US War History
-
The british guarantees on the polish borders came late, just months before the german invasion. IMO these guarantees were less an help to Poland than a warning to Hitler. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Is that not the part of the same answer I can give for the US action? Comparing Germany in 1939 with Middle-East in 2003 seems dubious to me. The third Reich invading Poland was a direct threat against Western democracies, but I don't think SH was ready or willing to strike the US in 2003.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
KaЯl wrote: but I don't think SH was ready or willing to strike the US in 2003 Nor was Hitler in 40 Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
-
Look at the bombing of London which was more or less continual and over 50,000 civilians died. The Russians lost millions of people and you hear barely a whimper out of them. The U.S. should thank its lucky stars that it lives two oceans away from any really hostile nations.
My neighbours think I am crazy - but they don't know that I have a trampoline. All they see my head bobbing up and down over the fence every five seconds
JWood wrote: The U.S. should thank its lucky stars that it lives two oceans away from any really hostile nations. What about Canada?
-
Wonder how much oil 123 billion would buy ? Wonder how much oil is in Iraq ? Bush may not be the Dalai but he ain't no idiot either. Richard BTW: I give it at most 20 years before oil will be a secondary fuel source. So if you still make a claim for future oil reserves think again. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
The average oil production in Iraq is roughly 1 million barrels per day according to http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html[^]. Right now the current price of a barrel of oil is at around $25. That means oil has to be pumped for 7200 days using the current barrel price, which is around 20 years. We can also assume that americans are more productive than Iraqis when it comes to oil. You could probably increase the productivity with 30%, which means you'll only have to pump for 15 years. Richard Stringer wrote: but he ain't no idiot either I bet the oil companies think he's a brilliant man. :) -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
-
Look at the bombing of London which was more or less continual and over 50,000 civilians died. The Russians lost millions of people and you hear barely a whimper out of them. The U.S. should thank its lucky stars that it lives two oceans away from any really hostile nations.
My neighbours think I am crazy - but they don't know that I have a trampoline. All they see my head bobbing up and down over the fence every five seconds
JWood wrote: The U.S. should thank its lucky stars that it lives two oceans away from any really hostile nations. Did you ever consider that the really hostile nations are where they are... because the US is two oceans away?? All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I again state that Chamberlain's Peace in our Times speech I think he was blind to the fact that Germany was building up their army with only one goal in mind; revenge. Utter and total domination of Europe and then some. Hitler even wrote a book (2 volumes) about it when he got arrested for the first attempt to seize power. And it's also a bit peculiar that he was so blind for what was in store. Up until then, Europe had always been the subject of some crazy mans vision of total domination since the dawn of time. Europe was apparently not ready for peace at that time. Today it's a different story. Most of Europe is ready for peace and have been since world war 2. I think that war demonstrated quite clearly that war is not productive in any way. Europe was nothing but a rubble of rocks by 1945. Only a few states in the outer rims of Europe seems to think that war is an acceptable course of action (Yugoslavia et al). However, the EU is working strongly to prevent wars and to make Europe flourish in peace. So far I think it's progressing quite nicely. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I agree there is more truth in this statement than I would like. But I can say the very same thing about France, Germany, Russia, and the rest of the world. Is there any question that they who had the most to financially lose also be the ones who were wanting the slowest course of action, be just a coincidence? I think not, but I try to understand that is part of the human race and not just a fault of the US. Agreed! But tell that to people who have managed to talk themselves into that this war is a charity campaign. It is not! And it freaks me out that some people actually believes this is the truth! What also bothers me is the constant "what's being done is for the greater good"-sentiment from the same crowd. Well here's a news flash for them - that's what the terrorists think too! There's a flaw in human nature as you point out. We're all a bunch of egoists with nothing but our own interests in focus. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I think that war demonstrated quite clearly that war is not productive in any way. War is productive in the case where someone brings it to you and then you'd better be prepared and win. It's unfortunate that there's aways some perverse idiot who wants to be king of the world and persuades the unthinking to follow him. The new millenium doesn't seem to be producing any less of this type. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
It's completely useless to compare the actions of dead leaders in a different situation to the actions of leaders in office today. The only common ground in both scenarios is the names of the countries.
"Things are not what they seem. Nor are they any different."
brianwelsch wrote: The only common ground in both scenarios is the names of the countries. Well, the obviously similar scenario is that you had a megalomaniac with tons of money and resources building a huge army and showing every intention that he was unwilling to stay in his own sandbox. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
brianwelsch wrote: The only common ground in both scenarios is the names of the countries. Well, the obviously similar scenario is that you had a megalomaniac with tons of money and resources building a huge army and showing every intention that he was unwilling to stay in his own sandbox. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote: showing every intention that he was unwilling to stay in his own sandbox. like the english, spanish, dutch and french imperialists? What I'm trying to say is that, considering the world is a much different place today economically, politically, militarily, technologically,.. the same game plan cannot be expected, so comparing US(or anyones) actions in different wars is apples and oranges.
"Things are not what they seem. Nor are they any different."
-
Re: the news I'm shocked, shocked that you put such legitimacy in the news as a genuine barometer of the sentiment of the electorate. John Carson wrote: Even so, considering the nature of what the allies were opposing, the US response was sufficiently weak to disqualify it, in my opinion, from pointing the finger at Europe now. I respectfully disagree. It is a poor comparison and, in the end, the US did respond and its response saved Europe and the South Pacific at the loss of many US lives. (Yes, Russia was critical in this, but it was the US sending arms to Russia that made that possible.) Moreover, the US did not actively oppose the war effort by the allies. Were France, Germany and Russia to forgive Iraq it's considerable debt, I believe the US will allow them to bid on contracts. But there is no reason to allow them to profit on rebuilding Iraq while sacrificing nothing. John Carson wrote: As for leaders indicating that they hoped the US led coalition would lose, I am unaware of any such case (at least among European leaders). Please provide details. I don't have the time to search news archives, but I stand by my statement. (Note that I used the word "indicating", Chirac, et. al. did not say "It is my desire that the US loses". They did however make statement that were, using Rumsfeld's phrasing, "unhelpful." Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote: I'm shocked, shocked that you put such legitimacy in the news as a genuine barometer of the sentiment of the electorate. Sources of information on these matters basically come down to two --- personal contact and media reports (which include opinion polling). In almost all cases, an individual's personal contacts are limited and unrepresentative. Media reports are not fully representative either, but they are closer to it than personal experience. Moreover, when it comes to hostile attitudes to Europe, the attitudes that matter most are those of the politicians and other prominent figures. The media is the only practical source for these. Joe Woodbury wrote: in the end, the US did respond and its response saved Europe and the South Pacific at the loss of many US lives. Only when it was attacked by Japan, an ally of Germany which then declared war on the US. Joe Woodbury wrote: Were France, Germany and Russia to forgive Iraq it's considerable debt, I believe the US will allow them to bid on contracts. But there is no reason to allow them to profit on rebuilding Iraq while sacrificing nothing. As I say in another post, I don't care about any of this as far as the economics of it goes. My only concern is for what it signifies about the intolerance of the US toward any disagreement with its foreign policy. Operating an explicit reward and punishment scheme is reasonable with respect to countries that are fundamentally hostile to you. It is inappropriate in relation to fundamentally friendly countries. By using a reward/punishment scheme across the board, the US signals that it doesn't believe it has any real allies. This belief will become self-fulfilling. There is an interesting NY Times piece (republished in the Sydney Morning Herald) on all of this: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/12/1071125654433.html[^] Joe Woodbury wrote: I don't have the time to search news archives, but I stand by my statement. (Note that I used the word "indicating", Chirac, et. al. did not say "It is my desire that the US loses". They did however make statement that were, using Rumsfeld's phrasing, "unhelpful." Chirac made many statements in opposition to the Iraq war that Rumsfeld would reg
-
There was a stated humanitarian goal to the Iraq war. While Saddam was effectively contained for now, he was still an extremely brutal dicator. Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler were worse by all measures, but Saddam was of the same ilk. I never liked the WMD argument since I've long believed (even before the first gulf war) that there was a valid humanitarian reason to overthrow Saddam's government. Bush overplayed that card. On the other hand, given the blind international eye turned to Rwanda, I understand why he used it. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote: There was a stated humanitarian goal to the Iraq war. While Saddam was effectively contained for now, he was still an extremely brutal dicator. Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler were worse by all measures, but Saddam was of the same ilk. I never liked the WMD argument since I've long believed (even before the first gulf war) that there was a valid humanitarian reason to overthrow Saddam's government. Bush overplayed that card. On the other hand, given the blind international eye turned to Rwanda, I understand why he used it. Even if I agreed with everything you said, it would not revive the "we learned from history and the Europeans didn't" argument. I agree in principle that overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime was justified on humanitarian grounds. However, bringing democracy/human rights to a country like Iraq is really difficult and a failed attempt can be more costly in terms of human suffering than not making the attempt. Accordingly, the attempt should only be made if 1. Achieving democracy/human rights is the number one priority for the invading force. 2. Extremely detailed planning has been made for achieving the transition to a new system of government. 3. The invading country has sufficient understanding of the invaded country to effectively manage the post-war era. 4. The invading country is willing to stay the course until its objective is met, whatever the cost. In my opinion, none of these conditions was met in relation to Iraq. There is some chance that it will turn out OK in the end in spite of this. But I consider this unlikely. I believe that, in one form or another, the Iraq conflict will go on for many years and the death doll (much of it from Iraqi-Iraqi conflict) is going to be very high. There was indeed "a stated humanitarian goal to the Iraq war" but I think the real story was roughly the opposite of what you claim. Bush did not focus on the WMD argument because he thought the humanitarian argument wouldn't fly (it worked for Clinton over Kosovo --- in the face of Republican opposition). Rather, he switched (partially) to the humanitarian argument when he found that the WMD (and terrorism) argument was struggling to get off the ground. The US has far too many allies that are gross violators of human rights for it to have a lot of credibility on this issue. Starting with the most important, I think the reasons for the war were as follows. 1. Many members of the Administration wanted to "finish the job" of the first Gul
-
JWood wrote: The U.S. should thank its lucky stars that it lives two oceans away from any really hostile nations. What about Canada?
Terry O`Nolley wrote: What about Canada? Canada?!? Either you're joking, or you don't know what "really hostile" means. Canada is not planning to blow us up - all they're doing is disagreeing with our foreign policy, which, as a sovereign nation, they have every right to do.
**"Worry not that no one knows of you; seek to be worth knowing." -- Confucius
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: I'm shocked, shocked that you put such legitimacy in the news as a genuine barometer of the sentiment of the electorate. Sources of information on these matters basically come down to two --- personal contact and media reports (which include opinion polling). In almost all cases, an individual's personal contacts are limited and unrepresentative. Media reports are not fully representative either, but they are closer to it than personal experience. Moreover, when it comes to hostile attitudes to Europe, the attitudes that matter most are those of the politicians and other prominent figures. The media is the only practical source for these. Joe Woodbury wrote: in the end, the US did respond and its response saved Europe and the South Pacific at the loss of many US lives. Only when it was attacked by Japan, an ally of Germany which then declared war on the US. Joe Woodbury wrote: Were France, Germany and Russia to forgive Iraq it's considerable debt, I believe the US will allow them to bid on contracts. But there is no reason to allow them to profit on rebuilding Iraq while sacrificing nothing. As I say in another post, I don't care about any of this as far as the economics of it goes. My only concern is for what it signifies about the intolerance of the US toward any disagreement with its foreign policy. Operating an explicit reward and punishment scheme is reasonable with respect to countries that are fundamentally hostile to you. It is inappropriate in relation to fundamentally friendly countries. By using a reward/punishment scheme across the board, the US signals that it doesn't believe it has any real allies. This belief will become self-fulfilling. There is an interesting NY Times piece (republished in the Sydney Morning Herald) on all of this: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/12/1071125654433.html[^] Joe Woodbury wrote: I don't have the time to search news archives, but I stand by my statement. (Note that I used the word "indicating", Chirac, et. al. did not say "It is my desire that the US loses". They did however make statement that were, using Rumsfeld's phrasing, "unhelpful." Chirac made many statements in opposition to the Iraq war that Rumsfeld would reg
John Carson wrote: Joe Woodbury wrote: in the end, the US did respond and its response saved Europe and the South Pacific at the loss of many US lives. Only when it was attacked by Japan, an ally of Germany which then declared war on the US. But the US did join the war and because it joined, the allies won. (Karl's point earlier that it really wouldn't have made a difference anyhow is valid. Even by 1941 the US was as unprepared for war as it's eventual allies.) You also misunderstand the political situation at the time. Despite it's involvement in WWI two decades previous, the US was not a world power and did not have significant ties to Europe, even England. (It actually had stronger ties to the Phillipines than any European country.) Your analysis also trivializes the European appeasement of Hitler's Germany. It also misunderstands, and understates the importance of, England's treaty with Poland which obligated it to declare war on an aggressor it if was invaded. The current occupation of Iraq is very similar to the Allied occupation of Germany. It took ten years for that situation to be resolved, to expect significantly less time now is naive. I find it puzzling that in another post you stated that an occupying nation must be prepared to commit long term, yet France is demanding that the US leave as soon as possible. (Considering France's experience in peace keeping and nation building, this is more than a bit two-faced.) You fail to understand the significance of Iraq's debt to France, Germany and Russia and that all three have pointedly refused to do anything about it. France, in particular, continues to act as obstructionists. While they may be an economic and political ally in most areas, they are decidedly not so vis-a-vis Iraq. To put them on the US payroll without any cooperation on other issues would be just plain stupid. Russia is receiving quite a lot of US aid and has it's hands full with domestic matters. It's clear, however, that we are not going to agree on this. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
JWood wrote: The U.S. should thank its lucky stars that it lives two oceans away from any really hostile nations. Did you ever consider that the really hostile nations are where they are... because the US is two oceans away?? All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
Hmm... probably it has more to do with the fact that only two other nations are on the same continent as us, and one of them has a similar ethnic background.
**"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
-
Tim Craig wrote: showing every intention that he was unwilling to stay in his own sandbox. like the english, spanish, dutch and french imperialists? What I'm trying to say is that, considering the world is a much different place today economically, politically, militarily, technologically,.. the same game plan cannot be expected, so comparing US(or anyones) actions in different wars is apples and oranges.
"Things are not what they seem. Nor are they any different."
brianwelsch wrote: What I'm trying to say is that, considering the world is a much different place today economically, politically, militarily, technologically,.. the same game plan cannot be expected, so comparing US(or anyones) actions in different wars is apples and oranges. Yes, things are considerably different today. But there's a saying that goes "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it". Things may be different in many ways today, but human nature is pretty much constant. An idiot looking to overrun his neighbors is going to be a pain in the ass sooner or later. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
John Carson wrote: Joe Woodbury wrote: in the end, the US did respond and its response saved Europe and the South Pacific at the loss of many US lives. Only when it was attacked by Japan, an ally of Germany which then declared war on the US. But the US did join the war and because it joined, the allies won. (Karl's point earlier that it really wouldn't have made a difference anyhow is valid. Even by 1941 the US was as unprepared for war as it's eventual allies.) You also misunderstand the political situation at the time. Despite it's involvement in WWI two decades previous, the US was not a world power and did not have significant ties to Europe, even England. (It actually had stronger ties to the Phillipines than any European country.) Your analysis also trivializes the European appeasement of Hitler's Germany. It also misunderstands, and understates the importance of, England's treaty with Poland which obligated it to declare war on an aggressor it if was invaded. The current occupation of Iraq is very similar to the Allied occupation of Germany. It took ten years for that situation to be resolved, to expect significantly less time now is naive. I find it puzzling that in another post you stated that an occupying nation must be prepared to commit long term, yet France is demanding that the US leave as soon as possible. (Considering France's experience in peace keeping and nation building, this is more than a bit two-faced.) You fail to understand the significance of Iraq's debt to France, Germany and Russia and that all three have pointedly refused to do anything about it. France, in particular, continues to act as obstructionists. While they may be an economic and political ally in most areas, they are decidedly not so vis-a-vis Iraq. To put them on the US payroll without any cooperation on other issues would be just plain stupid. Russia is receiving quite a lot of US aid and has it's hands full with domestic matters. It's clear, however, that we are not going to agree on this. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote: It's clear, however, that we are not going to agree on this. Indeed. You give a long list of things that I "don't understand". My purpose has never been to provide a detailed analysis of WWII and to apportion credit and blame for each behaviour. I simply wished to make a limited point that the US was not well placed to criticize others who had not jumped to support it. In saying this, I never meant to suggest or imply that there were not good reasons for criticising the behaviour of other countries in WWII and at other times. The fact that the US was not the power in WWII that it is today is irrelevant. The countries that the US is currently demanding support from are not superpowers either. More generally, nothing you have said persuades me that the US can feel hard done by in the present circumstances. You emphasise the limited US-European relationships; you ignore the vast difference between, on the one hand, a German military that had already conquered half a dozen European countries and was one of the most powerful militaries in the world and, on the other hand, an "effectively contained" Iraq military that got its arse kicked when it last attempted to attack another country. Joe Woodbury wrote: The current occupation of Iraq is very similar to the Allied occupation of Germany. It took ten years for that situation to be resolved, to expect significantly less time now is naive. I don't think it is similar. I think it is vastly more difficult, principally because of the internal divisions between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds and because Iraq has no democratic tradition to draw on. It is also a lot easier to run things in a country whose people have been unambiguously conquered (as was the case with Germany) rather than "liberated". As for naivety, it was the Bush Administration that promoted a foolish optimism about how things would turn out. It is only when its optimism was shown to be unjustified that it started talking about the need to be realistic. Joe Woodbury wrote: I find it puzzling that in another post you stated that an occupying nation must be prepared to commit long term, yet France is demanding that the US leave as soon as possible. (Considering France's experience in peace keeping and nation building, this is more than a bit two-faced.) It is only puzzling because you are assuming that I am a supporter of France. I think that France's motives are at least as mixed as t
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: It's clear, however, that we are not going to agree on this. Indeed. You give a long list of things that I "don't understand". My purpose has never been to provide a detailed analysis of WWII and to apportion credit and blame for each behaviour. I simply wished to make a limited point that the US was not well placed to criticize others who had not jumped to support it. In saying this, I never meant to suggest or imply that there were not good reasons for criticising the behaviour of other countries in WWII and at other times. The fact that the US was not the power in WWII that it is today is irrelevant. The countries that the US is currently demanding support from are not superpowers either. More generally, nothing you have said persuades me that the US can feel hard done by in the present circumstances. You emphasise the limited US-European relationships; you ignore the vast difference between, on the one hand, a German military that had already conquered half a dozen European countries and was one of the most powerful militaries in the world and, on the other hand, an "effectively contained" Iraq military that got its arse kicked when it last attempted to attack another country. Joe Woodbury wrote: The current occupation of Iraq is very similar to the Allied occupation of Germany. It took ten years for that situation to be resolved, to expect significantly less time now is naive. I don't think it is similar. I think it is vastly more difficult, principally because of the internal divisions between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds and because Iraq has no democratic tradition to draw on. It is also a lot easier to run things in a country whose people have been unambiguously conquered (as was the case with Germany) rather than "liberated". As for naivety, it was the Bush Administration that promoted a foolish optimism about how things would turn out. It is only when its optimism was shown to be unjustified that it started talking about the need to be realistic. Joe Woodbury wrote: I find it puzzling that in another post you stated that an occupying nation must be prepared to commit long term, yet France is demanding that the US leave as soon as possible. (Considering France's experience in peace keeping and nation building, this is more than a bit two-faced.) It is only puzzling because you are assuming that I am a supporter of France. I think that France's motives are at least as mixed as t
John Carson wrote: The countries that the US is currently demanding support from are not superpowers either. More generally, nothing you have said persuades me that the US can feel hard done by in the present circumstances. Now I'm lost. The US isn't demanding support from these countries. It simply isn't allowing them to bid on contracts. John Carson wrote: You can't "give the finger" to the rest of the world and then expect it to donate billions of dollars to help you. Do I expect the non-coalition countries to donate money? Nope, though it doesn't hurt to ask. Likewise, why should non-coalition countries expect to get contracts to rebuild Iraq? You simply cannot call the latter an injustice while turning a blind eye to the former. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
John Carson wrote: The countries that the US is currently demanding support from are not superpowers either. More generally, nothing you have said persuades me that the US can feel hard done by in the present circumstances. Now I'm lost. The US isn't demanding support from these countries. It simply isn't allowing them to bid on contracts. John Carson wrote: You can't "give the finger" to the rest of the world and then expect it to donate billions of dollars to help you. Do I expect the non-coalition countries to donate money? Nope, though it doesn't hurt to ask. Likewise, why should non-coalition countries expect to get contracts to rebuild Iraq? You simply cannot call the latter an injustice while turning a blind eye to the former. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote: Now I'm lost. The US isn't demanding support from these countries. It simply isn't allowing them to bid on contracts. This entire thread began with the following words from John McIlroy: It is kind of interesting to read the furious objections the US has to allies who didn't join the military "coalition of the willing." Now I supported the overthrow of Saddam and the liberation of Iraq. And I was upset that Canada didn't throw in its lot with the US & UK and join the coalition of the willing... but.... Americans seem to have amnesia. It took them two years to join the "coalition of the willing" in WWII. It has never been just about contracts. It has been about the general attitude of the US toward those who declined to support the US in all aspects of its campaign. Joe Woodbury wrote: Do I expect the non-coalition countries to donate money? Nope, though it doesn't hurt to ask. Likewise, why should non-coalition countries expect to get contracts to rebuild Iraq? You simply cannot call the latter an injustice while turning a blind eye to the former. As I have said before, I don't particularly care about the economics of it. But, since you raise the issue, I think that your analogy is poor. Awarding contracts to France etc. following a competitive tender is not analogous to making a donation to those countries. Indeed, it is the current policy that involves donations, albeit to coalition countries. If the US doesn't award the contract to the best bid, regardless of origin, it is hurting itself financially and/or in terms of the quality of the contracted-for service. To refuse to award a contract to the best bid is a case of active discrimination against France etc. to the economic detriment of the United States. John Carson
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: There was a stated humanitarian goal to the Iraq war. While Saddam was effectively contained for now, he was still an extremely brutal dicator. Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler were worse by all measures, but Saddam was of the same ilk. I never liked the WMD argument since I've long believed (even before the first gulf war) that there was a valid humanitarian reason to overthrow Saddam's government. Bush overplayed that card. On the other hand, given the blind international eye turned to Rwanda, I understand why he used it. Even if I agreed with everything you said, it would not revive the "we learned from history and the Europeans didn't" argument. I agree in principle that overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime was justified on humanitarian grounds. However, bringing democracy/human rights to a country like Iraq is really difficult and a failed attempt can be more costly in terms of human suffering than not making the attempt. Accordingly, the attempt should only be made if 1. Achieving democracy/human rights is the number one priority for the invading force. 2. Extremely detailed planning has been made for achieving the transition to a new system of government. 3. The invading country has sufficient understanding of the invaded country to effectively manage the post-war era. 4. The invading country is willing to stay the course until its objective is met, whatever the cost. In my opinion, none of these conditions was met in relation to Iraq. There is some chance that it will turn out OK in the end in spite of this. But I consider this unlikely. I believe that, in one form or another, the Iraq conflict will go on for many years and the death doll (much of it from Iraqi-Iraqi conflict) is going to be very high. There was indeed "a stated humanitarian goal to the Iraq war" but I think the real story was roughly the opposite of what you claim. Bush did not focus on the WMD argument because he thought the humanitarian argument wouldn't fly (it worked for Clinton over Kosovo --- in the face of Republican opposition). Rather, he switched (partially) to the humanitarian argument when he found that the WMD (and terrorism) argument was struggling to get off the ground. The US has far too many allies that are gross violators of human rights for it to have a lot of credibility on this issue. Starting with the most important, I think the reasons for the war were as follows. 1. Many members of the Administration wanted to "finish the job" of the first Gul
So, once again the argument devolves into the US can do no right, all of Bush's motives are suspect and non-Americans know more about what happens in the United States and it's motives than Americans do. Ironically, I think your three points are valid, but incomplete. I'm a strong believer that people can have sincere and sometimes directly contradictory beliefs and motives. (My favorite example, Jefferson wrote passionately about freedom yet kept slaves.) It's also common for groups of people to have extremely condradictory motives in achieving the same goal. The current US administration is by no means unique in that regard. Did Clinton act in Kosovo for humanitarian reasons? I have no idea, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, he didn't blink an eye during the Rwanda blood bath. John Carson wrote: The US has far too many allies that are gross violators of human rights for it to have a lot of credibility on this issue. A bit of an exageration, but this is a dilemma that every democratic country of significance faces--one reason countries are hesitant to point fingers and leave it to their pundits instead. With the cold war over, there is no reason for the US, or any democratic countries, to tolerate the worse violators of human rights, like Sudan. But what would you actualy do? Invade? What about countries that are relatively stable, like Saudi Arabia? Or even Cuba? Or quazi-superpowers, like China? Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: Now I'm lost. The US isn't demanding support from these countries. It simply isn't allowing them to bid on contracts. This entire thread began with the following words from John McIlroy: It is kind of interesting to read the furious objections the US has to allies who didn't join the military "coalition of the willing." Now I supported the overthrow of Saddam and the liberation of Iraq. And I was upset that Canada didn't throw in its lot with the US & UK and join the coalition of the willing... but.... Americans seem to have amnesia. It took them two years to join the "coalition of the willing" in WWII. It has never been just about contracts. It has been about the general attitude of the US toward those who declined to support the US in all aspects of its campaign. Joe Woodbury wrote: Do I expect the non-coalition countries to donate money? Nope, though it doesn't hurt to ask. Likewise, why should non-coalition countries expect to get contracts to rebuild Iraq? You simply cannot call the latter an injustice while turning a blind eye to the former. As I have said before, I don't particularly care about the economics of it. But, since you raise the issue, I think that your analogy is poor. Awarding contracts to France etc. following a competitive tender is not analogous to making a donation to those countries. Indeed, it is the current policy that involves donations, albeit to coalition countries. If the US doesn't award the contract to the best bid, regardless of origin, it is hurting itself financially and/or in terms of the quality of the contracted-for service. To refuse to award a contract to the best bid is a case of active discrimination against France etc. to the economic detriment of the United States. John Carson
John Carson wrote: It is kind of interesting to read the furious objections the US has to allies who didn't join the military "coalition of the willing." I disupute that characterization. John Carson wrote: It took them two years to join the "coalition of the willing" in WWII. There was no coalition of the willing. No European country "stood up" to Hitler until they were attacked. Quite to the contrary, they fell all over themselves appeasing him. Ultimately, France was invaded and fought briefly before surrendering. Britain defended itself but was in no position to go on the offensive for several years. Russia also fought back after being attacked. Ultimately, the US fought back after being attacked. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
So, once again the argument devolves into the US can do no right, all of Bush's motives are suspect and non-Americans know more about what happens in the United States and it's motives than Americans do. Ironically, I think your three points are valid, but incomplete. I'm a strong believer that people can have sincere and sometimes directly contradictory beliefs and motives. (My favorite example, Jefferson wrote passionately about freedom yet kept slaves.) It's also common for groups of people to have extremely condradictory motives in achieving the same goal. The current US administration is by no means unique in that regard. Did Clinton act in Kosovo for humanitarian reasons? I have no idea, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, he didn't blink an eye during the Rwanda blood bath. John Carson wrote: The US has far too many allies that are gross violators of human rights for it to have a lot of credibility on this issue. A bit of an exageration, but this is a dilemma that every democratic country of significance faces--one reason countries are hesitant to point fingers and leave it to their pundits instead. With the cold war over, there is no reason for the US, or any democratic countries, to tolerate the worse violators of human rights, like Sudan. But what would you actualy do? Invade? What about countries that are relatively stable, like Saudi Arabia? Or even Cuba? Or quazi-superpowers, like China? Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote: So, once again the argument devolves into the US can do no right, all of Bush's motives are suspect and non-Americans know more about what happens in the United States and it's motives than Americans do. I never claimed that the US can do no right (I was in favour of the Kosovo intervention, for example). I do, however, view Bush's motives with a lot of cynicism. As for non-Americans knowing more about America's motives than Americans: 1. It is not simply a matter of knowing motives; it is also a matter of admitting to them. 2. There is no uniform belief about the Bush Administration's motives even among Americans. It would not be hard to find an American who agreed with everything I said. 3. It is not impossible for a person of country X to understand more about the motives of country Y than do the citizens of country Y, since the citizens of country Y may be blinded by patriotism. Joe Woodbury wrote: I'm a strong believer that people can have sincere and sometimes directly contradictory beliefs and motives. I am too. And I don't doubt that, on some level, the members of the Bush administration genuinely want to promote democracy and human rights (I alluded to this in the final point of my previous post). I just don't think it is the dominant impulse. Joe Woodbury wrote: A bit of an exageration, but this is a dilemma that every democratic country of significance faces--one reason countries are hesitant to point fingers and leave it to their pundits instead. With the cold war over, there is no reason for the US, or any democratic countries, to tolerate the worse violators of human rights, like Sudan. But what would you actualy do? Invade? What about countries that are relatively stable, like Saudi Arabia? Or even Cuba? Or quazi-superpowers, like China? Yes, it is a dilemma and there is no magic wand available to deal with the problem. A start would be to ratify the convention setting up the International Criminal Court. A good next step would be to make the human rights record of countries the primary determinant of US attitudes to them (as expressed through trade policy, development assistance and the like), rather than making countries' attitude to US business the primary determinant. In extreme cases, invasion may be justified against relatively militarily weak countries. The cure would be worse than the disease in the case of invading a militarily strong country li
-
John Carson wrote: It is kind of interesting to read the furious objections the US has to allies who didn't join the military "coalition of the willing." I disupute that characterization. John Carson wrote: It took them two years to join the "coalition of the willing" in WWII. There was no coalition of the willing. No European country "stood up" to Hitler until they were attacked. Quite to the contrary, they fell all over themselves appeasing him. Ultimately, France was invaded and fought briefly before surrendering. Britain defended itself but was in no position to go on the offensive for several years. Russia also fought back after being attacked. Ultimately, the US fought back after being attacked. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
I quoted this passage in order to indicate the scope of this thread, not to champion every syllable of the quote. John Carson