I've often wondered what American hyper-militants have to say about Britain's behavior toward Eire and Northern Ireland during the I.R.A. terrorism?

The terrorist attacks began in the early 1970's and the last one that I recall was in 2005.

Yet Britain did not bomb Dublin to rubble to terrorize the citizens into changing their own government.

Why not? Are the British simply more rational and humane?

I've known some pretty bloody-minded Brits in my day. But perhaps the majority are less viciously destructive.

Every rationale that the Bush camp has used to justify the attack on the citizens of Iraq could have been used by the British against the Irish.

But although terrorists and suspected terrorists were imprisoned, no direct attack was ever made against the ordinary citizens of Eire.

Why not?

quote:

Originally posted by babthrower:
I've often wondered what American hyper-militants have to say about Britain's behavior toward Eire and Northern Ireland during the I.R.A. terrorism?

The terrorist attacks began in the early 1970's and the last one that I recall was in 2005.

Yet Britain did not bomb Dublin to rubble to terrorize the citizens into changing their own government.


Why not?

Because the Republic's government had nothing to do with the terrorists ! So why would the British bomb Dublin? Why would changing the Irish government make any difference? It's not and was not then the policy of any government of the Republic to support the Irish Republican Army. It gave the IRA no assistance (unlike, sadly, some Americans with their fanciful dreams born from thousands of miles away and many generations before). The IRA operated, sometimes, from just over the border but mostly they were within the province at all times.By 'operated' I mean e.g that they would sometimes go a mile or two inside the Republic after setting a roadside bomb just within the province

It is true that a united Ireland was contemplated in the Irish constitution of 1937, in that Article 3 speaks of 'pending the re-integration of the national territory'.That was just a hope, not a claim or declaration of action.No sane government of the Republic would want to have rule over a province that was predominantly protestant and predominantly loyalist:why, do you think, the North got left out of the Republic in the first place? (Article 3 was amended with effect from 1999 to make it explicitly clear that Ireland would only be reunited on a democratic vote of the peoples of both parts).

However there is more to British policy than that.We did not bomb terrorists because we did not want to drive neutrals into supporting terrorists and their ideas, or just turning a blind eye to terrorists. You want the ordinary people to help, not hinder. Not for us the insanity of bombing or shelling a house because we believed it a safe house for terrorists . Every time you kill one innocent you create ten new enemy and a thousand who distrust you.That's why the British were so upset by the gung-ho way in which Americans operated.Unfortunately nobody American (until perhaps Gen Petraeus) had learned anything from our history or, if they had, been able to apply that knowledge.

'A senior British commander in southern Afghanistan said in recent weeks that he had asked that American Special Forces leave his area of operations because the high level of civilian casualties they had caused was making it difficult to win over local people.

Other British officers here in Helmand Province, speaking on condition of anonymity, criticized American Special Forces for causing most of the civilian deaths and injuries in their area. They also expressed concerns that the Americans’ extensive use of air power was turning the people against the foreign presence as British forces were trying to solidify recent gains against the Taliban.

An American military spokesman denied that the request for American forces to leave was ever made, either formally or otherwise, or that they had caused most of the casualties. But the episode underlines differences of opinion among NATO and American military forces in Afghanistan on tactics for fighting Taliban insurgents, and concerns among soldiers about the consequences of the high level of civilians being killed in fighting...' NYT

A variation on the bomber's dream - the myth of 'surgical strikes':

When missile strikes at alleged terrorists go awry, U.S. policy takes a hit.

The Iraq invasion demonstrated not only that air power can end a war quickly but also that the mere threat of air warfare can accomplish the same thing.

Treat yourself to Oliver North's new book, "American Heroes". He makes the case without really intending to.

This is how it worked:

In the gulf war, we conducted an air war for several weeks before a single boot hit the ground in Kuwait. We pounded Iraq's positions around the clock and they were able to offer no defense.

In March of 2003, Donald Rumsfeld used the phrase "shock and awe" to describe the campaign that he intended General Franks to use, and the Iraqi's took this to mean a repeat of the Gulf War strategy. (In reality, we only bombed Iraq for about 36 hours before the invasion on March 20, 2003.)

During those 36 hours, an Iraqi general walked from his base near Basra across the border into Kuwait and surrendered with his aid. When interrogated, he was asked, "Where is your driver? Where is your staff? Where are all your men?" He responded, "I can't find them."

During the next two weeks, as the first marine expeditionary force advanced from city to city, it was very common to find trench lines littered with green uniforms, weapons, black boots and other equipment because the Iraqi army had simply stripped down, walked into town, bought robes and tried to blend into the population. There are numerous reports of our marines seeing crowds of men with no beards, military haircuts standing along the streets doing nothing.

The Fedayeen were almost alone in defending Iraq. Even some Revolutionary Guard units deserted.

quote:

The Iraq invasion demonstrated not only that air power can end a war quickly...

The war in Iraq has ended?

The war in Iraq ended a few weeks after it began.

Oh, wait. You liberals are trying to pretend that it has been, what? a "quagmire", a "civil war", what else? Because there are talking heads in a box in your living room telling you that Iraq is a mess, you open up the top of your head and allow them to dump in everything they call "information" without vetting it.

Your mistake, not mine.

It took 4 years for Germany to ratify it's constitution after WW II, and 7 years for Japan. There were massive waves of violence during those periods, and yet we say that the war ended in 1945.

Don't you guys ever question your own reasoning, or do you think that just because you can be suckered by the liberal media that the rest of us will just go along with it and agree with you?

quote:

There were massive waves of violence during those periods

Similar to what's happening in Iraq? Surely not.

Why does bush keep speaking about the war in Iraq? Maybe you should go and talk to him. Tell him it's over! We won! We can bring the troops home now! (Isn't that how we "won" in Vietnam?) Have bush just declare victory and that's it.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:

quote:

There were massive waves of violence during those periods

Similar to what's happening in Iraq? Surely not.

Does it matter? The only reason why WW II ended in 1945 and the Iraq war did NOT end (with the toppling of the government) is because liberals say so.

Isn't that what we're supposed to do, just believe you?

Or should we use our heads and say to ourselves, "Selves, the crime spree in Fellujah, Ramadi and al Qaim is very similar in volume to the crime taking place right now in Detroit, Philadelphia and Los Angeles. Doesn't that mean that the American government is a failure and we should all just pull out now?"

(Or does it mean that liberals have way overblown the situation in Iraq because they know no better, and their motive has to do with their displeasure of the Bush administration? I'm not as easily convinced that the sky is falling as the rest of you, and it turns out that I was right. We actually are winning, and we were all along.)

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Why does bush keep speaking about the war in Iraq? Maybe you should go and talk to him. Tell him it's over! We won! We can bring the troops home now! (Isn't that how we "won" in Vietnam?) Have bush just declare victory and that's it.

I think he's just dumbing it down for you.

bush has done an excellent job of dumbing down many things, hasn't he?

quote:

We actually are winning, and we were all along.

That's what McCain says, too. Apparently, the US has been winning in Iraq for the past five years - it doesn't look like either country can take much more such victory, though. Something has to change.

The original question was about air power quickly and decisively ending a war, by demoralising a population, or causing it to revolt against its own government in despair. Clearly this has no more happened in Iraq than in most other conflicts.

Possibly the only time it happened was in the case of the end of World War Two for Japan.