History Channel: American Revolution

[pooja]

It is funny how George Washington was trying to just outlast the British and convince that the price of the war was not worth keeping America. Appealing to mother's missing dead son's in a foreign barbarack land.

So, goes most wars where a nation hopes to take over another country. Iraq is just holding out and costing money until we throw up our hands and say enough is enough. Did the gov't forget how America started in the first place. The desire to be free from opression and taxes from another country.... We will not win the war in Iraq.

[leftofthedial]

1. there are amazing parallels between the struggle against king george

today

and the struggle against King George then

[PsycheCC]

2. Didn't you know pooja, we're not occupiers. We just want to help

them get on their feet. Then I guess we'll just abandon all those permanent, mega-bases we built to keep an eye on the oil. ;-)

[upi402]

3. Bush is no history fan, and ChaneyCo sees no profit in not warring n/t

[pansypoo53219]

4. right now i am reading the history of 'america'

in my 1891 encyclopedia britannica, north and south is one. and our revolution was just the beginning of our continent overthrowing our occupying rulers. last was guatamala. but it was all over. (near the end of the 1st A volumn). also read a 1903 F EB and all occupations end violently. we are NOT liberators. not now we ain't.

[jerry611]

5. That's a bit stupid...

Iraqis don't support the insurgents. During the American revolution, the population supported the continental army.

The colonists got assistance from another superpower...France.

And Washington also didn't blow up his own people.

You are seriously trying to compare people like Zarquawi to George Washington? Are you serious?

[itzamirakul]

6. I think there is room for argument in what you say...

In Iraq, I don't think the insurgents would still be there if they were not getting some support from at least SOME of the Locals.

During the American Revolution there were many, many people who remained loyal to England. Not all colonists supported Washington's colonial army. In fact, one of the major problems that Washington faced was the constant and continuing desertion of his troops.

Washington did what damage he could to those colonists who did not believe in the revolutionary cause, but most of his effort was directed toward fighting the British army. A lot of the English loyalists were people of his own "class" and found protection from "one of their own kind." He also did not consider ALL people living in the colonies as being equal and he fought for freedom only for a segment of the population. This, too, could be considered cruelty equal to being "blown up" if you were one of the ones being "left out." Washington's prejudices against the African population in America left those escaped slaves no alternative other than joining the British and the loyalists. Many slaves escaped and attempted to join the Revolutionaries but were turned away. I think that that cruelty was tantamount to killing those people. Perhaps you disagree and feel that the slaves were NOT "his people," but I am speaking in terms of people who lived on this continent at that time.

I see no reason to compare Washington with any of the ME "leaders." Each is a man of his own time.

[onja]

8. Not so similar...

In the revolutionary War, the vast majority of the people supported Washington, with a small minority helping the British. In Iraq, the vast majority of the people are neutral or support the U.S. with a small minority helping the terrorists.

I think there's a big difference between actively killing people who don't support you and leaving people to be neutral.

[RoyGBiv]

11. Not correct ...

The "vast majority" of colonials were effectively neutral, just wanting to get by day to day. Support for the Revolution increased as time went by due to increasingly harsh methods of enforcing British law in those areas they occupied, but it never reached a clear majority among the general population. True that a minority actively helped the British, but then a minority actively, and willingly, assisted the rebellion.

[onja]

13. Yes it is...

The vast majority was compared to those supporting the King. Many more actively supported the colonies than the King.

[RoyGBiv]

15. I'm sorry ...

"Not supporting the King" does not necessarily equate to supporting the revolutionaries.

This was not the simple us vs. them war of popular legend.

[onja]

19. More info...

I've read a paper and 50,000 loyalists fought for the British and 250,000 fought for the Revolutionaries. (These numbers are the numbers who fought at any time). Also, I read that 40-45% actively supported the Revolutionaries and 15-20% actively supported the King.

[itzamirakul]

14. Remember that the British "occupied" New York City for nearly

seven years. They partied, had theatre, some of the British officers married among the wealthy New York colonist families and they generally lived the "good life" while General Washington fought losing battles on the outskirts of town. At least one battle was fought on the site of the Empire State Building which was a wooded farm at the time and was far uptown of where most New Yorkers lived in that period.

Many of New York's wealthy men added considerably to their riches through some form or other of war profiteering. While there certainly may have been support among some of the less affluent colonists in NYC for GW, it doesn't seem to have been a "vast majority" enough to liberate NYC from the British.

And we have to remember that most of GW's fighting took place in and around NY and NJ.

I cannot speak on the neutrality or involvement of Iraqi native-borns in the support or opposition of the U.S. Frankly, I don't think that anyone can. I don't know what they are doing and in reality, neither does anyone else. We are all speaking strictly on conjecture when it comes to the loyalties of the Iraqi people.

[RoyGBiv]

12. The comparison ...

The comparison, by my reading, is one of strategy, not of people. Washington just happened to be the individual who employed the strategy. The resistance to American occupation in Iraq is also a strategy and is based on the same principle.

[onja]

7. Correct

I agree with you. To compare George washington, a hero and an honorable man, to Zarqawi and his terrorists, cowards and murderers, is ridiculous.

[itzamirakul]

16. I went back and read through this thread again and I cannot find

any place where a DUer is comparing GW to Zarqawi.

IMO the comparison is between the reasons that the colonists fought the British control and oppression and the reasons why Iraqi insurgents are fighting the U.S. and what U.S. policy stands for in their opinion.

Of course General Washington is considered a true hero among Americans who have even the least bit of knowledge of history. And he certainly has my gratitude for leading this country into independence. But GW was a slaveholder all of his life and I personally do not consider that as the characteristic of an "honorable man."

Welcome to DU! :)

Edit: spelling

[onja]

18. Sorry

Thanks for welcoming me :) I read too quickly. Made the mistake.


BTW-Back in George Washington's day, all the rich plantation owners were slave-owners. Thomas jefferson was another big slave owner. But still, GW was much better than most people to his slaves.

[K-W]

9. lol EOM

[RoyGBiv]

10. In strategic military terms, yes ...

I know I'm not the one doing the comparing, but there is merit in it, at least in a general sense.

And what you say about the colonists supporting the Continental Armies isn't entirely true. Rough estimates (and rough is about as good as you can get) put popular support of the American Revolution at the time it was taking place at about 1/3 of the general populace, less if we include the enslaved in the calculation. Popular support for the Revolution came *after* it was over, and even then Tories were not hard to find for many decades afterward.

And maybe Washington didn't blow up his own people in the same way, but Colonials who did not support the war effort were often jailed, burned out of their homes, run off their lands at the point of a sword, etc.

Anyway, the strategy worked for Ho Chi Minh. He actually invoked the Founding Fathers of the United States in describing the struggle of his country and his own strategy.

[magellan]

17. Can't fight generalizations with more generalizations

I don't agree with the American Revolution analogy either; it bears only superficial similarity to Iraq, which is a far more complex situation with its multiple sides, actors and agendas.

But -- and I apologize if I'm nit-picking -- I also disagree with your suggestion that all the insurgents are like Zarqawi. That's what Bush** wants people to believe, because then the situation isn't his fault, it's the "evil ter'rists" fault. That in turn allows him to tie the ongoing insurgency into his WOT, which conveniently distracts people from the truth: that it's his administration's ineptitude that allowed many different groups -- most of them internal to Iraq and with no affiliation to al Qaeda -- to exploit the power vacuum left by the badly managed US invasion and occupation, leading to the current horrifying situation.

Not every Iraqi who takes up arms is a terrorist. (And by terrorist I mean someone who believes they're justified in murdering civilians as a means to their ends.) Some of them are nationalists who are focused on nothing but expelling the US, the same way our forefathers fought the British. They don't kill other Iraqis except those who have allied themselves with the US...which is no different than what we did to British loyalists.

Also, I'm sure the majority of Iraqis pray that the warring factions, including the US, would miraculously vanish and leave them in peace -- all the while knowing that isn't going to happen. And for that reason each of the insurgency groups surely do enjoy some support from average Iraqis, else their numbers would have dwindled by now.

It's just a mistake to oversimplify things in Iraq, is all I'm trying to say. Doing so leads to unrealistic expectations of the outcome, as Bush** has proven time and again.

Peace.