Gates warning Against Wars Like Iraq and Afghanistan

That's 100% correct. Pacifying 3rd world countries is expensive because the state apparatus doesn't often represent the people. Non-intervention should be the future doctrine, especially in developing countries.

The western armies are usually duped into settling tribal scores. If people's lives weren't on the line, the situation would be laughable.

Wow, who would have thought?

People in other countries can determine their nation's destiny on their own without resorting to violence or needing the violence of others? You don't say! Guess they should have paid more attention to this little known figure from the early 20th century:

Your right because of Gandhi's example, India is the Asian bastion of pacifism and peace and has been for decades.

Assuming you meant this in earnest, I doubt he'd throw the same kudos back at us. My favorite quote (not that I agree 100%) from his is when asked what he thought of Western civilization replied "I think it would be a good idea."

Peace through superior fire-power.

Take a look at the partition of India and it's aftermath.

Just because Ghandi was a pacifist certainly doesn't mean Nehru and the Quit India Movement were opposed to using violence to achieve their objectives during the independance movement and during the partition which cost the lives of numerous innocent people on both sides.

Hell India and Pakistan have been basically in a state of war since the Partition and have come to blows a number of times since then. Also, any country that threatens it's neigbors with nuclear annihlation isn't exactly a pacifist haven.

Sorry, but to call India a "bastion of Pacificism and Peace" is no more accurate than calling Libya a "bastion of Democracy".

Maybe you've missed the point. Gandhi successfully led his country to freedom from British rule without resorting to violence and even went so far to have hunger strikes every time violence occurred. This happened long before cell phones and internet existed.

This was not a comment on the current state of India, but on successful use of non-violence to end oppression.

I enjoy this Ghandi Quote:

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence."

Maybe you've missed the point. Gandhi successfully led his country to freedom from British rule without resorting to violence and even went so far to have hunger strikes every time violence occurred. This happened long before cell phones and internet existed.

This was not a comment on the current state of India, but on successful use of non-violence to end oppression.
To all other posters, obviously I was being sarcastic. I guess romanP was the only one who caught on to that. You should get a coookie.

With that said, how would Gandhi's example of non violent vs oppression work in theaters like Afghanistan and Iraq? I really cant see Gandhi's example working in those situations.

Probably not. Of course our WW2 "punch a Nazi" approach is failing miserably as well.

Mostly because we're not following the successful strategies we implemented in WW2. Meaning that in the aftermath of WW2 we deconstructed the philosophies that led to German and Japanese aggression.

In Afghanistan the philosophies that are the source of the problems there, tribalism and Islamic fundamentalism, are not being dealt with because it's politically incorrect to even talk about those problems let alone attempt to deal with them.

In Iraq the problem is that the country is a fictional entity that was created by the British and the reality is that it needs to be partitioned into three separate countries in order to succeed. Again, we lack the political will to do that.

Mostly because we're not following the successful strategies we implemented in WW2. Meaning that in the aftermath of WW2 we deconstructed the philosophies that led to German and Japanese aggression.

In Afghanistan the philosophies that are the source of the problems there, tribalism and Islamic fundamentalism, are not being dealt with because it's politically incorrect to even talk about those problems let alone attempt to deal with them.

In Iraq the problem is that the country is a fictional entity that was created by the British and the reality is that it needs to be partitioned into three separate countries in order to succeed. Again, we lack the political will to do that.

No. We are pursuing a policy of aggression, coercion, and oppression which is entirely why we are failing.

Afghanistan is not our country and you have no more right to impose your will on it then I have on you. You keep telling us about your untrustworthy government and how they are a threat to you citizens yet expect us to accept they have the right to do that to other nations.

Both in Afghanistan & Iraq westerners reeped what they sowed. In fact throughout the ME, the US & Britian have been meddling morons who have managed to keep making things worse.

The only solution is to let them solve their problems. Their people will sort their own lives out. You expect nothing less for your life.