I thought Germany and Japan were reborn to be good ole’ capitalist consumers of US.Inc products in the non-Communist US ‘sphere of influence’, etc - remade in ones own free market image … ain’t that how the capitlaist empire works ?
Seems anything else would be to deny the essence the empire ?
Well, Iraq would be. Right now you have a state (Iraq) without a real concept of nationhood. Being Iraqi is just a covering over the people’s identities as Sunni, Shi’ite, Kurd. That’s how they think of themselves first. Our job, or the UN’s job, or whoever’s job, is to make them stop thinking of themselves as Sunni, Shi’ite, Kurd first, and instill in them some idea of being “Iraqi”
Yes, Japan and Germany are part of the American empire. Which is why Germany supported the war and sent troops to Iraq.
Sua
Captain, we are quibbling over semantics, and I’m not even sure the point - if you are correct, than it means that no one has experience in “nation-building,” and OliverH’s assertion that the UN has been successful and nation-building and the US a failure is still incorrect.
But putting that aside, I’m not sure you are correct about Iraq. If the SNP convinces Scotland to secede from the UK, does that mean there never really was a a nation of Great Britain, despite the history of the past four hundred years? If Quebec secedes, was there never a nation of Canada?
Sua
Yeah, like Rwanda!
Also - to add to the discussion about US v. UN adminstration of foreign lands, or nation building - also look to not only Germany and Japan (postwar examples), but also to island nations in the Pacific after WWII. The US was chosen to administer the countries by the UN, and it was successful, and it was ended when the nations were ready to admin on their own. Hell, the UN is still trying to figure out KOSOVO. I think the faster the better, and more efficiently - and that leaves out, pretty much, the UN.
Maybe someone here can remember those pacific countries… For the life of me, I can’t.
Well, America’s current holdings and dependent areas are Hawaii (a state, so not really part of this discussion), Midway Island, the Phillipines, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, American Samoa, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Wake Island.
You can add the Philippines as a former holding. Now, most of those are indeed in the Pacific, but obviously all of them aren’t. I just listed from memory and the CIA Factbook.
My guess would be you were thinking of the Philippines, and maybe the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
Now, the US got the Philippines from Spain in 1898 after the Spanish-American war. Shortly after WWII (1946), the Philippines got independence (after being liberated from Japanese control, of course.) We no longer have a military presence there; however, we still help them and are concerned about the Muslims in the south. Of course, this country was under a dictator for 21 years, so I’m not sure it really qualifies of what you’re thinking of.
Looking through the factbook, I see that Micronesia, the Marshall Islands (which has Bikini Atoll and other Pacific testing sites from the 40s and 50s), the Northern Mariana Islands, and Palau were all trust territories. Reading through the factbook doesn’t make it sound like they are in the best shape economically, but I must admit that I’d rather be at any of those countries than in Afghanistan or Kosovo.
Now, what I find interesting is that America has all these holdings, especially in the Pacific, and no one ever thinks about the Pacific ones unless they’re thinking about history–either WWII or the following nuclear testing–or about Puerto Rico. Heck, several of the Pacific ones are wildlife preserves and have no inhabitants. It’s stuff like this that makes me wonder about people claiming that America is going to build an empire–I’ve never seen a will to empire in this country, and I bet if the government decided to sell, say, Howland Island, or Kingman Reef (what the heck are we doing with a reef anyway?), no one would care.
Couldn’t South Korea be added to the success stories for the U.S. and Haiti as another U.N. disaster?
I believe that there is a possibility that OliverH is from the eastern part of his country.
[ul]
[sup]You better not give away Palmyra Atoll, asterion![/sup][/ul]
WIth all this talk about how France and Germany should be involved, shouldn’t we consider what, oh, the IRAQIS want?
In case no one noticed, France and Germany are not very popular in Iraq right now. The Iraqis know damned well that those two countries did everything they could to stop them from being liberated. Why in hell would they want them to have even the slightest involvement in the reconstruction of their country?
I doubt they would trust France with garbage collection, let alone being involved in the formation of their new government.
Today, the French and German embassies were not just looted, but defaced. A lot of rage got vented in those building today. And outside, American and British soldiers were being kissed.
Just who do you think the Iraqis want working with them? Who has the best chance of developing a reasonable working relationship with the people of Iraq?
Iraq is not a prize to be won, or a child to have shared custody. It is a free country trying to get on its feet and learn how to govern itself. Their wishes matter. Their choices matter. At this moment, the last two countries on the planet they would choose to deal with are France and Germany.
Lure
The United States did in fact ask the rest of the world for an opinion. If I remember Bush’s speech correctly it went something like this, “I would like a UN mandate before I invade, but if I don’t get it I won’t lose any sleep”. As for passing the hat I think you need to take another look at the situation. France is asking for room at the table so they can get their share of the hat now that the United States has control of it. They want their share so that when the new government comes in they can say “See, we helped you rebuild so you should honor all those agreements we had with the Saddam.” That way, they get their $9 billion that they desperately need.
The question the OP asked is should we let them jump on board at this point at all.
OliverH
Read you history. Or the rest of the posts (the faster way). It is easy to show US success (as well as failure) but for the most part the failures were in the projects abandoned too soon.
You are forgetting the biggest rally point of the Liberals in this country – oil. Next, how about the political fall out if they don’t help as they have promised? All the people who supported the war will turn and Bush won’t get reelected. There are now two reasons for you.
Just to make sure I understand you position, does this mean you think the liberation of Iraq defines a breakage? If so, how do you explain all of the Iraqi people praising Bush and thanking him for their liberation. It just doesn’t make logical sense to me; “Thank you for breaking my beloved country” just isn’t something that I can reconcile with my view of the world.
I get so tired of this, but fine if you want to play the game then I will too. Site me a single international law that prohibits this kind of action – just one. It is one thing to say it, something totally different to find an actual law that supports it.
Finally to answer the OP’s original question, I would have to side with Sam Stone. Let them tell us what they want to do and then provide all of the guidance and support that we can. It would be really nice to have a true Arabic ally in that part of the world.
Scrolling up I see,
[quote]
when wil they (France) pay for their shareof the war.
He asked for an opinion,but finding it didn’t coincide with his he proceeded to drop thousands of bombs/shells/bullets on a countries people and infrastucture caused billions of dollars in damage.Because of this he should ask for a handout from those opposed to such an action?
Had he followed a more moderate course like France,et al.favored * that * cost would have most assuredly been less.And I’m not going to go 'round and 'round about the efficacy of taking out a leader rather than finding out that leader had no WOMD,or in the foreseeable future could have,etc.This latest turkey shoot just proved what we knew in’91.the only thing Iraq,or any of the mideast countries surrounding him,be it Iran,Syria,or the rest have are WODDC (that is weapons of dubious destructive capacity).
Just like whenevr Israel got into a jousting match with any,or a combination of them proved,they can’t fight their way out a paper bag against a seriously trained military unit.
If the US needs funds for more power or bandaids or whatever is needed to build up infrastucture or restore peoples homes or whatever,they should first start with the "coalition of the willing"I dunno,maybe Cameroon can send some coffee or bananas or whatever it is they’ve got expertise at raising money from.
Sounds more logical to me.
And note,I’m not talking about “nation building” here,just costs of repairing destroyed property.
We’ve got to take some responsibilty for that
Who is trying to pass responsibility?
I think the OP was more in the line of, “You faught against this war, yet you want to reap the rewards. Put up or shut up.”
Not that I agree that they need to put up or shut up, I don’t think they need to do anything but be there normal contrary selves and practice pissing in their cheerios. But that’s just the American in me talkin’.
For what it’s worth, the OP was posed totally as a joke.
Although it does reflect my feelings towards the French, it certainly doesn’t reflect any sort of proposal I think should actually be offered or accepted.
But I do appreciate the good discussion.