US/Mongol invasion of Iraq.

[tuguldur]

Here is one of many useless reply!

I wanted to read the original Article from AsianFinest! and first google search gave me

www.asianfinest.org

What the hell!!! LoL I wasn't expecting that!


Maybe No War, More Love is the message! ;D

[Azadan Januspar]

One reason for collapsing Empires, which emerged rapidly by means of conquests were lack of the genius leader after his passing away. As for Mongols I should say their empire lasted more because the number of such leaders was not limited to just one and they were good at fielding strong armies for decades. And also to this so-called heh! benefit of Mongol empire "Flourishing Trade" it was always such thing in regions occupied; the trade flourished due to the safety given by the notable military force (No external threats) but is it ever a justification No! That's the major reason why the Mongol estate not lasted in contrary to the so-called benefits the Mongol invasions brought for the world.

[Subu'atai]

There are many views on this, all Persians are certainly going to voice anger about being occupied as they once had a proud civilisation. It's a thorn in their pride, but you also have to take a neutral stance aside from your actual ethnicity to see the full picture, objectivity - in other words when studying history.

The Khanates period to one extent definitely wasn't the golden age of the Mongol occupation however. The native people whom we governed suffered greatly from continual civil wars for centuries upon centuries. After the division of the Khanates from 4, to 8, to 16, to 32 warring groups there is no way the empire had any future whatsoever. Worthy governors such as Chingghis Khaan was brilliant, but no successor was as great as him to hold the empire together to make it prosper. Civil warring is the one mistake of the empire, and that left room for native leaders who ended up being more worthy of governing themselves in the end rather then being thrown to war for the sake of their Altaic masters for centuries.

[sharshuvuu]

The US invasion of Iraq was Mongol-like in its first phase; that is, it was based on a doctrine of a comparatively small, well-trained and well-equipped, highly mobile force with great firepower. Genghis Khan employed the ancestor of Blitzkrieg, the US used "Son of Blitzkrieg." After the initial victory the similarity ceases. Genghis Khan never thought that you could "blitz" an occupation, and never underestimated the manpower and equipment necessary to *hold* conquered territory. And as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, he knew whom to eliminate and whom to conciliate. The Mongols never snatched disaster out of the jaws of victory as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. did. They had good intelligence and did not plan on the basis of pipe dreams and bullnuts. Saddam was wrong; calling the US "the new Mongols" is much too complimentary.

Sharshuvuu

[Bor Chono]

You can`t hear words "We are occupied! This anti-human rights!" in middle ages!