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
Ever heard of South America?
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
I think a lot of it comes down to parsing what we mean by "democracy". In terms of having people vote to elect their leaders, which is a fairly low-to-the-ground and basic definition of democracy, I'd agree with you. However, there are many other trappings we associate with "democracy": constitutional protections, keeping independent militias down, orderly transistions of power, accountable government, transparent and fair elections, rule of law, religious independence and freedom, regulated free markets, etc., these require a lot of social adaptation of a population.
Chavez's problem is less that he's a socialist and more that he's newly powerful and wealthy, and very anti-American. Most of our European allies are socialist to a large extent.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
Yeah, what I meant was american policy is
"democracy is good, unless they like socialists in that case A brutal dictator is better", with that last bit being fucking retarded. Much like Franco in Spain or Mussolini in Italy, the alternative to socliasts are complete asses.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
Quiet you
We aren't all lovey dovey with them either.
Oh...
"Preemption" is when one nation attacks another when war is a forgone conclusion. When, as a nation, you KNOW you will be declaring war on another power for whatever reason - but haven't yet due to reasons of diplomacy and timing - a preemptive strike is what you use in order to make sure you hit first, and hard. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor is a classic example of preemption.
"Preventive war" is when you attack a country when war is NOT a forgone conclusion, but only a distinct possibility. Usually, a preventive strike is orchestrated when countries "get too powerful" for comfort, and war is deemed necessary to curtail the "potential" threat. Israel loves preventive warfare: the Suez War of 1956 was a preventive war against Egypt (who had recently signed a weapons deal with the USSR), and the strike against Osirak reactor was a preventive strike on Iraq's potential nuclear capabilities.
Preemptive strikes are usually considered legitimate, if underhanded. No one will accuse a nation that practices preventive war of getting enbroiled in conflicts that could have been avoided. Preventive war, however, is a completely different ballgame. Preventive war is usually considered illegitimate, belligerant, and hegemonistic. Practicers of preventive war are not typically looked upon kindly by the world, and the results are often quite counterproductive. When Israel/Britain/France's preventive war on Egypt was stopped by threats from the USA and USSR, Britain and France lost ALL regional influence in the Middle East (and were branded "dying imperialists," which would bite France in the ass in Algeria later) , while Israel lost nearly all of the land it had conquered and was put in the USA's doghouse for the next decade.
Iraq was a preventive war. Bush's team doesn't say that because "preventive war" carries a negative connotation, but that's what it is. Like most preventive wars, it was unnecessary, counterproductive, and illegitimate (though noone can challenge the USA on issues of legitimacy due to its power...yet). Even granted contemporary "intelligence" about Iraq's WMD capabilities, going to war with Saddam Hussein was STILL about the stupidest thing we could have done in the region barring an invasion of Israel.
It would have been worse and eventually led to a guerilla rebellion against a militaristic world government, because you just described Command & Conquer: Red Alert.
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.[/QUOTE]
Pre-WWII Japan was never really a democracy. Under the Meiji Constitution all sovereignty was vested in the Emperor, rather than the people. This included virtually all legislative authority, as well as control over the Cabinet - the governing administrative body. It also included the ability to dissolve the lower house of parliament, the only one elected. So while citizens could vote, their votes were essentially meaningless.
For example, that's why the governments of Europe, the U.S. and Canada offered no aid to the Republicans in Spain. The prevailing thought was that if the Nationalists won things might be a little unpleasant in Spain for a decade or so. If the Republicans won Spain would become a hot-bed of communism for the next century.
Man, in retrospect this seems really ill-thought-out. I mean, I guess I can see their point - that socialist regimes would align with the Soviets, but you'd think we'd be a little more suspicious of right-wing authoritarians after that whole WWII thing and all.
Not to mention that I'm sure china would have something to say about that.
As well, there was a little more to it - the way I understand it, it was also the distinction between totalitarian versus authoritarian. Right-wing governments can be totalitarian (the idea of remaking society, culture and yes, economic relationships), but it was thought that communists were much worse in that regard. The totalitarian nature of the regimes was what made them bad news when it came to an eventual transition to democracy.
So you have the line of thought that socialists and communists were Soviet allies working to completely (and possibly irreversibly) alter their respective societies. Right-wing and fascist dictators meanwhile were just happy enough to stay in power and other than a tendency to play up nationalist and militaristic sentiments, and kill a number of their opponents, they don't change things a whole lot.
Franco might have been an authoritarian but he largely left Spanish society and way of life (and its market economy) alone. Even Mussolini, in comparison to Hitler, didn't really do much to reshape Italy (and even Germany wasn't long in becoming a democracy again after 1945). The same goes, in their thinking, of all of the right-wing dictatorships of Latin America, like Pinnochet.
It's your Hoxas, Castros, Pol Pots, Ortegas and Netos who were going to permanently spoil things.
This guy writes some pretty good war history analysis pieces. I linked to this one because I am sick and tired of everyone trying to refight WWII and make it analogous to the current Iraqi/Afghani wars.
Seriously. Invading was a massive fucking mistake because it was as much about oil as it was about being a massive testing ground for the theory of "Transformation" (for those of you not familiar, that means hi tech/low personel armies that contract out the support elements will stomp all over anything that gets in its way). Rumsfield massive ego couldn't allow anyone to show that he knew about jack and shit when it came to ground warfare (Jack having just left the room), and he couldn't let all these massive multimillion dollar toys just lay around, gathering dirt in NTC and JRTC.
So, Iraq. And the results from that? The Army is busy destroying itself while the Marines are getting leaned on more and more (and even less equipped to deal with it than the Army was/is), the Navy and Air Force are quietly sending excess computer programmers, water purification specialists, and anti-submarine helicopter crew members over to Iraq to guard convoys. Billions of dollars lost, lives poured down the drain, and so some evil fuckers could have thier excuse for war.
Whee. Republicans are more efficient. It took them less than four years to break one of the better armies the world has seen. GG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taisho_democracy
Not to mention, in many cases, the Emperor was content to take the backseat and let others have the controls of power.