Iraq and the aftermath

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If one is drunk,that is.Japan did not have the ethnical divisions that instead there are in Iraq.The kurds have de facto,although not the jure, their own little state.And this is just an example.Underestimating this issue would be foolish.

Overestimating it would also be foolish. The Japanese have several ethnic minorities, if relatively minor and smallish groupings, and had already imported more in the form of foreign labourers who'd lived in Japan long enough that by rights they should be Japanese, even then - Though even today they've never fully integrated thanks to Japanese racism - Japanese society, however, was still rebuilt along basically western lines, and has succeeded. (Oh, and for this supposedly massively homogenous, we should also not forget a decent Catholic minority as well.)

Granted, the ethnic divisions are vast in comparison in Iraq, and far more 'evenly' balanced in compared to the dominant sort in Japan, which hardly helps stabilize the country. But a system of Federal States, being founded around and established to suit the needs of the ethnic groupings, should be capable of balancing this additional tension, if the rights of the states and of the federal government are appropriately balanced in the constitution.

Sure,as everybody knows currently the Uncle Sam is plenty of money to invest in foreign countries.The economical crisis,the rising military expenditure for wars and procurements,the huge deficit,the Bush promise of not increasing taxation leave a lot of money for investments
Iraq has oil,but just enough for running the country (at least without additional investments on new oilfields,which will take time).Rebuilding it will require a lot of $$$$.Where these are going to come from is a question for which I would like to hear an answer.

Cutting taxes will increase government revenues in the long term. Deficit spending is a temporary measure if the President can control the Congressional Pork Urge.

Note please that US permanence in the european countries was justified by the threat of the Soviet Union.Such a threat does not exist in Iraq.What will you do when,let us say, ten years from now the democratic government will ask you to leave?

The threat is from Islamofascism, and is quite present, assuming it does not collapse in that timeframe, which without decisive action it probably will not. Considering their own experience with it they'll hardly want us gone.

[Knife]

At the risk of sounding too simplistic, once Saddam is ousted, the money necessary to rebuild Iraq would be Iraq's own money by the US and any ally we can convince to purchase oil from Iraqi sources (execpt for France.) instead of fucked up places like....Suadi Arabia.

[Admiral Piett]

At the risk of sounding too simplistic, once Saddam is ousted, the money necessary to rebuild Iraq would be Iraq's own money by the US and any ally we can convince to purchase oil from Iraqi sources (execpt for France.) instead of fucked up places like....Suadi Arabia.

It is simplistic,of course.Iraq has a certain level of oil production,but it is not Saudi Arabia.It is sufficient to run the country but not really much more.That amount is limited by the infrastructures available.Increasing them will require,surprise surprise, money and time.You must be dreaming if you think that Iraq can replace Saudi oil production.In the short-medium term at least.

Overestimating it would also be foolish. The Japanese have several ethnic minorities, if relatively minor and smallish groupings, and had already imported more in the form of foreign labourers

A bunch of foreign labourers is not comparable to the iraqui situation.
Not even a bit.

But a system of Federal States, being founded around and established to suit the needs of the ethnic groupings, should be capable of balancing this additional tension, if the rights of the states and of the federal government are appropriately balanced in the constitution.

It is possible of course.But do not think for even only a moment that it would be a cakewalk.

Cutting taxes will increase government revenues in the long term.

A small increase in revenues in the long term is not what is needed here.
In the long term eventually Iraq will be able to repay the investments.
The problem is that the money for the investments is needed in first place.
And that money is needed in the short term.

The threat is from Islamofascism, and is quite present, assuming it does not collapse in that timeframe, which without decisive action it probably will not. Considering their own experience with it they'll hardly want us gone.

Sorry but that does not hold.The Soviet Union was seen as a threat by the european people (well most of them at least).The "islamofascists" you love speaking about will not be perceived as a threat by the ordinary iraqui.
Iraq has been the big boy in the area.No one can really threaten it,if ever the opposite is true.Thus once it will be rebuilt there will be really no reason
to justify US presence.

[SWPIGWANG]

It is got a killer return rate in the long run if we get partial ownership.

[Durandal]

Partial ownership amounts to a puppet government. In other words, it's not a government of, for and by the people. It's a government of, for and by the United States.

[Darth Wong]

Lebanon 1958

And Lebanon eventually collapsed into civil war, didn't it? These societies are not governable unless we're willing to invest a lot more into them than we have in the past. The societal problems run too deep.

A couple decades later, after a few tens of thousands thousands of armed PLO members showed up after being driven out of Jordan and set up camp and began launching a campagin of terror. Or did you forget that little part?

Oh, right. The country was perfectly happy until they showed up, with no internal strife at all and no simmering tensions or problems between the Christians and the Muslims, but when the PLO guys showed up, everyone suddenly set at each others' throats

Your arguing that because the US has never established a stable government in Iraq, we won't be able to do so.

Wow, it looks like I'm being asked to prove a negative now. Why don't you just say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Please provide examples of nations America rebuilt before it went to work on Japan or Germany that had the same pre existing social structure.

The ability to rebuild a country is hardly trivial. You can hardly support it by simply demanding that one find an example of them rebuilding an Iraq-like country in the past and failing.

[SirNitram]

Partial ownership amounts to a puppet government. In other words, it's not a government of, for and by the people. It's a government of, for and by the United States.

It is Empire, and Americans hate Empires. It's cause they were slandered so in Star Wars, really.

[Durandal]

Partial ownership amounts to a puppet government. In other words, it's not a government of, for and by the people. It's a government of, for and by the United States.

It is Empire, and Americans hate Empires. It's cause they were slandered so in Star Wars, really.

Right. I can see Grand Moff Ashcroft ordering a nuclear strike on Switzerland as a demonstration of power.

[Sea Skimmer]

The ability to rebuild a country is hardly trivial. You can hardly support it by simply demanding that one find an example of them rebuilding an Iraq-like country in the past and failing.

And yet America has done it, in countries with far greater levels of devastation then a war in Iraq is remotely likely to reach. But of couse when these examples are brought up you brush them aside.

"No no they don't count because they don't have the exact same conditions as Iraq" The fact that they where worse off in many respects is of course ignored by you.

Oh, right. The country was perfectly happy until they showed up, with no internal strife at all and no simmering tensions or problems between the Christians and the Muslims, but when the PLO guys showed up, everyone suddenly set at each others' throats

Sure there where problems. But there where major ethic and social problems in America for decades of this century and yet the country never erupted into another civil war despite a great many people being willing to kill over them.

Having a huge group of people from one ethinic group, many of them armed, coming into a small country and begin fighting a war in the southern third of the country is a destabilizing thing wouldn't you say? Nope, must have been a faliure of US marines years before, even though they accomplished all there objectives.

Wow, it looks like I'm being asked to prove a negative now. Why don't you just say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

We have evidence of US success in rebuilding a country with no infrastructure, one undamaged city of notable size and minimal domestic resources, into a country which has become one of the biggest economic powers in the power. And with was with no previous experience.

Yet somehow this is all irrelevant to Iraq because Japan didn't have major ethnic problems. BY your argument because the US has little experience in one aspect of rebuilding a nation it will likely fail. Yet when it no experience in any aspect it has succeeded totally.

So I guess the more experience you have the worse you do when you try something? No wonder you wish to Ignore Japan and Germany....

[Admiral Piett]

So I guess the more experience you have the worse you do when you try something? No wonder you wish to Ignore Japan and Germany....

Ah yes,Japan and Germany.And what makes you believe that you will turn
Iraq in to something like the Japan of the ME?
Small hint,the people in Jugoslavia are still awaiting their marshal plan.
Sorry, the USA does not have loads of cash floating around for investments.
The iraquis will get a reconstruction to pre 91 standard,at the best, and probably even with the help of the "evil euros who want the spoils of our war" as your press will probably describe it.
After WW2 the USA had a growing economy.Money for investments was available.Now the economy is stagnating,the military budget between routine and wars suck loads of resources, the deficit is heavy and quite frankly I do not see Bush raising taxation for such an impopular expenditure such as rebuilding Iraq.So the amount of resources that can be spared is limited.
Also quite frankly I hope you do not seriously belive that japanese or german economical successes have tanken place only thanks to US presence.Prosperity does not automatically arise everywhere Uncle Sam lands.
By the way,the USA were not so anxious to help Japan as you pretend, Mac Arthur had to plea for food for Japan.

[Dahak]

Ah yes. The usual "plan".
USA bombs it to ruins, and Europe has to give the money for build-up...
So much easier...

[Lord Pounder]

The major flaw i'm seeing in these arguements is that whos to say the people of Iraq are gonna accept a western style goverment. This is an Islamic country so they might rebel against any western democratic style goverment. If they do rebel then the whole war was for nought and we will have proved outselves the bullies we are being accused of.