Pulling out of Iraq and the WoT

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Yes, your (and a lot of Americans) assumption that "they want to be just like us" is racist. Whereas, statements like Bush's "The Iraqi people owe the American people a debt of gratitude" is just imperialist and ignorant.

How do you know what "they" want, sir Michael? Was there a vote?

My God, when the people of the Iraq finally had a chance to vote, what did they do?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


There is an underlying assumption that is very racist. Do I really need to point it out?

No, but you can. I can't say we won't laugh though.

[Ned]

It's the same thing the left said about Vietnam and democracy when that war raged, Kid.

[Kuciwalker]

Um, and look how that turned out?`

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Um, and look how that turned out?`

Materially they are much better off now. They just don't have any democracy.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Electing your choice of two generals you had no say in selecting to run for office isn't a ringing endorsement. There hasn't been much of a push for democracy since then, either - especially "Democracy" with American guidance.

[Ned]

I think what Vietnam taught us is that democracy is hard in the midst of a civil war, especially where the other side is anti-democratic. It teaches us nothing about whether "brown" people are capable or desirous of democracy.

Look at South America, largely white and largely non democratic for most of its history. Are we suppose to learn anything about white people from this example?

The whole idea of race-based cultural capability is ridiculous.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
How do you know what "they" want, sir Michael? Was there a vote?

Pretty much so. I figure that what people do, collectively, over a long period of time, without outside pressure, pretty much reflects what "they" want, or at least, reflects enough of what they "want" that they can't be arsed to take serious risks to change it.

My God, when the people of the Iraq finally had a chance to vote, what did they do?

They voted before. They voted twice to confirm Saddam as their President, remember? Oh yeah - and a large proportion of them are so thrilled with the process that they actively fight us and that government, or support and shelter those who do. And all of them look to the government for honest help and support.

Last time, Saddam even got a 100% yes vote. Chavez was just reelected in Venezuela - why do we have a hardon for poor Hugo? Ahmedinejad was elected. For that matter, old fart that I am, I remember commentary about elections in the former Soviet Union? And we all know Vladya is the epitomy of the modern Russian's aspiration for western style democracy, don't we?

What about our "friends" and allies, in the ME, such as Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, the UAE and last but not least, our lackeys in Kuwait? Yes, the people all have western democratic aspirations, and of course, we exert ourselves to the utmost to see that those aspirations are met. Then again, there's our buddy a little further north and east, General Musharraf. Yes, we need to pressure him a little more to have democratic elections, because we know the Pakistani people are just craving a more moderate, pro-western, democratically elected leader. How about our shining beacon of democratic popularity, Mr. Mubarak?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
I think what Vietnam taught us is that democracy is hard in the midst of a civil war, especially where the other side is anti-democratic.

You mean "both" sides. The south was interested in nothing more than a sham that would preserve all social, economic and political benefits for the elites.

Look at South America, largely white and largely non democratic for most of its history. Are we suppose to learn anything about white people from this example?

I've seen far more brown people than white people south of the US line. And yes, we can learn how effective it is when a bunch of whiteys go in to conquer indigenous peoples and impose their sense of "order' while enriching themselves at those indigenous people's expense.

The whole idea of race-based cultural capability is ridiculous.

What's even more ridiculous is to take an ironic/sarcastic reference literally from the "white" perspective.

Even more ridiculous, is to fail to see it applied from the perspective of the "little brown people" - i.e. some arrogant, clueless foreigners coming to your country to tell you how you should do things, run things, and meanwhile, to show your gratitude, you should of course consistently adopt policies favorable to your master's interests.

BTW, "cultural capability" (whatever that is) has nothing to do with "interest" - especially in American-style "democracy."

[Berzerker]

Why is that important to this conversation?

Cheney still out there lying aint important to this conversation? I suggest you read your argument for staying, it came from Cheney and the WH.

AQ is in Iraq now. Does it really matter if they were there before 2003 or before 2001 or before any other date your may pull out of the air for it to affect our decision to stay or to withdraw?

Of course it matters, we're being lied to...still... And I didn't pull 9/11 out of the air

You see, AQ in Iraq working with Saddam serves two purposes for Cheney and Bush - it "justifies" our invasion and it justifies our continued presence because the implication is that AQ wanted to be in Iraq and will stay even if we leave. But as you can see from this conversation the debate is about leaving or staying and Cheney wants to stay, therefore his arguments for staying are relevant. More so since you are here in this conversation repeating the WH line. You've been arguing we should stay because AQ wants to be in Iraq to set up bases. So it matters when AQ showed up and why, and it matters that the WH is still denying these facts and spouting the same ol Bu****.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
I think what Vietnam taught us is that democracy is hard in the midst of a civil war, especially where the other side is anti-democratic. It teaches us nothing about whether "brown" people are capable or desirous of democracy.

That's too bad that thats the only lesson some have learned. It's probably why we are in another similar war. The lesson that we should have learned is that you can't invade a culturally dissimilar country and tell them that they get to be just like us WASPs.

Look at South America, largely white and largely non democratic for most of its history. Are we suppose to learn anything about white people from this example?

huh?

The whole idea of race-based cultural capability is ridiculous.

You can invade a country and say ok you guys are get to vote for your leaders just like we do and have all these other rights, but the country is going to still be very undemocratic in reality. A democracy depends on the sophistication of its citizenry.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


Actually, it seems to me that the Japanese of that era were not so much militaristic as imperialistic. They were going for empire, the so-called East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, or some such, in which the Japanese would have primary commercial rights, just like the Brits in their empire.

Which would have gone nowhere, and we'd have been plagued with a thousand more variations on the Madame Butterfly theme, if the people hadn't supported the Army and Navy, elevated them to an exalted status, and if Japanese hadn't had a history of a warrior society for hundreds of years, leading to the pre-war resurgence of Hagakure as a source of inspiration and emulation. The relative passivity of Japan in the latter half of the 19th century was due to nothing more than catching up from a three century technology gap created by the isolationist and backwards policies of the Tokugawa bakufu.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned


Dr. Strangelove, assuming AQ continues to provide material support for a Sunni victory (however that is defined) after we left, I would find it strange that the Sunni's would not allow AQ to set up bases in Sunni-controlled areas unless that would place them in conflict with their neighbors to an unacceptable degree. Syria would not object. Turkey would, but has no real influence. Jordan would, but again, has no influence to speak of. Saudi Arabia would. But do they have enough influence?

Precisely because there are a number of other Sunni factions within Iraq contesting for control of Iraq is why the Sunnis would not tolerate the continued presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq if they were able to carve out their own state. Al-Qaeda is not the largest Sunnis faction, it's not "native" to Iraq, and it has a long history of not sharing power with others. It would not take the other factions very long to figure out that suffering al_Qaeda to maintain a presence in Iraq would be suicidal. Furthermore I doubt the Syrians would be very happy with an al_Qaeda control state on their border. Syria is run by a "baathist" party, an Arab socialist party. Though there is no doubt that they're Muslims there is a strong secular streak in their ideology. Al-Qaeda considers their ideology an anathema in much the same way as they abhor the current government of Saudi Arabia

I also assume that AQ will continue to suppor the Sunni's after we leave because they will lable the Baghdad government a US puppet that has to be destroyed. Their continued struggle against the government will continue to generate support for AQ in the Sunni communitees across the planet.

They'll stil have to fight the other Sunnis. What happened to the al_Qaeda fighters in Bosnia when the war there came to an end? The Bosnians quickly kicked them out because they were a threat to every other Bosnian faction.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned


Actually, it seems to me that the Japanese of that era were not so much militaristic as imperialistic. They were going for empire, the so-called East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, or some such, in which the Japanese would have primary commercial rights, just like the Brits in their empire.

Au contraire mon ami, Japanese culture at that time was so militaristic that it made Nazi Germany look like a bunch of saffron clad Buddhist monks. Military training in Japan began in elementary school. It was mandatory, in fact the original reason for creating a state sponsored public education system had been to train Japanese kids to be good soldiers. Boys deemed suitable were taken for officer training before they entered puberty! After the war the US government did some studies of the students taksn for officer training. It appears that there was some truth to the stereotyped portrayal of the short little japanese oficer. The initial course of training required that the candidates were to be restricted to a near starvation diet for a prolonged period to toughen them up. This part of their training occurred right at the time when most of the boys would have been entering their maximum growth phase under normal conditions. The end result of this practice was that the Japanese officer corps was actually on average a couple inches shorter than the average Japanese soldier.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
I think what Vietnam taught us is that democracy is hard in the midst of a civil war, especially where the other side is anti-democratic.

Which 'side' was notably democratic in the Viet Nam War ?

NARRATOR: During the late 1950s, Diem's problems grew. Like a traditional Vietnamese mandarin, he drew his small circle closer around him, relying on his family, especially his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu and Nhu's wife. Their secret police, run by Nhu, set out to eliminate Communists and other dissidents.

LE MINH DAO: After the Vietminh army regrouped to the North and the Diem regime took over the South, repression began. Those of us who had directly fought against the French, and people who had helped organize the resistance against them, were the special targets of Diem's revenge.

DR. PHAM THI XUAN QUE: The manners of tortures inflicted upon these people by Ngo Dinh Diem and his hound dogs -- this was our term for the secret police -- were extremely inhumane. We were not Catholics; we only worshipped our ancestors. And so they forced us to throw the altar to the ancestors away and to become Catholics and to denounce the Communists.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/series/pt_02.html

Still, as the saying goes- you can't create a South East Asian 'democracy' without breaking a few Buddhist and ancestor-worshipping heads.

There is an underlying assumption that is very racist. Do I really need to point it out?

Says the man who quotes David Irving, Jew Watch and I.H.R. .





Mr. Pot- be so good as to greet Mr. Kettle.....