Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomCube.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 9 days
Re: Iraq - a route out of the clusterfuck? [Re: Alex213]
    #5841810 - 07/10/06 09:41 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Thank you; that's all I wanted.

I have some reading to do now, it seems. :wink:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineExplosiveMango
HallucinogenusDigitallus
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/12/05
Posts: 3,222
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: Iraq - a route out of the clusterfuck? [Re: xDuckYouSuckerx]
    #5841878 - 07/10/06 10:10 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

It's not about getting the UN in there NEARLY as much as getting the Americans the fuck out...
(Although I don't see the UN doing anywhere as much harm as the Coalition has in a million years)

They've proved their point, they can spend more money than anyone else in the world to accomplish huge numbers of meaningless killings... but there's nothing left to gain anymore.

To (think) this was said to be a war to disarm weapons of mass destruction... obviously it's only been an excuse to use them...


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.


Edited by ExplosiveMango (07/10/06 11:56 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
Re: Iraq - a route out of the clusterfuck? [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #5842147 - 07/10/06 11:41 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

To this was said to be a war to disarm weapons of mass destruction... obviously it's only been an excuse to use them...




What is just absolutely amazing, is how clear a lie can be to some yet still others are completely incapable of seeing the elephant in the living room.


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
Re: Iraq - a route out of the clusterfuck? [Re: Alex213]
    #5842289 - 07/10/06 12:33 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
El Salvador, Eastern Slavonia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone.



I seriously hope you're kidding about these, but I'll take them one-by-one:

El Salvador - Calling this a UN success story is the same as calling the resolution of the American Revolution a French success story. The reality is that both sides agreed to end the fighting and both sides asked the UN to mediate:
Quote:

From the UN Website:
In September 1989, following a formal request from the Government of El Salvador and the Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN), the Secretary-General began assisting in talks aimed at ending the civil war in that country. The first major accord was achieved in 1990, when the parties agreed to ensure respect for human rights. To verify this and future agreements, the Security Council established in 1991 the United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador (ONUSAL).



It's not a nationbuilding success story if all the UN did was mediate talks between two groups who already agreed that they wanted a negotiated peace. If all the rebel groups in Iraq suddenly decided they wanted peace and formally requested mediated negotiations, this might be an applicable success story. As they haven't, the resolution in El Salvador doesn't apply.

Eastern Slavonia - This was part of one of the least successful operations in UN history. A UN Peacekeeping force was deployed to hold the Croatians apart from the Serbs in four separate "Protected Areas". The UN utterly failed and the Croatians occupied three of the four protected areas within a few months of fighting. The UN then basically agreed to give Eastern Slavonia back to Croatia in an effort to stop the Croatian offensive from spreading. So, if Eastern Slavonia is a UN "success story", then the Peace Accord between the US and North Vietnam is a "success story" for the US.

Bosnia - Well, let's see, the ceasefire in Bosnia was negotiated by US Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, the Bosnian army came to the negotiation tables after being bombed by NATO forces, and was decimated on the ground by Croation forces which the UN failed to stop (same offensive mentioned above under Eastern Slavonia). And you're calling this a "UN Success Story"? Considering the UN didn't provide the military, didn't bring anyone to the table, and didn't get the initial agreement negotiated, there's no way this can be considered a UN success story. Infact, given how big a role NATO and US played, Bosnia might even be a US success story.

Kosovo - Same as Bosnia, Kosovo was a success story for NATO and the US, not the UN

Sierra Leone - God I hope you're joking with this one. Where to begin? Was this a UN success story because UN Peacekeepers successfully carried out a systematic rape of the women of Sierra Leone? ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/17/wleon17.xml ) Was this a UN Success story because it took 3 years from the time of UN deployment for a national election to be held, and 5 years for any local election? Was it a success because hundreds of UN Peacekeepers who were deployed without training and weapons were captured by rebel groups and used as hostages to renegotiate the ceasefire? And if 2002 and 2004 elections were at all successful, why did the UN have to send a new mission in 2006 with the stated goal of "to build capacity to hold free and fair elections in 2007"?

Hell, if Sierra Leone is a UN Success, then the current operation in Iraq is the mother of all successes.

No, I'm sorry, none of these are UN success stories. That is most likely because the UN has NO success stories.

And, nice try mischaracterizing me as thinking the US is "pure as the driven snow". The US makes loads of mistakes. The difference is, I've never claimed that the situation in Iraq will notably improve if any specific action is taken. Alex213, you have claimed that the situation will improve if the UN takes over, and I am still waiting for some justification of that.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Iraq - a route out of the clusterfuck? [Re: Alex213]
    #5843036 - 07/10/06 03:55 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Todays 20 somethings never knew that it was an absolutely no brainer that Saddam did a hideous thing invading Kuwait and had to be dealt with. You do know that he basicly lit the whole country on fire when he retreated, don't you?

What is this? "Make up a different excuse every time your other excuse gets demolished?".




You continue to make my point that you have absolutely no concept of what transpired 15 years ago. Thank you.
Quote:



It's a no-brainer that Iraq wasn't invaded in 2003 because Saddam set the oil wells on fire in 1991. Not even Bush claimed that as an excuse.




And that your reading skills are weak.
Quote:



I was just an aware individual when decisions were being made and news was happening. It is very different. You'll see.

You obviously wern't that aware. You hadn't even heard of Vietnamization before I told you about it.




Oh, I heard about it, the word wasn't at all unfamiliar. It's just that I knew it was a lie told to save face. Utter bullshit from a master bullshit artist. It was total fucking nonsense. And everybody knew it. The difference between me and you is that you pick up a book and find a convenient quotation from a discredited loon and think it reflected the times. I was around and know better. Ask anybody else who was alive then and paying attention if they thought S. Vietnam would hold. We all knew they were being handed a death sentence. You don't know that because you are lost in the universe of convenient quotes. You will wade through miles and miles of contradictory information to find the one true nitwit who agrees with you and then present that opinion as fact. You are not a seeker of knowledge. You are a wannabe pontiff.

The difference between then and now is that there is actually a real chance for Iraq to govern itself. There never was any chance that S. Vietnam could hold off the commies without us. None. Ever.

So, who's term paper was it that you quoted as an authoritative source? Yours? Or the kid down the hall? And why do you keep doing that?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Iraq - a route out of the clusterfuck? [Re: Economist]
    #5843648 - 07/10/06 06:17 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Bosnia - Well, let's see, the ceasefire in Bosnia was negotiated by US Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, the Bosnian army came to the negotiation tables after being bombed by NATO forces, and was decimated on the ground by Croation forces which the UN failed to stop (same offensive mentioned above under Eastern Slavonia). And you're calling this a "UN Success Story"? Considering the UN didn't provide the military, didn't bring anyone to the table, and didn't get the initial agreement negotiated, there's no way this can be considered a UN success story. Infact, given how big a role NATO and US played, Bosnia might even be a US success story.




Where are you getting your facts from? The bosnian army was never bombed by Coalition forces. In the 91 to 95 war, NATO started doing massive bombings of Serb and Montenegran positions throughout Bosnia, The Bosniaks had already pushed most of the forces and liberated about 85% of Bosnia from Chetnik forces. NATO entered the fray in 95 when the war was already coming to close.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
Re: Iraq - a route out of the clusterfuck? [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #5843900 - 07/10/06 07:21 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

The_Red_Crayon said:
Where are you getting your facts from?



The UN Website, specifically the information on UNMIBH, the relevant UN peacekeeping mission.

Quote:

The_Red_Crayon said:
The bosnian army was never bombed by Coalition forces. In the 91 to 95 war, NATO started doing massive bombings of Serb and Montenegran positions throughout Bosnia, The Bosniaks had already pushed most of the forces and liberated about 85% of Bosnia from Chetnik forces. NATO entered the fray in 95 when the war was already coming to close.



Yeah, I know this, I don't know why I posted just "Bosnian" before, I meant to post "Bosnian Serb" so as not to make it sound like Nato was bombing Serbia, but I guess I left out the key part, that being Serb, sorry about that.

In any case, the account still proves my point. NATO didn't get involved until late in the game, and the UN got involved AFTER the NATO forces were already there, so calling it a UN success story is silly.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Iraq - a route out of the clusterfuck? [Re: Economist]
    #5844517 - 07/10/06 09:35 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

True, if your also interested in some UN failures in Bosnia, Check out the Third World Relief Agency, It was a UN offshoot to ship arms to bosnian mujahadin with the arms embargo.

Or Srebenitsa Massacre where 2000 thousand something Dutch UN peacekeepers allowed more then 8,000 bosnian men to be executed by Serb forces.

UN is a absolute failure, i cant even mention the amount of bullshit they have done. In Rwanda they stood by and did nothing even though their were "peacekeepers" in the country, The only thing those "Peace Keepers" are good for is supporting the local brothel industry where ever they are stationed.

However saying the United States has done an outstanding job is a farce as well, United States has made terrible fuckups many times, The United Fruit takeover of Guatemala in the early 60,s, Starting the School Of Americas That trained mercenaries in the Various coups that we supported through out South America which led to massive destabilization through out the last 30 years.


To me i think the United States antithesis is slow burn guerrilla warfare, The Guerrillas use our weaknesses and attrition against us, we can kill thousands upon thousands of insurgents yet their is always another person to sling on a explosives belt, This is no coincidence.

The US's Management and mismanagement of the war is based purely on Moral grounds, Whoever has the highest moral ground usually has a positive outcome of a war. The problem with the United States is that for years we have prided ourselves as a Rule abiding nation, Yet today now with modern media, Events negative towards the war can be blared on news and internet daily, Worldwide news of the American Occupation is very negative, and the problem is, is we make it negative.

The Guerrillas can cut the heads off woman and innocent people, yet they can always recruit more people no matter what, they simply have the positive moral highground, and when a war is turned into this, it turns into a absolute warfare, which inevetibly will draw in civilians, and will more then likely lead to more destabilization.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Iraq - a route out of the clusterfuck? [Re: Economist]
    #5845409 - 07/11/06 12:47 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

El Salvador - Calling this a UN success story is the same as calling the resolution of the American Revolution a French success story. The reality is that both sides agreed to end the fighting and both sides asked the UN to mediate:


Neatly side-stepping the catastrophic role of the US in funding and training the death squads. Clearly US "nation-building" didn't go too well there. The UN contribution was peace. The US contribution was torture and death squads. I think most people in El Salvador will know which they prefer.

if all the UN did was mediate talks between two groups who already agreed that they wanted a negotiated peace

If it was that easy why couldn't the US do it?

Eastern Slavonia - This was part of one of the least successful operations in UN history

Bosnia - Well, let's see, the ceasefire in Bosnia was negotiated by US Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, the Bosnian army came to the negotiation tables after being bombed by NATO forces, and was decimated on the ground by Croation forces


Could you provide your source for these versions of history? Or are you making them up yourself?

Alex213, you have claimed that the situation will improve if the UN takes over, and I am still waiting for some justification of that.

The US was involved in El Salvador for years. The result? Nothing but war, torture and death. The UN brokered peace.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
Re: Iraq - a route out of the clusterfuck? [Re: Alex213]
    #5846839 - 07/11/06 12:47 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Neatly side-stepping the catastrophic role of the US in funding and training the death squads. Clearly US "nation-building" didn't go too well there. The UN contribution was peace. The US contribution was torture and death squads. I think most people in El Salvador will know which they prefer.



I didn't side-step anything. You're trying to use El Salvador as a proxy for Iraq. I pointed out the situations were radically different, and you have been unable to dispute that point.

Quote:

Alex213 said:
If it was that easy why couldn't the US do it?



Because the US didn't enter AFTER the conflict was over, the UN did. It's very easy to "broker" peace once both sides have already agreed to stop fighting.

Getting involved in El Salvador when the US did was a major mistake. I never said the US didn't make mistakes, despite your repeated attempts to put those words in my mouth. However, you have also yet to prove that the UN is capable of creating a peaceful resolution to any conflict on its own.

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Could you provide your source for these versions of history? Or are you making them up yourself?



Unlike you, I provide sources, you will see above that I suggested visiting the UN website for UNMIBH, if that's not good enough for you, check out the encarta article on the subject, you can find it at ( http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563626_7/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.html )

Also, since you're posting books, I would suggest reading this one ( http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=1401352014&itm=2 ) for a better look at the UN since it was written by people who actually did work "on the ground".

Quote:

Alex213 said:
The US was involved in El Salvador for years. The result? Nothing but war, torture and death. The UN brokered peace.



Again, as stated above, it's easy to "broker peace" if you only get involved once the fighting has stopped.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
Re: Iraq - a route out of the clusterfuck? [Re: Economist]
    #5847376 - 07/11/06 03:15 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

I didn't side-step anything. You're trying to use El Salvador as a proxy for Iraq. I pointed out the situations were radically different




How many times have I seen people try to compare nation building in iraq to japan and germany on this board? You want to talk about radically different, where were you when those comparisons were made?


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
Re: Iraq - a route out of the clusterfuck? [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #5847495 - 07/11/06 03:53 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

I never made the comparison to Germany, but I think the comparison to Japan holds up pretty well:

Populace prepared to defend their land to the death against Americans (remember who *invented* the kamikazi)
Massive devastation throughout the country
US had to build them a new government from the ground up, starting with the constitution

The only thing missing here is the sectarian conflict and religiously-based violence. So with respect to that, yes Japan is different. But it's not as different as El Salvador, where the sides fighting the conflict agreed to stop fighting and to begin talks *before* the UN got involed.

Besides, I shouldn't have to prove anything, Alex213 has repeatedly made the claim that the UN could do a better job in Iraq than the US, which is something I have yet to see him (or anyone else) demonstrate.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Iraq - a route out of the clusterfuck? [Re: Economist]
    #5849530 - 07/12/06 12:51 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

I didn't side-step anything. You're trying to use El Salvador as a proxy for Iraq. I pointed out the situations were radically different, and you have been unable to dispute that point.


Isn't that the trouble with your "The UN had problems in this country while the US had success in this country so that means the US is better..." tho? All countries and all involvements will be different. Different countries, different histories, different problems. That's why your comparisons don't work.

Because the US didn't enter AFTER the conflict was over, the UN did.

So what? If conflict was over anyway why didn't the US broker the peace?

It's very easy to "broker" peace once both sides have already agreed to stop fighting.


Obviously not for the US, otherwise they would have done it not the UN.

Unlike you, I provide sources, you will see above that I suggested visiting the UN website for UNMIBH

No, I asked you where you were getting your accounts of the UN involvement from. Accounts you wrote like this:

Eastern Slavonia - This was part of one of the least successful operations in UN history. A UN Peacekeeping force was deployed to hold the Croatians apart from the Serbs in four separate "Protected Areas". The UN utterly failed and the Croatians occupied three of the four protected areas within a few months of fighting. The UN then basically agreed to give Eastern Slavonia back to Croatia in an effort to stop the Croatian offensive from spreading. So, if Eastern Slavonia is a UN "success story", then the Peace Accord between the US and North Vietnam is a "success story" for the US.

You provided no source for this or any of your other accounts.

Again, as stated above, it's easy to "broker peace" if you only get involved once the fighting has stopped.

So if the US was involved, and then the fighting stopped all on it's own, are you citing El Salvador as example of successful US involvement?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Iraq - a route out of the clusterfuck? [Re: Economist]
    #5849542 - 07/12/06 12:56 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Economist said:
I never made the comparison to Germany, but I think the comparison to Japan holds up pretty well:

Populace prepared to defend their land to the death against Americans (remember who *invented* the kamikazi)
Massive devastation throughout the country
US had to build them a new government from the ground up, starting with the constitution

The only thing missing here is the sectarian conflict and religiously-based violence. So with respect to that, yes Japan is different.




Nah, there's massive differences between Japan and Iraq. Here's a few.

I have no doubt that huge numbers of Iraqis would welcome the end of repression and establishment of a democratic society, but any number of considerations make the situation there very different than it was in Japan. Apart from lacking the moral legitimacy and internal and global support that buttressed its occupation of Japan, the United States is not in the business of nation-building any more - just look at Afghanistan. And we certainly are not in the business of promoting radical democratic reform. Even liberal ideals are anathema in the conservative circles that shape U.S. policy today. And beyond this, many of the conditions that contributed to the success of the occupation of Japan are simply absent in Iraq.

The reforms that were introduced in the opening year and a half or so of the occupation were quite stunning. They amounted to a sweeping commitment to what we now call 'nation-building' - the sort of hands-on commitment that George W. Bush explicitly repudiated in his presidential campaign. The Americans introduced in Japan a major land reform, for example, that essentially took land from rich landlords, eliminated widespread tenancy, and created a class of small rural landowners. The argument for this was that rural oppression had kept the countryside poor, thwarted democracy, constricted the domestic market, and fuelled the drive to control overseas markets. We introduced labour laws that guaranteed the right to organize, bargain collectively, and strike, on the grounds that a viable labour movement is essential to any viable democracy. We encouraged the passage of a strong labour standards law to prevent exploitation of workers including women and children. We revamped both the content and structure of the educational system. In all this the input of Japanese bureaucrats and technocrats was essential to implement such reforms, and serious grass-roots support was basic to their survival.

One of our major initiatives was to create an entirely new constitution. There were no citizens in Japan in 1945. There was no popular sovereignty. Under the existing constitution, sovereignty was vested in the emperor and all Japanese were his 'subjects.' So, the Americans drafted - but the Japanese translated, debated, tinkered with, and adopted - a new national charter that remains one of the most progressive constitutions in the world. The emperor became a 'symbol' of the state. An extensive range of human and civil rights was guaranteed - including an explicit guarantee of gender equality. Belligerency of the state was repudiated. Changing the constitution meant, moreover, that much of the civil code had to be rewritten to conform to these new strictures concerning equality and guaranteed rights. Although the occupation ended in 1952 and there are no restrictions on amending the constitution, not a word of it has been changed.

John Stuart Mill has a wonderful line somewhere to the effect that a country can be laid waste by fire and sword, but in and of itself this really doesn't matter where recovery is concerned. What matters is not so much what is destroyed but rather what human resources survive. Even though Japan had been laid to ruin by the terror-bombing of its cities, what survived was an exceptionally literate populace whose long war effort had, in fact, contributed to great and widespread advances in technological and technocratic skills. At the same time this was an essentially homogeneous populace that had been mobilized behind a common national cause.

The failure and discredit of the cause did not destroy this general sense of collective national purpose. It meant, however, that these great human resources were available to be mobilized to new ends that were more peaceful and progressive. Put simply, one of the reasons the reformist agenda succeeded is that Japan was spared the type of fierce ethnic, religious, and political factionalism that exists in countries like Iraq today.


http://www.historyandpolicy.org/archive/policy-paper-10.html


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
Re: Iraq - a route out of the clusterfuck? [Re: Alex213]
    #5893253 - 07/24/06 01:41 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Sorry for taking so long to reply, I had several major projects come up and didn't have time for Shroomery debating,  :frown: .

I read the article and found it interesting.  I was personally taken aback because I've studied Japan quite a bit (as a hopeully-one-day economist the Meiji Restoration is one of the most interesting bits of history in the world) and I've always found John Dower to have brilliant insights.  He's easily THE leading scholar on Japan in America (albeit most of his studies take place post-WWII, so not really in the period I'm interested in, but I've read his stuff nonetheless).

At any rate, I'm forced to conclude that his lust for peace (he's a HUGE peace-at-all-costs advocate) have lead him to try and influece policy here, in a way that's somewhat sloppy, as his other work is great, and I'd usually recommend him.

I don't really have time to attack the whole piece, so I'll just point out the parts I really take issue with:

1) In trying to point out that Iraq is different from Japan, he makes the following descriptive arguments about Japan:
Quote:

There were no citizens in Japan in 1945. There was no popular sovereignty. Under the existing constitution, sovereignty was vested in the emperor and all Japanese were his 'subjects.' So, the Americans drafted - but the Japanese translated, debated, tinkered with, and adopted - a new national charter that remains one of the most progressive constitutions in the world.




The implication, of course, is that there was some semblance of all of this in Iraq.  I take major issue with that.  I simply do not think that, despite what "guarantees" Saddam may have made to "the Iraqis" on paper, there was anything resembling citizenship in pre-invasion Iraq.  Could the Iraqis truly point to a set of rights that were guaranteed to all of them, and that the government would defend?  Surely that is the barest minimum of citizenship.

Similarly, Saddam did not rule by popular sovereignty.  He ruled by popular fear of bullets.  This may be different from some form of transcendant mandate, but I would argue that the end result was the same.  There was no popular sovereignty in Iraq pre-invasion either, so making the claim that Japan is somehow wildly different for this reason just doesn't do much.

Quote:

What made the occupation of Japan a success was two years or so of genuine reformist idealism before U.S. policy became consumed by the Cold War, coupled with a real Japanese embrace of the opportunity to start over.



He goes on at some length about FDR and liberalism and such.

I don't think this is something that I'll be able to change any minds over, but suffice it to say that I don't buy it, and neither do most practitioners of neo-liberal economics.

Japan had a quick recovery because business models in Japan were, by some happy coincidence, VERY similar to business models in the US.  Professional managers were comonplace, the idea of the corporation had been in place since the 1880s, and there was a developed property law that went back to the 1600s.  (I don't have time to find a better citation right now, but on the off chance you have access to it I would recommend "Company: A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea" by Micklethwait and Wooldridge)

This made it easy to hand out grants, contracts, etc. and made it easy to organize "the means of production" without excessive government involvement.

The point I'm making with all of this is that the argument relating to America's "idealism" of 1945 being responsible for anything is debatable at best.

Dower's last big point is about "moral highground" and "moral mandate".  I'd get a quote, but it's pretty ubiquitous in the piece, so I'm hoping you'll take my word on it.

On this point, again, I just don't buy into it.  When Saddam fell there was partying in the streets, and while polls show that Iraqis are not happy with the "present situation" the polls have also been unchanging in the fact that the Iraqi's believe firmly that things will get better in the future.

To me this means that there's at least some "moral mandate" in the eyes of the Iraqis.  So, what's left is to examine where the moral mandate doesn't exist:
1) In the United States: It definitely doesn't exist here.  A majority of Americans think the invasion was a mistake.  However, this would only result in reconstruction failing if belief that the invasion was a mistake results in a horrendous under-allocation of resources.  But the same could be said about any endevor: if we do it half-assed it will fail.
2) In the Arab World: This is also a problem, but I don't think any worse than in the WWII scenario.  Consider this: while the Americans had an international mandate in the occupation of Japan, they had a major enemy in its reconstruction: The Soviet Union.  The Soviets hated the idea of the US getting to rebuild Japan all by its lonesome, since that would likely result in a capitalist Japan.  The Arab World at large cannot be any scarier than the 1946 Soviet Union, so I'm going to write this off as a loss.
3) Everyone not in the coalition: America also doesn't have a moral mandate here.  France and Germany made their stance pretty clear.  By my question then is: What does it matter?  France and Germany are not about to retard to process of rebuilding Iraq, and major corporations from both countries have (in one way or another) already been involved.

So, from all of this, I'm simply left to question the validity of Dower's argument about the moral high ground, since the only major difference would be from US voters choosing to fail in Iraq.

Now, I can see why anyone would agree with much of this, but it doesn't really matter, because I just don't think it has much bearing on this topic.

While I believe that the US would do a better job (in the long run) than the UN, you don't have to buy that argument in order for the topic of this thread to be refuted.

I simply fail to see a reason beyong "they can't do a worse job..." why the UN should take over in Iraq.  And since "they can't do a worse job..." is an argument inherently without weight, I've yet to see anything supporting the main idea of this thread.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Denial: From Vietnam to Fallujah Zahid 875 9 08/26/04 08:28 PM
by Zahid
* Iraq isn't another Vietnam
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Xlea321 6,606 89 05/28/04 08:12 AM
by CJay
* US was warned Democracy in Iraq may be "Impossible"
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Edame 6,613 79 08/19/03 08:29 AM
by GernBlanston
* Dear Mike, Iraq sucks Xlea321 1,313 16 10/05/04 09:20 PM
by trendal
* Mistakes of Vietnam repeated with Iraq SquattingMarmot 946 15 09/21/03 01:59 AM
by Xlea321
* Vietnam vets in Iraq see 'entirely different war' lonestar2004 1,067 11 08/07/05 11:27 AM
by Redstorm
* Iraq: It's Beginning to Smell a Lot Like Vietnam Zahid 800 2 10/23/03 09:31 AM
by Xlea321
* George Bush Sr: Reasons Not to Invade Iraq Swami 763 3 04/10/04 11:43 AM
by Learyfan

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,213 topic views. 3 members, 6 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 13 queries.