Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tchocky
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Letum
Just because there are violent neo-Nazis still about, it doesn't mean that ww2 has not been won.
Just because there is civil unrest and non-conventional attacks in Iraq, it doesn't mean that the war wasn't won.
|
Thats a false comparison. When, in Western history post-1945, have we had to deal with the kind of civil strife as exists in Iraq because of Neo-Nazis? |
1945 after the surrender & early 1946
There are countless other comparisons that can be made from other wars if you don't like that one, it's just that things start to get a little obscure when talking about major conflicts other than the two world wars.
The roman invasion of England, for example, was won, but followed by a long period of civil unrest.
In fact almost every war in which the invader wins is followed by a period of civil strife.
The war in Iraq ended with the disappearance of the Iraqi army. The kind of low-intensity conflict we see now is not a war.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skybird
If you change a player in a team, it does not qualify for a being a new match. The pitcher has a bad day, so you send in another guy - still the same match. Maybe what came later came as a surprise for you - players showed up in the opposing team's lineup that you did not expect to see - but it was no surprise for me. I predicted both the nature of the "new" enemies, and the general changes in the conflict's style and cruelty, and that it would increasingly shift towards civil war, and Iranian intervention.
|
Its not a case of a new player in Iraq.
The whole team (army) has left, and the game (war) is over, but now members of the crowd (civilian militants) that lost the game keep jumping on to the pitch and kicking balls (attacking) at the goal (Americans) and either running away or blowing up in the process.