Posted on 04/29/2015 11:44:52 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
I don’t think its the wrong lesson at all. If you leave Islam in place, you won’t change their society.
“In an all-out-war, either in 1979 or now, the Chinese have to have the advantage, just by size alone. “
The Chinese have a huge numerical advantage but there’s a geographical problem that hinders their ability to use it. It’s difficult for them to funnel troops into Southeast Asia and Vietnam takes full advantage of that.
It will be interesting to see what Vietnam does if/when China builds a blue water navy able to move troops by sea. I’d look for them to come hat in hand to the United States.
“I don’t think its the wrong lesson at all. If you leave Islam in place, you won’t change their society.”
So what exactly are you saying- are you saying that you think it’s possible for America to rid Iraq of Islam?
But we won't do what is required, as we did in Japan.
For some reason I missed the whole 1979 thing.
Chinese Invasion of Vietnam
February 1979
China’s relations with Vietnam began to deteriorate seriously in the mid-1970s. After Vietnam joined the Soviet-dominated Council for Mutual Economic Cooperation (Comecon) and signed the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union in 1978, China branded Vietnam the “Cuba of the East” and called the treaty a military alliance. Incidents along the Sino-Vietnamese border increased in frequency and violence. In December 1978 Vietnam invaded Cambodia, quickly ousted the pro-Beijing Pol Pot regime, and overran the country.
China’s twenty-nine-day incursion into Vietnam in February 1979 was a response to what China considered to be a collection of provocative actions and policies on Hanoi’s part. These included Vietnamese intimacy with the Soviet Union, mistreatment of ethnic Chinese living in Vietnam, hegemonistic “imperial dreams” in Southeast Asia, and spurning of Beijing’s attempt to repatriate Chinese residents of Vietnam to China...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/prc-vietnam.htm
If he fires one, I’ll fire one.
FIRE ONE!!!
In Japan you had a national “religion” limited to Japan. Once we were able to force the Emperor to publicly admit that he was a mere mortal the “religion” fell apart. There was no ‘Greater Shintoism” outside of Japan to keep that religion alive.
We didn’t have to threaten the Japanese populace to “convert or die”, which is how Islam spread and seems to be what you are advocating if I read your post correctly. If America tried something like this in Iraq the entire Islamic world would be aflame with rage.
From Wiki
MacArthur did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons to recover the situation.[81][82] In his testimony before the Senate Inquiry, he said that he had never recommended their use.[83] In 1960, MacArthur challenged a statement by Truman that he had wanted to use nuclear weapons, and Truman issued a retraction, stating that he had no documentary evidence of this claim; it was merely his personal opinion. According to Major General Courtney Whitney, MacArthur did at one point consider a plan to use radioactive wastes to seal off North Korea, based upon a 1950 proposal by Louis Johnson, but never submitted this to the Joint Chiefs.[81] In 1985 Richard Nixon recalled discussing the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with MacArthur:
MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it, pacing the floor of his apartment in the Waldorf. He thought it a tragedy the bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be limited damage to noncombatants... MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off, which I think speaks well of him.
It’s a shame how a deceased person cannot defend himself against what is established as “fact” through the years. I am glad you sent this to me.
Best part of the movie. Nuke ‘em, Danno. Even Wally Cox was in that one.
Their national religion/creed dictated that they fight to the death, so I would say that is exactly what we threatened. And we had done pretty dammed good at following through on it. In fact, the point of dropping the A-bombs so close together was the direct implication (although we were bluffing) that we would be dropping another A-bomb every day or two until Japan no longer existed.
Had the A-bomb not been developed, or had they not surrendered, we were planning a massive invasion with the most powerful military force ever created. Tanks, aircraft, and munitions were flowing out of our ears and we were fielding weapons of incredible destruction to reduce them to dust from a distance, such as the Little David mortar. The superiority of the Sherman tank (and Pershing) over Japanese tanks made the Sherman-Tiger differences appear insignificant. The forces were so extensive that plans were made to give MacArthur a 6th star, so he could command other 5 stars.
Many did not believe the Japanese would surrender after only 2 A-bombs, and plans existed to use further bomb production tactically to support invasions, up to a dozen at a time. By comparison, the Japanese had nothing left but remnants of already produced weaponry and sharpened sticks, which they had begun issuing to their children.
So yes, we presented the Japanese with a choice, renounce your most fundamental beliefs or die.
You are correct that destroying Islam would require tackling a hydra, but its 100% doable, it just involves too much death and destruction to be acceptable under the current paradigm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.