That should be “post-war Japan situation”
Cyberpundit, it was not meant to be a direct analogy, and you know it. Rather, I pointed to Japan as a model, or a useful paradigm for the way in which things would proceed.
In the real world, every situation is different. German occupation was not like Japanese occupation. South Korea was also different. Yet all three are examples of how a democracy can be nurtured and flourish despite the existence of large quantities of American troops on soil. That’s the extent of the comparison I’m making. Your arguments are straw men.
Oh I just saw this:
"There’s a distressing tendency on here to consider Arabs as being a bunch of medieval warring tribes who cannot be ‘civilized’ "
This is the most pathetic straw man of all; pretending that those who don’t believe in the silly, neo-con fantasies are somehow bigots. On the contrary the skepticism is based on the historical factors which I have sketched above which makes the current Iraqi situation different from post-war Japan.
“Rather, I pointed to Japan as a model, or a useful paradigm for the way in which things would proceed.”
Well it’s bad model which has little relevance to the current situation.
“Your arguments are straw men.”
Um do you even know what the term means? You suggest that post-war Japan is a model for post-war Iraq. I show how this is not a valid model because the political and historical context is completely different.
We are the hollow dopers,
The straw men
Our arguments scuttle across the broken glass
Like cites on the basement floor…
“The Lovesong of J. Alfred Punkrock”
Sorry, but saying “You can play the democracy game as long as you play by our rules” isn’t democracy. Yes maybe one day we will have them so completely transformed that we’ll let them go on their own. Maybe, oh I don’t know, when they run out of oil.
That hardly seems like a liberation at all. Really we are there to install a puppet government and a permanent military base just as all the inhabitants of the region fear.
Well, that’s your opinion. Since this is Great Debates, I assume you have some evidence that the administration is planning to install a controlling regime until ‘they run out of oil’?
And you know this how? Cite?
Well, that was a sarcastic remark indicating my suspicions. But if you want to look to Japan and Germany, we still have bases there. And we’ve been there for what, over 50 years? How much more oil do you think Iraq will have at that point?(I wonder actually, if the Japanese actually asked us to leave what our response would be.)
You yourself are the one that said a military presence will be there for a “long, long time”. Now you ask for proof of your own supposition?
It doesn’t have to be a hand picked crony for us to have control either. If the candidates know what happens when they cross us, and we happen to have our military smack dab in the middle of their country, whilst preventing them from developing their own, we don’t need a crony. We can let them play their little game just like they’re sovereign until we don’t need them any more.
Ask Sam Stone. This is simply my interpretation of what he said.
Either we intend to help them self determine or we just want to get rid of Saddam and control the country. If we intend to squash any government that exercises true sovereignity, whilst militarily occupying them, then we effectively have a puppet government.
Japan has developed a great amount of independence, but when it comes down to it, they can’t really argue with us because they depend on us. Japan f’ed up by attacking us so I don’t feel so bad about that. But Iraq did not attack us. Therefore, people have tried to justify it by saying we’re “liberating” it. Which is ridiculous because we want to subvert their sovereignity so that they are completely non-threatening.
Are you asserting that Japan has not been free and democratic this whole time?
The problem here is that you see military presence as equalling U.S. control over the democratic wishes of the population. In the case of all the countries I mentioned, this is just not so.
Man, you guys want it both ways. If the U.S. leaves immediately, you’ll accuse them of ‘abandoning’ Iraq. If they stay, you’ll accuse them of controlling Iraq.
How does Japan depend on the United States? Any more so than say, Canada depends on the United States? Japan has a HUGE military. The 4th largest military budget in the world. Japan can look after itself. Japan has complete autonomy.
Remember when everyone worried about Japan ‘taking over’ the U.S.? Japan was buying up American property, Japan was amassing American debt, Japan’s cars were killing the U.S. auto industry, etc.
I don’t recall the U.S. cracking down militarily on Japan. Do you? Do you remember America pressuring Japan in any way, other than the same way they pressure any other country in the world (i.e. tariffs, etc)?
If you guys want to assert that Japan is a colony of the United States, and that the American military presence there is ready to crack down if Japan steps out of line, then you’d better have some evidence.
For that matter, Germany is being awfully hostile to the U.S. these days. I don’t see anyone raising even the the slightest threat from the 70,000+ troops that are there. In fact, the only possibly threat is that maybe those troops will go home.
The United States is simply not an imperial power. It has no intention of plundering Iraq or controlling that country. The day that country is secure and not under threat from its neighbors or internal warring factions, the U.S. will pack up and go home. A military base that stays in Iraq will be like the base in Saudi Arabia - it will annoy some people, enrage others, but overall the people of Iraq will be glad its there to protect the country. With the stability of the country defended by the U.S. military, economic investment will flow into the region. People will be able to plan for the long term, start businesses, send their kids to school, and in general get on with their lives without the fear of another strongman coming along and taking everything they’ve built up.
I think it’s amazing that the Iraqis themselves are cheering the Americans, yet people at home are wringing their hands and declaring that the Iraqi people will be oppressed by their own government.
You are on pretty slippery ground when you try to purport that the examples of Germany and Japan validate your argument. When you add South Korea to the mix, you have lost contact with the Mother Ship.
The merest awareness of history will advise you that SK was politically oppressive in the extreme: secret police, torture, assasinations, the whole nine yards. Poor choice of example, to say the least.
You paint a rosy picture of occupied Iraq. But its a picture of an occupied Iraq, no matter how much lipstick you smear on the pig. You yourself clearly state that we will prevent certain unwelcome political events from occuring, because it suits our interests. Indeed, you offer such as a welcome development, something we should cheer for, rather than wringing our palsied, liberal hands.
Thats as may be. But it isn’t a democracy unless the people have all the choices available, not just those choices that suit the interests of thier beneficent overlords. Benign tyranny is tyranny, Claudius was no less an oppressor than Caligula, his motives were merely more benign.
I’m saying it enjoys a limited freedom that relies entirely on US military backing. Japan is prohibited from having nuclear weapons. Japan also is constitutionally bound not to use force in international diplomacy. It relies on having the US’s presence to keep itself safe and on it’s strong relationship (fostered by permitting the US military presence) to get it’s way in international politics.
What would happen if they decided to go their own way is speculation. Right now Tokyo will not ask so our hand has not been called. Colin Powell has shown some budging room but says the US doesn’t want to leave. I doubt we would attack them without their politics changing radically, but I think we would simply refuse to go.
The most important point though is that Japan remains friendly. If they did a 180 and decided to become anti-american, belligerent, as well as insisting we leave. I bet we’d attack them in the name of “assuring peace and stability in the region.” The only reason we don’t think we’d attack them is because they’ve been our ally this long.
Iraq shows clearly that simply presenting a threat is enough to require an invasion.
I didn’t say Japan was a colony. I doubt however that we would let a government that was hostile to the US stay in power.
If you call hostile, actually daring to contradict us. What did they do that was so hostile and threatening?
So if they want to elect a former Baath party member we’ll just let them do it?
It would be innocent to think no one in Iraq is happy to see Saddam gone, but this is of course what they want you to see. Think about it. You know plenty of Iraqis have been killed. But how many have you seen so far? I happened to catch a BBC piece that showed injured and dead Iraqi women and children. I guess they were a little too worn out to cheer us, huh?
It’s my considered opinion that any country, given time, can either devolve into a catastrophic totalitarian state, OR, conversely evolve into a pluralistic “refined” place.
Germany, from 1929 to 1939, is a perfect example of the former, and South Africa, from 1993 to 2003 is a perfect example of the latter.
It’s purely a question of fortitude and education. In particular, the “entrenched dogma” of former generations, in some cases, has to die out before a true “new era” will occur - but it’s unwise in the extreme I find to categorically rule out that any region or country on the planet is exempt from these truisms.
Most importantly, it seems to me that if France, or Germany, or Russia were to adopt positions which seriously hindered efforts by the USA to achieve noble goals in Iraq, they would instantly be labelled as adopting “spoiling positions” and their stocks would suffer immeasurably. Indeed, France in particular is already on the precipice of such a fate. I don’t see France, or Germany, or Russia adopting “spoiler” roles in the future - it would be profoundly a “dumb business move”.
Bottom line? The US and Britain are in Iraq now, and there’s nothing the French or Germans or the Russians can do about it - through the UN that is. They can whine all they want, but if they do so, they will merely shoot themselves in the foot business wise.
Apparently, the US wants the French to play a role:
So, if the UN participates, what does a democracy designed by committee look like?
Meet Ahmed Chalabi, future leader of Iraq, darling of the George W. Bush administration, and best buddy to George W. Bush’s petroleum companies: link.
I can’t believe nobody has quoted Tom Lehrer’s “Send the Marines!” yet!
…for might makes right/ until they’ve seen the light/
they’ve got to be protected/all their rights respected/
'til somebody we like can be elected…"