What you said, and what GST said. You may think you said what you just said you meant by your posts, now that you have highly qualified what you think it was that you said, but I don't think anyone else would have read into your previous posts, what you now think you meant.
..............................
We liberated Iraq in just the same way that we liberated Germany from the Nazi regime.NEO
We liberated Europe. We invaded and occupied Iraq. No comparison. GST
By your criterion, Europe, at least that part in NATO, is an American colony. Sure doesn't act like a colony, nor do the constitutent states, even with a strong military presence on their soil, and occupation authority for a decade after WWII in Germany and Italy. Why? Because that is not how it is structured. Their governments do not answer to the United States, and NATO operates by consensus. The details tell the tale.......Neo
LOL -- the British had noble colonial intentions as well as elections inn their colonies -- notwithstanding the usefulness of their colonies for raw materials -- like oil. The US has indeed colonized Iraq and shows no signs of departing now, soon or ever.GST
This is the opposite of colonialism. It is the attempt to create conditions enabling Iraqis to enjoy self- determination. Until you learn that, you understand nothing........Neo
We did not invent colonialism, but we are repeating their mistakes. Indeed, we fought to get out from under colonialism. Now we are colonizing Iraq. The political culture and system of government in Iraq is not ours to decide. The Constitution of Iraq is not ours to decide. The form of government is not ours to decide. Who shall lead Iraq is not ours to decide. What Iraq will do with its resources is not ours to decide. Anything can happen in Iraq. The idea that we have set Iraq on a path to a known end is make believe. We have no idea where Iraq is going or how it will get there. Further, it is not our place to decide.GST
Boy, you have a hard time grasping the idea of arguing a point.
"Fairly rapidly" means, in this context, within a generation or two, as far as inculcating a true democratic culture goes. This is by comparison with my analysis of assimilation to a language, which generally is not complete until the third generation. The ability to use language comes somewhat clumsily within the first generation, suggesting that learning democracy well- enough for present purposes will not take a very long time. The sole differentiation between those with a stake in democratization, even if imperfect, and those without it will be the desire for peace and prosperity over all, and the ability of the Iraqi government and the remaining Coalition forces to make progress in containing the insurgent forces.
As for the second statement, it is simply a matter of historical comparison. Of course we deplore any lose of life or limb, but it is ludicrous to talk about extensive casualties compared to other conflicts in which we have engaged.
There were military men in tune with Rumsfeld, and those who were not. It is simplistic to make it a civilian/government conflict, as if Rumsfeld had no allies in the military. Those same people who objected to the post- War strategy predicted disaster in the invasion phase, and were dead wrong.
"There is no valid comparison....etc." Thanks for the 411. As argument, it is worthless.
Every time there has been a transition from dictatorship or monarchy to democracy, it has involved cultural change and. therefore, education. In some instances, the cultural change has been gradual, in others, it has been forced. Since adherence to democracy is merely a way of providing a framework for social controversies, avoiding bloodshed and establishing fair ground rules, people are being asked for relatively little in adhering to it. That is why it is far different than a truly ideologically driven social experiment. Everyone has a stake in peace and prosperity, and only the most extreme elements could object to solving conflicts peacefully....... Neo |
