Nationalism...how much is too much?

[Admiral Piett]

Fuck the Anti-Mine treaty.....We NEED land mines to keep the damn
North Koreans from swarming down and wiping out South Korea in a massive
blitz....

Mines are an area denial and usually a defensive (although often used offensively) weapon.Realistically in how many circumstances will the US Army be on the defensive or willing to mine a zone that is going to occupy soon?
Korea is pretty much the only realistic scenario.But it is not like mines are the only thing that stands between NK and the conquest of South Korea.

[Admiral Piett]

And it is prosperity. Lawlessness, yes, but that's better than outright war, which they previously "enjoyed". Their country is recovering, aide is pouring in.

Yes,aide is pouring in,the country is recovering at a steady rate and of course the country has been pacified...in the US propaganda.

[Admiral Piett]

What the US is going to do in Iraq is to install a military regency that will rebuild Iraq,in the best case scenario, to pre 91 levels.Because,believe it or no,Iraq was a relatively prosperous country for local standard.Then the US military regency will be replaced by a Kharzai style puppet,possibly someone who will not be anxious to ask the US troops to leave and will be more than willing to sign VERY lucrative contracts for the US oil companies.
Anyone who thinks that the US will fare much better than in the scenario described above must have smoked a lot of weird stuff.
The US are not going to install a democracy that may ask them to go away.
There is not the threat of a Soviet Union that may justify the presence of US troops in the eyes of the average iraqui.So I tend to exclude that the US will be so fool to install anything more than a puppet government.And on the economic side I simply do not see the will and the money to make Iraq a much better place than it was under Saddam from an economic point of view.Only rebuilding the existing damaged infrastructures will require a non trivial amount of resources.Which the US,among tax cuts and expansions of the military budget does not seem particulary willing to spare beyond the minimum necessary.The amount of oil that can be pumped out from the country is fair but it is just what you need to run the country to pre 91 levels.What previously was spent for the military and the regime now will probably be used to pay for the american assistance in rebuilding the country,for the US garrisons and that stuff.

[Steve]

I'll laugh like hell when, within six months of the fall of Baghdad, the Iraqi people are enjoying more prosperity under American military governorship than they did at any time under Hussein.

Just like the prosperity the Afgans are enjoying after Taliban was erased....

Nation building is unAmerican: you people are just going to do yet another seagull act in Iraq, just like you've done everywhere else after WWII. You're going to take over Iraq, get rid of Saddam (if you're lucky, maybe he'll be a bit slower of mind than bin Laden and you'll manage to kill/catch him) make a huge mess of the country then wash your hands of the matter and abandon everything beyond Shrubby's oil fields and perhaps a few cities. Meanwhile the rest of what used to be Iraq will degenerate into chaos and turn into yet another base/recruiting region for al Qaida.

Your statement is exactly why I'm going to laugh like hell.

Pessimism is one thing, and can be healthy, but you're not being pessimistic; you're just being an ass. But you've always been an ass, so it's not unexpected.

[Steve]

Steve, I see that you have swallowed the Azeron propaganda about the mythical US nation rebuilding capabilities.

I never even read what that fascist wrote.

Quite frankly I am starting to get tired of this bullshit.The japanese were simply sick of the war and turned the energies that they had previously spent into the war into the economy.That is all. To have an appreciation of what really are these much vaunted american capabilities of turning a hellhole into a working prosperous democracy give a look to the Philippines,one of your former "succesful" colonies,like Azeron loved to repeat.If a country does not have the potential your help, assuming that it comes in meaningful quantity, it will not become an other one working western democracy.That assuming that the substantial help actually arrives,like for example is not happening and is not going to happen in Afghanistan.
Normally I would not care too much about this historical misconception but since you are starting to use it as a moral alibi "let's bomb them,we will rebuild them later" I think it is time to clarify this piece of propaganda.
While american help played an important role you are simply taking for yourself the credit that should go to the japanese people.

The same Japanese people that had to have their cities firebombed and two cities leveled by the power of the atom before they would surrender because of their fanatical Emperor worship?

The same Japanese people that, like the Iraqis, had been living on strict rations for years even while their political elite lived in nice estates and never went hungry?

I'm not saying that it is impossible to fuck up an attack on Iraq and turn them against us, I'm just saying that waging a war in the right way, focusing on the elites and sparing the poor, and then rebuilding the nation during the military regency while ensuring them a Western education and aiding in the creation of a middle class, is a viable long-term solution. We have to trust that those in government will do that.

[Admiral Piett]

The same Japanese people that had to have their cities firebombed and two cities leveled by the power of the atom before they would surrender because of their fanatical Emperor worship?

The same Japanese people that, like the Iraqis, had been living on strict rations for years even while their political elite lived in nice estates and never went hungry?

I'm not saying that it is impossible to fuck up an attack on Iraq and turn them against us, I'm just saying that waging a war in the right way, focusing on the elites and sparing the poor, and then rebuilding the nation during the military regency while ensuring them a Western education and aiding in the creation of a middle class, is a viable long-term solution. We have to trust that those in government will do that.

The japanese people (the majority at least) were very sick of the war at the end(which does not mean that they would not have fought very hard in case of an invasion).The nukes and the bombings were a deep shock for them.Or at least this is what comes out from many interwievs.They do not like even talking about the war.And they were hesitant about rebuilding military capabilities even well after you gave the green light.
We do not know how an attack against Iraq is going to go.Maybe they will surrender at the first drone.Or maybe they will make a stand in the cities that you will have to take bloc by bloc.Needless to say in such a case "sparing the poor" will go out of the window.
You may well be able to rebuild the country to pre 91 standards.
However chances of making it the beacon of democracy and prosperity of the middle east are very close to zero,for the reasons I have already explained.True democracy could be against your short term interests and apart from that it is not all that easy building a democracy from scratch,with all the serious opposition groups eliminated and the population accustomed to many years of authoritarian rule.
Economical prosperity much beyond the relatively decent levels of pre 91 Iraq? Again unlikely.I am not an expert about Iraq and judging if a country can develop a prosperous capitalistic is not an easy task.However I am somewhat sceptical about it faring much better than anyone else in the area,even under US rule.
And since at a first glance the internal political situation seems quite fucked up,things may even go worse.
Bottom line:you may well be able to make Iraq a better place than it is now(not that it would require too much effort).Making it much better than the others countries in the area is an entirely different story.

[Bryan]

I mean damn, where's the American grudge for the Canadians retaliating against America by marching to DC and burning the White House for trying to invade their country in 1812?

.

It was the British that burnt DC.

[Raptor 597]

I mean damn, where's the American grudge for the Canadians retaliating against America by marching to DC and burning the White House for trying to invade their country in 1812?

.

It was the British that burnt DC.

Ah, the common misconception I've heard from Wannabe Pseudo-Military Canadaians. It was the one of the first major British Armies from the Napeleonic Wars. They often say "Oh, we kcked your ass the British lost the war for us, like at New Orleans." The war was over by New Orleans, shessh.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Steve, I see that you have swallowed the Azeron propaganda about the mythical US nation rebuilding capabilities. Quite frankly I am starting to get tired of this bullshit. The japanese were simply sick of the war and turned the energies that they had previously spent into the war into the economy.

Proof? Oh right...none. The U.S. governed and rebuilt both Western Europe and Japan simultaneously. The Cold War nations are irrelevent in that we never had any intention of rebuilding them and revitalizing them.

That is all.

Hardly.

To have an appreciation of what really are these much vaunted american capabilities of turning a hellhole into a working prosperous democracy give a look to the Philippines,one of your former "succesful" colonies, like Azeron loved to repeat.

Irrelevent references. Both to the Philippines and to Azeron. You do realize we had no intention of doing anything other then keeping them under our boot at that time, right? That situation is no longer politically feasable and thus irrelevent in the said discussion. Just another late-19th century colonization attempt.

If a country does not have the potential your help, assuming that it comes in meaningful quantity, it will not become an other one working western democracy.

Iraq was moderately prosperous before Saddam took over and plunged it into hell w/ his warmonger and foriegn policy that caused the UN to clamp down on it.

That assuming that the substantial help actually arrives,like for example is not happening and is not going to happen in Afghanistan.

Occupying Afghanistan is a bad idea. See Soviet occupation. The civil war hasn't restarted, so where's the beef?

Normally I would not care too much about this historical misconception but since you are starting to use it as a moral alibi "let's bomb them,we will rebuild them later" I think it is time to clarify this piece of propaganda.While american help played an important role you are simply taking for yourself the credit that should go to the japanese people.

You dear sir, are mistaken. Where did the billions for rebuilding the national infrastructure come from? The U.S. Who broke up the old company cartels? The U.S. Who solidified trade with the outside world and reformed the workforce to handle the new Japan? The U.S. We are responsible for changing those attitudes in Germany and Japan and rebuilding their infrastructure unlike the Soviets. We did that.

What the US is going to do in Iraq is to install a military regency that will rebuild Iraq,in the best case scenario, to pre 91 levels.Because,believe it or no,Iraq was a relatively prosperous country for local standard.Then the US military regency will be replaced by a Kharzai style puppet,possibly someone who will not be anxious to ask the US troops to leave and will be more than willing to sign VERY lucrative contracts for the US oil companies.

No need for severe pessimism. How can anyone realistically have rebuilt Afghanistan in less then 20 years? It has no infrastructure and is still run on tribal rule. Any attempts to jump start would probably be more destructive due to the parallels with colonialism.

You are correct about the relative comfort of Iraqis before 91. What we need to do is encourage Iraqis to establish an infrastructure to pump more money into their own country. We need to enforce free press and such to keep things vitalized. I have no illusions about Iraq transforming into a EU style nation with European prosperity. These problems underline the need for an international occupation with real rebuilding efforts.

Anyone who thinks that the US will fare much better than in the scenario described above must have smoked a lot of weird stuff.
The US are not going to install a democracy that may ask them to go away.

They wouldn't ask us to leave because we're money and we're protection. Why is the Saud family keeping us around? And whether the local man says it or not, the average Arabian man is the better for the U.S. relationship with his rulers.

There is not the threat of a Soviet Union that may justify the presence of US troops in the eyes of the average iraqui.So I tend to exclude that the US will be so fool to install anything more than a puppet government.

We don't have the money to run satellite countries. The nation will be economically and militarily dependent on the U.S. but I doubt we'll care to involve ourselves in the nitty-gritty politics unless Islamists look like they're going to take control.

And on the economic side I simply do not see the will and the money to make Iraq a much better place than it was under Saddam from an economic point of view.Only rebuilding the existing damaged infrastructures will require a non trivial amount of resources.

Hopefully untrue. This is why I underline the need for internation occupation and internation rebuilding effort.

Which the US,among tax cuts and expansions of the military budget does not seem particulary willing to spare beyond the minimum necessary.The amount of oil that can be pumped out from the country is fair but it is just what you need to run the country to pre 91 levels.What previously was spent for the military and the regime now will probably be used to pay for the american assistance in rebuilding the country,for the US garrisons and that stuff.

Don't forget the sanctions end and the country won't need military due to U.S. protection. With the U.S. company's moving in, a large job market and an influx of money will move in. I just hope we cut them a decent deal on the exporting of the oil.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I mean damn, where's the American grudge for the Canadians retaliating against America by marching to DC and burning the White House for trying to invade their country in 1812?

.

It was the British that burnt DC.

Ah, the common misconception I've heard from Wannabe Pseudo-Military Canadaians. It was the one of the first major British Armies from the Napeleonic Wars. They often say "Oh, we kcked your ass the British lost the war for us, like at New Orleans." The war was over by New Orleans, shessh.

Alas, you are mistaken. I was speaking to a non-American. I myself am an American. My statement was sarcasm. As if Canadians could actually make an advance over the border.

The same Japanese people that had to have their cities firebombed and two cities leveled by the power of the atom before they would surrender because of their fanatical Emperor worship?

The same Japanese people that, like the Iraqis, had been living on strict rations for years even while their political elite lived in nice estates and never went hungry?

I'm not saying that it is impossible to fuck up an attack on Iraq and turn them against us, I'm just saying that waging a war in the right way, focusing on the elites and sparing the poor, and then rebuilding the nation during the military regency while ensuring them a Western education and aiding in the creation of a middle class, is a viable long-term solution. We have to trust that those in government will do that.

The japanese people (the majority at least) were very sick of the war at the end(which does not mean that they would not have fought very hard in case of an invasion).The nukes and the bombings were a deep shock for them.Or at least this is what comes out from many interwievs.They do not like even talking about the war.And they were hesitant about rebuilding military capabilities even well after you gave the green light.

Indeed. As are Iraqis sick of Saddam's rule which has placed them in virtually peonage due to UN sanctions.

We do not know how an attack against Iraq is going to go.Maybe they will surrender at the first drone.Or maybe they will make a stand in the cities that you will have to take bloc by bloc.Needless to say in such a case "sparing the poor" will go out of the window.

That's how you win wars. What, you supposed to make concessions because there might be messy street fighting? It is that attitude which brought 9/11 in the first place: the Arab world respects strength, and our behavior could only be described as skittish and timid at best or stupid and weak at worst from the point of view of the Arab world.

Needless to say, most people don't particularly like Saddam and most of the foot soldiers are mistreated by higher class officers and their own commanders have been regularly murdered by Saddam, Stalin-style. They're hardly fit to fight and will doubtful raise a significant resistence.

[You may well be able to rebuild the country to pre 91 standards.However chances of making it the beacon of democracy and prosperity of the middle east are very close to zero,for the reasons I have already explained.True democracy could be against your short term interests and apart from that it is not all that easy building a democracy from scratch,with all the serious opposition groups eliminated and the population accustomed to many years of authoritarian rule.

Not to difficult; been done before. Even a more liberal system with a free press would be permissable. There needs to be serious reform.

Economical prosperity much beyond the relatively decent levels of pre 91 Iraq? Again unlikely.I am not an expert about Iraq and judging if a country can develop a prosperous capitalistic is not an easy task.

It takes time. It took over a decade for rebuilt Japan to have the prosperous revival it had in the 1970s.

[However I am somewhat sceptical about it faring much better than anyone else in the area,even under US rule.
And since at a first glance the internal political situation seems quite fucked up,things may even go worse.

No need for pessimism. Serious progressive reform is indeed possible. You use American examples of the past, but those are all examples of when we really didn't care to rebuild them anyway. This is a different story.

Bottom line:you may well be able to make Iraq a better place than it is now(not that it would require too much effort).Making it much better than the others countries in the area is an entirely different story.

We shall see.

[Knife]

Gotta love stereotypes. . . and the omnipresent CNN which shapes them.

As far as I am concerned, the USA is just like most other Western democracies - its populace has a broad range of views on many issues (including the appropriate level of patriotism), and the view of the current government usually aims for a middle ground, but may sometimes veer off in a certain direction that doesn't match the wishes of the general populace (usually depending on how vocal, influential or cashed up a particular lobby group is). Their social infrastructure mostly works, but has logistical issues, fairness issues, and so on and so forth. Like any Western nation, the points where the system is most broken are the points which get the most attention - and the hope is that attention will eventually lead to problems being addressed.

The big difference is that America is more public about it. They are the world's only remaining superpower, and, in theory, a large part of the steel inside the UN's velvet glove - so people all over the world have a vested interest in the attitude of the current US administration. The US media obliges - massive amounts of American television and film is seen all over the world. The debates which happen in every country also happen in America - but the USA have a huge audience, who are watching because they know the outcome may have an impact on them.

This can lead to a couple of problems. Firstly, people all over the world have opinions on the American domestic situation. Some Americans resent this, and tell such people to "mind your own damn business". Sorry guys - American domestic politics is our business, because of the dominant role the US plays in the current global situation. US domestic politics can affect the way the US government and corporations see their positions in the world, and hence is a major concern for most nations of the world.

Consider the difference between "Australia becomes a fascist state, and tries to annex New Zealand and Indonesia" and "the US becomes a fascist state, and decides to annex Canada and Mexico". It is not so much that the US is more likely to do such a thing - just that the consequences are far worse for everyone else if it does. The image of the US as 'protective older brother' is comforting. The image of the US as 'domineering older brother' is concerning. The image of the US as 'outright bully', is flatout terrifying (fortunately, the US is not actually self-sufficient - so that final scenario is incredibly unlikely).

The second problem is this perception of America as having more or worse problems than everywhere else. We only get to see the more vocal parts of the US political scene - like many countries, the 'silent majority' don't show up in the media very much. These moderate influences exist in America as much as they do anywhere else - it is just that the activities of these forces are often not seen as particularly 'newsworthy' by the mainstream press (controversial = interesting, non-controversial = dull). Similarly, it is easy to look at America and say "Well, we do this better than them", or "Our laws relating to that aren't as silly as theirs" - but how often do people sit back and say "Hey, the things that show up in the media are the things that Americans think are broken, too. What are the things that don't show up in the media? What are the things that America is doing better than us?"

This second problem can actually be exacerbated by local media in other countries. When the US is being reasonable, the local media will usually shrug and say "Ah well, nothing interesting about that." If, on the other hand, Shrub makes a few ill-considered remarks, then "US declares war on UN" makes the front page.

The trick is for Americans to recognise that, yes, the rest of the world does have a legitimate interest in the internal workings of your nation - both to learn from it, and to prepare for the fallout if it ever starts to go seriously wrong. If there is something that appears to be going wrong, or to have the potential to go wrong, we're going to comment on it - we have a vested interest in making sure your country works as smoothly as possible.

The trick for non-Americans is to recognise that the view we get through the mainstream media (either US, or local) reflects biases and attitudes of the media regarding what is 'newsworthy', or what constitutes 'good television', in addition to any trends which are actually present in the US. Think about the diverse opinions people in your own country have about the quality & objectivity of the your own mainstream media, and I suspect you might get an idea of how many Americans feel about their media representation.

The US government & media do seem to aim to have an extremely strong sense of national identity - possibly traceable back to the fact that the original coalition of states actually had to fight for their indepencence from England, rather than, say, being granted it by an Act of the British Parliament in response to colonial lobbying. It may also be bit of a reaction to the international criticism they have to handle. Regardless, no matter what anyone might think, the lunatics are not running the asylum (yet, and hopefully never).

In order to avoid complacency, however, the following quote needs to be remembered:

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is that good men do nothing."

Thank you for your non-American but moderate and unpolitical observation. I can honestly agree with just about everything you said. Everytime that the US media plays something that doesn't play well with the majority of the politics of the media and so happens to be against most Europian politics the (american)leftwing goes nuts and starts to cry facism. As I've said on another thread I think, there is aplenty of different views in America and the only ones you hear are the ones that the mainstream media play. Others are out there to be found, but most people tend to feel they only need to hear the stuff they agree on so liberal type people get what they need from CNN and conservitive type people listen to alot of talk radio. America is so far from becoming facist its funny, the only place one would hear this is by fearmongers and people using political scare tatics.

[Raptor 597]

It was the British that burnt DC.

Ah, the common misconception I've heard from Wannabe Pseudo-Military Canadaians. It was the one of the first major British Armies from the Napeleonic Wars. They often say "Oh, we kcked your ass the British lost the war for us, like at New Orleans." The war was over by New Orleans, shessh.

Alas, you are mistaken. I was speaking to a non-American. I myself am an American. My statement was sarcasm. As if Canadians could actually make an advance over the border.

Oh. Yes, exactly just that the Canucks really believe they can.

[Stuart Mackey]

...and the Biological Warfare treaty, Anti-Mine treaty, ABM treaty, etc...hell, when was the last time the US actually agreed to sign a treaty without having to pout for ages and changing half of the contents?
KG

Fuck the Anti-Mine treaty.....We NEED land mines to keep the damn
North Koreans from swarming down and wiping out South Korea in a massive
blitz....

IIRC, the Chinese and Russians are with us too, and refuse to sign that
treaty....

Also, the Russians violated the ABM treaty so many times it isn't even funny,
with many of their SAMs having secret ABM roles when equipped with
a nuclear warhead....

I think you give the NK's army too much credit.
Please remember why the anti mine treaty came up, because some nations, like NZ, have got sick of seeing kids without limbs years after a war has ended and sending our army to try and clear them out. Whats really annoying is that most of the mines are of Chinese and Russian origin, so no wonder they never signed that treaty, they would loose too much money.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I think you give the NK's army too much credit.
Please remember why the anti mine treaty came up, because some nations, like NZ, have got sick of seeing kids without limbs years after a war has ended and sending our army to try and clear them out. Whats really annoying is that most of the mines are of Chinese and Russian origin, so no wonder they never signed that treaty, they would loose too much money.

Oddly the U.S. doesn't use landmines, really. We probably refused to sign because we didn't want to be obligated to clean up any of ours left over in some shit hole.

[Stuart Mackey]

I think you give the NK's army too much credit.
Please remember why the anti mine treaty came up, because some nations, like NZ, have got sick of seeing kids without limbs years after a war has ended and sending our army to try and clear them out. Whats really annoying is that most of the mines are of Chinese and Russian origin, so no wonder they never signed that treaty, they would loose too much money.

Oddly the U.S. doesn't use landmines, really. We probably refused to sign because we didn't want to be obligated to clean up any of ours left over in some shit hole.

You use directional mines, claymore, as does NZ, I think thats excused cause you tend to keep them if you dont use them. You sure the US does not use mines?

[Dargos]

I think you give the NK's army too much credit.
Please remember why the anti mine treaty came up, because some nations, like NZ, have got sick of seeing kids without limbs years after a war has ended and sending our army to try and clear them out. Whats really annoying is that most of the mines are of Chinese and Russian origin, so no wonder they never signed that treaty, they would loose too much money.

Oddly the U.S. doesn't use landmines, really. We probably refused to sign because we didn't want to be obligated to clean up any of ours left over in some shit hole.

You use directional mines, claymore, as does NZ, I think thats excused
cause you tend to keep them if you dont use them. You sure the US does not use mines?

oh..yes the US Army still has the claymore mine and other anti-personel and anti-tank/veh. mine on inventory. Why give up a perfectly good defensive/area denial weapon.



Oh... Steve. you certainly are quite a little warmonger for someone who claimed that he was never a part of the military and never would be. I guess defending YOUR country is SOMEONE ELSES job eh....not yours? see qoute below.

Posted Sep 17 2002 1:24 AM GMT Topic Subject: one world government?

"The "UCF" is a travesty. A nation where suffrage is only given to those who serve the State and open themselves to brainwashing by the State. They are not a democracy, they are not a free nation nor an ideal society. They are a mockery of everything that freedom stands for.

I have not served in the military, nor will I. You can have my voter's registration when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

I guess defending a country is only the job of those "too dumb" do do anything better than to join the military eh? Too good to get up on that wall seperating us from the barbarien horde, take a bullet and then shoot the motherfucker who shot you.

Civilians are are allways willing to send someone else off to do the dirty work...but turn all lilly white and weak in the knees when asked to do the same.

In an earlyer post you said you are proud to be a American Citizen, you were born there..its your right you say. But WHAT HAVE YOU DONE to EARN IT? (do I hear silence... I thought so) Did you at least fill out your selective service card(DRAFT CARD) when you turned 18?





;

[Knife]

Oddly the U.S. doesn't use landmines, really. We probably refused to sign because we didn't want to be obligated to clean up any of ours left over in some shit hole.

You use directional mines, claymore, as does NZ, I think thats excused
cause you tend to keep them if you dont use them. You sure the US does not use mines?

oh..yes the US Army still has the claymore mine and other anti-personel and anti-tank/veh. mine on inventory. Why give up a perfectly good defensive/area denial weapon.



Oh... Steve. you certainly are quite a little warmonger for someone who claimed that he was never a part of the military and never would be. I guess defending YOUR country is SOMEONE ELSES job eh....not yours? see qoute below.

Posted Sep 17 2002 1:24 AM GMT Topic Subject: one world government?

"The "UCF" is a travesty. A nation where suffrage is only given to those who serve the State and open themselves to brainwashing by the State. They are not a democracy, they are not a free nation nor an ideal society. They are a mockery of everything that freedom stands for.

I have not served in the military, nor will I. You can have my voter's registration when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

I guess defending a country is only the job of those "too dumb" do do anything better than to join the military eh? Too good to get up on that wall seperating us from the barbarien horde, take a bullet and then shoot the motherfucker who shot you.

Civilians are are allways willing to send someone else off to do the dirty work...but turn all lilly white and weak in the knees when asked to do the same.

In an earlyer post you said you are proud to be a American Citizen, you were born there..its your right you say. But WHAT HAVE YOU DONE to EARN IT? (do I hear silence... I thought so) Did you at least fill out your selective service card(DRAFT CARD) when you turned 18?





;

Since I feel confrontational, ask me that question. And so far on this tread, I agree with Steve(atleast as far as I can remember).

[Admiral Piett]

Proof? Oh right...none. The U.S. governed and rebuilt both Western Europe and Japan simultaneously. The Cold War nations are irrelevent in that we never had any intention of rebuilding them and revitalizing them.

Well,living in one of those countries you supposedly rebuilt I probably have a better appreciation.The US help played an important role supplying for example food during some shortages,some funds,after having however screwed up the financial system by printing an insane amount of money during the occupation, and some various items.However the rebuilt phase was largely local.The US did not rebuild damaged infrastructures or governed the country for much or did anything of significant to promote democracy.

Irrelevent references. Both to the Philippines and to Azeron. You do realize we had no intention of doing anything other then keeping them under our boot at that time, right? That situation is no longer politically feasable and thus irrelevent in the said discussion. Just another late-19th century colonization attempt.

I realize that.But since apparently everyone (and not only Azeron) here seems convinced that prosperity and democracy arise everywhere the US put their boot so I wanted to clearify the matter.There are others examples like the Philippines,just in case.

Iraq was moderately prosperous before Saddam took over and plunged it into hell w/ his warmonger and foriegn policy that caused the UN to clamp down on it.

I should check but if I recall correctly Iraq became relatively prosperous UNDER Saddam rule.

Occupying Afghanistan is a bad idea. See Soviet occupation. The civil war hasn't restarted, so where's the beef?

Granted,no official civil war.Only warlords quarreling with each others and anarchy outside Kabul.Not occupying the country is smart.However this means that the country cannot be pacified.And if cannot be pacified it will not become prosperous.

You dear sir, are mistaken. Where did the billions for rebuilding the national infrastructure come from? The U.S. Who broke up the old company cartels? The U.S. Who solidified trade with the outside world and reformed the workforce to handle the new Japan? The U.S. We are responsible for changing those attitudes in Germany and Japan and rebuilding their infrastructure unlike the Soviets. We did that.

Breaking company cartels in Germany? That may have well been the plan at the beginning.

No need for severe pessimism. How can anyone realistically have rebuilt Afghanistan in less then 20 years? It has no infrastructure and is still run on tribal rule. Any attempts to jump start would probably be more destructive due to the parallels with colonialism.

no one seriously expect that you can rebuild Afghanistan in a short amount of time.However you have not even started.The country is not receiving more help that any nation in similar conditions would.You are not interested in rebuilding the country,period.

You are correct about the relative comfort of Iraqis before 91. What we need to do is encourage Iraqis to establish an infrastructure to pump more money into their own country. We need to enforce free press and such to keep things vitalized. I have no illusions about Iraq transforming into a EU style nation with European prosperity. These problems underline the need for an international occupation with real rebuilding efforts.

Considered that the US is planning to place it under and US military governor, and that the operation will be mainly an US show I find quite unlikely that the US will accept an international occupation.

They wouldn't ask us to leave because we're money and we're protection. Why is the Saud family keeping us around? And whether the local man says it or not, the average Arabian man is the better for the U.S. relationship with his rulers.

You are not going to invest large amounts of your money in the country,the most will be taken from the oil revenues.So you are not going to be a large source of money.Protection? Against who? We in Europe were afraid of the Soviet Union so we let you stay here.Iraq is not under a similar threat.They could defend well by themselves.If anything the opposite is true,since the surronding countries are scared by Iraq.They could handle their defense by themselves.So there is no justification for the US staying in the eyes of the average Iraqui,like instead was the case for the average european.They could rebuild enough military capabilities to keep their neighbours at the bay in few years.

We don't have the money to run satellite countries. The nation will be economically and militarily dependent on the U.S. but I doubt we'll care to involve ourselves in the nitty-gritty politics unless Islamists look like they're going to take control.

Exactly,you will soon install some puppet that will not make Iraq the beacon of democracy and prosperity of the ME.Better than now but certainly not enough to make the surrounding countries die of envy

Hopefully untrue. This is why I underline the need for internation occupation and internation rebuilding effort.

Which would mean calling the europeans.As yourself have stated above you
are not willing to spare money beyon the minimum necessary.

Don't forget the sanctions end and the country won't need military due to U.S. protection. With the U.S. company's moving in, a large job market and an influx of money will move in. I just hope we cut them a decent deal on the exporting of the oil.

I doubt that they will get a "decent" deal.Occupied countries are not in a strong position to negotiate
The US oil companies and related investments will go there,but this will not make the country more prosperous than others oil countries of the same league.

[phongn]

oh..yes the US Army still has the claymore mine and other anti-personel and anti-tank/veh. mine on inventory. Why give up a perfectly good defensive/area denial weapon.

IIRC, the DMZ up in Korea is lousy with mines - the US doesn't want to give those up.

In an earlyer post you said you are proud to be a American Citizen, you were born there..its your right you say. But WHAT HAVE YOU DONE to EARN IT? (do I hear silence... I thought so)

He was born in the United States. That reason alone gives him the right as an American Citizen.

[Illuminatus Primus]

oh..yes the US Army still has the claymore mine and other anti-personel and anti-tank/veh. mine on inventory. Why give up a perfectly good defensive/area denial weapon.

Claymore is out of service for military, even spec ops. I don't think we have any numerous antipersonnel mines.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Well,living in one of those countries you supposedly rebuilt I probably have a better appreciation.The US help played an important role supplying for example food during some shortages,some funds,after having however screwed up the financial system by printing an insane amount of money during the occupation, and some various items.However the rebuilt phase was largely local.The US did not rebuild damaged infrastructures or governed the country for much or did anything of significant to promote democracy.

That's because they were all already constitutional monarchies or Republics and Germany was encouraged to stay away from extremism. There was a lot of actions taken in Japan to discourage old attitudes and ways of doing things.

I realize that.But since apparently everyone (and not only Azeron) here seems convinced that prosperity and democracy arise everywhere the US put their boot so I wanted to clearify the matter.There are others examples like the Philippines,just in case.

Irrelevent to the point one whether the U.S. should occupy Iraq.

I should check but if I recall correctly Iraq became relatively prosperous UNDER Saddam rule.

Nitpick, red herring. Does that matter? He is responsible for the economy now and making his nation an international pariah. Also responsible for the gassing of civilians and the invasion of Kuwait and the development of nuclear weapons.

Granted,no official civil war.Only warlords quarreling with each others and anarchy outside Kabul.Not occupying the country is smart.However this means that the country cannot be pacified.And if cannot be pacified it will not become prosperous.

The hell? What would "not anarchy" outside Kabul be? How much "order" do you have over tribesmen? Money supplied to Kabul government will allow it to eventually begin expanding its control and competing and usurping local systems of power. This is like expecting post-war Japan to recover in less than a year. This will take 10, 20 years before the nation is unified and functional again.

Breaking company cartels in Germany? That may have well been the plan at the beginning.

Nitpick. And it largely worked in some cases and Nazi leaders were usurped from control of most of the civil infrastructure and the gov't post-war. Though I was refering to the aristocratic business control that existed in Japan.

No one seriously expect that you can rebuild Afghanistan in a short amount of time.However you have not even started.The country is not receiving more help that any nation in similar conditions would.You are not interested in rebuilding the country, period.

Over 7 billion dollars were raised within 5 months of the Bonn Agreement. The U.N. estimates that it will take 20-25 billion and 10-15 years to restore Afghanistan to reasonable functionality. As you can see, a reasonable percentage of that has already been raised. Furthermore, the U.S. has no obligation to Afghanistan. We never colonized the place. Their nation, they fucked it up. We just helped them overthrow the yoke of Soviet domination, they didn't ask us to stay, and we did not either. They harbored terrorists, we crushed them and the regime that harbored them with nearly no change in the Afghan situation. Our only significant influence on day-to-day life of the Afghan nation was helping them expell the Soviets. Many times the requested amount for reconstruction is sent to Africa by the U.S. alone and wasted every year. Blank checks don't work anyway because the infrastructure to properly use it is non-existant. The European powers should reestablish protectorates/agreements with their former colonies and work on helping the nations they screwed up. The U.S. didn't screw up Afghanistan. The Soviets and then the Afghans themselves screwed it up. Where's the evidence for your claims? Oh yeah...none.

Considered that the US is planning to place it under and US military governor, and that the operation will be mainly an US show I find quite unlikely that the US will accept an international occupation.

Bullshit. The more internation help, the less the U.S. has to spend, and the better and more "multilateral" the operation will look. And you know the American administration is itching for that legitimacy if they can have it, since Bush has been wheeling and dealing with the UN.

You are not going to invest large amounts of your money in the country,the most will be taken from the oil revenues.So you are not going to be a large source of money.Protection? Against who? We in Europe were afraid of the Soviet Union so we let you stay here.Iraq is not under a similar threat.They could defend well by themselves.If anything the opposite is true,since the surronding countries are scared by Iraq.They could handle their defense by themselves.So there is no justification for the US staying in the eyes of the average Iraqi, like instead was the case for the average european.They could rebuild enough military capabilities to keep their neighbours at the bay in few years.

They're going to be more open and have more money then the other nations. The point is to make Iraq compatively more Western, democratic, and wealthy. Not make a Great Britian or Japan in the middle of the Middle East. That's not the point. So stop warping things into a strawman while you're quoting me. Others may believe that, I'm not that niave.

Iraq still has animosity with the Iranians for years. The government will likely suffer initial coup attempts by internal factions, and the Syrians are also a hostile nation. The other nations are afraid of Iraq? You think we'll leave their military intact during the occupation? Are you dense?

Bah, there's little reason for the Japanese to want us around anymore but they only whine occasionally. Their not going to order us off when we're feeding them.

Exactly,you will soon install some puppet that will not make Iraq the beacon of democracy and prosperity of the ME.Better than now but certainly not enough to make the surrounding countries die of envy.

We'll set it up similar to Arabia. That'll have impact on the xenophobic and backward Iran.

Which would mean calling the europeans.As yourself have stated above you are not willing to spare money beyon the minimum necessary.

Did I ever claim otherwise?

I doubt that they will get a "decent" deal.Occupied countries are not in a strong position to negotiate The US oil companies and related investments will go there,but this will not make the country more prosperous than others oil countries of the same league.

Which is a hell of a lot more wealthy then Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and the others.

The point is to make them more liberal, free, wealthy, and Western comparitively. No one's going to set up a G7 nation in Iraq.

[Admiral Piett]

Irrelevent to the point one whether the U.S. should occupy Iraq.

Relevant,when it starts to be used as an alibi "let us bomb them,we are so good at rebuilding countries" that I have seen on this board.

Nitpick. And it largely worked in some cases and Nazi leaders were usurped from control of most of the civil infrastructure and the gov't post-war

If for Nazi leaders you means the people at the level of Goebbels etc you are correct.The people few steps lower were more or less left where they were.The civilian and not only infrastructure was filled with ex nazi. Businnessmen, armed forces officers and even politicians.

Over 7 billion dollars were raised within 5 months of the Bonn Agreement. The U.N. estimates that it will take 20-25 billion and 10-15 years to restore Afghanistan to reasonable functionality. As you can see, a reasonable percentage of that has already been raised. Furthermore, the U.S. has no obligation to Afghanistan. We never colonized the place. Their nation, they fucked it up. We just helped them overthrow the yoke of Soviet domination, they didn't ask us to stay, and we did not either. They harbored terrorists, we crushed them and the regime that harbored them with nearly no change in the Afghan situation. Our only significant influence on day-to-day life of the Afghan nation was helping them expell the Soviets. Many times the requested amount for reconstruction is sent to Africa by the U.S. alone and wasted every year. Blank checks don't work anyway because the infrastructure to properly use it is non-existant. The European powers should reestablish protectorates/agreements with their former colonies and work on helping the nations they screwed up. The U.S. didn't screw up Afghanistan. The Soviets and then the Afghans themselves screwed it up. Where's the evidence for your claims? Oh yeah...none.

Exactly,you are not obliged.An other example of the miracolous US nation rebuilding capabilities I guess.And please,how is the Kabul government going to regain the control of the country? They control Kabul just thanks to the our bayonets and we are not going to supply them enough to expand their control.The rest of the country is just anarchy.You need the force to regain the control of anarchy,force that they are not going to have.

Bullshit. The more internation help, the less the U.S. has to spend, and the better and more "multilateral" the operation will look. And you know the American administration is itching for that legitimacy if they can have it, since Bush has been wheeling and dealing with the UN.

Bullshit? Like the US military regency that you are planning to install?

They're going to be more open and have more money then the other nations. The point is to make Iraq compatively more Western, democratic, and wealthy. Not make a Great Britian or Japan in the middle of the Middle East. That's not the point. So stop warping things into a strawman while you're quoting me. Others may believe that, I'm not that niave.

Well, many pretend that the US can precisely do that.Build such a shining example of prosperous western style democracy that the others countries around will crumble under internal revolts.If you do not buy that then it is ten points for you.

Iraq still has animosity with the Iranians for years. The government will likely suffer initial coup attempts by internal factions, and the Syrians are also a hostile nation. The other nations are afraid of Iraq? You think we'll leave their military intact during the occupation? Are you dense?

I meant that they would have the potential to rebuild their military rather quickly if you allowed them to do so.So they will not perceive you as indispensable for their defense excepet for the very beginning.Besides you allowed the germans to rebuild their military and strongly encouraged the japanese to do the same.So it would not be an odd thing.And yes,the neighbours are scared of Iraq,Iran included.

Which is a hell of a lot more wealthy then Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and the others.

No,which is exactly as much as an arab country with the same population and amount of oil would be.Less than Saudi Arabia for example.

The point is to make them more liberal, free, wealthy, and Western comparitively. No one's going to set up a G7 nation in Iraq.

Well the duchess and many others here pretend that the US will do just that.If you think that the US will make them better than now then you are correct (assuming that everything goes as planned).The key word is "how much".

[Warspite]

The Iraqi population is mainly Shi'a (a branch of Muslims, the same in Iran), while the leadrship is mostly Sunni (derived from Saudi Arabia). (CIA World Fact Book put's it at 2/3 and 1/3 for the whole Muslim population respectvely). The two branches come from Saudi Arabia, I think, and there are enough differences to spend years, millions and lives to fight for it.

What it comes down to is this:
It's not possible to westernise Iraq, the Muslim population wouldn't allow it, all the arab world wouldn't like it, even if they aren't too fancy of Saddam right now, and Iran would start thinking about it's nuclear program (even if already is).
Caping Saddam will only bring chaos onto an already unstable region, specially by US intervetion (the Great Satan). It's got to be an Arab problem, let them sort him out!


On another note:
I've seen a lot of comparations between Japan recuperation, and (possible) Iraq post-intervention.
it's a flawed comparation, because of the two distinct cultures and periods.

Besides, MacArthur didn't allowed the US politics to meddle in it's plans for Japan, and mostly did an excelent job raising the country literally from the ashes. We will never see that in Iraq.

[Steve]

Oh... Steve. you certainly are quite a little warmonger for someone who claimed that he was never a part of the military and never would be.

Warmonger? Warmonger?

So because I accept the reality of the world and am calling a duck a duck, I'm a warmonger?

I guess defending YOUR country is SOMEONE ELSES job eh....not yours? see qoute below.

On the contrary, I am defending my country, by supporting the conflict, by having registered for the draft if it is necessary, and by remaining vigilant against threats to our freedom, both foreign and domestic.

One does not have to wear a uniform to be defending his or her country.

I guess defending a country is only the job of those "too dumb" do do anything better than to join the military eh?

Putting words in my mouth? How unexpected... not.

Serving in the military is a very important job that requires intelligence and courage.

Too good to get up on that wall seperating us from the barbarien horde, take a bullet and then shoot the motherfucker who shot you.

Not at all. But in my present physical shape (I am admittedly overweight) and pressing concerns with my dad and our finances, I am incapable of properly fulfilling military service.

If I were needed, I would join. I would probably be drafted if I were needed, of course.

Civilians are are allways willing to send someone else off to do the dirty work...but turn all lilly white and weak in the knees when asked to do the same.

Cowards, you mean. Being a civilian is not the same thing as being a coward. There are many brave men and women who are/were civilians.

I'd like to see you tell the friends and relatives of Viola Liuzzo, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Mickey Schwerner that. I would. All were civilians, and all did the necessary dirty work, and all died for their righteous cause.

In an earlyer post you said you are proud to be a American Citizen, you were born there..its your right you say. But WHAT HAVE YOU DONE to EARN IT? (do I hear silence... I thought so)

Being born here. Which by the laws of this great land makes me a citizen thereof.

Did you at least fill out your selective service card(DRAFT CARD) when you turned 18?

I did. And I've voted every election since I turned 18, and I've reported for jury duty.

I have fulfilled my responsibilities as a citizen of the United States.

What I don't get is that I'm called a warmonger simply because I've accepted the war that has been forced upon the United States, and indeed the entire West, and think it should be fought to it's proper conclusion instead of plagued by half-measures promoted by weak-kneed isolationists and leftists, many of which are a cultural elite in the media and higher education who have the time to caterwaul about this kind of thing, who are more concerned with those who celebrated the attacks than the security of the American public.

The conflict has been placed on us; you and me and everyone here. Shouldn't we finish this now? Or leave it to our children to finish because we're too weak-willed to do the right thing?

[Steve]

it's a flawed comparation, because of the two distinct cultures and periods.

Their cultures do share the same undercurrents of militarism, divine authority in the head of state, contempt for the "weak and decadent" West, and class distinction.

It can be done. The only question is if we'll be willing to pay the cost to guarantee it done and not let the inevitable bitching in Europe and the Third World distract us.

Besides, MacArthur didn't allowed the US politics to meddle in it's plans for Japan, and mostly did an excelent job raising the country literally from the ashes. We will never see that in Iraq.

We shall see.