Re: July the 4th - VMS

This is a discussion on Re: July the 4th - VMS ; In article , AEF writes: >On Jul 16, 8:51 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote: >> In article , AEF writes: >> >> >On Jul 11, 11:50 am, Ron Johnson wrote: >> >> On 07/11/07 07:42, Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> >> >> > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Re: July the 4th

  1. Re: July the 4th

    In article <1185158536.821334.227480@k79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>, AEF writes:
    >On Jul 16, 8:51 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    >> In article <1184193800.548881.264...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>, AEF writes:
    >>
    >> >On Jul 11, 11:50 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> >> On 07/11/07 07:42, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

    >>
    >> >> > In article <1184115111.488306.300...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.c om>,
    >> >> > Doug Phillips writes:
    >> >> >> On Jul 10, 5:55 pm, Dirk Munk wrote:
    >> >> >>> JF Mezei wrote:
    >> >> >>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> >> >>>>> When Al Qaeda bombs a marketplace in Iraq, how is that "just"
    >> >> >>>>> resistance by another name?
    >> >> [snip]
    >> >[...]
    >> >> > If the military was allowed to do what the military is supposed to do
    >> >> > the war would have ended within months of the original invasion. When
    >> >> > you allow your enemy to keep his weapons and ammunition because his
    >> >> > "culture" requires him to celebrate weddings bu shooting randomly into
    >> >> > the air how do you stop the fighting?

    >>
    >> >> Hearts and minds, Bill. Hearts and minds.

    >>
    >> >> The big problem is that big armies (especially, AFAICT, the US
    >> >> military) are not designed for "destroy the enemy without destroying
    >> >> the populous".

    >>
    >> >> Not that I think such a task is possible unless the civilian
    >> >> population really wants it to happen.

    >>
    >> >Let's take a look at two success stories: Germany and Japan. We beat
    >> >them in a war. We bombed Germany. We dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan.
    >> >Germany was run by Nazis and now it's a democracy with a large
    >> >economy. Japan was under an emperor and is now a democracy with a
    >> >large economy. Both were guilty of unspeakable cruelties and mass
    >> >murder. And now we're all chums, relatively speaking.

    >>
    >> Germany was a democracy before Hitler came to power. Hitler and the Nazi party
    >> initially came to power through democratic elections.
    >>
    >> The first Japanese General Election took place on July 1st 1890.
    >> The electorate at that time being limited to men who paid more than a certain
    >> amount of tax. This was gradually relaxed and all men over the age of 25 could
    >> vote in elections from 1925 onwards see
    >>
    >> http://www.jiyuu-shikan.org/e/democracy.html
    >>
    >> (There was no female suffrage but that was hardly unusual for pre-war
    >> democracies).
    >>
    >> Hence for both Germany and Japan the rebuilding of Democracy after the war was
    >> just tinkering with a system which had existed in the years immediately prior
    >> to the war and which had been derailed by the economic and political pressures
    >> of the 1930s.

    >
    >But during the war there was no such democracy to tinker with. You
    >actually had to bring it back, which seems quite non-trivial to me.
    >And if we fought the Axis the way we fight in Iraq, well, things would
    >be different.
    >
    >So I guess what you're saying is the fact that there were recent
    >democracies in these countries before the war made it easier to make
    >them democracies after the war. Fine, but we had to decisively win the
    >war first, of course, which is a lot more than just "tinkering".
    >


    Of course the war had to be won. (But the war in Iraq was won just as
    decisively as the war against Germany and Japan. It was the lack of planning
    for the aftermath that was different.)


    There was a solid basis from which to rebuild democracy in both
    Germany and Japan

    1) Japan had a long history as a nation.
    Germany was a newer nation (only really coming into existence in something
    like it's modern form when it became a federal state in 1871) but it's
    people considered themselves to be a single people.

    2) There was in both nations a history of multi-party democratic
    elections prior to the war.

    3) In both Germany and Japan there was a constitution and political and legal
    structures supporting those pre-war democratic elections.

    Hence rebuilding democracy in those countries following the war was relatively
    easy.

    In Iraq democracy, a constitution, democratic political and legal
    structures had to be built from scratch. There was no history of meaningful
    multi-party democratic elections before the war. The country itself had been
    arbitrarily constructed by the British and French drawing lines on the map
    after the first world war which took no account of the wishes of the people.

    Therefore building democracy in Iraq was a much greater challenge than
    rebuilding it in Japan or Germany.



    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University


    >>
    >> David Webb

    >[...]
    >
    >AEF
    >


  2. Re: July the 4th

    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    > Of course the war had to be won. (But the war in Iraq was won just as
    > decisively as the war against Germany and Japan. It was the lack of planning
    > for the aftermath that was different.)



    The point of view is wrong. USA invading Iraq is the equivalent of
    Germany invading France.

    Germany changed a stable regime in France, and it was the allies which
    returned France to a stable regime.

    USA changed a stable regime in Iraq and it is now in a state ov civil
    war. There can be very few definitions of "victory" that could be
    applied to the USA invasion of iraq.

    Victory will come when someone kicks the invadors out and returns Iraq
    to a stable environment. This cannot happen because of the USA's veto at
    the security council, so the civil war continues. Unfortunatly, in the
    USA, there is no intelligent debate on the issue. It is black or white
    only ("surge" or "immediate widthdrawal"). There is no debate on the
    actual way the USA operates in Iraq with the military still very much
    controlling the government and who is allowed to run at elections etc.

    The USA can built its huge embassy, complete with its own power
    generating station and fire hall, but they have yet to build power
    stations to help Iraqis turn their lights back on.

    Hint: Instead of paying huge sums of money to Haliburton and Blackwater,
    the USA needs to get the local government to choose local contractors
    who will hire iraqis to do the rebuilding work. The more iraqis work,
    the fewer iraqis will be throwing bombs on the streets.





    unless the Rumsfeld/Wolffowitz/Cheney plan was to destabilise the
    whole middle east and cause the USA to lose all respect.

  3. Re: July the 4th

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    >
    >> Of course the war had to be won. (But the war in Iraq was won just as
    >> decisively as the war against Germany and Japan. It was the lack of
    >> planning
    >> for the aftermath that was different.)

    >
    >
    >
    > The point of view is wrong. USA invading Iraq is the equivalent of
    > Germany invading France.
    >
    > Germany changed a stable regime in France, and it was the allies which
    > returned France to a stable regime.
    >
    > USA changed a stable regime in Iraq and it is now in a state ov civil
    > war. There can be very few definitions of "victory" that could be
    > applied to the USA invasion of iraq.
    >
    > Victory will come when someone kicks the invadors out and returns Iraq
    > to a stable environment. This cannot happen because of the USA's veto at
    > the security council, so the civil war continues. Unfortunatly, in the
    > USA, there is no intelligent debate on the issue. It is black or white
    > only ("surge" or "immediate widthdrawal"). There is no debate on the
    > actual way the USA operates in Iraq with the military still very much
    > controlling the government and who is allowed to run at elections etc.
    >
    > The USA can built its huge embassy, complete with its own power
    > generating station and fire hall, but they have yet to build power
    > stations to help Iraqis turn their lights back on.
    >


    Iraq was only "stable" because Saddam Hussein shot anyone who disagreed
    with him!

    The U.S. Army *tried* to provide electric generators, water pumps, etc.
    The Iraqis vandalized or stole them!

    The invasion was at least as stupid as our involvment in Vietnam and
    offers about the same chance of "success", however you define "success"!
    Saddam Hussein was a P.O.S. but he was Iraq's problem and we would have
    done better to leave his removal to the Iraqis if they wanted to be rid
    of him. At this point nuclear "carpet bombing" would appear to be the
    only "solution"!


  4. Re: July the 4th

    On Jul 23, 8:48 pm, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    > In article <1185158536.821334.227...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>, AEF writes:
    >
    > >On Jul 16, 8:51 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    > >> In article <1184193800.548881.264...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups. com>, AEF writes:

    >
    > >> >On Jul 11, 11:50 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    > >> >> On 07/11/07 07:42, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

    >
    > >> >> > In article <1184115111.488306.300...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.c om>,
    > >> >> > Doug Phillips writes:
    > >> >> >> On Jul 10, 5:55 pm, Dirk Munk wrote:
    > >> >> >>> JF Mezei wrote:
    > >> >> >>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
    > >> >> >>>>> When Al Qaeda bombs a marketplace in Iraq, how is that "just"
    > >> >> >>>>> resistance by another name?
    > >> >> [snip]
    > >> >[...]
    > >> >> > If the military was allowed to do what the military is supposed to do
    > >> >> > the war would have ended within months of the original invasion. When
    > >> >> > you allow your enemy to keep his weapons and ammunition because his
    > >> >> > "culture" requires him to celebrate weddings bu shooting randomly into
    > >> >> > the air how do you stop the fighting?

    >
    > >> >> Hearts and minds, Bill. Hearts and minds.

    >
    > >> >> The big problem is that big armies (especially, AFAICT, the US
    > >> >> military) are not designed for "destroy the enemy without destroying
    > >> >> the populous".

    >
    > >> >> Not that I think such a task is possible unless the civilian
    > >> >> population really wants it to happen.

    >
    > >> >Let's take a look at two success stories: Germany and Japan. We beat
    > >> >them in a war. We bombed Germany. We dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan.
    > >> >Germany was run by Nazis and now it's a democracy with a large
    > >> >economy. Japan was under an emperor and is now a democracy with a
    > >> >large economy. Both were guilty of unspeakable cruelties and mass
    > >> >murder. And now we're all chums, relatively speaking.

    >
    > >> Germany was a democracy before Hitler came to power. Hitler and the Nazi party
    > >> initially came to power through democratic elections.

    >
    > >> The first Japanese General Election took place on July 1st 1890.
    > >> The electorate at that time being limited to men who paid more than a certain
    > >> amount of tax. This was gradually relaxed and all men over the age of 25 could
    > >> vote in elections from 1925 onwards see

    >
    > >>http://www.jiyuu-shikan.org/e/democracy.html

    >
    > >> (There was no female suffrage but that was hardly unusual for pre-war
    > >> democracies).

    >
    > >> Hence for both Germany and Japan the rebuilding of Democracy after the war was
    > >> just tinkering with a system which had existed in the years immediately prior
    > >> to the war and which had been derailed by the economic and political pressures
    > >> of the 1930s.

    >
    > >But during the war there was no such democracy to tinker with. You
    > >actually had to bring it back, which seems quite non-trivial to me.
    > >And if we fought the Axis the way we fight in Iraq, well, things would
    > >be different.

    >
    > >So I guess what you're saying is the fact that there were recent
    > >democracies in these countries before the war made it easier to make
    > >them democracies after the war. Fine, but we had to decisively win the
    > >war first, of course, which is a lot more than just "tinkering".

    >
    > Of course the war had to be won. (But the war in Iraq was won just as
    > decisively as the war against Germany and Japan. It was the lack of planning
    > for the aftermath that was different.)


    Well, yes and no. The war continues with the insurgency.

    >
    > There was a solid basis from which to rebuild democracy in both
    > Germany and Japan
    >
    > 1) Japan had a long history as a nation.
    > Germany was a newer nation (only really coming into existence in something
    > like it's modern form when it became a federal state in 1871) but it's
    > people considered themselves to be a single people.
    >
    > 2) There was in both nations a history of multi-party democratic
    > elections prior to the war.
    >
    > 3) In both Germany and Japan there was a constitution and political and legal
    > structures supporting those pre-war democratic elections.
    >
    > Hence rebuilding democracy in those countries following the war was relatively
    > easy.


    It helped that we won the war decisively. We did not win the war
    decisively in Iraq because of the insurgency. Yes we toppled Saddam
    but the Sunnis fought on thru the insurgency. I don't recall there
    being such after WWII. Many Iraqi people voted and proudly displayed
    their purple thumbs. So without the insurgency I think it might have
    worked. Yeah, there's plenty of blame to go around. I'm not excusing
    anyone here.

    If you were in Japan's position and had two atomic bombs dropped on
    you and had none of your own and didn't know how many more might be
    coming, I think that would tend to make you a little cooperative, no?
    Germany was devastated also. Iraq, less so, I think.

    AEF

    AEF

    >
    > In Iraq democracy, a constitution, democratic political and legal
    > structures had to be built from scratch. There was no history of meaningful
    > multi-party democratic elections before the war. The country itself had been
    > arbitrarily constructed by the British and French drawing lines on the map
    > after the first world war which took no account of the wishes of the people.
    >
    > Therefore building democracy in Iraq was a much greater challenge than
    > rebuilding it in Japan or Germany.
    >
    > David Webb
    > Security team leader
    > CCSS
    > Middlesex University
    >
    > >> David Webb

    > >[...]

    >
    > >AEF




  5. Re: July the 4th

    JF Mezei schrieb:
    > Unfortunatly, in the
    > USA, there is no intelligent debate on the issue.


    Makes me wonder. I seem to remember that
    "intelligent design" is now taught at US schools ...


  6. Re: July the 4th

    AEF wrote:
    > Oh, and if you can't even guard your own power, how are you going to
    > help anyone else with anything?


    > Have you checked on the practicality of this? They'll still be blown
    > up by insurgents.



    Remember the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz claims that Iraqis would welcome
    the americans with flowers ?

    It failed because the USA military insisted it remain 100% in charge
    wherever it operates. And Iraqis quickly realised they were under
    occupation by americans instead of having been liberated. It failed
    because the "shock and awe" from the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz axis of
    evil was designed to destroy as much infrastructure as possible,
    including the parliament building. The USA didn't need to flaunt its GPS
    guided missiles by destroying the telephone exchanges and targetting
    hotel rooms of Al-Jazeera reporters.

    OUtside the USA, it was well known that Iraq was on the brink of
    collapse from both a water and electricity point of view. Yet the
    americans bombarded power and water facilities (water facilities are
    protected by the geneva convention). They specifically shut down the
    Fallujah water plant to starve remaining inhabitants, and that by itself
    is a war crime.

    It failed because the USA hired its own firms to try to rebuild instead
    of hiring local contractors and generating jobs in Iraq. Iraqis quickly
    realised this and turned against the americans and since then, have made
    sure the americans could not win and would have to leave with their tail
    down.

    And it is the americans who insisted RELIGIONS be fairly represented in
    the muck parliament and this has pitted religions against religion.
    Under Hussein, Iraq was the most secular country in the middle east.
    Tariq Azis wasn't even muslim.

    For the good of the iraqis, the quicker the americans leave, the better.
    But americans must leave in a smart way and be replaced by something else.


    Unfortunatly, they ****ed the Iraqi constitution. The original one had
    nothing wrong with it. Iraq was a secular democratic nation with well
    defined election process. The only problem was that Hussein wanted to
    approve every candidate. (Right now, it is the US generals who approve
    all candidates).

  7. Re: July the 4th

    On 07/23/07 19:48, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > There was a solid basis from which to rebuild democracy in both
    > Germany and Japan
    >
    > 1) Japan had a long history as a nation.
    > Germany was a newer nation (only really coming into existence in something
    > like it's modern form when it became a federal state in 1871) but it's
    > people considered themselves to be a single people.
    >
    > 2) There was in both nations a history of multi-party democratic
    > elections prior to the war.
    >
    > 3) In both Germany and Japan there was a constitution and political and legal
    > structures supporting those pre-war democratic elections.
    >
    > Hence rebuilding democracy in those countries following the war was relatively
    > easy.


    While I agree with item #1, I must mostly-but-not-totally disagree
    with #2 & #3. Especially in regard to Japan.

    In both countries, the war hawks easily took total control of the
    country, and in Japan the Emperor was still a literal deity.

    > In Iraq democracy, a constitution, democratic political and legal
    > structures had to be built from scratch. There was no history of meaningful
    > multi-party democratic elections before the war. The country itself had been
    > arbitrarily constructed by the British and French drawing lines on the map
    > after the first world war which took no account of the wishes of the people.
    >
    > Therefore building democracy in Iraq was a much greater challenge than
    > rebuilding it in Japan or Germany.


    Because of #1, neither Japan nor Germany had the kind of ethno-
    religious strife that Iraq suffers from. Both country's populations
    knew they were *beaten*, and, most importantly, ACCEPTED defeat.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

  8. Re: July the 4th

    AEF wrote:
    > On Jul 23, 9:05 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
    >> davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    >>> Of course the war had to be won. (But the war in Iraq was won just as
    >>> decisively as the war against Germany and Japan. It was the lack of planning
    >>> for the aftermath that was different.)

    >> The point of view is wrong. USA invading Iraq is the equivalent of
    >> Germany invading France.

    >
    > Nonsense. This is wrong in so many ways I don't even know where to
    > begin.


    The reason you don't know where to begin is because JF's comparison,
    while (as are all comparisons) wrong in many *minor* ways, is *right* on
    the main point.

    The U.S. invasion of Iraq and the German invasion of France shared the
    primary characteristic that both constituted illegal aggression without
    a scintilla of legitimacy (i.e., wholly unwarranted save from the
    viewpoint of the self-interest of the aggressor). The only conditions
    under which an invasion would have been legitimate would have been
    either 1) ratification by the U.N. as being necessary or 2) demonstrable
    genocide (*real*, *wide-spread*, and *current*, not just some relatively
    minor incidents from the Iran/Iraq war days of the late '80s that we
    knew about at the time and essentially ignored) coupled with U.N. paralysis.

    > I think it's your reflexive anti-Americanism.


    You clearly aren't thinking at all: if anything here is reflexive, it's
    your attitude.

    Yes, the war as
    > executed was wrong and a big folly.


    No: the war was wrong, *period* - as is all unwarranted aggression. It
    made anything that Saddam was doing to his own people look like very
    small change by comparison: *he* certainly wasn't devastating his
    country's infrastructure and wiping out his population at anything like
    the ~100,000 per year that our invasion has (and don't even think of
    trying to blame some of those deaths on the fact that the Iraqis and
    their friends have had the temerity to *resist* our aggression: that's
    like blaming a rape victim for injuries sustained attempting to fight
    off an attacker).

    How ironic that you wind up sounding so much like a staunch German
    apologist of the '30s: "Yes, a lot of Hitler's actions might be
    considered excessive and could have been far better executed..."

    And I wish it never happened and
    > that we could just get the hell out and deal with the consequences
    > later with air power if necessary.


    It's entirely consistent with your blind jingoism that you think the
    consequences of our aggression could appropriately be dealt with by yet
    more aggression.

    But your equivalence is absolutely
    > absurd.


    The only thing remotely absurd is your pathetic attempt to redefine
    'equivalence' as 'identity' in order to attempt to argue with it.

    >
    >> Germany changed a stable regime in France, and it was the allies which
    >> returned France to a stable regime.
    >>
    >> USA changed a stable regime in Iraq and it is now in a state ov civil
    >> war. There can be very few definitions of "victory" that could be
    >> applied to the USA invasion of iraq.

    >
    > JF, kindly go back to your brilliant marketing write-ups as said
    > brilliance isn't showing up in this post of yours. Your two paragraphs
    > above are a ridiculous analogy.


    No, they're spot on. Other aspects of the situation, however, more
    resemble Germany's annexation of Czechoslovakia (to which the major
    powers actually acquiesced, albeit reluctantly) or its invasion of
    Poland (which resulted only in the 'phony war': no one - except, of
    course, the Poles themselves - got sufficiently upset to actually start
    real fighting until France got over-run).

    >
    >> Victory will come when someone kicks the invadors out and returns Iraq
    >> to a stable environment. This cannot happen because of the USA's veto at
    >> the security council, so the civil war continues. Unfortunatly, in the
    >> USA, there is no intelligent debate on the issue. It is black or white
    >> only ("surge" or "immediate widthdrawal"). There is no debate on the
    >> actual way the USA operates in Iraq with the military still very much
    >> controlling the government and who is allowed to run at elections etc.

    >
    > No, a bloodbath will come when the US leaves.


    A bloodbath for which (if it actually occurs) we will share heavy
    responsibility, since we have created the conditions which favor it.

    ....

    >> Hint: Instead of paying huge sums of money to Haliburton and Blackwater,
    >> the USA needs to get the local government to choose local contractors
    >> who will hire iraqis to do the rebuilding work. The more iraqis work,
    >> the fewer iraqis will be throwing bombs on the streets.

    >
    > Have you checked on the practicality of this? They'll still be blown
    > up by insurgents.


    You complete moron: *the majority of the Iraqi population want us out
    and think that attacking American troops is an appropriate means to that
    end*. *That's* what fuels the 'insurgency': the fact that so many
    Iraqis would rather see continuing internal strife than just lie down
    and submit to our presence. If our actions changed sufficiently
    radically (and credibly) to be considered *supportive* rather than
    *invasive* (which of course there's absolutely no chance in hell of
    seeing, but that just further underlines our responsibility for the
    continuing mess since there are actually things we *could* do to fix
    it), the 'insurgency' would die down rapidly.

    - bill

  9. Re: July the 4th

    Ron Johnson wrote:

    ....

    Both country's populations
    > knew they were *beaten*, and, most importantly, ACCEPTED defeat.


    It's a great deal easier to accept defeat (and even occupation) when 1)
    your countries were the aggressors (and hence were responsible for the
    situation and its consequences) and 2) you have some reason to believe
    that the conquerors don't plan to stay around forever.

    France was beaten in 1940 in a lightning war in many ways similar to
    Iraq War II (complete with installation of a puppet government soon
    thereafter): do you think its population should just have 'accepted
    defeat' without continuing to resist?

    Neither should the Iraqis, and I applaud them for this. Evicting an
    invader is one of the relatively few situation in which doing 'whatever
    it takes' can be justified: even if some of your actions can't avoid
    hurting yourselves in the process, that's *your* judgment call to make.

    - bill

  10. Re: July the 4th

    In article ,
    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
    >
    > Of course the war had to be won. (But the war in Iraq was won just as
    > decisively as the war against Germany and Japan. It was the lack of planning
    > for the aftermath that was different.)


    It had nothing to do with planing and everything to do with politics.
    When we defeated Germany we "occupied" the country. And we were the
    sole legal authority until it was deemed they were ready to re-enter
    world civilization. In Iraq we have never been allowed to exercise
    full control. That's why we still see people (supposed non-combatanta)
    celebrating things like weddings by shooting guns into the air. There
    should be no guns in Iraq except in the hands of American soldiers and
    anyone else seen with one should be considered a target. But, the ROE
    do not allow for that. So, when you see a man (or a woman for that
    matter) waving a gun in public, you can't shoot at him. Of course,
    later on today he may don a mask and shoot at Americans. If the military
    were allowed to handle Iraq like we handled Germany and Japan they may
    not be a democracy yet but at least the violence would have ended.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

+ Reply to Thread