What Do We Do Now? leave Iraq to Iraqis - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

hammer4all · 04-26-2004, 10:28 PM

An excellent column on why we should get out of Iraq -- by historian Howard Zinn.

Quote:

Published in the June, 2004 issue of The Progressive
What Do We Do Now?
by Howard Zinn

It seems very hard for some people--especially those in high places, but also those striving for high places--to grasp a simple truth: The United States does not belong in Iraq. It is not our country. Our presence is causing death, suffering, destruction, and so large sections of the population are rising against us. Our military is then reacting with indiscriminate force, bombing and shooting and rounding up people simply on "suspicion."

Amnesty International, a year after the invasion, reported: "Scores of unarmed people have been killed due to excessive or unnecessary use of lethal force by coalition forces during public demonstrations, at checkpoints, and in house raids. Thousands of people have been detained [estimates range from 8,500 to 15,000], often under harsh conditions, and subjected to prolonged and often unacknowledged detention. Many have been tortured or ill-treated, and some have died in custody."

The recent battles in Fallujah brought this report from Amnesty International: "Half of at least 600 people who died in the recent fighting between Coalition forces and insurgents in Fallujah are said to have been civilians, many of them women and children."

In light of this, any discussion of "What do we do now?" must start with the understanding that the present U.S. military occupation is morally unacceptable.

The suggestion that we simply withdraw from Iraq is met with laments: "We mustn't cut and run. . . . We must stay the course. . . . Our reputation will be ruined. . . ." That is exactly what we heard when, at the start of the Vietnam escalation, some of us called for immediate withdrawal. The result of staying the course was 58,000 Americans and several million Vietnamese dead.

"We can't leave a vacuum there." I think it was John Kerry who said that. What arrogance to think that when the United States leaves a place there's nothing there! The same kind of thinking saw the enormous expanse of the American West as "empty territory" waiting for us to occupy it, when hundreds of thousands of Indians lived there already.

The history of military occupations of Third World countries is that they bring neither democracy nor security. The long U.S. occupation of the Philippines, following a bloody war in which American troops finally subdued the Filipino independence movement, did not lead to democracy, but rather to a succession of dictatorships, ending with Fernando Marcos.

The long U.S. occupations of Haiti (1915-1934) and the Dominican Republic (1916-1926) led only to military rule and corruption in both countries.

The only rational argument for continuing on the present course is that things will be worse if we leave. There will be chaos, there will be civil war, we are told. In Vietnam, supporters of the war promised a bloodbath if U.S. troops withdrew. That did not happen.

There is a history of dire forecasts for what will happen if we desist from deadly force. If we did not drop the bomb on Hiroshima, it was said, we would have to invade Japan and huge casualties would follow. We know now, and knew then, that was not true, but to acknowledge that did not fit the government's political agenda. The U.S. had broken the Japanese code and had intercepted the cables from Tokyo to the emissary in Moscow, which made clear that the Japanese were ready to surrender so long as the position of the Emperor was secure.

Truth is, no one knows what will happen if the United States withdraws. We face a choice between the certainty of mayhem if we stay and the uncertainty of what will follow.

There is a possibility of reducing that uncertainty by replacing a U.S. military presence with an international nonmilitary presence. It is conceivable that the United Nations should arrange, as U.S. forces leave, for a multinational team of peacekeepers and negotiators, including, importantly, people from the Arab countries. Such a group might bring together Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, and work out a solution for self-governance, which would give all three groups a share in political power.

Simultaneously, the U.N. should arrange for shipments of food and medicine, from the U.S. and other countries, as well as a corps of engineers to begin the reconstruction of the country.

In a situation that is obviously bad and getting worse, some see the solution in enlarging the military presence. The rightwing columnist David Brooks wrote in mid-April: "I never thought it would be this bad," but he then expressed his joy that President Bush is "acknowledging the need for more troops." This fits the definition of fanaticism: "When you find you're going in the wrong direction, you double your speed."

John Kerry, sadly (for those of us who hoped for a decisive break from the Bush agenda), echoes that fanaticism. If he learned any thing from his experience in Vietnam, he has forgotten it. There, too, repeated failure to win the support of the Vietnamese people led to sending more and more troops into Tennyson's "valley of death."

In a recent piece in The Washington Post, Kerry talks about "success" in military terms. "If our military commanders request more troops we should deploy them." He seems to think that if we "internationalize" our disastrous policy, it becomes less of a disaster. "We also need to renew our effort to attract international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of security in Iraq." Is that what brings security--"boots on the ground"?

Kerry suggests: "We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops from major powers." More troops, more troops. And the U.S. must be in charge--that old notion that the world can trust our leadership--despite our long record of moral failure.

To those who worry about what will happen in Iraq after our troops leave, they should consider the effect of having foreign troops: continued, escalating bloodshed, continued insecurity, increased hatred for the United States in the entire Muslim world of over a billion people, and increased hostility everywhere.

The effect of that will be the exact opposite of what our political leaders--of both parties--claim they intend to achieve, a "victory" over terrorism. When you inflame the anger of an entire population, you have enlarged the breeding ground for terrorism.

What of the other long-term effects of continued occupation? I'm thinking of the poisoning of the moral fiber of our soldiers--being forced to kill, maim, imprison innocent people, becoming the pawns of an imperial power after they were deceived into believing they were fighting for freedom, democracy, against tyranny.

I'm thinking of the irony that those very things we said our soldiers were dying for--giving their eyes, their limbs for--are being lost at home by this brutal war. Our freedom of speech is diminished, our electoral system corrupted, Congressional and judicial checks on executive power nonexistent.

And the costs of the war--the $400 billion military budget (which Kerry, shockingly, refuses to consider lowering)--make it inevitable that people in this country will suffer from lack of health care, a deteriorating school system, dirtier air and water. Corporate power is unregulated and running wild.

Kerry does not seem to understand that he is giving away his strongest card against Bush--the growing disillusion with the war among the American public. He thinks he is being clever, by saying he will wage the war better than Bush. But by declaring his continued support for the military occupation, he is climbing aboard a sinking ship.

We do not need another war President. We need a peace President. And those of us in this country who feel this way should make our desire known in the strongest of ways to the man who may be our next occupant of the White House.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0426-06.htm

And if you liked that column, here is another of his describing some of the consequences of war including some things we don't generally think about.

Lebell · 04-26-2004, 10:36 PM

He writes well.

Unfortunately, he also revises history well.

Just two examples:

There was a bloodbath when we left Viet Nam. Anyone who was even remotely connected with the South was slaughtered.

Hiroshima.

Wow, that has been discussed ad nauseum on this board, but he talks as if it is common knowledge that we didn't have to drop the bomb instead of a minority opinion.

I'm sorry, but he has no credibility in my eyes.

hammer4all · 04-26-2004, 11:55 PM

Zinn is a well respected historian. I don't know much about the "bloodbath" (I don't have time to look), but the attack on Hiroshima was unnecessary.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...hiroshima.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/1945.html

Lebell · 04-27-2004, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hammer4all
Zinn is a well respected historian. I don't know much about the "bloodbath" (I don't have time to look), but the attack on Hiroshima was unnecessary.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...hiroshima.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/1945.html

As I said, Hiroshima has been covered extensively on this board and Zinn's is the minority opinion.

hammer4all · 04-27-2004, 12:51 AM

With all do respect, this board does not have a monopoly on the truth. Now, if you don't want to discuss this any further that is fine, but I'm not the one who brought it up.

Lebell · 04-27-2004, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hammer4all
With all do respect, this board does not have a monopoly on the truth. Now, if you don't want to discuss this any further that is fine, but I'm not the one who brought it up.

I never claimed it did.

I simply stated that your historian doesn't have a lot of credibility as far as I am concerned and why.

Pacifier · 04-27-2004, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
As I said, Hiroshima has been covered extensively on this board and Zinn's is the minority opinion.

for an amrican, yes.

He has some good point, but I don't like the idea that the US leaves Iraq. They made the mess, they have to clean it. Leaving in a hurry could result in a much bigger mess (kurds in the noth declare independence -> turkey intervens)

But I also don't know what to do, unlike other people I think the situation in Iraq is far from "normal" or is "good". And I'm afraid things will get worse.

Lebell · 04-27-2004, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pacifier
for an amrican, yes.

Feel free to dig it up again and I'll feel free to shoot that down again.

Aletheia · 04-27-2004, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hammer4all
Zinn is a well respected historian.

By who?

onetime2 · 04-27-2004, 04:09 AM

I only needed to read the first paragraph.

Quote:

Our military is then reacting with indiscriminate force, bombing and shooting and rounding up people simply on "suspicion."

The man is an ass.

Seaver · 04-27-2004, 05:50 AM

Wow this guy is a freaking moron.

Quote:

Our military is then reacting with indiscriminate force, bombing and shooting and rounding up people simply on "suspicion."

Strike one.

Quote:

The history of military occupations of Third World countries is that they bring neither democracy nor security

How convenient he left out the three largest military occupations, Germany/Japan/Italy, ended with two of those countries in the top 5 industrial and democratic countries in the world. Strike two.

Quote:

The only rational argument for continuing on the present course is that things will be worse if we leave. There will be chaos, there will be civil war, we are told. In Vietnam, supporters of the war promised a bloodbath if U.S. troops withdrew. That did not happen.

As stated before, it DID happen. Anyone with any ties to Americans or S. Vietnamese government was slaughtered... along with their families. Dont make up history to prove a point. Strike three.

Quote:

Simultaneously, the U.N. should arrange for shipments of food and medicine, from the U.S. and other countries, as well as a corps of engineers to begin the reconstruction of the country.

How quaint. So you want another Mogadishu... food goes in, but none of the people get it. Strike four?

As stated above, this guy is a moron. Dont like the fact we're in Iraq? fine by me, I wasn't sure about it myself. But the fact is we can not back out, no matter how much these cowards want it.

Pacifier · 04-27-2004, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seaver

Strike one.

hmm, why are you guys so quickly dismissing this issue? Is it that you believe "out military" doesn't do such things? Or is it because newsmax hastn't reported it?

Quote:

Originally posted by Seaver
How convenient he left out the three largest military occupations, Germany/Japan/Italy, ended with two of those countries in the top 5 industrial and democratic countries in the world. Strike two.

He was talking about 3rd world countries, none of the nations above was a 3rd world country.
And I said it before, you cannot compare Germany and Japan to the current situation in Iraq.

Quote:

Originally posted by Seaver
How quaint. So you want another Mogadishu...

Yep another mogadishu would be stupid, bombs and kliing people just don't solve everything....

onetime2 · 04-27-2004, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pacifier
hmm, why are you guys so quickly dismissing this issue? Is it that you believe "out military" doesn't do such things? Or is it because newsmax hastn't reported it?

The military does not use indiscriminate force. Anyone who thinks they do has no concept of the use of military force, especially in the midst of a political and military tinderbox.

OFKU0 · 04-27-2004, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
The military does not use indiscriminate force. Anyone who thinks they do has no concept of the use of military force, especially in the midst of a political and military tinderbox.

If that is the case, then why didn't the U.S drop leaflets telling the Iraqi's they were there to help them rather than decimating Bagdad night after night for weeks on end. Invading a country with ill thought reasoning is indiscriminate in itself, never mind the force used.

onetime2 · 04-27-2004, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by OFKU0
If that is the case, then why didn't the U.S drop leaflets telling the Iraqi's they were there to help them rather than decimating Bagdad night after night for weeks on end. Invading a country with ill thought reasoning is indiscriminate in itself, never mind the force used.

Why not just drop flowers then, eh? I call bullshit on the whole concept that the attack was ill thought or indiscriminate.

Robb@EPE · 04-27-2004, 08:21 AM

How quickly people forget what 'indiscriminate bombing' really is. Seen any pictures of London or Berlin during WWII? Or any of the other cities that were nightly bombed? THAT's indiscriminate bombing. The US strategically bombed Iraq, and they DID drop leaflets over the city, with instructions on how NOT to get killed by American forces.

You have to stop believing all the naysayers out there who just LOVE to make the USA look bad. We aren't animals, we don't kill for pleasure. War is ugly, and bad things happen. I don't think we should sugar coat it for the world either. They need to be shown what you face if you mess with the US.

irateplatypus · 04-27-2004, 09:04 AM

can we please put the brakes posting these poorly conceived editorials? at least give us some of your own insight/analysis with it.

Lebell · 04-27-2004, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by irateplatypus
can we please put the brakes posting these poorly conceived editorials? at least give us some of your own insight/analysis with it.

I don't see a reason to "put the brakes on", since people around here usually shoot down the poorly concieved ones pretty quickly.

Seaver · 04-27-2004, 10:04 AM

Quote:

hmm, why are you guys so quickly dismissing this issue? Is it that you believe "out military" doesn't do such things? Or is it because newsmax hastn't reported it?

Because not only am I a member of the US military but 7 of my uncles and my father served in various wars. They know what goes on much more than you. While various things occur which are tragic nothing is intentional.

You may point out civilians caught in crossfire. It's the Iraqis that are forcing women/children to run into the fight to grab fallen weapons, while the Americans yell at them to stay low. It is the untrained militia that fire wildly killing the civilians, not the highly accurate US grunt.

It is the Iraqis that are forcing the US to use weapons against Mosques. Or would you rather allow them to fire from behind those sacred monuments?

Quote:

He was talking about 3rd world countries, none of the nations above was a 3rd world country.

You cant honestly tell me that by the end of the war those countries couldnt be classified as a 3rd world nation. No industry left, no military left, no government structure, no economy of any kind.

Strike one for you.

Quote:

Yep another mogadishu would be stupid, bombs and kliing people just don't solve everything....

And giving presents to Hitler/Stalin/Mao would have convinced them to stand down huh? Strike two for you.

Quote:

If that is the case, then why didn't the U.S drop leaflets telling the Iraqi's they were there to help them rather than decimating Bagdad night after night for weeks on end

They did, my uncle flew in the C-130 that dropped them.

Wow, strike three what do you know...

Pacifier · 04-27-2004, 10:27 AM

First, if you would like to discuss knock that "strike" BS off!

Quote:

Originally posted by Seaver
While various things occur which are tragic nothing is intentional.

No civillian was ever shot by a member of the US military intentional? In any of the laste couple of Wars the US fought in?

Quote:

Originally posted by Seaver
You cant honestly tell me that by the end of the war those countries couldnt be classified as a 3rd world nation. No industry left, no military left, no government structure, no economy of any kind.

No, to be classified as a 3rd world country is requires more than just the point you mentioned above. Germany and Japan were nowhere compareable to the current post war Iraq .

Quote:

Originally posted by Seaver
And giving presents to Hitler/Stalin/Mao would have convinced them to stand down huh? Strike two for you.

´
every situation is like WW2, every dictator is like hitler and the world is black and white...

matthew330 · 04-27-2004, 10:42 AM

Is that really where you want the argument to go? Guessing the intention of one particular individual who fought for the Americans in one of the last few wars we've been in. You suggested it was common practice by saying that "our military'" as a whole uses indiscriminate force and shoots people on suspicion. I'd be interested in knowing the numbers of american soldiers who have been killed as a result of the "discrimination" they use. I'm sure they're families would appreciate that remark

assilem · 04-27-2004, 11:30 AM

I'm with Seaver. Zinn is an ass. Always has been.

Seaver · 04-27-2004, 11:58 AM

Quote:

No, to be classified as a 3rd world country is requires more than just the point you mentioned above. Germany and Japan were nowhere compareable to the current post war Iraq

You're right... Iraq is better currently than Germany/Japan were then.

Lets see here:

Bridges: destroyed in both cases
Infrastructure: Iraq has electricity/water/sanitation... G/J had none
Government: being built, enforced through occupying forces... same for both
Post-War battles: Occured in Germany, Japan recieved orders to stop fighting by their emperor which quelled down insurgency. Occupation in Germany to quelle fighting lasted for two years after the war, it will probably last as long for Iraq. So same for both.
Natural Resources: Germans greatest resource (skilled labor force) was obliterated, along with all industry. Japanese greatest resources (labor force and highly skilled army/navy) was completely obliterated. Iraqis greatest resources (oil and skilled labor force) remains intact.
International Grants/Loans: G/J had the massive monetary grant to rebuild their economy, same will come to Iraq.

Wow, seems to me that Iraq is in fact in a better position for nation building than Post-WWII occupied countries... strike four for you.

nanofever · 04-27-2004, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seaver
You're right... Iraq is better currently than Germany/Japan were then.

Lets see here:

Bridges: destroyed in both cases
Infrastructure: Iraq has electricity/water/sanitation... G/J had none
Government: being built, enforced through occupying forces... same for both
Post-War battles: Occured in Germany, Japan recieved orders to stop fighting by their emperor which quelled down insurgency. Occupation in Germany to quelle fighting lasted for two years after the war, it will probably last as long for Iraq. So same for both.
Natural Resources: Germans greatest resource (skilled labor force) was obliterated, along with all industry. Japanese greatest resources (labor force and highly skilled army/navy) was completely obliterated. Iraqis greatest resources (oil and skilled labor force) remains intact.
International Grants/Loans: G/J had the massive monetary grant to rebuild their economy, same will come to Iraq.

Wow, seems to me that Iraq is in fact in a better position for nation building than Post-WWII occupied countries... strike four for you.

Assertions without warrants or sources have no value. If you want to go on a tangent about history, you need to provide sources.

Zeld2.0 · 04-27-2004, 07:16 PM

Oh no, my father served and I serve so suddenly I'm the master at this. Well uh great, its not like others here haven't served, and the claim to fame that so many family members served is great - then one realizes others do too. Try to take the high ground?

EIther way this is a classic example of those who aren't willing to consider the other side and are willing to dismiss it first hand simply because they don't agree with a few lines

And Seaver, listing things there does not mean a bit when the location, situatin in the world, and ideology are quite different.

Anyone can build a country up with the resources the U.S. has if the area is safe without the geopolitical implications of failure, but Iraq is far different from Germany and Japan than a few bridges and money.

Seaver · 04-27-2004, 08:33 PM

My point was I think being raised in the military, and currently serving myself, I think I know a little more about what goes on than someone who reads radical publications which rely on statistics that have no validity.

I didnt simply dismiss this guy, I read everything he had to say, and tore his argument to pieces. There is a difference, it is like expecting people to agree with neo-nazis because they can spew out a few statistics which simply dont add up.

nanofever, read any books on the post-WWII period. Thats the sources I used in a 15 page report less than a year ago, I dont feel like pulling them back up atm.

zeld my point was they face almost the exact same geopolitical and economic problems, I dont see much of a difference besides location and religion.

analog · 04-27-2004, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by irateplatypus
can we please put the brakes posting these poorly conceived editorials? at least give us some of your own insight/analysis with it.

"Poorly conceived" to one is "brilliant" to another. We, as moderators, are here to (among other things) make sure that discussion, when possible, can continue and flourish without interference (flaming, trolling, etc.). This goal is not attained by every moderator putting the kill on every thread with which they disagree, which is why these types are allowed to continue without a problem. Flaming/trolling types of "poorly conceived" threads are a separate matter.

Also, in addition to that, it is TONS of fun to sit back and watch you all tear it apart. Believe me, it's very satisfying.

Zeld2.0 · 04-27-2004, 11:04 PM

location and religion figure big enough - many would say location is what made america, america, and religion is what it is and history vindicates that

and the same geopolitical situation? in the world? last i checked, Germany, Japan and Italy had much to go with the Cold War going on greatly influencing their nations

economic? whole different era here we're speaking of as well as resource wise, resources are only so good as the people are willing to use them

i'd like to believe Iraq will follow the Germany / Japan model but given the situation there, in the world, the neighboring nations, and our own status, the situation is not as easy to predict given the different circumstances

p.s. the cold war is big

Pacifier · 04-28-2004, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seaver
I dont see much of a difference besides location and religion.

that are very important issues. Their different religion results in different value, in different "moral concepts". It makes it harder for the cooperation between USA and the iraqi people.
It also results in different religious groups (shiites and Sunnites), something we didn't had in Germany.
But I'm afraid the US Administration was, just like you, unable to see that or considered it not to be important.

reconmike · 04-28-2004, 01:19 PM

With the renewed attack on Fallujah I am seeing this administration's goal to completely finish this war by allowing the US military to control the tactics.
I believe that The Bush administration is done with the public polls, and it is in his and our's as a nation interests that we finish this war decisively.

We have tried the diplomatic routes and it didnt work.

Now the US will take back Fallujah, with the force that should be expected.
Which we have told the world of our intention, if the Iraqi resistience use a mosque, hospital, or another civilian structure it becomes a military target.

Probably after that Najaf will come under complete US control.
With the same force.

The end of June hand over date is looking brighter.

Seaver · 04-28-2004, 01:19 PM

Quote:

But I'm afraid the US Administration was, just like you, unable to see that or considered it not to be important.

Actually I do consider it important, but what is more important than the religious differences are the tribal divisions.

"But wait... thats not what I've been hearing on the news!"

Do some research and you'll understand. You want resources? Read Neo-Tribalism in Iraq: Saddam Hussein's Tribal Policies 1991-96. By Amatizia Baram

Tribes transend the religious divisions in Iraq, hell the majority of Shi'it tribes supported Saddam in the uprisings in '91, not because they were scared but because of his policy divisions. If religion was the major division they would have supported the revolt dont you think?

No need to go down to the level of attacking me or my thoughts by the way, because I back them up.

BTW Zeld... good points. I dont agree with the amount of influence you hold true but definately valid points.

SLM3 · 04-28-2004, 10:46 PM

Western democracy is based on constitutional liberalism which is a concept not in place in Iraq. It takes a long time to cement these ideas. To compare Iraq to post WWII Germany, etc. is to ignore the true precursors for democracy.

SLM3

Zeld2.0 · 04-28-2004, 11:31 PM

To add onto SLM3...

Take South Vietnam for example. After the Geneva settlement in 1956, the United States still supplied a great amount of money, supplies, and experts to South Vietnam. Under Eisenhower and then Kennedy we attempted what we call "nation-building."

We wanted to build South Vietnam into a democracy following the United States model.

A major underlying factor, however, that many do not catch is the concept of democracy is different in places around the world. Asian societies, including Vietnam, are often built on Confucanism. In Confucianism, there is no such thing as multiple truths - there is just one absolute truth.

Thus, there is no pluralistic background in Vietnamese society. In America, we can take an issue, say education, and look at it from different views, and still we are able to not only agree with a core set of beliefs (in other words, what makes Americans, American) while we look at subjects in multiple ways that we hold true. In Vietnam, divided into sects and groups, there was no middle ground of compromise.

Democracy failed in a society with no pluralistic background. It failed in a society that had long been built on autocracy. Hundreds and even thousands of years under Emperors, under foreign powers such as China and then the French, left the society away from democracy.

This is why many believe Russia may never fully achieve democracy as we know it. They, for thousands of years, have lived under autocratic and often times ruthless leaders. Just decades ago, they lived under a totalitarian regime.

This is why many do not see democracy in China as we know it in any time soon. The Chinese themselves are not all the same - within China alone there are thousands of dialects and different groups and ethnicities inside. Their history is one long of autocratic rule from the inside and outside.

One might bring up Japan and ask why Japan, an Asian country, was different. But Japan did have a democratic tradition extending from the Meiji period to the late 20's / early 30s when the military took over. The end of World War II esentially restored the government back to where it had been, a democracy.

Different nations and different people live with different beliefs and ideas. The United States is a relative newcomer to the world stage when compared to these countries built upon ancient civilizations. Iraq is at the heart of the Fertile Crescent where early civilization began. These are long roots extending far into the past.

With religion thrown into the mix, it takes more than simple bridges and comparisons with nations to show why "nation building" isn't the simple pump cash in and impose a constitution. Its why democracies vary from nation to nation. Its why societies and governments are different all throughout.

Whew what a bunch of typing

Pacifier · 04-29-2004, 12:31 AM

very good posting Zeld.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
This is why many believe Russia may never fully achieve democracy as we know it.

Yes, and we should start asking if it is really necessary that all nations have a goverment style as we know it. Should we start to accept that there are many different ways for a nation to become a "happy" nation. That there are even different kinds of "happieness"

I'm afraid this arrogance, this "we tell you how to live" attitude is a major part in why those people don't like us. Who likes beeing bossed around?

Harman · 04-29-2004, 05:44 AM

You're the Man!!

Tell them!!!

04-26-2004, 10:36 PM	#2 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	He writes well. Unfortunately, he also revises history well. Just two examples: There was a bloodbath when we left Viet Nam. Anyone who was even remotely connected with the South was slaughtered. Hiroshima. Wow, that has been discussed ad nauseum on this board, but he talks as if it is common knowledge that we didn't have to drop the bomb instead of a minority opinion. I'm sorry, but he has no credibility in my eyes. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

04-27-2004, 09:04 AM	#17 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	can we please put the brakes posting these poorly conceived editorials? at least give us some of your own insight/analysis with it. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

04-27-2004, 11:30 AM	#22 (permalink)
assilem Insane Location: Eternity	I'm with Seaver. Zinn is an ass. Always has been. __________________ The mother of mankind, what time his pride Had cast him out from Heaven, with all his host Of rebel Angels

04-27-2004, 11:04 PM	#28 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	location and religion figure big enough - many would say location is what made america, america, and religion is what it is and history vindicates that and the same geopolitical situation? in the world? last i checked, Germany, Japan and Italy had much to go with the Cold War going on greatly influencing their nations economic? whole different era here we're speaking of as well as resource wise, resources are only so good as the people are willing to use them i'd like to believe Iraq will follow the Germany / Japan model but given the situation there, in the world, the neighboring nations, and our own status, the situation is not as easy to predict given the different circumstances p.s. the cold war is big Last edited by Zeld2.0; 04-28-2004 at 02:38 PM..

04-28-2004, 01:19 PM	#30 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	With the renewed attack on Fallujah I am seeing this administration's goal to completely finish this war by allowing the US military to control the tactics. I believe that The Bush administration is done with the public polls, and it is in his and our's as a nation interests that we finish this war decisively. We have tried the diplomatic routes and it didnt work. Now the US will take back Fallujah, with the force that should be expected. Which we have told the world of our intention, if the Iraqi resistience use a mosque, hospital, or another civilian structure it becomes a military target. Probably after that Najaf will come under complete US control. With the same force. The end of June hand over date is looking brighter. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

04-26-2004, 11:55 PM	#3 (permalink)
hammer4all Insane	Zinn is a well respected historian. I don't know much about the "bloodbath" (I don't have time to look), but the attack on Hiroshima was unnecessary. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...hiroshima.html http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/1945.html

04-27-2004, 12:51 AM	#5 (permalink)
hammer4all Insane	With all do respect, this board does not have a monopoly on the truth. Now, if you don't want to discuss this any further that is fine, but I'm not the one who brought it up.

04-27-2004, 08:21 AM	#16 (permalink)
Robb@EPE Upright	How quickly people forget what 'indiscriminate bombing' really is. Seen any pictures of London or Berlin during WWII? Or any of the other cities that were nightly bombed? THAT's indiscriminate bombing. The US *strategically* bombed Iraq, and they DID drop leaflets over the city, with instructions on how NOT to get killed by American forces. You have to stop believing all the naysayers out there who just LOVE to make the USA look bad. We aren't animals, we don't kill for pleasure. War is ugly, and bad things happen. I don't think we should sugar coat it for the world either. They need to be shown what you face if you mess with the US.

04-27-2004, 10:42 AM	#21 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	Is that really where you want the argument to go? Guessing the intention of one particular individual who fought for the Americans in one of the last few wars we've been in. You suggested it was common practice by saying that "our military'" as a whole uses indiscriminate force and shoots people on suspicion. I'd be interested in knowing the numbers of american soldiers who have been killed as a result of the "discrimination" they use. I'm sure they're families would appreciate that remark

04-27-2004, 07:16 PM	#25 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Oh no, my father served and I serve so suddenly I'm the master at this. Well uh great, its not like others here haven't served, and the claim to fame that so many family members served is great - then one realizes others do too. Try to take the high ground? EIther way this is a classic example of those who aren't willing to consider the other side and are willing to dismiss it first hand simply because they don't agree with a few lines And Seaver, listing things there does not mean a bit when the location, situatin in the world, and ideology are quite different. Anyone can build a country up with the resources the U.S. has if the area is safe without the geopolitical implications of failure, but Iraq is far different from Germany and Japan than a few bridges and money.

04-27-2004, 08:33 PM	#26 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	My point was I think being raised in the military, and currently serving myself, I think I know a little more about what goes on than someone who reads radical publications which rely on statistics that have no validity. I didnt simply dismiss this guy, I read everything he had to say, and tore his argument to pieces. There is a difference, it is like expecting people to agree with neo-nazis because they can spew out a few statistics which simply dont add up. nanofever, read any books on the post-WWII period. Thats the sources I used in a 15 page report less than a year ago, I dont feel like pulling them back up atm. zeld my point was they face almost the exact same geopolitical and economic problems, I dont see much of a difference besides location and religion.

04-28-2004, 10:46 PM	#32 (permalink)
SLM3 Insane	Western democracy is based on constitutional liberalism which is a concept not in place in Iraq. It takes a long time to cement these ideas. To compare Iraq to post WWII Germany, etc. is to ignore the true precursors for democracy. SLM3

04-28-2004, 11:31 PM	#33 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	To add onto SLM3... Take South Vietnam for example. After the Geneva settlement in 1956, the United States still supplied a great amount of money, supplies, and experts to South Vietnam. Under Eisenhower and then Kennedy we attempted what we call "nation-building." We wanted to build South Vietnam into a democracy following the United States model. A major underlying factor, however, that many do not catch is the concept of democracy is different in places around the world. Asian societies, including Vietnam, are often built on Confucanism. In Confucianism, there is no such thing as multiple truths - there is just one absolute truth. Thus, there is no pluralistic background in Vietnamese society. In America, we can take an issue, say education, and look at it from different views, and still we are able to not only agree with a core set of beliefs (in other words, what makes Americans, American) while we look at subjects in multiple ways that we hold true. In Vietnam, divided into sects and groups, there was no middle ground of compromise. Democracy failed in a society with no pluralistic background. It failed in a society that had long been built on autocracy. Hundreds and even thousands of years under Emperors, under foreign powers such as China and then the French, left the society away from democracy. This is why many believe Russia may never fully achieve democracy as we know it. They, for thousands of years, have lived under autocratic and often times ruthless leaders. Just decades ago, they lived under a totalitarian regime. This is why many do not see democracy in China as we know it in any time soon. The Chinese themselves are not all the same - within China alone there are thousands of dialects and different groups and ethnicities inside. Their history is one long of autocratic rule from the inside and outside. One might bring up Japan and ask why Japan, an Asian country, was different. But Japan did have a democratic tradition extending from the Meiji period to the late 20's / early 30s when the military took over. The end of World War II esentially restored the government back to where it had been, a democracy. Different nations and different people live with different beliefs and ideas. The United States is a relative newcomer to the world stage when compared to these countries built upon ancient civilizations. Iraq is at the heart of the Fertile Crescent where early civilization began. These are long roots extending far into the past. With religion thrown into the mix, it takes more than simple bridges and comparisons with nations to show why "nation building" isn't the simple pump cash in and impose a constitution. Its why democracies vary from nation to nation. Its why societies and governments are different all throughout. Whew what a bunch of typing Last edited by Zeld2.0; 04-28-2004 at 11:33 PM..

04-29-2004, 05:44 AM	#35 (permalink)
Harman Upright Location: Belgium	You're the Man!! Tell them!!!