That's what this conversation with you amounts to.

You are making baseless assertions which are wrong. If you make more detailed and accurate arguments you will receive more in response.

[Genivaria]

"the sky is blue"
"no it isn't"
"ww2 happened"
"no it didn't"
"water is wet"
"no it's not"

That's what this conversation with you amounts to.

You are making baseless assertions which are wrong. If you make more detailed and accurate arguments you will receive more in response.

If by baseless assertions you mean historical fact sure.

[Thermodolia]

I am a person who excels in history. I can honestly say that wars are won by boots on the ground, not bombing them into submission. THE ONLY TIME BOMBING THE ENEMY INTO SUBMISSION WORKED, WAS AGAINST JAPAN, BACK DURING WORLD WAR 2. THE REASON WHY IT WORKED ID BECAUSE THAT WAS AN ISLAND NATION AND WE BLASTED THE HELL OUT OF THEIR HOME ISLANDS, SORRY IF I OFFEND ANYBODY, AND IN ORDER TO FINISH ZED BLASTING, WE HAD TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE PROCESS. ISIS IS DIFFERENT. THEY ARE A NATION SURROUNDED BY LAND. WE CANNOT ISOLATE THEIR TERRITORY, AND LOOK AT ALL THE VERY THINGS THAT U.S. MARINES AND ARMY PERSONNEL LOST SO MANY YEARS AFTER FIGHTING FOR IT. THOSE BOYS PUT THEIR BLOOD, SWEAT TEARS, AND IN SOME CASES, THEIR LIVES INTO FREEING THAT COUNTRY FROM TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION, JUST FOR IT TO BE THROWN AWAY, IN 2014. THERE ARE ONLY TWO WAYS THIS THREAT WILL END. NUCLEAR ATTACK KILLING ISIS, AND CIVILIANS IN THE PROCESS, OR INVASION OF THE TERRORIST TERRITORY AND GET RID OF THEM THE WAY IT'S BEEN DONE FOR CENTURIES, WITH BOOTS ON THE GROUND.

Um the air strikes are helping, ISIS is losing territory. An nuclear attack would only hurt the us. And finally as I happen to be one of guys that would be sent to fight over there, I really don't want to get involved in another Middle Eastern conflict. No thank you! How about all you chickenhawks stop this armchair quarterbacking!

[Novus America]

Yes. That started out as armed protestors. Armed protestors can become armies.

No they didn't. The Viet Minh and similar groups in Indonesia were only possible because of the Japanese occupations.

Yes they did, even if the bad help. The Japanese occupations were the part of the wars caused by colonialism. Moreover similar uprisings happened in other places like Portuguese Africa. Palestine and Iraq.

Just because some uprisings were successfully crushed with huge death toll does not mean colonialism was sustainable.

[Novus America]

I am a person who excels in history. I can honestly say that wars are won by boots on the ground, not bombing them into submission. THE ONLY TIME BOMBING THE ENEMY INTO SUBMISSION WORKED, WAS AGAINST JAPAN, BACK DURING WORLD WAR 2. THE REASON WHY IT WORKED ID BECAUSE THAT WAS AN ISLAND NATION AND WE BLASTED THE HELL OUT OF THEIR HOME ISLANDS, SORRY IF I OFFEND ANYBODY, AND IN ORDER TO FINISH ZED BLASTING, WE HAD TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE PROCESS. ISIS IS DIFFERENT. THEY ARE A NATION SURROUNDED BY LAND. WE CANNOT ISOLATE THEIR TERRITORY, AND LOOK AT ALL THE VERY THINGS THAT U.S. MARINES AND ARMY PERSONNEL LOST SO MANY YEARS AFTER FIGHTING FOR IT. THOSE BOYS PUT THEIR BLOOD, SWEAT TEARS, AND IN SOME CASES, THEIR LIVES INTO FREEING THAT COUNTRY FROM TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION, JUST FOR IT TO BE THROWN AWAY, IN 2014. THERE ARE ONLY TWO WAYS THIS THREAT WILL END. NUCLEAR ATTACK KILLING ISIS, AND CIVILIANS IN THE PROCESS, OR INVASION OF THE TERRORIST TERRITORY AND GET RID OF THEM THE WAY IT'S BEEN DONE FOR CENTURIES, WITH BOOTS ON THE GROUND.

Um the air strikes are helping, ISIS is losing territory. An nuclear attack would only hurt the us. And finally as I happen to be one of guys that would be sent to fight over there, I really don't want to get involved in another Middle Eastern conflict. No thank you! How about all you chickenhawks stop this armchair quarterbacking!

I wasted a year of my life for nothing in Iraq. And would get sent back. I am more than willing to fight for a good cause. But not as happy fighting for another failed political experiment managed by people with no clue. Obama and Bush totally screwed up in Iraq. Until we get better leaders and some sort of working end game let's not try again.

[HMS Vanguard]

No they didn't. The Viet Minh and similar groups in Indonesia were only possible because of the Japanese occupations.

Yes they did, even if the bad help. The Japanese occupations were the part of the wars caused by colonialism. Moreover similar uprisings happened in other places like Portuguese Africa. Palestine and Iraq.

Just because some uprisings were successfully crushed with huge death toll does not mean colonialism was sustainable.

The 36-39 Arab revolt didn't cause large numbers of casualties, about 300 British troops per year dead and wounded. If a country loses a war, it can well lose control of its colonies, especially when any insurgency is backed by a bigger and stronger imperial power, in that case the Soviet Union. Countries spontaneously losing colonies 'in peacetime' to native 'protesters' did not happen.

[Genivaria]

No they didn't. The Viet Minh and similar groups in Indonesia were only possible because of the Japanese occupations.

Yes they did, even if the bad help. The Japanese occupations were the part of the wars caused by colonialism. Moreover similar uprisings happened in other places like Portuguese Africa. Palestine and Iraq.

Just because some uprisings were successfully crushed with huge death toll does not mean colonialism was sustainable.

I think the huge death toll on the part of the natives is perfectly acceptable to him.

[Thermodolia]

Um the air strikes are helping, ISIS is losing territory. An nuclear attack would only hurt the us. And finally as I happen to be one of guys that would be sent to fight over there, I really don't want to get involved in another Middle Eastern conflict. No thank you! How about all you chickenhawks stop this armchair quarterbacking!

I wasted a year of my life for nothing in Iraq. And would get sent back. I am more than willing to fight for a good cause. But not as happy fighting for another failed political experiment managed by people with no clue. Obama and Bush totally screwed up in Iraq. Until we get better leaders and some sort of working end game let's not try again.

I agree. Before we go back in we need a clear end goal, not some I don't know when type thing. Don't get me wrong I don't mind fighting for my nation.

Also what branch?

[Novus America]

Yes they did, even if the bad help. The Japanese occupations were the part of the wars caused by colonialism. Moreover similar uprisings happened in other places like Portuguese Africa. Palestine and Iraq.

Just because some uprisings were successfully crushed with huge death toll does not mean colonialism was sustainable.

The 36-39 Arab revolt didn't cause large numbers of casualties, about 300 British troops per year dead and wounded. If a country loses a war, it can well lose control of its colonies, especially when any insurgency is backed by a bigger and stronger imperial power, in that case the Soviet Union. Countries spontaneously losing colonies 'in peacetime' to native 'protesters' did not happen.

Umm there were more than just British casualties. Rule through mustard gas is not good for the people.

Sure, lots of insurgenices were supported by other colonial powers. Wars and undermining the other is part of the colonial game.