Slashdot Mirror
Group Fights Politicizing Science and Engineering
smooth wombat writes, "Several prominent scientists said yesterday that they had formed an organization dedicated to electing politicians 'who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy.' The group will be a 527 organization and will focus its efforts on races in which science plays a part." From the article: "In what it described as a Bill of Rights for scientists and engineers, the group said that researchers who receive federal funds should be free to discuss their work publicly, and that appointments to federal scientific advisory committees should be based on scientific qualifications, not political beliefs. It said the government should not support science education programs that 'include concepts that are derived from ideology,' an apparent reference to creationism and its ideological cousin, intelligent design."
This group is asking politicians to make decisions based on logic and scientific evidence when the voters aren't even using these processes. I remember the 2004 election and I remember plotzing when I heard someone was voting for Bush. Often times, I got a canned response of something crazy like, "John Kerry is for abortion. Bush is against it. If my mother had had me aborted, I wouldn't be here and that's why I'm voting for Bush." Now, whether any of that is true or not can be debated forever, that's not the point of this post. The point is that someone or something had gotten to them the message that if Kerry was president, all fetuses would be aborted. They didn't pay attention to any other issues except that one and they made a very emotional decision based on it.
What's even more exasperating about this situation is that Kerry wouldn't have had the power to change the abortion laws and Bush hasn't done a damn thing about them either. This makes the "my body my right" crowd just as idiotic. Abortion is always a steaming political debate right around an election and then subsides to nothing during the term because the trimester laws aren't budging.
The logical step is to not even base your vote on the abortion stance. Of course, none of the voters are logical.
What's the first aim of SEFORA? To push one candidate based on a single issue -- stem cells.
Just admit it, Democrats are less founded in conservative Christian belief and therefore are more prone to rely on science for decisions/explanations. This 527 will most likely end up supporting the Democratic candidate 9 times out of 10 simply because of the "party stances" the Republican will most certainly take. The million dollar question is, "Would they support a third party candidate running on the Science platform before the bi-partisan idiots?" And the answer is 'probably not.' Which is really too bad because sometimes the third party candidate has good ideas and stances -- just lacks major funds to get the word out.
I see this group as doing an overall good thing but I'm not a big fan of their methods. What ever happened to just trying to educate the voters? At the end of the day, the people voting are not scientifically founded. If they were, I wouldn't have to put up with commercials for The War at Home on TV. The politicians are supposed to represent the people and, since most people aren't experts using science and engineering, they shouldn't make decisions based on this.
My work here is dung.
In this day and age, if I'm running for office, which am I going to do:
- Say and Do the right things for the integrity of office and country?
ORI think it's fair to say, we can see how we got where we are. Fixing it by electing good, intelligent and wise candidates means finding them and grooming them so the voter, who cares more about Paris Hilton getting a DUI, keeping gays from marrying, teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design vs. Evolution than whether there's about to be a rise in sea levels, mass extinction and famine is a truly gargantuan undertaking. First they have to get the average clod on the street to understand how clean science will impact their lives. Considering the head start stupidity has and the powerful allies of ignorance, it's daunting.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
You got religious freaks on the right and you got frothy eggheads on the left. Blend the two together in a classroom and you got a civil war going on. Makes it hard to be a moderate who believes in both God and science.
The sad fact of the current political state of the United States is simply that politicians are relying on voters to vote based on emotion, not logic.
Which, when you think about it, is a brilliant way to manipulate people into getting them to vote against their own best interests. Rove understood this and whatever you say about the man, if he fools you once and fools you twice and keeps on fooling you, it's not his fault. I refer to some of those issues as Sucker Bait and you can certainly see how quickly people polarize on them. The trick is figuring which issues are going to get you the numbers you need and then you can go and do whatever you want. Which they have. Perhaps it will be a good thing when low-lying parts of the US capitol are among the first to flood if sea levels do rise 40 or more feet.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
If it is so true that this country is so starkly divided between "religious freaks" and "frothy eggheads," then why is that you are a religious person who believes in science, I am a religious person who believes in science, the vast majority of my friends are religious people who believe in science (and even those who aren't religious don't have anything against those who are), and the vast majority of random people I have talked to all around the country are religious people who believe in science? Could it be *GASP* that the vocal minorities of frothy eggheads and religious freaks are actually not at all representative of mainstream Americans? Could media sensationalism (even right here on our beloved
I am tired of this "line in the sand" BS that we all appear to have fallen into. The overwhelming majority of Americans are reasonable people who are nothing like the extremist nutjobs portrayed on TV, and our biggest downfall will be ignoring that fact.
While I agree with the idea of removing politics from scientific research, I feel that ideology is quite necessary. Without some sort of noble goal, what's the point other than pure curiosity? Why research cancer or aids if not to save lives? Is that not ideology?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
When American scientists have to form a 527 group just to make sure the public has reasonable access to facts and reports?
We used to be the most technologically advanced country in the world. Now American fundamentalist extremists, enormously well funded fundamentalists, want to keep biology out of the classroom. Oil companies want to supress climate science. And both are the principal campaign financiers of the presidential administration and both houses of congress. And a majority position on the supreme court.
And the powers that be want to frame it as a "you're either with science or with the Lord" kind of insane debate that went out of fashion in the 18th century.
This is the kind of thinking that will relagate us to "has-been" status quicker than you can say "empire where the sun never sets"
--- Little Atomo - The Amazing Thinking Robot from Atomocom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIP9KisHi4k
So they are fighting the politicizing of science and engineering by creating a political group? And yes, a 527 is a political organization whether they admit it or not. Oh sweet irony :)
Segfault
The liberal bias comes in when ALL of the facts aren't presented; picking and choosing facts to make your point while ignoring the facts that don't is the hallmark of liberal argument. That, and instantly blaming conspiracies and calling your opponent names. :-)
Thanks for trying though.
There is no substance to this argument since one could just as easily state the converse:
"The conservative bias comes in when ALL of the facts aren't presented; picking and choosing facts to make your point while ignoring the facts that don't is the hallmark of conservative argument. That, and instantly blaming conspiracies and calling your opponent names."
To anyone who has been paying attention to the political debate in this country, this statement rings much truer than the one you made. You cite no facts or evidence to support your baseless assertion, you have really added nothing to the conversation, and on top of that, you post as an anonymous coward even as you sarcastically thank someone smarter and funnier than you for "trying". I've never seen a post ending with "thanks for trying though" where the poster had a f8cking clue.
What if a teacher wants to start up a discussion about whether homosexuality is a mental disorder? What if a scientist wants federal money to evaluate racial differences dealing with violent behavior and intelligence? What if a doctor reports statistical information stating that children of interracial relationships have a higher birth defect rate? What if someone produces a study that indicates faith is related to low intelligence?
... they can probably find a study that demonizes them. And then they put out books like the Bell Curve.
A lot of people find that such discussions would terribly offensive and harmful to the social order. It's also easy to find scientific data which will prove just about anything. It could be because of small sample size or faulty data, but if you pick and choose the information you'll get what you want. If someone has a grudge against blacks/homosexuals/women/men/heterosexuals/whites
Some people have gone to jail for arguing that the Holocaust never happened. In Muslim countries, people have faced the death penalty for alleged slurs against religious doctrine.
My point is that everybody has some beliefs that they feel should go unchallenged. Whether it is their faith in God, their belief in racial equality, their rejection of the supernatural, opposition/support of abortion rights, etc. Regardless of the facts.
Where would you draw the line about debate? Are there discussions which should not take place?
It said the government should not support science education programs that 'include concepts that are derived from ideology,' an apparent reference to creationism and its ideological cousin, intelligent design."
Since intelligent design is an ideology, then opposition to ID is also an ideology and the government should take care to avoid that as well? Don't they see the trap this falls into?
All they are essentially saying "We want to make sure the government doesn't fund ideologies.... except ours 'cuz ours is right!"
I disagree with ID, but there has got to be a better way.
Honestly. Science is science. There are ways to come up with scientific proof. Belief, faith or anything supernatural has no room in scientific research. Why is this necessary? Is the US becoming a theocracy, where you may only come up with scientific finds that don't contradict some book, teaching or preaching? When I first heard about creationism and that some people try to push that theocentric mumbo jumbo into classrooms, I was first of all checking the calendar to see if it's 1st of April. Then I noticed it's real.
What does that mean? Well, what it will mean in the long run is, that scientists who don't want to endure the hassle to fight past the clerical bullshit will emigrate. There are quite a few secular countries that won't limit you in your research, and they will gladly scoop up anyone who wants to come and do their research there. If anything, it will be bad for the US economy in the long run if this isn't put to a halt.
I'm not saying that religion doesn't have its place. But keep it out of matters that matter.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I disagree. Compassion, Humanity, Empathy are all traits that exist without needing Faith, thank you very much, and those are the traits.. that is, a respect for and an understanding of the emotional content of life.. that prevent rationalized atrocities from occurring, not faith.
You might need Faith to balance reason. I just need some human understanding. Faith not only does not have a monopoly on that, and I would argue that for the common practitioner, it is an obstacle to real understanding by short circuiting the critical thinking process. Those who take their faith very serious AND use reason can of course take it to a much higher level of understanding than most. But it's not a necessary component, just one possible route to understanding.
Some statements here try to push liberals as being the scientific backbone of the country and conservatives as monkeys that hang on trees and believe every wild thing that comes along.
I am a moderate (try to stick to the middle)... but that just isn't true. I have some conservative aspects to me, but that doesn't mean that I don't hold science as the premier authority on what is and what is not.
In fact, I am much less religious than most that are quite liberal. Everybody has beliefs, even when they try to convince society that they don't really. That said, when I approach any situation I true to determine the truth in it and what is accurate. Many people that I know that are quite far left are just as guilty of believing without thinking. If I took evolution or ID and believed either without thoroughly disecting them, then I've just followed my belief instead of something that I know to be a fact.
People do it every day... whether to the right or to the left. Lets start a new party. The party that uses their brains to accurately determine the truth of what is and what is not.
Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
Formed by two ex-Clinton advisers and someone who wants an abortion pill on the market - and people who dislike the current administration, to boot - six weeks before an election.
This wouldn't make it into the NYT, except for Bush Derangement Syndrome.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Postmodernism (depending on the flavour) has a distinctly relativistic and anti-scientific bent. Some postmodernist sincerely posit that there is no such thing as objective truth, that all knowldege is "situated", and that science is no more valid than any other belief structure.
For many postmodernists, science is claimed to be just another tool of oppression for the white, Eurocentric, militaristic, capitalistic patriarchy.
As typical of most Republicans these days, you have it exactly backwards. You're not describing Demcorats or liberals, you're describing Republicans and conservatives.
I noticed this hypocritical double-standard trend quite a while back... when Ann Coulter released her book called "Slander" in which she stated that liberals do nothing but Slander conservatives. The irony being that the entire book was nothing but a vicious slander of liberals. Since then I've noticed that almost invariably, when a conservative Republican right-winger accuses a 'liberal' or 'democrat' of something, it has nothing to do with the liberal or democrat... it's actually something the individual themselves is guilty of. They're either just assuming the other side is just like they are, and therefore doing the same things, or they're just trying to draw attention away from their own actions and project their own evils onto someone else in the hopes they won't get caught. I'm not sure which.
But you continue that fine tradition. Republicans have been routinly ignoring the facts and picking and choosing and spinning and warping facts and events to fit their pre-determined agenda for the last five or six years (or far more, actually). Take the whole Iraq mess, just for simple starters.
It's completely reprehensible. Hell, even one well known Republican went on record saying that the problem with the liberals and Democrats is that they "lived in a Reality-based universe" whereas the Republicans "create their own reality" and live in a "Faith based universe". He was right. The only problem is he seemed to think this was a GOOD thing.
The more and more I talk to supporters of the Bush administration, the more I realize just how utterly divorced from reality they've had to become to keep up that support. It's a serious mental illness in fact.
Which is not to say all Republicans are like this... far from it. I know lots of Republicans who rightfully abhor this administration and the rubber-stamp Republicans in Congress. These people recognize the current Republican power structure isn't populated by conservatives at all, but by extremist radicals who are destroying this country and the foundations of conservatism as well.
This is like when people say it's not about the money---it's about the money. What I see here is not about all scientists banding together to keep politics out of science, but about some scientists banding together to keep ideologies that conflict with their own in check. I'm sorry, y'all, but scientists are just as human and, sorry to say, just as political and as emotional and as emotionally manipulative as the rest of us. And the people who are doing this are just as politically motivated as anyone else.
You breath far more carcniogens from factory and automobile pollution than you do from cigarette smoke. But do you tell people not to idle their car near you? What is the difference? Smoking and idling your car are both legal.
The difference is moral. Your moral obsession with a negligible contributor (compared to everything else) smacks of both ignorance and a non-rational, emotional response. Go sing it to your church choir; they're much more likely to swallow your half-truths.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
"Republican politicians don't care about the economy. That's a ruse to cover their passing on more wealth to the wealthy through tax breaks"
Here's one amazing fact: The total amount of money that the government has given to the wealthy through tax breaks is a whopping huge $0.
"If giving tax breaks to the wealthiest isn't class warfare, I don't know what is."
It isn't. Perhaps the "class warfare" here is that you deceptively failed to point out that the tax breaks applied to ALL taxpayers (not just the rich).
"...because they can't justify giant tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the lower classes any other way..."
You are referring to something that didn't happen and no-one tried. There was no "expense" for the lower classes, since the tax rates went down across the board.
Where were you when the voynix came?
The difference is indeed moral. In terms of morals, you are the one who likes to force your choice on others. I don't like to smoke (and am in fact allergic to it). You do. You in fact love it so much that you think it is a great idea to force others to smoke as well, even though this is in fact a form of physical assault. In your morality, it is OK to assault others. But not in mine. Scuse me, here come some little metal darts. Those scratches on your arm are harmless, not a form of assault at all, are they? Why not take up chewing tobacco? Never met a chewer who liked to force others to chew.
Where were you when the voynix came?
There are two primary shooting wars going on. One is a game of terrorist whack-a-mole that is a sad necessity. The other is a war we started. We went in under false pretences, overthrew a government that while bad was NEVER a real threat to us personally, and now must clean up the mess left behind. The Republicans like to tie this war to the War on Terror but they are in fact completely seperate. Iraq had a habit of killing off its dissidants. All of the dangerous terrorists were coming from places like Saudi Arabia and Syria. Now Iraq is a haven for them. They flow in from over the borders in the contries we actually should be attacking and our troops are sitting targets, to busy playing "build a new government" to go out terrorist hunting. With a giant power vaccum extremist Mullahs rise to power without a fight and spew their hate without retribution.
Instead of sitting down with top Democrats and figuring out a way to stop the division both sides lob more vitrol at each other until we are so divided the terrorists sit back and laugh saying, "Praise Allah, mission accomplished. And Achmed didn't even need to send that other bomb..." Both parties need to be done away with entirely so idiots at the ballot box will be forced to actually figure out who they are voting for instead of going straight ticket.
Of course I have also had the insane idea that there should be an IQ test on every voter registration form. Miss the minimum and your ballot goes in the shredder instead of the box."
No animals were harmed in the making of this sig.
Well, there was that one puppy, but he is all better now.
Show me the public place that you go to every day, where you are blown smoke in the face of every day, for 40 years... And I'll say that's the only place where you'd have an inkling of an argument. But it would still be invalid, because if such a place existed (I'm sure there are a few), then the fact of the matter is that the majority of people in that place WANT IT TO BE A SMOKING PLACE. The only public place where you could receive any significant harm would in fact be one where you share the minority belief of not wanting to smoke AND try to force it on all the people around [smokers] you.
Lung cancer is survivable -- even more than 50% of *active smokers* who get it survive. We are not killing you. No single smoker is killing you, and the aggregate of all smokers is not killing you. If you are so scared of a one in a million chance of getting cancer; if you want fresh air SO BAD you are willing to legislate away what has been perfectly acceptible human behavior for millina; you're far better off moving to the country, then trying to force your choice of not smoking onto others who really don't give a fuck.
It's my body and I'll do what I want. You can do what you want with your body too: Leave. And no, using mace is not a valid analogy at all. It's laughably bad. If I was actually physically harming you in a way where the harm could be measured that instant, then mace would be an acceptible response.
You get more cancer from what you eat and what you breathe; lung cancer has been a cuase of death for a long time, and people who don't smoke in the slighest get lung cancer ALL THE TIME. Every day.
You want to talk about waitresses working in a smokey bar for 40 years? That's a different story. Me sitting on a park bench and smoking a cig, with you nearby on another bench, and being annoyed by it, is in no way, shape, or form, at all the same degree as that. YOU WONT GET CANCER FROM ME.
And what you moralists don't realize is degrees. You have no concept of the word "negligible". Everything is a 0 or 1 with you, like a robot.
Did you know the government has an accepted level of arsenic in the water? But what about your right to not drink arsenic? Well guess what -- poisons in low amounts don't kill you every time, or even most of the time. There are acceptible levels.
If your threshold for acceptance is lower than the prevailing humans around you, then burden is squarely on YOU to go leave and go somewhere that meets your criterion. I shouldn't have to hide, or smoke in 30 degree weather, simply because you think that I, personally, Clint L, will give You, personally, cancer, by smoking this 1 cigarette that annoys you. That's a fucking load of bullshit. If you're so concerned, 10 paces in the oppositte direction should literally save your life. But no, *I'm* supposed to go somewhere else because *you're* paranoid and don't understand degrees of difference.
Meanwhile, your neighbors with SUVs will do far more to actually give you cancer, and the corporations that feed & clothe you will do far more to pollute the air than all smokers combined. You will continue to pay for these corporations to pollute the environment, but you will get a warm fuzzy feeling that somehow you've "made a difference" by harassing people that aren't the true source of the problem. (Hint: Marijuana prohibition is bad.)
Now into "joke mode":
one more thing -- A single large volcanic eruption can pollute the atmosphere more than mankind has in its entire history. So you better make sure volcanos can only erupt in private places. We wouldn't want them "forcing their choices" on you.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Not if by killing those 4000 we gain them 5000 new recruits. Which according to the President's own intelligence analysis is exactly what's happening.
Your hornet's nest analogy assumes that there is some fixed pool of terrorists out there, and our job is to hunt them down until they are all dead, after which we'll be done and there will be no more terrorists. Trouble is, terrorism is not a cause or a movement or a group that can be stamped out. It is a tactic employed in the service of a cause. As long as there are causes people are willing to die for, people will die for their causes.
Can you point to one case at any time in world history where eliminating insurgents has worked in the end? Where hunting down and killing fervent believers in a cause, people who were willing to die for their beliefs, has ultimately killed a movement, and the hunters have been able to wash their hands and declare victory?
What the "kill 'em all!" crowd doesn't get is that just about anyone can become a terrorist if they're given a good enough reason. We are over there giving a lot of people exactly that reason -- people who would not otherwise have become terrorists. We are worsening the very problem we're allegedly trying to solve, and the government's own experts on the matter have now said so in writing. I realize there are a lot of talk show hosts and bloggers who are quite certain they know more about strategic analysis than the combined staffs of the 16 intelligence agencies that contributed to the report, but I know who I'm more inclined to believe.
Suppose China suddenly invaded the US. If they started rounding up freedom fighters and shooting them in the head, would you shrug and say, "Good show guys, you win, what would you like from me?" I'm guessing not. I'm guessing for every one of your countrymen you saw turned into a "traitors eliminated!" statistic on the official state-run TV, you'd get angrier and angrier until you decided you'd had enough, those bastards were going to pay for destroying your way of life. Well, guess what, from the point of view of Al Qaeda's new recruits, that's exactly what we're doing.
Most Republicans are living in the real world, where there is a shooting war on. Most Democrats are living in a fantasy world where they are more likely to believe Bushitler blew up the WTC than to believe UBL not only did it, but that it wasn't his first successful attack. The only Democrats on the national stage who show they at least understand are Lieberman (forced from his party for his belief) and perhaps HRC, who probably understands we have a war on but is politically savvy enough to fuzz her position enough to remain viable in her insane party. Making her morally bankrupt and unfit for office regardless of which side you look at the issue from.
I'd revise that and say most americans are living ina fantasy world. There are sane Democrates and Republicans but the ones who choose the winner are stupid lower middle class slobs who routinely vote against their own interest because they arent' smart enough to realize what their interests are. Intelligent Democrates and Republicans are aware their side has problems but to the rest of the world, the republicans in power now seem insane warmongers. The democrate government were seemingly reasonable.
Also, your ideas about what is important to the united states seem unifnormed. The US could have stayed out of Iraq and still be just as secure as they are now (some argue even more secure). They are making a play to control the oil to hedge the growth of the chinese/european/russian economies. It happens that their play for it didn't go so well. It has nothing to do with security since most of the terrorism is inspired more from their pseudo occupation of saudi arabia. Most republicans live in fantasy world as well where they truly beleive that terrorism is a legitimate threat and not a fringe phenomenon that has not killed that many people (5,000 americans isn't a lot). Terrorism will not destroy the united states. Terrorism is about as threatening as lime disease and deserves no more press but gets more because it's the cause celebre of the modern age.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Can you point to one case at any time in world history where eliminating insurgents has worked in the end? Where hunting down and killing fervent believers in a cause, people who were willing to die for their beliefs, has ultimately killed a movement, and the hunters have been able to wash their hands and declare victory?
World War II
The Allies deliberately and indiscriminately killed both solidiers and civilians until both the Germans and the Japanese were forced to surrender. Through gruesome attacks on major cities (Dresden, Hiroshima) we forced a surrender and haven't been attacked by either country since.
It was a different place and time and I do not believe these tactics would work for any of our current conflicts, but I do believe it's fair to say the "Kill 'em all and let god sort em out." approach has worked at least once in history.
We showed that we were willing to turn entire countries into barren wastelands and it worked.
In Dresden alone we killed over 20,000 people, the majority of them civilians.
In Hiroshima we killed 66,000 and injured 69.000.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating this approach at all. I think it would be stupid, but I do believe in being honest about what has really happened in the past. (Lest we are doomed to repeat it.)
Another example would be America's systematic extermination of the American Indian. Don't see any roving band of Indians shooting arrows at people do you?
Life is too short to proofread.
WWII. The Nazis and Japanese were every bit as fervent as the the muslim terrorists of today. And there was the American civil war too. The South was fighting for their very way of life, and when the North killed enough of them, they gave up.
The terrorists will hate us no matter what we do. Rights for women, sexual freedom, etc - the militant Islamist is primarily concerned about the 'decadancy' of the west, and how it is 'corrupting' them. As long as we're broadcasting pr0n, they're going to hate us, and the breeding of new terrorists will continue. Really, there are only three choices - fight, convert to Islam, or live a life of dhimmitude.
I vote to fight. And better there than here.
As examples of situations where eliminating insurgents has worked in the end, pizzaman100 has presented WWII Germany, WWII Japan, and the US Civil War Confederate States. Here's my brief analysis:
WWII Germany: Nation defeated in war, not an insurgent group.
WWII Japan: Nation defeated in war, not an insurgent group.
Civil War Confederate States: Would be nation defeated in war, not an insurgent group.
And that should be it really. None of your examples are relevant. For Japan I could go on about codes of honor and loyalty to the emperor making the surrender pretty final and binding to everyone involved. For Nazi Germany, I could point that by and large the actual party members were killed or rounded up and the remaining population wasn't really particularly wed to Nazi ideology. It was really a pretty new (made up, crazy) belief system that didn't make a lot of sense to people in the clear light of day. For the Confederacy, I could go on about the whole surrender thing again. That was the understanding of warfare at the time. The war is fought by soldiers, when it's over, the soldiers get to go home, burned though it may be. I'm not going to go on at length about it though, just point out the situation.
Oh, I also can't help pointing out all the (largley apocryphal) stories about Japanese soldiers holing up and refusing to believe the war was over for years. Then there's neo-nazis for Nazi Germany, but they're pretty much unconnected to the actual events of the time. For the former confederate states, I'm assuming that you've never heard of a charming organization called the Ku Klux Klan who have been murdering people in the name of a ridiculous concept of a "way of life" for quite a few years now.
As for all the: they're going to hate us no matter what!, death to the foriegn infidel, nuke them thar a-rabs to glass, better a thousand of their children dead than one of ours twaddle... All I have to say is please crawl back under your rock.
I don't know what question you think you were answering, but I guarantee it wasn't the same one that was asked.
The correct answer is, "Not one". USA in Vietnam & Somalia & Iraq. Russia in Afghanistan & Chechnya. All these conflicts had something in common: a foreign force occupying a region ostensibly for the protection of the locals. All involved hunting down and killing "insurgents". All failed.
The examples you make are examples of victory because the invading forces didn't bother to make a distinction between genuine insurgents and the general populace. The people who would have fought using guerrilla tactics had a more "modern" occupation been attempted were wiped out along with everyone else.
The reason many conflicts in the past resulted in a successful conquest was because the winning army would be let loose to rape and pillage in the defeated country, until anybody who would have tried to revolt was so busy merely trying to survive that any will to rise up was forgotten.
Pirate Party UK