>>>If violence solved things then there would have been no WWII, based on the violence of WWI.
>>
>>This is a good example that supports my point. In WWI the allies never pursued the Germans onto their own soil and Germany surrendered before being decisively defeated in battle. This lead lead to a myth amoung the germanic people that Germany had not been defeated, but betrayed from behind (in the German government) by communist and Jewish elements. This myth allowed facist nationalist like Hitler to rise to power and to cause WW2. Had the allies pursued the Germans into Germany and crushed the army, the buildins and the will of the people we probably wouldn't have had a WW2. This of nation crushing then nation building worked in WW2 and turned the germanic people into an ally of the western powers ever since. Same for the Japanese. Using your own argument from a previous thread, they had to subject the German people to the crushing deprevation of a long defeat to convince them that they were wrong. The allies simply failed to do this, failed to be violent enough.
>
>One could argue, though, that we didn't do just that with Sadam the 1st time, but we did the 2nd time and, although time will tell, at the moment the Iraqis seem anything but cowed and beaten down.

Good analogy, but there is a difference. WW2 was a war on the German people, they had to be beaten. The Gulf Wars were never war on the Iraqis, but a war on the Iraqi government, in particular Saddam. The Iraquis were never a target to be demoralized or beaten.

> You wouldn't have said that above if the post WW II Germans had conducted a covert, terroristic, guerilla campaign against the occupying allies.

The Germans did have plan for an insurgency in case they lost, but it fizzled when the war ended. Unlike the world-wide Arabic/Islamic insurgency today, there was no world-wide Germanic struggle or anti-English struggle to support the insurgents.