Martial Law in Iraq Would Have Been a Sound Strategy

I will now erase any doubts that were left from my previous posts. First of all, I mentioned the Troubles initially because i made reference to the IRA, and not being familiar with Irish history, you may have recognized the name from the Provisional IRA from the Troubles. No, the Troubles was because of tensions between Catholics and Protestants, Ireland was already independent at that stage. And while not strictly martial law, the fact that the British government ruled over Ireland was motivation enough for radicals. The resistance against British rule dates back to the 17th Century, even further back than that. The Iraqis will object to any control implemented by the US, especially martial law, since they want control of their own lives and country, rather than have it dictated to them by some MacArthur type who, incidentally, was forced to resign post WWII for suggesting the use of a nuke on the Communists. My confusion over trading with Iraq was due to Hussein receiving permission to publicly see the plans for the original Fat man, and the confiscation of the Iraqi oil post invasion. Now, Ireland was under the rule of a foreign country. That was their motivation for rebellion. The same would apply to Iraq being occupied by the US, especially due to martial law being even more extreme than simply ruling over them and giving few voting rights to the poor. The Troubles was a side note, which is why it was in brackets the first time i mentioned it. it is technically British soil, and no martial law was imposed there because it was their own country. If you think they should have installed martial law, that would have only caused more support for the Provos, and you may as well say that global martial law would lower crime as well by that logic. On the subject of japan, I will open up Machievelli's The Prince, and mention how to rule, you must either be loved or feared. Ireland had love for the Catholic King James, but following his death, the British Empire had to impose more fear than love upon the Irish. The Japanese did not love the Americans, but feared the capabilities and destruction of the nuke, in fact many theorize the film Godzilla represents that feeling of powerlessness against a giant monster. My point is that japan feared the wrath of the US, and so obeyed them. The respect of their culture was a side benefit, but they had already unconditionally surrendered. The Japanese, like the Soviets, were underdeveloped and caught up during a period of extreme industrialisation. Ireland did not because they had a civil war following their independence and never had the chance, but did enjoy a brief moment of boom. The corruption that had been established is the reason why we are currently one of the most badly hit (Ha ha, we're pigs, very funny) but we had a slight moment of envy from the rest of Europe. The problem with Iraq is that the US army is no longer a superior force anymore. The fighters faced now are Guerilla style, something the US are prepared for, and can't easily stop. From my history class, the IRA had an increase in numbers following the marching of troops into Dublin during the Easter Rising, but during WWII, they had a decline when people no longer approved of their actions. They disbanded, and later during the Troubles, a new group took their name. America needs love to defeat Guerilla warfare, not fear. They need people against the terrorists, which is not earned by taking over, even if you say it's for security. Final reference to Ireland, Ireland achieved their freedom when they began to look bad in front of their allies, and most of the Empire (places like India) became free during this period. Iraq would have experienced similar sympathy, and favor from Britain and their other allies would have dried up. Actually, apart from the occasional protest, Britain is relatively terrorist free. The last one was what? Abdelbaset al-Megrahi? In Scotland. (Aul' McGrahy sounds Scottish actually) Europe is not a major terrorist target the way America is. Why? I suppose it's because they are terror-ists. They spread terror. If you invade a country in repsonse to a terrorist attack, especially an innocent one, they've won. You are terrifed. America spend more than any other country, and they are attacked more than any other country. They are in more wars than any other country. The have a debt far larger than any European country, only hanging on since they would destroy the world's economy by going bust. Sectarian violence would have reduced but would have been replaced by resistance fighters, the tragedy being when they began rebelling, the US would say "Aha! There are terrorists here after all! " And send in more troops. You no ;longer assert the nuclear dominance; that would be MAD, so the resistance won't fear you. Japan was under very different terms than Iraq, and the Allies were in support, if not with actual troops, for the invasion. I thin that the US should assist from afar, because once you put troops in, it's very hard to get them out again. I'll finish with your mechanic metaphor. The mechanic shows up saying he received a call for a broken car. You say someone else called, but he offer to repair whatever damage is done to yours anyway. He then inserts the carjack, damagin the sideskirt as he does, and when you object, pulls a glock on your a$$. A friend of the mechanics sends you a video of him pissing on the corpse of your recently murdered wife (war crimes), and flees to his Russian friend's house for safety while the mechanic vows revenge. In the meantime, he leaves the carjack in, saying the repairs aren't finished, and while it's in, you aren't driving anywhere. You admit there was a flashing light on the dashboard, but you could have fixed that over the phone. You then have your friends in the back trying to forcibly remove the jack, while the other mechanics think you're being rather vicious and warn other customers to be wary of your services. I would like to thank my opponent for his part in this debate, and hope to engage with him in further casual debates in the future. Until then, I'll be waiting, Duncan.