This may just be my opinion on this, but it could be true. there is a high likely hood we will be in Iraq for many years. is this very popular? NO is it necessary? Yes. some of these people are right, democracy wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell in iraq. so what are we doing? We're establsihing a military presence in the middle east? WHY? because that's where the biggest threat to america is. What about WMD? who cares? That wasn't the biggest reason for being there, that's just what they told you. the US Gov, doesn't tell you everything. why do we need a prsence in the middle east? Well that's where the islamic countries that have threatned our soveriengty lately reside. there are economic reasons too. Notice that France and Russia opposed our invasion? it wasn't because they love rag heads or Saddam I can tell you that. A large military Base In the center of the islamic nations has alot of value. It's just like having a big dog looking over your shoulder all the time. sort of like keeping them honest. Economiclly and Militarily. I can see a nice big air base in the dessert for our fighter jets. It's well known we've been trying to get Turkey to let us use their bases with very little sucess. Fact is we have no real military presence in the middle east other than Kuwait, which is no good, because it's coastal and largely populated by elite rich. Did anyone hear the press conference Iran gave on " not being worried" about the U.S. and sorties into their interior, because our resources are so low? why would they even give a press conference if they weren't concerned? make no mistake they are concerned, so is Saudi, so is Jordan, so is Russia and so is France. look at the nations helping us, the economic powers, that should tell you something. follow the money folks. Everyone is worried about the troops, the best trained troops in the world. with the fewest casualties of any elite fighting force in any nation that has ever undertaken such an endeavor. You say ONE dead US soldier is too many? well yes but if it werent for any Dead US soldiers WE wouldnt be here. if NO ONE is willing to further the US and keep the wolf at bay then be prepared to fight in your back yard. Kinda like Saban fan just said. You dont think the wolf is at your door? see 9-11 :911: Take the fight to them or they will take it to us. who says we are in Iraq for the main reason of helping iraqis? that is a by product. makes a nice media bite. We're there to keep them busy over there. Without the blood of those heroes out there in the dessert, our young men and women, then the blood will be somewhere like that morning on TV, that morning when the twin towers fell and civilians died. Personally, I'm glad we're there. According to a buddy of mine over there, we're giving better than we're getting. Semper Fi.
Looks like you are the bonehead. History is not history. It is the story told from the winners perepective. It is very rarely accurate. Do you think Mexicans tell the story of the Alamo as a brutal masacre? Doubt it. Do you thank Carthage was really as blood thirsty as the Roman historians say. Prominent protestant historians say the Catholics killed upwards of 90 million people during the inquisition. To bad the entire continent of Europe's population did not ven reach 100 million until the turn of the 20th century. My point in all this... history is more art than science, and different people tell the story rather differently.
and while I'm on a soap box... Democracy will likely not work in the Middle East especially Iraq becasue of the way the countries were drawn up by Europe in the 1920-40s. It will be exremely hard to build Iraq into a nation because it is not a nation state, rather it is 3 nation states. The Sunni state, the Shiite stat, and Kudistan. The more stable countries in the Middle East like Turkey and Lebanon have one super majority ethnic group, the Turks and he Lebanese. In Iraq you have three large ethnic groups that hate each other. That does not foster democracy. I hope I'm wrong.
History is not history? WTF? whatever, dead men tell no tales. spin it how you want I could care less. You can argue with history if you want but the majority sort of dicatates how some former event is viewed in the future no matter how you spin it. nation building takes time and we'll be in Iraq for a while, get used to it. Truman knew this. that's history look it up, or run play whatever. BTW democracy works here and we have a diverse ethnic base.
MacArthur was a military man...He's the one that rebuilt that country...It has nothing to do with what our country is being allowed to do...We're talking about nation building as it relates to foreign policy... MacArthur was never a fat rich politician...and we grew up in Louisiana...Where populist politicians drew broad-based coalition type support of the poor white man and poor black man and poor frenchman in our state to rise up and tax the hell out of the petrochemical industry to fund wide ranging social programs and government expenditures while never taxing the citizenry a dime... Taxing the public to fund public programs is something new to Louisianians...so to say my view was based on fat politicians on a national level is false...
Racing, while I will stay "Switzerland" on the history debate, I will broach the subject of our ethnic population. It is only recently that ethnicities have been given equal rights in this country. Generation X is truly the first generation to be raised without a majority being taught to be prejudice. Look at all the atrocities that happened to black over the history of the U.S... until the different ethnicities in the Middle East see each others as equals they will always kill each other, just like what happened in New York during the Civil War, and just like what has happening in the South in the 30's - 60's.
I was talking about your idea that Iraq will work, just like Japan worked. Add: Japan worked because we decimated them with two atomic strikes, and then rebuilt while demilitarizing them (which to this day, they must request from the U.S. certain military equipment to be manufactured for their country).
On a local level...White on white, Republican/Demcrat violence was much more prevalent in Louisiana as compared to the rest of the South... The reasoning was the amazing bifactionalism that emerged from Reconstruction, as Louisiana was amazingly hyperdistrustful of Republicans as they were the agents of Reconstruction... Louisiana was the last released Deep South state from Reconstruction...and we were probably the most anti-Secessionist state in the Confederacy...and combine that with amazing populist politicians and their phenomenon in Louisiana, the Kingfish and Uncle Earl...Whose families were anti-secession and abolitionists...
regardless of how well our ethnic groups have "groaned" amongst each other, our democracy has surviived. Not without some blood and toil I'll grant that, but it's been here since it began and the ethic groups have been here too in one form or another. They have struggled and fought the good fight, and will eventually find a spot in a free society. Every man and woman born in this country starts out the same, a U.S. Citizen in the greatest country in the world, no matter what color or creed they are.
I am not comparing them to say that they will both be successful...I am saying that the timetable is ridiculous to say that they will "never" be okay with Democracy... Nation building also includes building up peoples ideas about Democracy itself. The timeframe before-for even successful jobs we've done-are far longer than what you are theorizing about, and others are theorizing about. It takes time to instill those things in any peoples... Who knows whether it will be a success...They are a different people. Their history is different. Their religion is different. The administration is running reconstruction efforts and nation building, as opposed to the military in Japan... I am talking about the people who say it will fail because the people aren't ready for it or we are taking too long to be successful...
