Post WWII: Japan and Germany
-
This is a history lesson for me, not a political debate :) Just reading Time on their thoughts of post-war Iraq and they keep mentioning the re-building of Germany (4 years) and Japan (7 years) by the States after WWII. First off I never realised this. I assumed once Germany and Japan surrendered that it did not take long for the victorious to head home and leave the two countries to get back into order. Sure I assumed they were given assistance and obviously there were terms and treaties to ensure they did not just re-build and try and attack again, but I never thought that the US and Allies stayed in the two countries for many years actively re-building. My question though is during those re-building phases who was legally, technically in charge of the countries? Was Germany and Japan effectively US ruled countries at that point? Also how and who chose the local leaders once the States pulled out? BTW, this whole post-war bit is IMO going to be the hardest part of the Iraq campaign. Since this is not a UN led war it effectively means that the US and, as a lap-dog token, the UK will be rulers of Iraq for quite awhile. Everyone keeps wishing for a swift war. Should be hoping for a swift, succesful and ultimately empowering post-war period IMO, not just a swift war.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.
I think there are two things. One, who is going to build it? And second, who is going to give the money for all the rebuilding and all that goes on? Say if US and UK go in, will they do all the spending too? I mean, first they do this war which costs them x amount of money. Then they help Iraq get out of the mess and again spend y amount of money. Will other nations at least step in and pool some funds? This is not going to kill people, so nobody should have any objections here, I suppose.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
I think there are two things. One, who is going to build it? And second, who is going to give the money for all the rebuilding and all that goes on? Say if US and UK go in, will they do all the spending too? I mean, first they do this war which costs them x amount of money. Then they help Iraq get out of the mess and again spend y amount of money. Will other nations at least step in and pool some funds? This is not going to kill people, so nobody should have any objections here, I suppose.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
Rohit Sinha wrote: is going to give the money for all the rebuilding and all that goes on? good point!! That's one reason* I think we haven't been pursuing N.Korea so much. * One reason, not _The_reason BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security
-
I think there are two things. One, who is going to build it? And second, who is going to give the money for all the rebuilding and all that goes on? Say if US and UK go in, will they do all the spending too? I mean, first they do this war which costs them x amount of money. Then they help Iraq get out of the mess and again spend y amount of money. Will other nations at least step in and pool some funds? This is not going to kill people, so nobody should have any objections here, I suppose.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
Rohit Sinha wrote: This is not going to kill people, so nobody should have any objections here, I suppose. I think it is naive to think other countries are going to help the US and UK rebuild Iraq after they were expressly opposed to the war in the first place. The reasoning they will use is simply that if the US had listened to them in the first place then the rebuilding would never have needed to happen. It would take a miracle for France, Germany, Russia etc. to put aside the afront the US has created and then help the US re-build Iraq. Even if the tact they use is "We are not helping the US here, this is us helping Iraq" it might be too much to swallow. Obviously independant organisations within these countries will help (Red Cross, Sally Army etc.), though they do not have the same resources as a country.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: This is not going to kill people, so nobody should have any objections here, I suppose. I think it is naive to think other countries are going to help the US and UK rebuild Iraq after they were expressly opposed to the war in the first place. The reasoning they will use is simply that if the US had listened to them in the first place then the rebuilding would never have needed to happen. It would take a miracle for France, Germany, Russia etc. to put aside the afront the US has created and then help the US re-build Iraq. Even if the tact they use is "We are not helping the US here, this is us helping Iraq" it might be too much to swallow. Obviously independant organisations within these countries will help (Red Cross, Sally Army etc.), though they do not have the same resources as a country.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.
Well, considering that this money would not be going to the US or UK, it should not be too difficult for other countries to chip in with a bit of money. They were not in favour of a war, but surely they would be in favour of some humanitarian stuff, rebuilding, food, education, health, etc facilities? If everyone wants to say, I told you so, or I was against such a thing from the very beginning, or since I didn't agree with you on one thing, I won't agree with you on anything, well then... well, what can I say. :| But then nations don't act on morals, but act in their own best interest. Thinking otherwise would be naive at best, and foolish at worst. So maybe thinking others would come in to help too would be naive of me, but I still hope others would join. Maybe not France, Germany and Russia, but someone? If only a few countries come forward and say, OK, we will donate such and such amount of money each for the cause, it'd be great, won't it?
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
The problem with Irak, is that it's split between 3 major ethnic groups, the Sunites (ruling minority), the Chiites and the Kurdes, while Germany and Japan had only one, both countries were still unified after the war. Reconstruction will only start when all internal political fights are over; and this will take a long time, and the Kurds situation will be the most dangerous. The Kurds want to have an independant country, Kurdistan; Kurdistan (as far as I know) boudaries span Irak, Iran, Turkey (and I think Jordania). for the last 10 years, the kurds were somewhat in charge of northern Irak (with the help of the UN no-fly zone) and UN restrictions. Turkey, Iran would be really pissed off if the Kurds decide to create that region; and that will open another can of worms. Anyway, I digress ... The info I have, is that there will be a intermin US/UK military government until Iraki opposition groups take over, when they stop arguing about who's the best and most representative, and then, they will be supervised by either the UN(what's left of it), US, UK. The US will keep the control of the armies and internal security until whenever they feel Irak is ready to be peacefull. Max.
Maximilien Lincourt For success one must aquire one's self
Why is everyone so afraid of a seperate Kurd country? I know Turkey does not want it. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Well, considering that this money would not be going to the US or UK, it should not be too difficult for other countries to chip in with a bit of money. They were not in favour of a war, but surely they would be in favour of some humanitarian stuff, rebuilding, food, education, health, etc facilities? If everyone wants to say, I told you so, or I was against such a thing from the very beginning, or since I didn't agree with you on one thing, I won't agree with you on anything, well then... well, what can I say. :| But then nations don't act on morals, but act in their own best interest. Thinking otherwise would be naive at best, and foolish at worst. So maybe thinking others would come in to help too would be naive of me, but I still hope others would join. Maybe not France, Germany and Russia, but someone? If only a few countries come forward and say, OK, we will donate such and such amount of money each for the cause, it'd be great, won't it?
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
Rohit Sinha wrote: it'd be great, won't it? Yes, it would be great Rohit. But even an idealist and optimist like me has to face the realities of the situation and reckon it won't happen. Read my sig, it says a lot about it.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: it'd be great, won't it? Yes, it would be great Rohit. But even an idealist and optimist like me has to face the realities of the situation and reckon it won't happen. Read my sig, it says a lot about it.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.
Ah yes, the reality. :|
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
Why is everyone so afraid of a seperate Kurd country? I know Turkey does not want it. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Kurdistan span over Iran, Turkey, Irak and Syria, and if I'm not mistake, Turkey might want to have some kind of control over the kurd region of the north of Irak because it contains a lot of petrol; if it falls under a kurdistan territory, turkey will loose it. It's not Kurdistan by itself that is the problem, but if the Kurds decide to take part of the above countries and make it their own, there start another problem. I'm just starting to look into it and it's quite fascinating. and there are some similaties with the Tchenchen situation ( albeit less violent now ). There's going to be a radio show about the kurds on the French CBC radio ( canada ). http://www.kurdish.com/kurdistan/land/geography-intro.htm http://www.ccasls.umontreal.ca/contents/iraqi.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/feb99/kurdprofile.htm Max
Maximilien Lincourt For success one must aquire one's self
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: This is not going to kill people, so nobody should have any objections here, I suppose. I think it is naive to think other countries are going to help the US and UK rebuild Iraq after they were expressly opposed to the war in the first place. The reasoning they will use is simply that if the US had listened to them in the first place then the rebuilding would never have needed to happen. It would take a miracle for France, Germany, Russia etc. to put aside the afront the US has created and then help the US re-build Iraq. Even if the tact they use is "We are not helping the US here, this is us helping Iraq" it might be too much to swallow. Obviously independant organisations within these countries will help (Red Cross, Sally Army etc.), though they do not have the same resources as a country.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.
The true argument is that if the UN had any balls then this wouldn't have had to happen. I don't know if this is being reported throughout the world since the contries that apposed the military action have a vested interest in this information not getting out but Iraq has fired SCUD missles at Kuwait and the US military that have been shot down. This question was asked to Hans Blix who said something along the lines of "Hmm, they were not suppoesd to have any of those." Just goes to show how nieve the UN inspectors are.
-
The true argument is that if the UN had any balls then this wouldn't have had to happen. I don't know if this is being reported throughout the world since the contries that apposed the military action have a vested interest in this information not getting out but Iraq has fired SCUD missles at Kuwait and the US military that have been shot down. This question was asked to Hans Blix who said something along the lines of "Hmm, they were not suppoesd to have any of those." Just goes to show how nieve the UN inspectors are.
(Politics! Yay! I wanted to learn some history...) Yes sure the UN has not done what it should. But then the US is part of the UN. The US should have tried other tactics to get the UN to move. As for the SCUDS. Nobody in their right mind denies that Iraq has weapons they shouldn't have. France, Germany etc. all admit that Iraq has them (though maybe not WMDs, which I take most SCUDS are not), they just don't agree with the tactics of the US.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaMacbeth muttered: I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er DavidW wrote: You are totally mad. Nice.