List wars in history where the "occupying force" won

[240 is Back]

"An occupying force cannot win - all the locals have to do is stay alive and feisty til the invaders leave, and they win".

Is this true?

Also, can you guys list wars in recent history where occupiers HAVE been successful?  If occupiers do commonly win, it would show Iraq is very winnable with the right strategy.  If historically, occupiers usually leave without winning, that would speak volumes too.  Anyone well versed on this?



(BTW - My stance on the war is wellknown - I think we should guard the borders, pipeline, and bases for the next 50 years to stave off russia/china alliance and oilfvck the region.  So before you start all that liberal namecalling, realize that I do support a nice chunk of the neocon agenda - i just have the balls to admit it.  However losing men in their cities unncesessarily is what i consider bullshit)

[Cavalier22]

Each occupation is different.  Also, in this csae, the US just wants a stable government to be put in place so they can leave-----there was no plan for long term occupation (maybe a base around some oil fields but not occupation)

[leonp1981]

Each occupation is different.  Also, in this csae, the US just wants a stable government to be put in place so they can leave.

Don't you mean: The US just wants a puppet government to be put in place so they can still control the resources.

 

[240 is Back]

Each occupation is different.  Also, in this csae, the US just wants a stable government to be put in place so they can leave-----there was no plan for long term occupation (maybe a base around some oil fields but not occupation)

Can you list any wars in the last 200 years where the occupying force was victorious even after leaving?

Stating they're all different is restating the obvious.  And there are 14 bases around a pipeline, not "a base around oil fields".  This is an organized effort to take their oil.  God bless em of course.  I just wanted to see if anyone knew of a war like this which was successful, or if they all end that way.

[OzmO]

please define occupying force.

[OzmO]

cause you could say:

post war germany, many of the warsaw pac countries post ww2, the baltic states, ....just off the top pf my head.

[leonp1981]

There were quite a few places that thrived under the British Empire, but have not done as well since getting independence.

On another note, technically most Americans are an 'occupying force'!  You arrived off the boats, neutralised the natives, then plundered the land!!!  And you're still there!

 

[loco]

Not sure if this answers your question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#All_empires

[JOHN MATRIX]

the US federal army eventually reaching from coast to coast and completely subjugating all the native americans despite initial and prolonged resistance

im pretty sure alexander the great conquered an incredible amount of foreign territory which remained under the control of the greeks or their western-friendly governments (foreigners) for a very long period if im not mistaken

the soviets held control over much of eastern europe and central asia for like 50+ years

the romans occupied and dominated tons of foreign territory for hundreds of years or more

it certainly can be done, the thing is is that it requires a force of overwhelming size and ruthelessness, something that america is technically more than capable of doing in iraq -and in iran if they choose- but they (america) is self-limiting itself due to its ridiculous levels of political-correctness and the painfully stupid mistake of putting political/image matters over the cold, hard military/battle needs which required for getting the job done resulting in a stale quagmire which drains lives and resources needlessly while accomplishing nothing

[240 is Back]

so in all those cases, victory was only achieved when the invader STAYED?

[OzmO]

so in all those cases, victory was only achieved when the invader STAYED?

Not in the case of Poland and Hungry and Germany

[OzmO]

how about  japan?

[BRUCE]

The British Empire successfully colonised places such as India and Hong Kong.

Democracy is exportable and transferable.

[OzmO]

The British Empire successfully colonised places such as India and Hong Kong.

Democracy is exportable and transferable.

So is communism,  it just doesn't last.

[BRUCE]

So is communism,  it just doesn't last.

I agree, but are you suggesting communism is as worthwhile as democracy?

[OzmO]

I agree, but are you suggesting communism is as worthwhile as democracy?

Certainly not.  But when Capitalism doesn't encourage the growth of a strong middle class, communism becomes a very attractive system in other countries.  that is what makes it exportable.  Of course in the end communism always fails because it doesn't spur the best in us, instead it promotes mediocrity. 

[JOHN MATRIX]

The British Empire successfully colonised places such as India and Hong Kong.

Democracy is exportable and transferable.

it is in theory, but to not to places where islam has been the life and culture for the last 1500 years. islam in its predominant form is incompatible with democracy

[BRUCE]

Certainly not.  But when Capitalism doesn't encourage the growth of a strong middle class, communism becomes a very attractive system in other countries.  that is what makes it exportable.  Of course in the end communism always fails because it doesn't spur the best in us, instead it promotes mediocrity. 

I agree, except that capitalism has done more for the 'middle-class' than any other political structure.

[OzmO]

it is in theory, but to not to places where islam has been the life and culture for the last 1500 years. islam in its predominant form is incompatible with democracy

It think despotism or feudalism will work better for them.

At least for the religious nuts.  Probably not of course for the more modern ones.

[OzmO]

I agree, except that capitalism has done more for the 'middle-class' than any other political structure.

yes it has, but not in many third world countries yet.   Countries like in Africa should be flourishing because of their abundance of natural resources but are sadly not.  Not necessarily because of capitalism but because of the corruption that can infect democracies.

[BRUCE]

yes it has, but not in many third world countries yet.   Countries like in Africa should be flourishing because of their abundance of natural resources but are sadly not.  Not necessarily because of capitalism but because of the corruption that can infect democracies.

Which countries are you specifically refering to, Ozmo?

[OzmO]

Which countries are you specifically refering to, Ozmo?

are we talking about countries that have a capitalistic system combined with democratic for of governments such as a:  Republic, representative democracy, parliamentary republic  etc...?

And would you consider any democracy as a country that pretty much supports capitalism?

[BRUCE]

are we talking about countries that have a capitalistic system combined with democratic for of governments such as a:  Republic, representative democracy, parliamentary republic  etc...?

And would you consider any democracy as a country that pretty much supports capitalism?

No, I was just curious as to which African democracies with an abundance of resources are not flourishing.  I know of plenty with resources, just not so many that I would consider to be governed by democratic forces.

[24KT]

No, I was just curious as to which African democracies with an abundance of resources are not flourishing.  I know of plenty with resources, just not so many that I would consider to be governed by democratic forces.

A country with abundant resources can only flourish if it is in control of those resources.

It's like a man who owns his own house. Even it it is mortgaged, over time, with appreciation, his net worth will still increase. If he is only a renter, it doesn't matter how much the house appreciates, it's still not his. Alot of African countries are indebted to world bankers who dictate internal national policy in a way that does not support the growth of a strong middle class. Your country may be rich in natural resources, but if there is no education for the children, which is the future of any country, it's fate is sealed, ...without a revolution.

[BRUCE]

A country with abundant resources can only flourish if it is in control of those resources.

It's like a man who owns his own house. Even it it is mortgaged, over time, with appreciation, his net worth will still increase. If he is only a renter, it doesn't matter how much the house appreciates, it's still not his. Alot of African countries are indebted to world bankers who dictate internal national policy in a way that does not support the growth of a strong middle class. Your country may be rich in natural resources, but if there is no education for the children, which is the future of any country, it's fate is sealed, ...without a revolution.

Er, ok.  And those countries are.......?