The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Preempt this: We told you so, invading Iraq was DUMB
Posts
I'm not certain on Germany or Italy, but in Japan at least, they already had universal suffrage (possibly exempting women, can't recall off the top of my head), but they already had a (largely) popularly elected government. It wasn't a totalitarian state, it was just an incredibly nationalistic popular one. Similarly, I think the Nazis achieved power through legitimate government channels.
We don't do assassination.
Except when we do.
Edit: And it's ironic... when we do assasinate people, it tends to take their countries further from democracy rather then closer to it. Thank you, School of the America's!
Unstable in what respect(s)?
I don't think that the current regime sees attacking SK in anything other than retaliation as a reasonable option. They're entirely obsessed with holding onto what little power they have. Sure, they rattle their sabers around but they do it for propaganda purposes and to try to have at least a little leverage when negotiating. That's really all there is to the threats and demands. They need food and fuel, they don't want to have to give up everything to get it, so they need to have a bone to throw the US et al. to achieve that end.
Well, it's in a rather tenuous state right now. They're continuing to have severe economic issues and their relationship with China has been steadily deteriorating due to hungry NK going over the border and pillaging food/escaping into China. They're running out of time and I think they know it.
I don't think that anarchy will be the result when it collapses though, if we let SK continue to strengthen ties and get ready for reunification.
It almost sounds like they are holding South Korea hostage for food and fuel.
Your question is rather specific; however, there are examples. What you're specifically looking for is when someone overthrows a country, and build a new one the way we want, but have it not be a puppet government, or a territory? I can point to a thousand examples of Empire building that have 'worked' (From say, Sargon to Rome to the end of the European Empires), but in this case there are less examples. They do exist though.
Europe after the defeat of the Nazis or Napoleon, and one of the 5 major wars that took place before 1812 ended with the formation of the Netherlands, and another ended with the formation of Spain iirc, though it's been years since I've read up on that. Much of Eastern Europe after World War 1, including Poland, though it took them a good 80 years to get that sorted out. Most of the territories the US took from Spain eventually became independent countries, either after US control or shortly after the war. The examples in the latter half of the 20th century are less common though. The Kosovo war did bring about governmental change, though it is not without its problems.
tl;dr you forgot Poland
We don't do it as an open instrument of foreign policy. If assasinating leaders becomes seen as an acceptable method of conflict resolution, then that opens up a massive, massive can of worms.
Italy has never had a real functional national government except Mussolini(even today thier government falls apart every few years).
I'd say from "Mission Accomplished" to October of 2003 we had about a 4 or 5 month period to get a working bereaucracy established and infastructure running if not reformed. Significant changes could in fact be made today in less then a week, if not a month or a year maximum, but are not or were not done. Democratization of Iraq could have worked if the right planning ahead was done. Certainly not in the sense of "oh Hallibruton has these No-Bid contracts with the military in case of a war? Let's get a war on!".
Whoever pointed to Holland or whatever other nation states popping up after wars -- that was also neatly formed along existing ethnic lines, am I wrong? We let the Dutch form a Dutch state. If we allowed the Middle East to war with itself and then define new nation states along ethnic boundaries, I think we'd see the region suddenly stabilize a good deal. As it is, we have that cookie cutter map left-over from when the victors split the spoils after WWII (am I wrong about this timeline? Please correct me if I am) and as such we have completely opposing groups attempting to create a unified government. It would be the equivalent of forming a state out of Northern France and Southern Germany, then saying only the Germans can hold office, and then suddenly wondering why the country seemed to lack stability. It's just madness and frustration all around, as far as I can tell.
That and, yeah, actually being committed to rebuilding in a pragmatic fashion.
Also there's the whole lack of severe ethnic animosity thing going on.
Secondly, I think you're overplaying the importance of the debaathification on the impact of the insurgency. While important it isn't the deciding factor. Other then that I can not disagree with anything specifically you wrote.
I'll say that I believe that if we had gotten the lights on, and the DMV open the day after the Baghdad was taken it would have gone a long way. Much further then purple fingers or a constitution, or whatever meaningless democratic reform of the moment. I think that, and image would have gone a long way. If we had say, started freeing goats, and doves, and had a huge band concert in Iraq with Bono and the nations of the world all delivered gifts to celebrate the new nation... instead of say, signing a document while you hopped on a helicopter out of the green zone. (This actually was one of the plans given to the military for how to handle the transition of the Iraqi government). This administration above all else fails to realize that Image is everything. You can solve the inadequacies of a constitution, or problems of government later, but the idea that it appears stable, that everything appears to be going as it should, that this is the dawn of a new age in the minds of the Iraqis or the world is the most important factor.
Did you know there are factories in Iraq that could be opened in a week? Factories that have just been left idle since Saddam ordered them closed at the start of the war.
Quibble: The second Reich was the reign of the Kaiser before WWI; you're talking about the Weimar Republic.
I think that's largely accurate, and with respect to my earlier point, I was saying that it wasn't like we went in and handed democracy to them. They pretty much had working models of their own in the past, they just fell by the wayside or got taken over by crazy nationalism for 15+ years (way more than 15 years for Japan).
So, the end of WW2 isn't a super analogy for Iraq.
Regardless, I disapprove of "preventive strikes."
Now, a pre-emptive strike on Germany in the early 30s after Hitler took power would have, with hindsight, been good. Of course, people would probably be talking about WW2 (Capitalist west vs USSR) anyway, with a minor mention of the annexation of (illegal) Germany by the Allies 10 years before it kicked off.
Man what?
With hindsight, stopping Hitler would have been a good thing. However, imagine a world where this happened. Who knows what would have actually occurred? In my example, I used another war between USA/Europe and USSR. Now, in this parallel world, this is seen as inevitable, history, etc, much like WW2 is to us. The stopping of Hitler would have been a rather minor footnote, and no one would consider it very important. Because who could know what leaving him in power would lead to?
So hindsight is fun because it's actually useless. Yes, stopping Hitler would have stopped Nazi Germany as we know it, but what might have happened instead may have been as bad/worse. And there is no way of knowing that.
Oh, I see.
We can't, and it would be a really bad idea.
I'm not disagreeing that invading Iraq was really dumb. I'm just pedantic about terminology.
Second quibble - it only lasted 14 years.
Democracy in other nations is not beneficial to the interests of the United States Jeffe.
That much is clear.
But enough speculation
Iraq was a poor choice then, they knew the intelligence about WMD was fucking weak, and if they wanted to establish democracy how come they didn't have any fucking plan to do that?
Saddam was no fucking threat, and neither is Kim Jong Il, people like to portray him as alot more crazy than he is, but he as reasonable as any dictator will be.
He wants to remain in power, that seems pretty reasonable
He does not care how many people die in the process of this, that's, as a dictator, reasonable
When he signed a treaty which he innitially followed, but did not get Oil and money as promised by America, he said fuck it, I need nukes cause those fuckers are saying they want to kill me, that's pretty reasonable
Negotiating with him has not proved to be fruitless, just that Bush has refused to compromise at all, because that "is a sign of weakness" which is fucking retarded. Give the man a non aggression pact and things will likely be cool.
And establishing Democracy in Iraq might have been possible if it had been managed properly.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
No, that is not clear at all. It is beneficial to U.S. interests (90% of the time).
Unless they elect a socialist in which case it's better to bring in a brutal dictator which eventually will turn against you
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
Um. What?
In fact, democracy has and continues to function as an effective system of government in far less sophisticated nations. Furthermore, there is a broad based support for both democratic ideals and democractic governemnt across the middle east.