For starters, it ain't a "country..."Perhaps, but there's a reason that it's become a cliché - primarily because it's been historically nearly impossible to take that land.
For starters, it ain't a "country..."Perhaps, but there's a reason that it's become a cliché - primarily because it's been historically nearly impossible to take that land.
When faced with either surrender to us or total annihilation, pretty sure Taliban and other Muslim radicals will choose the latter. Japanese are not a stupid culture; from what I remember, they believed (in WW2) in a "living" god. Muslims, OTOH, are ready to join Allah because he is going to fill their shopping carts with virgins.You have some very good points and I do agree with your post. I just want to bring up a point that the thought on Japan during WWII was we would have a hard time making the Japanese give up because of their ideology and culture. They had the first suicide bombers and a sense in a lot of cases in fighting to the last. Some did give up but so do muslims. At the end they were broken but do understand that the Bomb is not something you face very often or at all. Not trying to argue just bringing up some points.
That time is approaching. But it will start in our country, the UK, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, etc. to exterminate the hordes. We'll look back in history and realize the Serbians were right. It's an extreme comment, but it's the truth.When faced with either surrender to us or total annihilation, pretty sure Taliban and other Muslim radicals will choose the latter. Japanese are not a stupid culture; from what I remember, they believed (in WW2) in a "living" god. Muslims, OTOH, are ready to join Allah because he is going to fill their shopping carts with virgins.
If we had not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it would have meant an almost total annihilation, as every indication was the Japanese would fight to the death, every man woman and child; fire from the sky showed them something they could not honorably fight (and die from). We had to kill many innocents to save a lot of lives, but in this day and age, that will never work in the ME; we would have to kill them all.
I disagree. It is a cliche because it fits with the "lets cut our losses" mindset. Afghanistan has been taken numerous times in the past. Alexander ruthlessly suppressed them, and the Greeks ruled there for 200yrs. The British got what they wanted with them-a buffer against Imperial Russia. The question is, what was our policy goal in Afghanistan? Did we achieve it?Perhaps, but there's a reason that it's become a cliché - primarily because it's been historically nearly impossible to take that land.
I'm not sure we had one.I disagree. It is a cliche because it fits with the "lets cut our losses" mindset. Afghanistan has been taken numerous times in the past. Alexander ruthlessly suppressed them, and the Greeks ruled there for 200yrs. The British got what they wanted with them-a buffer against Imperial Russia. The question is, what was our policy goal in Afghanistan? Did we achieve it?
Anyways, I just feel that the "Graveyard of Empires" line implies that the 'Stan is some unconquerable land that heralds the decline of any power that decides to step foot there. It is not and does not.
That said, I agree. Brutality on Russia's part would not help them fare better in the current conflict.