Quote:
Originally Posted by eleanoraquitaine
I am well aware of the internal opposition to the iranian regime and our covert support of them. There are many iranians working with us to bring democracy to their country, seizing democracy as you say. There is no reason we can't help them. Further, your point that they MUST seize it rather than having it handed to them, while valid, is directly questioned by numerous examples of cultures conquering others and then being willingly assimilated (Greek, Roman, etc), even in the case of democracies, like Germany and Japan for instance.
|
There are differences again -- Greek and Roman are far too old to compare in this. I will use German and Japan for that purpose, since they are your examples.
Firstly though, we do NOT support the internal dissidents in Iran. We don't support ANYTHING in Iran. That's the inherent problem. We are looking at a military solution without considering the diplomatic or covert one. If it was true that we were already helping internal residents rally the people instead of trying to force change down their throats, then I'd give it a pass -- we aren't doing anything of the sort. If you say we should be helping them, it would be fitting to try that before war, no?
In BOTH cases (German and Japan), the inhabitants of the country were the ones rebuilding it. Germans build the foundations for buildings. They reconstructed their roads. They put up the power plants. This is the same in Japan after the war. In Iraq, we have 180,000+ contractors taking away the jobs Iraqis could do themselves -- willingly, and ably. This is a HUGE resource drain we have, because the American taxpayers are paying increased prices in order to rebuild Iraq to American firms, rather than a price MUCH less than paying Iraqis themselves all the while giving them jobs and stability in a region that needs it badly.
Quote:
|
As far as the difficulty of occupying large areas of hostile territory, I agree the British made it clear that this is not only undesirable but impossible, no matter the military mismatch. I was against long term occupation and democratization of iraq. I thought we should keep our bases, let them work it out for themselves, and destroy anything that emerges that we consider a threat. I thought we should encourage them to civil war and killing each other, and focus on having them fight each other, keeping them poor, and essentially harmless. This is because I am not sure they are culturally capable of democracy, given the dominance of the evil ideology of islam and its incompatibility with freedom and peace.
|
Every society is capable of democracy, but not in the context of what WE view as democracy. Remember that early on in the US, we elected very religious officials to Congress and the Senate. This may well be true in Iraq, that certain regions want a religious leader rather than a secular one. The inherent challenge here is for us to LET THEM HAVE IT. If you have a democracy in Iraq, there are going to be secular people and religious people. The secular people are going to be the ones getting things DONE, and the religious people will talk a big game and not do anything. And in a few generations, you will see that Iraqis themselves will elect less and less religious leadership. But we have to give them that time, because their democracy will be stronger and more vibrant because of it. This has little or nothing to do with the religion of Islam, just like it has little or nothing to do with Christianity in the US. It's just an issue -- like in every democracy. Islam under educated minds is certainly capable of democracy, just like any other religion is. We just have a bunch of illiterates explaining what their view on religion is, without any reference of history. And even with Christians, the combination of the two was a deadly force in the Crusades and other wars.
Quote:
|
But, I do feel the goal of a democratic, free, peaceful iraq is worthwhile and would represent a tremendous victory in the war on islamofascism. It amounts to convincing the enemy we are right and they should adopt our culture, just as Japan and Germany were convinced. This is the ultimate victory, a McDonalds on every muslim corner. So, I am willing to give the effort my full support once. If iraq fails, then I advocate nothing but destruction for the muslim countries that fund/assist terrorism. If and when they completely and utterly surrender, we could try and help them again.
|
There will never be a McDonalds on every Muslim corner. To believe this is a victory is foolish -- there is a cultural difference between Iraqis and the "West" (and I use that term loosely). You think Japan adopted our culture? Have you ever been to Japan? They HATE Americans. They hate ALL foreigners. And they suffer because of it too -- there's a lot of ingrained racism in Japan you will find only there. Germany is probably a better example but it is in the midst of trade with countries that are no farther than going from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. It is ingrained and intertwined with the economies of the EU, and as such -- it will adopt a culture that reflect a "European" aspect, and not just a "German" one. Iraq is dissimilar in that regard, since it is flanked by countries (Iran, Kuwait) who are enemies to it for years, and other countries who are too despotic to allow intertwining of ANYTHING (Saudi Arabia). Again, your example is flawed.
Quote:
|
Its not a valid comparison. You are speaking as if the antagonism is one-way or recent, and it is not. This is something that has been going on since muhammed started rampaging around to conquer and convert people to his insane religion. Its a totally different situation. We wouldn't be exerting so much force in the areas of the world they have already conquered if they didn't keep trying to wage their stupid jihad.
|
It is a valid comparison, and you sidestepped it. Iran is going to do what is in ITS best interests. If that means supporting internal groups in Iraq to keep the US from having strategic advantages against them, then they will do that. The US would do exactly the same if China were to invade Mexico. There is a security risk there that would be stupid NOT to invest resources into. And now that Iran doesn't have to invest so much in shielding itself against Iraq, they are more able to do what they want to do, thanks largely to the US.
Antagonism has nothing to do with it. We invaded a country that is a neighbor to somebody else. This is exactly the same as if China invaded Mexico or Canada.