[Grovenet] Is This Why The "Support OurTroops" SignsDissappeared

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

Heh, heh... Isn't it too bad it's not the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese or any
of the others in Iraq instead of us? 

Our invasion of Germany was a success. We, in concert with the allies and
the emerging U.N. pulled it off. 

I'm mindful that we put probably as much money and manpower into the peace,
through things like the Marshall Plan, as we did the war.

I'm mindful that it's still war; horrible, expensive and destructive. 

War has never been my first choice for anything. I've always described war
as that happens when we fail as a society; when we've allowed relationships
with others to become so hostile that we either fight or die. 

In our communities we have developed police forces who can come to our
individual aid when faced with a psychopath, or even just when we as people
are so inept that we drive someone to violence for any reason. The police
have firm rules they must follow, but their purpose is always to protect the
people and property from each other. 

It works in Forest Grove. Why are we so adamant against it on an world
scale, especially when it would end war? 

The answer is, I think, that was a nation we're still like the bully on the
old frontier, trying to grab a little something from their neighbors to make
our lives a little more comfortable at their expense. We'd rather have to
buy and keep some huge guns to intimidate the neighbors than have any
objective police force getting in the way of our activities.

Remember the old TV comedy, "The Dukes of Hazzard"? In the world I think the
USA plays the role of "Boss Hogg" while telling ourselves were just like the
Dukes, just like Boss Hogg did. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 



-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 12:55 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Is This Why The "Support OurTroops"
SignsDissappeared



On Dec 23, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> ...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
>
> I think that strategy would work. That's how we do "war" according to 
> our own experience in successful wars. (The last one of those we
> were in was WWII). But we haven't chosen to do that.
>
> We start out by killing. Like we did in WWII, slaughter half a million 
> (or more) non-combatant men, women and children in a single
> night like we did in Germany. Do that several times in several  
> places and be sure the word gets out about what happened and who  
> did it. That gets their attention. Then we invade with enough  
> troops that there's a solder on virtually every street who  
> immediately kills anyone who merely looks suspicious. And then you  
> occupy and control everything that happens in the country for  
> decades, if necessary.
>
> That's what the USA did in Japan and Germany in WWII. It's how we won 
> the wars there.


Ron,

Besides describing your perspective of America's policy in WWII, you  
have also described the historic account of the German invasions of  
Poland, Netherlands, the Balkans, the Baltics, and their approach to  
Russia.  It also describes the Japanese invasion of Korea, China, and  
the Philippines.  It could also be used to describe the British  
approach to the Indian subcontinent, Rhodesia, or South Africa.  And  
we could use it to describe the Spanish control over the Western  
Hemisphere.  I do admit that it did work in our conquest of North  
America.

I suggest that a strategy to find success in the invasion of foreign  
countries has other attributes, and that those attributes have been  
overlooked by our Administration.

David
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet