FD, there are huge differences between Germany and Japan, on the one hand, and Iraq on the other. With all due respect, and I'm not the only person who's said this here before, they just can't be compared. Germany and Japan were largely homogeneous societies, and both had good reasons to be relatively peaceful, post WWII. Germany had suffered a horrendous bombing campaign, and had a democratic history, as well as a history of strong central government. It was a modern European state. Japan was even more homogeneous than Germany, and still is. Because of their culture and religion, when the Emperor told them to cooperate with the American occupation, they did so. Keeping the Emperor was one of the many brilliant things Macarthur did while setting up the post-war Japanese government. Why did I mention this stuff? Iraq is totally different. Hell, it would be hard to find a modern state today that would be a worse comparison to post-war Germany and Japan. It's borders are an artificial construct created by colonial powers. It is host to three major ethnic groups who have differing religions, or religious sects. It is surrounded by countries traditionally hostile to it, for differing reasons. There was no valid reason to believe that democracy was going to burst out in Iraq, pre-war. That the Bush Administration thought this would happen was a monumental and inexcusable error, in my opinion. When we removed Saddam, as horrific a dictator as he was, we removed the secular cap that had been holding this witches brew together. This is an ungodly mess that we should never have taken on... not in the way the Bush Administration proceeded. That they were so blinded to the reality of Iraq as a "state," and what would be needed in the way of pre-war preparations to have even a remote chance to pull off what they still apparently believe they can do, create a modern, Western style democracy in Iraq, astonishes me still. John Murtha appeared on Meet the Press, Sunday. This is a quote from the Washington Post about the interview... In the lengthy NBC interview, Murtha criticized the administration for misjudging everything from the number of troops needed for postwar occupation to underestimating the importance of the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. "They have been overly optimistic, illusionary about their policy. This is not a war of words; this is a real war where people are getting killed. Fifteen thousand people have been wounded and half of them are desperately wounded, blinded, without their arms," he said. "So this is a real war which we have to find a solution to. And since there's no progress, we've got to find a way to let the Iraqis take over." He is speaking nothing but the truth. He said far more. You should look into it. Nice post, by the way. Keep D&D Civil.
In Iraq, wasn't this started by the aggresive war on Iraq in the first place?? Are you saying pre-Iraq war/Saddam administration, there was on ongoing trend of radical Islam breeding terror in Iraq???
Out of the list of options that we had, I don't think the choice was as cut and dry as you stated. Iraq, I argue, is a country that could fit the model of the Germany/Japan. The country is quite literate with over 74% of the population literate and 99% of children in government schools. http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/education.htm The last 15 years post gulf war have been horrendous, but the country has always been less religious than its neighbors and has been under a very strong central government for decades. It is also a country that can begin to rapidly become productive mainly because of its immense oil reserves. The US corporations would be willing to make sizable investments there even with the instability because of the current high price of oil coupled with the middle east cheaper oil/gas extraction costs versus that of the strategic reserves. The UN/European is just a means to do nothing and allow for the slow decay of the country. The economic and political embargo has slowly drained this country for 15 years, and just because we don't pull the trigger doesn't mean we aren't somewhat responsible for the hundreds of thousands of dead through disease, economic embargos and other UN/US sanctions. I would rather take the route of propelling change instead of sitting in meetings and discussing it. Lets actually impement it and do the thing that is not the easiest or the most popular, but again, the right thing to do. And yes, the US will recieve an economic benefit from a democratic nation. If oil runs more free than the prices will fall as the risk premium is lessened. If oil prices are lower, costs of investment and production fall immensely, which means we can get more for less. This is also a means to limit oil induced inflation, so interest rates can remain low allowing greater investment into more commerce. That means more jobs will be created and companies can compensate workers more as their energy costs are lower. A 1% change in the unemployment rate statistically saves thousands of lives as changes in these rates show statistical changes in heart attacks, violent crime and even suicides. A free people are reluctant to give away their rights to totalitarian leaders, especially when they have tasted freedom. For the many wrongs we have done in this part of the world, I think we owe these people the benefit of the doubt that they can become a modern day Germany or Japan and that that relationship will go from enemy to partner to friend. I think with much of what we've done in the past its our turn to pay the piper and stick it out and actually get our hands dirty to make a difference in the future of a people.
Most democracies are allies of the US though. Even countries like France and Germany that vehemently disagree with us on some issues are still allies. During the Peloponnesian War, a common tactic by Greece was to establish a democracy in areas they conquered, while the Spartans would establish Oligarchies. Democratically elected leaders will naturally form a close bond with the US. I think we are advancing the goals of the average Iraqis and our own, but most people are wondering if a) it is worth the exorbitant cost and b) whether it will even last once we leave. The mismanagement by the administration has not helped either. I think it would help if Bush brought in some new guys and got rid of Rumsfeld as well as some others.
In theory, your above posts hold true. However, to follow up on what Sishir Chang said, perception is key. In this horrific state of anarchy, the Iraqi people may now be freer than they ever have, but this so-called act of altruism on our part has not resulted in the outcome which we had hoped due to perception. We wouldn't have gone through such costs and sacrificed so many lives simply out of altruism - there has to be some benefit to our interests as a nation. In the model you presented, this benefit would be creating a stable, ally democracy in an otherwise hostile region. As a thread showed earlier, over 80% of Iraqis oppose the occupation, and proof isn't really needed to establish the premise that we aren't very well thought of right now in the region. In your optimistic model, while the intentions may be noble, the intended outcome benefit isn't going to occur. It's all a moot point anyways, because we didn't go for the love of freedom and for the good of Iraq as you propose. If noble liberation were the cause, you wouldn't be seeing some of the atrocities committed by the United States Army that you have seen or murder and rape of untried Iraqi civilians in our military prisons.
Ridiculous comment. WWII is considered a 'noble war' but that doesn't mean there was an absence of atrocities on both sides. I don't think he said they were exactly alike, but the point as others on the board have previously said, is that stability and a forward moving democratic state isn't a short term turnaround project. Hmmmm, maybe the people rising up against a tyrant? Calling for outside help to overthrow Saddam? I would take those as valid reasons to believe so, and the majority of Iraqis have embraced democracy so I'm not sure where this conclusion comes from.
I don't think he said they were exactly alike, but the point as others on the board have previously said, is that stability and a forward moving democratic state isn't a short term turnaround project. No, of course it's not a short term "turnaround" project. In my opinion, as argued in my post, it's a near impossible project for a country that is a colonial era, artificial construct, with 3 large groups that basically hate each other's guts, and for very good reasons. As I said, why the Bush Administration ever thought we could pull this off is a mystery, perhaps explained by it being an exercise in fantasy by Bush and his closed circle of advisors. Hey, I love fantasy fiction. This is real world stuff, and Bush & company don't appear, to me, to live in the real world, much to their dismay, and the dismay of the American and Iraqi people, at least the vast majority of them. The louder they scream, cry, and visciously assault reasonable people who disagree with them, the more convinced I am that this ship of state is an out of control disaster, with the most grossly incompetent crew imaginable at the helm. They can't do a good job of running this country, in my opinion. Why should we think they can create a whole new country, which is what this Iraq would be, while fighting a viscious war against insurgents, in a country now filled to the brim with the terrorists that didn't thrive under Saddam, but certainly do now? Why on earth would any intelligent person, based purely on the record to date, trust the Bush Administration to pull that off? I don't think they can. The ethnic and religious forces will tear it apart. If we free the Kurds, who deserve that freedom, and could pull it off, the Turks will do the same thing to Northern Iraq that they did to Cypress. If the Shia have the control they want, and they have been an oppressed majority for decades, it would take a bloody miracle to prevent it from being a fundamentalist, religious state that literally hates our guts and everything we stand for... certainly after this cockup of an occupation. And the Sunnis? They are giving you every indication of how they feel about the present circumstances, and their prospects of the future. They are fighting and dying. Mostly dying. They see, in my opinion, a future of continous payback for their own decades of minority rule. Look, I'd like nothing better than to be wrong. Things look bleak, and that's a very large understatement. As for the second part I quoted, look for my answer in what I just wrote. Keep D&D Civil.
His post gave the message that we invaded specifically for the noble cause of liberating the Iraqi people, something you yourself have argued in the past. While WW2 was certainly a noble cause, we didn't enter the war until we ourselves were attacked so there was some personal interest at stake.
Well, as is generally accepted,we know that the war was not about wmd and that the Bush Administration actively deceived about wmd There is no reason to think that we have not been actively decieved about the other main justification-- A God -like love of democracy in which Americans give their only sons for democracy way over in Iraq. While the proof of the deception about wmd rolls in daily, the proof for the bogus democracy rationale is more subtle yet convincing. The Administration shows that despite the spin democracy is not a guiding principle by their actions, and their spion about a love of democracy has to be ignored. They have shown that power and their version of what is good for their crowd in American is their overacrhcing goal. We see: Supporting Sadam as long as he was useful in for instance contiaining Iran.. Helping overthrow democracy in Haiti. Aiding the coup attempt in Venezuela against the demcoratically elected president. Not a peap about the lack of democracy in Kuwait, an ally. Not a peep about the lack of democracy in some of our new allies like the "stans" surrounding Afghanistan. Fighting mightily to avoid counting the votes in Florida. Promoting voter irregularities with partiisan election officials in Fla and Ohio. Fighting to maintain the ability of the economic elite to invest unlimitledly in elections to subvert the effect of "one man one vote". etc. etc.
Right, and that is the extent of the Germany/Japan comparison. He didn't say they were exatcly alike. He used it as an example where the investment had to be long term to gain the benefit. That is equally true in Iraq. Certainly you're entitled to your opinion. However, as I indicated above, there was and IS ample reason to believe the Iraqi people as presently consituted prefer democracy to tyranny. That we've helped that along is a good thing, not a bad thing. Now be fair, Deckard. We can't both claim the insurgency is 95% Iraqi and at the same time claim that Iraq is 'filled to the brim with terrorists.' There is a terrorist element, for sure, in Iraq that wasn't there before the intervention. Is that good or bad? I think its fine because its AQ's graveyard. Consider giving them enough rope to hang themselves as illustrated by their increased attacks on Iraqis and now Jordanians. That isn't BOLSTERING their cause. To the contrary, it is delegitimizing their cause and their recruiting. That is a good thing. Which is why a federated state is a good thing. That is the course they are on and it takes care of the problems you outline. I'll do what I can to make that a fact, instead of my opinion. Your posts claim was that because abuse existed the cause could not have been noble. That is a logical fallacy. WWII proves this - as my example shows - a just or noble cause does not inhibit inherently bad effects. Hence your claim was flawed.
Is it slightly misleading to compare the Reagan administration with the second Bush administration? Does one ignore a big war and two administrations in between? One might think so if they weren't such a looney ideologue. Last I checked we pressured Duvalier out, Namphy out after him, and restored Aristide after him. The last action being a UNITED NATIONS action. Oh we are quite the oppressors, lol. Strange, but I am pretty sure there has been a lot of pressure, unappreciated by the ruling class, to reform in Kuwait. On that note where is your praise for the intervention inspired reform in Egypt and Lebanon? Oh yeah, your blinders don't allow you to do anything but spew bull****. I forgot for a moment there. Strange, I specifically remember a thread recounting how the 'stan's were turning to a certain leftist's Russia and China because of US pressure to reform. Why don't you stop making stuff up because your 'fantasy' is becoming offensive. Your partisan rhetoric will get you nothing here. You can't paint all the intervention support as Rovian Republicans. Try again.
So now that Bush is pressing for democracy in many of these regions, with elections happening for the first time in Saudi Arabia and Qatar and placing pressure on Egypt and other monarchs, you talk about the past. I accepted 100% that we have done some crappy short-sighted things in the past, and those oppressive regimes we supported helped spawn the extremism that we are fighting today. This is a chance to bring democracy to the region and show the people that there can be more. There had never been a democracy in Japan yet our resolve changed the history of a nation and its people. I would rather face the problem that the UN and our economic sanctions were slowly bleeding a nation to death. I would rather have an amputation and allow that country to stabilize and start over again. Of course we will benefit from a free and capitalist middle east as the oil pumps will flow and that will benefit us all. If we can correct a wrong and help our country's economy than we should do it. And I cannot believe that you would bring up Florida??? You were on the conspiracy bandwagon after the Kerry defeat as well weren't you? You're hate has blinded you and demonized Bush in that everything he does to you must be some evil plot to make himself money and rule the galaxy!
I don't think you've ever visited or comprehend the debilitation of a country under economic embargos. Its easy to just starve them to death than to actually deal with a problem. If it was up to you then we would just keep sucking the life out of the country and destroy any hope for future generations. I appreciate the resolve and willingness not to look at short-term gains and results as our 60-second attention span allows.
