Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on December 23, 2004, 09:44:09 PM
-
Are successful invasions of foreign countries even possible anymore? They used to be - we know that. But in that era, folks were listening to Benny Goodman or whatever. A whole different world. The word 'guerilla' meant exotic animal.
So okay... Iraq. Call me a pessimist, but I just don't see it happening. Don't get yer shorts in a knot - I want it to... because at this point it really needs to work - but, I just have my doubts.
Because I'm trying to see it from the Iraqi perspective. Or more specifically - from the standpoint of the US invading Canada and trying to overthrow the government and setting up their own here. It would be pretty damned strange... and I'm not so sure we'd buy into it.
Just for a sec... lets put the beavar polite Canadian etc. jokes aside...
Our country probably most resembles the US out of anywhere. The transition would be a snap. And frankly, I'm not sure that anyone would even notice. You certainly wouldn't see beheadings or any of that weird extremist mullah or whatever crap.
But it would be offensive as hell. And I kinda have to think that we'd do something about it... whatever that would be.
Hhm... lets tighten this thing up a bit.
Okay... The US runs out of oil and water and trees and whatever else but has plenty enough to fight a war. Canada has only enough resources to service itself so it tells the US to take a hike. Not only that, but a member of parliament steps on a GW doll.
WHATEVER.
The US decides to invade out of national interests or suspected WMD or just for a laff.
again... WHATEVER.
So lets try and play that scenario out.
My military knowledge... like pretty much all of my knowledge, is teh suck. But in an attempt to get the ball rolling, here's a few sort of vague realities:
In the US' favour:
- A crushing military vs no real formal opposition.
- A familiar environment; cities are the same, no deserts etc.
- A population that thinks the same... no berserker moves in the name of Allah.
- etc... (fill in the blanks)
In Canada's favour:
- Vast terrain... a huge country. Millions of people.
- Boatloads of privately owned guns (no rocket launchers though..)
- An educated citizenry. Our 1st year engineering students alone would probably geek out for the opportunity to make IEDs seem like Tonka toys.
- Familiarity with rank structure and probability of good leadership with chain of command (unlike what we're seeing in Iraq).
And... etc. Again, fill in the blanks.
Now... lets assume that Canadians as a whole (or in part?) decide to fight back. To go Wolverines (become terrorist insurgents) on the US' arse.
What happens? What would it look like? Would it work?
-
It can be done, but not if "media approval" and "PC" and "global test" are priorities. It requires a level of brutality that western nations aren't willing to dish out. That probably would be a good criterion in deciding whether to invade or not. Is the problem severe enough that we are justified in getting medieval on dey ass? If not, then stay the hell out.
-
Yup I agree... I shoulda mentioned that.
No nukes.
If nukes? Yeah - we'd capitulate faster than... I don't know what.
But nukes are so taboo these days. If they aren't getting used in Iraq, they aren't getting used anywhere. So lets leave those out.
Not to mention the fact that pretty much all of our cities are some mere hours drive away from yours. Right on the border. Nukes might not be the smartest play should ye have the guts to go ahead and use them.
-
You can still get pretty brutal without nukes. Ho Chi Minh, Hitler, Tito, they knew how to get the job done.
-
So how many sucessful invasions of another counrty have there been in the last 100 years? None?
-
But you think 21st Century Canadians would fall for that kind of crap? I just think those days are long gone. Nobody here would set foot on a train even if offered tickets to Disneyworld.
People back then were used to doing what they were told. Not so much like that anymore.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
So how many sucessful invasions of another counrty have there been in the last 100 years? None?
If you exclude outside military intervention, there have been dozens if not hundreds.
-
How many since WW2?
Korea? No... 'Nam? No....
I'm not talking foreign influenced coups... but real-bonafied-here's-yer-brand-new-government type invasions?
Maybe that can still happen... but... well that's what I'm asking.
-
Nash, we don't need to invade Canada- we already own the place.
-
har har
-
Originally posted by Nash
How many since WW2?
Korea? No... 'Nam? No....
I'm not talking foreign influenced coups... but real-bonafied-here's-yer-brand-new-government type invasions?
Maybe that can still happen... but... well that's what I'm asking.
Vietnam. The North won and brought communism to the south.
-
But Nuke, that's sort of akin to Russia invading the US because they didn't want to see the Republicans win... and then the Republicans ended up sweeping the US.
Different.
-
If you exclude outside governments, it isn't an invasion, it is a civil war. How many countries have been invaded and assimilated into the parent country? Vietnam is iffy, since they were originally a single country.
None that I know of.
-
I don't think there has been a successful invasion since the new large maps have been introduced.
-
I would think invasion and assimilation are two seperate things. I say that falls into the category of 'conquests' and not just 'intervention.' Are we talking about no holds barred Roman expansion or the extremely limited [western] actions of the past 54 years?
Like Funked said, it can certainly be done, but not with today's limitations.
but... why? Killing, conquering, mopping up... other than to exterminate an idea. I would like to say mankind is progressing beyond that primitive state. A shame a few ultra melons have a death grip on ignorance.
-
That is a good point, although I took it he meant a military invasion.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I don't think there has been a successful invasion since the new large maps have been introduced.
Some of us get off by snorking beer through our nostrils...thank you, Rolex, for the rush. :D
-
Depends what you want from invasion. Hearts and minds invasions dont work. Invade and kill them so they will love you and emulate your system of goverment doesnt seem to work.
The truth is that Trade is much more powerful as an influence then war. The greatest trading nation the world has ever known has decided that War should achieve the same aims. War is good for destroying and bad for building. The end of WW2 was not the end of a noble endevor to change the course of events and society in Germany and Japan..it was the end of a noble endevor to kick thier tulips into the stone age and then alot of..what do we do know?
I dont think that Iraq gives you a great standard to judge invasion as a policy.
The Iraqis are increadably heavily armed. Their clan based society is very very resiliant and resistant. Even Sadam worked within it really. If you didnt opose him he didnt really bother you. Cause he knew if he did he would face well armed ferocios resistance.
its very inhospitable and culturally foriegn to the invading troops. And the habitat is very hostile to thier equipment.
Canada asside from the fact that we have no substitute for the clan system, and only 9 battalions of infantry has people that are fat and happy, by the time it occured to us to do differently it would be far far to late.
Canadians rely tottally on electronic comunications. Such means would be under US control the second the invasion started.
Large pieces of Canada could be starved into submission in days. Literally days. Block the highways, block the rail ways and canadians can freeze, starve or play along. Period.
With starvation you can have the obediant canadains ferociosly hunting the disobediant canadians in less then a week. Hungry canadians would kick patriotic canadians tulips every time.
Here the only means of insurgency would have to develop long long after the invasion when the invaders got complacent. Years after. As long as they wanted to they could ensure the obediance of the canadian people with food and fuel alone.
Funked is incorrect though. Utter brutality doesnt do it. Utter brutality only invites the same. If the US has a chance in Iraq its with the path they are appearing to folllow. Half occupation half sales job.
It will fail though. If they had been willing to get the bathists brutally and then pull out. They could have at least claimed a victory. But they will be a signifigant Iraqi insurgency against them as long as they stay or until they put Sadam II in power.
-
We are not trying to turn Iraq into the 51st state, so it really isn't even part of the argument.
-
Liz by outside government I mean Country A invades country B, but country C liberates country B. That's not a failed invasion, that's a counterattack by a third party.
-
I gotcha, but it still doesn't change the stat. Have any countries been be invaded and made part of the attacking country in the last 100 years?
-
Originally posted by Lizking
I gotcha, but it still doesn't change the stat. Have any countries been be invaded and made part of the attacking country in the last 100 years?
tibet
Most of what is now isreal
Most of the baltic states.
Most of europe, only reason it was undone was because of outside intervention.
Most of Asia. Only reason it was undone was because of outside intervention.
Colonys have traded hands but I dont know if you see that as equivelent. They were invaded and from then on contoled by others.
Insurgencys dont allways work or even develop.
-
Israel. Where do you think the West Bank came from? They are still fighting over it, only now its a PR war with rockets and MG's as a bonus.
Heh, Pongo beat me to it. :)
-
I was being narrow, using the traditional meaning of invade and conquer. The Baltics are the only ones I can think of, and I don't know of any colonies that haved been created in the 20th century (that still exist, which is why the Baltics are not obvious).
-
What country was it that invaded Palastine and created Israel?
-
The whole Palestine/Isreal thing is working out real swell...
-
What would you expect when the man who led the Palis for 40 years and his successor have this attitude:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_9.html
-
Yup - that's what I'm saying. Folks don't seem to wanna play along anymore.
So you get these long drawn out nobody wins guerilla-terrorist-freedomfighter-Wolverines-insurgency type wars where there's no victor and it lasts forever...
Or...
The occupying force pulls out and tries to save as much face possible in doing so... leaving the joint a complete mess where the real bad guys end up taking over because they're usually the toughest and the good guys either got soft or were already soft hence the need for outside support.
Either way... it just doesn't seem to be workable anymore.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I don't think there has been a successful invasion since the new large maps have been introduced.
:D
-
Be very, very afraid up there. If we come it will be for the beer.
Once we control the beer the rest will fall in record time.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
It can be done, but not if "media approval" and "PC" and "global test" are priorities. It requires a level of brutality that western nations aren't willing to dish out. That probably would be a good criterion in deciding whether to invade or not. Is the problem severe enough that we are justified in getting medieval on dey ass? If not, then stay the hell out.
If you are supposedly freeing people from tyranny you can't really get too brutal.
-
Stiehl, in liberation, the tyran you are liberating the people from has inherently vetoed civil negotiation.
Beating up the people as you liberate them is another matter.
-
Originally posted by Nash
What happens? What would it look like?
(http://www.b24bestweb.com/images/B24/EAGERBEAVER-THE4.JPG)
-
I don't think we can even go there. I don't think that we could get any canadians to agree that we were invading for a good reason and I don't think we could get the backing of our own people.
I don't see it ever getting off the ground. I also believe that the fact that you are so well armed and that the terrain is so hostile to invaders would make control of anything but your filthy cities pretty much impossible.
lazs
-
Another humorous response from the Northern Rats...
Give me a break NashHole.... CanaDuh exists today because of the USA.
Besides we have Alaska just for the purpose of stump breaking you beaver huggers if you really decide you have balls enough to try and kick some bellybutton down South.
So take your trollin, Ghey Mountie, Flannal wearing Lesbian Hockey wives and go play with yourself.
Your bait was bad, cast was bad, and yer canoe has a hole in it.
*BTW not a personal attack, please share this with all CanNucks*
Merry Christmas!
:D
-
Skuzzy you really need to throw the lock on this thread....
The purpose of this thread was to stir anger and nothing else.
Merry Christmas Skuzzy!!!
:aok
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Be very, very afraid up there. If we come it will be for the beer.
Once we control the beer the rest will fall in record time.
Hah!!!! :aok
and the beer isn't even that good...German beer is bettar!
:rofl
-
Canuks have guns.....CHIT....is their government aware of this!!!!
-
i remain convinced that funked1's avatar would win.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Skuzzy you really need to throw the lock on this thread....
The purpose of this thread was to stir anger and nothing else.
Merry Christmas Skuzzy!!!
:aok
only you seem angry.