How America botched the occupation

TomF

This is absolutely amazing reading!

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/11/06/what_botched_occupation/


The Boston Globe
What 'botched' occupation?
By Jeff Jacoby, 11/6/2003

"EVERYWHERE I've traveled recently in Germany I've run into Americans, ranging from generals down to privates, who ask perplexedly, `What are we Americans supposed to be doing here? Are we going to take over this place and stay here forever?' "

So opened journalist Demaree Bess's article -- "How We Botched the German Occupation" -- in the Saturday Evening Post of Jan. 26, 1946. That was eight months after V-E Day, and Bess was sure that the Allies' military victory over Hitler was being squandered in the postwar.

"We have got into this German job without understanding what we were tackling or why," he wrote. "Not one American political leader fully realized at the outset how formidable our German commitments would prove to be. There was no idea, at the beginning, that Americans would become involved in a project to take Germany completely apart and put it together again in wholly new patterns."

Today, of course, few would argue that the United States "botched" the occupation of West Germany. Looking back from the early 21st century, it is clear that the transformation of the shattered Nazi Reich into a bulwark of democracy was one of the signal achievements of 20th-century statecraft. But on the ground in 1946, that happy outcome was nowhere in view. What was in view was an occupation beset by troubles -- chaotic, dangerous, and frequently vicious. Just like the one in Iraq today.

There is no denying that the news out of Iraq has been brutal lately. US soldiers die in roadside bombings and in brazen attacks like the helicopter downing that killed 15 on Sunday. Terrorists target civilian venues -- Red Cross offices, Muslim shrines, embassies -- for the bloodiest possible carnage. Iraqis are grateful to be free of Saddam Hussein, but many nonetheless inveigh against the American occupiers who toppled him. At the moment, Iraq seems a long, long way from anything resembling the stable and tolerant democracy President Bush says he is determined to see it become.

Not surprisingly, public support for the war is eroding. Only 54 percent of Americans still say it was worth fighting, according to the latest ABC/Washington Post poll. Just 47 percent of the public approves of President Bush's handling of Iraq; a thin majority, 51 percent, actually disapproved. Quagmire fears are deepening: 53 percent were "very" concerned that the United States will get bogged down. A few more horrific attacks, another bloody couple of months in Baghdad and Fallujah, and it isn't hard to imagine even more Americans giving up on Iraq and deciding we should never have gone in to begin with.

Which is exactly what Saddam and his murderer-loyalists -- and the terror cadres that have joined them -- are counting on. They expect us to walk away. They are certain that we will do again what we did in Beirut and Mogadishu: lose heart, pull out, and leave the Middle East to them.

Will we?

Make no mistake. We are now in the battle that will decide the course of the war. Either Iraq will be cleansed and democratized, or the war on terror will be lost. There is no middle ground. The Baathist diehards and Islamist car-bombers understand that everything is on the line. They know that if the Americans succeed in planting freedom and decency in the Arab world, they are finished. That is why they are determined at all costs to drive us out.

To his great credit, Bush has never wavered in his resolve to stay in Iraq until it is governed by a stable constitutional democracy. "The terrorists and the Baathists hope to weaken our will," he said on Nov. 1. "Our will canot be shaken." He and his administration have learned the core lesson of Sept. 11: The terrorist threat to civilization will never be rolled back until the Middle East is shaken from its nightmare of tyranny, cruelty, and religious fanaticism.

If only the Democrats running to replace Bush understood that lesson as well. Except for Senator Joseph Lieberman, none of them seems to grasp the magnitude of the stakes in Iraq. When they spoke of Iraq during their televised debate at Faneuil Hall Tuesday night, all they appeared to care about was genuflecting to the UN and denouncing "sweetheart deals for Halliburton."

On what is by far the most consequential issue of the day, the Democrats repeatedly come across as petty and unserious. The proper goal of the US occupation, the link between Iraq and American national security, the US role in reshaping the Middle East -- if the candidates have thought meaningfully about any of these, it is impossible to tell. Incredibly, the first post-9/11 presidential campaign is being contested by a Democratic lineup that has apparently learned next to nothing from 9/11.

Like the occupation of Germany in January 1946, America's work in Iraq is only getting underway. A huge amount of effort -- and danger -- still lies ahead. What Americans need now are leaders who can focus on the great work before them, not sideline snipers carping prematurely that the occupation has been "botched."

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

gandalf

It may be an amazing article but that does not quantify your opinion on what is being said in the article.

Please clarify that will you.

People are getting lazy again and not following the charter. If you post and article make sure you make your position on it clear!!

Gandalf.

Éomer of Rohan

More sycophantic twitter out of the right wing midden. I knew there was something wrong when I saw TomF's name beside an article entitled "How America Botched the Occupation."

The only thing I need to say about this is that it shows how utterly incompetent and retarded this American journalist is that he thinks there are parallels between Iraq 2003 and Germany 1945.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The only thing I need to say about this is that it shows how utterly incompetent and retarded this American journalist is that he thinks there are parallels between Iraq 2003 and Germany 1945.

He may have a very loose grip on history, but he has just as loose a grip on the present:

Either Iraq will be cleansed and democratized, or the war on terror will be lost. There is no middle ground.

What's the connection, again?

He and his administration have learned the core lesson of Sept. 11: The terrorist threat to civilization will never be rolled back until the Middle East is shaken from its nightmare of tyranny, cruelty, and religious fanaticism.

Clash of Civilizations nonsense. Who the hell encouraged and bankrolled these cruel, tyrannical regimes in the first place?

Trite, I know, but the whole article is trite, not even worth considering save for the fact that the writer is probably a Jew and that articles like this only serve to radicalize an already uneducated 'civilization'.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Dadakopf
Clash of Civilizations nonsense

Clash of Civilisations written by Samuel Huntingdon if I remember correctly? I tried reading that once; it made me sick.

He may aswell have just written "SADDAM IS EVIL!!! TERRORISTS ARE EVIL!!! TERRORISTS WANT TO KILL YOU!!! SAUDI ARABIA IS GOOD THOUGH, WE LIKE THEM!!! BTW VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!"

Éomer of Rohan

No that would have been inappropriate to the insipid tactics they prefer to use :rolleyes:

Sand

Its sad how people never learn from history, and reject out of hand its lessons when they dont fit in with their own views.

Trite, I know, but the whole article is trite, not even worth considering save for the fact that the writer is probably a Jew

It wouldnt be worth even that if the writer was Muslim, Catholic or Aetheist?

Éomer of Rohan

Hang on Sand, are you agreeing with us that this article is trash?

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Its sad how people never learn from history, and reject out of hand its lessons when they dont fit in with their own views.

It sure is. As anyone using the example of Germany to defend the botched occupation of Iraq will eventually realise.

TomF

My apologies for not making my comment, too. I like to put up articles like these not only because I agree with them, but also because I enjoy the way the far-left cranks come out of the woodwork to respond to them. I don't mean to say that I post them as a way of throwing out bait.

At the ending stages of the first Gulf War, at the time of the "turkey shoot" so-called when the less adept units of the Iraqi army were out on the highway north from Kuwait staggering along under a burden of loot, fighter aircraft of the allies made an absolute slaughter which I though was very cruel. Also, there was extensive bombing of Baghdad going on, and I thought at the time that the country's infrastructure was being returned to the stone age and thought the pursuit should be broken-off.

It was broken off, and Iraq rebuilt its military machine at the expense of its cities and services for its people.

So maybe I and many others were wrong at the time in saying that the administration of Bush, Sr. should stop the pursuit. If the war had continued to the disruption of "the elite Republican Guard" (funny how we don't be reading that particular phrase much these days!), and the scattering of auld Saddam and Co., maybe the UN would have cooperated much more fully and today we would be talking about a well-organized, democratic, prosperous and peaceful Iraq.

Well, that didn't happen because the only mandate that the UN would support was to boot Iraq's military occupiers out of Kuwait.

The years that went by with Saddam thumbing his nose at the world finally came to a screeching halt when the amateur pilots of radical Islamic persuasion crashed their aircraft loaded with passengers into the two skyscrapers in New York City and the Pentagon in Virginia and, losing control, crashed one into a field in rural Pennsylvania. When that happened it was an absolute certainty that there was going to be a terrible consequence to some in the Islamic Middle East, and Afghanistan's band of guest terrorists took the first blow while Saddam Hussein's "elite Republican Guard" together with every other military target indentifiable in Iraq, took the next blow.

The blows have landed, and now I would say the US is in both countries to stay until the cauterisation is complete. Of course because the US is a democracy and has constitutionally-mandated elections every four years no matter what, unlike parliamentary countries, it could happen that the US Democratic Party will get into executive office and pull US forces out of both Afghanistan and Iraq. If that happens, it is only a matter of time before some hate-filled Islamic radical totes a suitcase-size nuclear bomb into a place like Disneyworld in Florida or a city like Boston or San Francisco and sets it off. For that matter, one could be set-off in a city like London or Liverpool too, and it isn't Sellafield we'd be worried about.

Sparks

Originally posted by TomF
At the ending stages of the first Gulf War, at the time of the "turkey shoot" so-called when the less adept units of the Iraqi army were out on the highway north from Kuwait staggering along under a burden of loot, fighter aircraft of the allies made an absolute slaughter which I though was very cruel.

Not to mention a war crime under the Geneva Convention since those troops were under orders to withdraw from Kuwait (which is what they were doing), and a formal cessation of hostilities against Kuwait by Iraq had been announced publically 12 hours before the attack. So when they were annihilated, those troops were protected by the UN charter and the Geneva convention.

mr_angry

Hold on TomF. Are you trying to link September 11th with Saddam Hussein? Much in the same way as "propaganda" stations like Fox News have been reporting it to the American people?

I agree with some points in the article. Pulling out now would be a horrible defeat for the Americans, and giving over Iraq to the militants and terrorists would be a disaster for the Iraqi people. But I'm also not naive enough to think that the Americans' only motive for being there is seeing true justice and democracy prevail. Money talks. And it does more talking in the American government than anywhere else on the planet.

Assuming the writer is a Jew is jumping to conclusions, but I have no doubt that this article is designed to be republican propaganda - the slagging off of the Democrats just lessens its credibility further. Having said that, there's plenty of left-wing propaganda out there too. However, I would not call this article "a great read" by any stretch of the imagination. Not unless you expected to be amused by it.

By the way, I'm disturbed by your doomsday predictions. What's the alternative? Hide under our beds all day every day? Create a totalitarian police state where nobody has any freedom, but at least we wont be bombed? Destroy every non-Western Democracy in case any member of their society has an anti-American viewpoint?

I don't know if I'd rather be blown up while feeling happy and carefree, or live in that world.

growler

Originally posted by Tom F

pull US forces out of both Afghanistan and Iraq. If that happens, it is only a matter of time before some hate-filled Islamic radical totes a suitcase-size nuclear bomb into a place like Disneyworld in Florida or a city like Boston or San Francisco and sets it off

I am amazed to see that anyone thinks that the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have done anything to protect the west from such acts, sure they might have disrupted the ability to launch similar attacks in the short term from the likes of Osama but they have made many more enemies for themselves and I fear will suffer the consequences of their actions in years to come.

Geromino

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Clash of Civilizations nonsense. Who the hell encouraged and bankrolled these cruel, tyrannical regimes in the first place?

Trite, I know, but the whole article is trite, not even worth considering save for the fact that the writer is probably a Jew and that articles like this only serve to radicalize an already uneducated 'civilization'.

First of all, since when does a person religion have anything to do with an article's accuracy? I do not care if the person is Muslim, Christain, Shinto, Buhdist, Jew, or decided to paint himself purple with pink polkadots. There is no ZOG or anyting else on that matter.

It is a clash of civilizations. First, islamic fundamentalists reject western ideals, that is democracy and individual freedoms. This means that they reject any country that inhibits these ideals to some degree or another. Further, islamic fundamentalists, again not to be confused with moderate or traditional Muslims, believe that any non Muslim (Christian, Jew, Aeithist, Hindu, Shinto, etc) should either conform to Islam or be killed. Third, islamic fundamentalists believe that Christains and Jews are the dogs of earth and are not considered "humans." This goes against the Q'ran directly to treat Christains and Jews as brothers.

So, who is funding these groups? To start off with, it is primarily charitable orgainizations located in Europe, primarily, and the US, secondary. And you also have Syria, North Korea, Yemen, and a few other minor countries that have funded these groups.

growler wrote:

I am amazed to see that anyone thinks that the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have done anything to protect the west from such acts, sure they might have disrupted the ability to launch similar attacks in the short term from the likes of Osama but they have made many more enemies for themselves and I fear will suffer the consequences of their actions in years to come.

This "problem" has been brewing for decades and only came into the forefront after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It started with Muslim nationalism and has culminated into a religious nationalism/fundamentalism that we see now. Even moderate Muslims are targeted for simply accepting Western ideals. Anid I do not think any of us would want to be under Shia law as perscribed by the Q'ran. However, you cannot find any logic in hate. I have read stories in which a person killed another person for simply scoffing their Air Jordons shoes, or will get a D on a reprot card or some other rediculous reason.

Sparks wrote:

Not to mention a war crime under the Geneva Convention since those troops were under orders to withdraw from Kuwait (which is what they were doing), and a formal cessation of hostilities against Kuwait by Iraq had been announced publically 12 hours before the attack. So when they were annihilated, those troops were protected by the UN charter and the Geneva convention.

Hogwash! If you are talking about the "Highway of Death" Battle, they were not fleeing Kuwait as prescribed by the Geneva Convention. They stole cars and vehicles as well as used their own to hide from the impeding assault. Under the Geneva Convention, the opposing force needs to display clearly and precisely (i.e. a white flag) that they were leaving. They did not do this and could not be assumed in a battlefield. Under the rules of engagement in which the pilots were under, any moving vehicle displaying a "hostile manner" would be fired upon. If you are talking about the incident in which the 24th Mech Inf div, then you better look at the evidence from over a thousand officers and enlisted personell gave in which they were fired upon first.

But then agian, if it is printed on the internet, then it must be true, sign

shotamoose

Originally posted by Geromino
It is a clash of civilizations. First, islamic fundamentalists reject western ideals, that is democracy and individual freedoms. This means that they reject any country that inhibits these ideals to some degree or another. Further, islamic fundamentalists, again not to be confused with moderate or traditional Muslims, believe that any non Muslim (Christian, Jew, Aeithist, Hindu, Shinto, etc) should either conform to Islam or be killed. Third, islamic fundamentalists believe that Christains and Jews are the dogs of earth and are not considered "humans." This goes against the Q'ran directly to treat Christains and Jews as brothers.

The problem is when people try to explain everything that happens in the middle east (or anywhere else) in terms of this cultural divide (or some other cultural divide). Surely it's obvious that resistance to the occupation of Iraq is not all about culture. Neither is anti-American terrorism, or the 'War on Terror'. Simplifying complex situations into these childlike dichotomies obscures more than it reveals.

So, who is funding these groups? To start off with, it is primarily charitable orgainizations located in Europe, primarily, and the US, secondary. And you also have Syria, North Korea, Yemen, and a few other minor countries that have funded these groups.

Not Saudi Arabia, then? I'd be interested to see a list of the charitable organisations in Europe that are the primary source of fundamentalist Islamist terrorism.

I have read stories in which a person killed another person for simply scoffing their Air Jordons shoes

I've read those stories too, except they were all about New York or some other North American city. What's your point? Was that down to a clash of civilisations too?

bonkey

It never ceases to amaze me no end that when a US-critic draws parallells of any sort between the any pro-US nation and Germany in WW2, you get the pro-US team coming out full guns blazing telling us how completely inappropriate it is to compare whatever-it-was-you-did-compare with the Germans, and the horrific atrocities they performed, and how (especially if Jews are in any way involved in the modern situation you drew the comparisons to) its cheapening the memory of the Holocaust, if not just downright anti-Semitic.

Then they go and push articles like this to tell us how wrong those critics are anyway because wait for it........Iraq is just like Germany.

<sarcasm>
Ah yes....good old equally-applied standards are always a joy to behold.
</sarcasm>

Either Iraq will be cleansed and democratized, or the war on terror will be lost. There is no middle ground

That would be one of those flawed attempts to convince us all once again that these things are purely binary. You can have a, or b, but thats it.


Oh...I also noticed that the author failed to mention that the US remained in Germany from the end of the war up until the present day, and yet tell us they want to be out of Iraq ASAP. But its still the same......

It is a clash of civilizations. First, islamic fundamentalists reject western ideals

And we reject theirs. We are convinced we are right and they are wrong - naturally. what amazes me is that people seem amazed that these guys just don't agree with us.

So, who is funding these groups? To start off with, it is primarily charitable orgainizations located in Europe, primarily, and the US, secondary.

So, ummm, what the hell is the US doing in the Middle East, when the two major problem areas are itself and Europe????

any moving vehicle displaying a "hostile manner" would be fired upon

So all that remains is to explain how a car, bus, or truck (as you said), running away from your oncoming M1-Abrahms, Apache gunships, etc, could be seen as acting in a "hostile manner" and you're away with it....

"They were fired upon first" in a situation like that sounds as genuine a reason for the thousands of deaths caused as the IDF saying "he threw a rock at our tank" is for when - on occasion - the Israeli's gunned down some young kids.

From a link I found :

Reprinted from the San Francisco Chronicle

The Pentagon said that a "gap" in the laws governing warfare made it legally permissible during the gulf war for U.S. tanks to bury thousands of Iraqi troops in their trenches and for U.S. warplanes to bomb the enemy retreating along the so-called Highway of Death.

An elaborate legal justification was contained in an appendix to the report on the war sent to Congress by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. The section also accused Iraq of "widespread and premeditated" war crimes and environmental terrorism.

So technically you're right. Its not a war-crime....in the same way that if I could find a similar legal loophole, walking up to a person on the street and blowing his or her head open with a couple of well-placed rounds from an assault rifle wouldn't be murder.

Oh, and its important to note that while saying "it wasn't murder", I should also point out that the victim was part of an organisation which I felt was responsible for many murders itself - as if that was somehow relevant to my case.

The US seems awfully fond of availing of gaps in the law. The Highway of Death wasn't a war crime....the Gitmo Detainees were neither combatants or non-combatants.....

What amazes me is that neither the US - nor anyone else - seems interested in actually plugging these gaps once they've been exposed.

I'm pretty sure that if a US operative was captured in (say) the next country they are militarily involved in, and the captors completely disregarded the GC in their treatment of said operative, and justified it on the grounds of "well, we think that he isn't actually covered by the rules, so our actions are ok", the US would not be one of the most vociferous supporters of the intent - rather than the letter - of the law, and also would be amongst the first to start pointing out that it is not the right of the involved parties to make such decisions.

Note - I said "pretty sure". Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the US would actually say "fair enough...we do the same to the rules". I somehow doubt it though.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
So technically you're right. Its not a war-crime....in the same way that if I could find a similar legal loophole, walking up to a person on the street and blowing his or her head open with a couple of well-placed rounds from an assault rifle wouldn't be murder.

You can stand in the middle of the busy main street of a German city and fire your crossbow all day and once you don't hit anyone, all the police can do is fine you (50DM / €25).

Sand

Hang on Sand, are you agreeing with us that this article is trash?

Nah, just curious how the writers religion comes into play in dismissing the piece. Should I dismiss any opinion pieces by say, Muslim writers because they might criticise the war on terror , but darnit its down to the fact theyre muslim so theyre opinion doesnt count? Ive seen pieces by Israeli writers criticising Israels operations in the occupied territories....I guess I can dismiss them out of hand too because theyre Jewish too? Do you dismiss such pieces in a similar fashion?

It sure is. As anyone using the example of Germany to defend the botched occupation of Iraq will eventually realise.

Ah, the echo of history - just keeps on repeating itself. As we all know Germany was a cakewalk - no mass destruction on an epic scale, economic implosion even greater than that which Nazism and Communism had thrived before, massive refugee influxes from the east as Germans were ethnically cleansed from free communist Europe, the sheer horror of the holocaust and the denazification process, the sacking of Berlin and other Gemran cities by the Russians liberators, and of course the bitter cold war brewing between the two superpowers attempting to run the country - leading to such wonderful occurences as the Berlin blockade.

Bloody cakewalk it was. Success in terms of the modern, unified, democratic Germany we all know and love was a foregone conclusion wasnt it? Never in doubt. Never any setbacks.

And of course, then as now, there were those who utterly believed in the certainty of failure, the impossibility of victory. Lets hope history keeps on repeating itself eh?

I'm pretty sure that if a US operative was captured in (say) the next country they are militarily involved in, and the captors completely disregarded the GC in their treatment of said operative, and justified it on the grounds of "well, we think that he isn't actually covered by the rules, so our actions are ok", the US would not be one of the most vociferous supporters of the intent - rather than the letter - of the law, and also would be amongst the first to start pointing out that it is not the right of the involved parties to make such decisions.

Course they would - So would you if you were in their position. So long as the US remains within the law, surely world opinion ( and that of editors everywhere ) is satisfied? If they have better lawyers than the hypothetical enemy then whats wrong with that? If we attempt to go with the intent of the law, which is of course highly subjective it leads down a slippery path...something youve argued against previously havent you? Look at Mr Wright - letter of the law was applied was Corks position, something you felt wasnt worth dignifying with a response. I dont see what the problem is so long as the US didnt break the law and you say yourself they didnt. Unless of course the intent of the law trumps the letter of the law in your opinion - if only in certain cases.

Redleslie

Sand, do you think Saddam was/is the modern equivalent of Adolf Hitler and that the Iraqi regime was a monumental threat to the world? If not why are you comparing Iraq with Germany? The US invasion of Iraq should only really be compared with the British invasion and occupation in the last century.

And why do you quote George Orwell in your sig? I'm reminded of the South Park episode where the town is arguing over whether the founding fathers would support the war or not, if they were'nt dead for a couple of hundred years.

Sparks

Originally posted by Geromino
[First, islamic fundamentalists reject western ideals, that is democracy and individual freedoms.

Really? You know, nationalist fundamentalists killed unionist fundamentalists here for decades. Doesn't mean that they ever spoke for the rest of us - in fact, the rest of us wanted them in jail for their actions.
You'll have to prove that the same isn't true of Islam for your point to be right.

Hogwash! If you are talking about the "Highway of Death" Battle, they were not fleeing Kuwait as prescribed by the Geneva Convention. They stole cars and vehicles as well as used their own to hide from the impeding assault.

No, they didn't. They withdrew, under orders which were publicly broadcast on Baghdad Radio as well as sent to the US command twelve hours before the attacks on the basra highway began.
It was a war crime, unsupported by the UN mandate the US troops were operating under, and specifically prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

Under the Geneva Convention, the opposing force needs to display clearly and precisely (i.e. a white flag) that they were leaving.

Wrong (about the white flag). And telling your enemy 12 hours prior to the attack that you're withdrawing in accordance with UN demands is about as clear and precise as I can think of.

They did not do this and could not be assumed in a battlefield.

What battlefield? They weren't in the fight anymore, they had withdrawn.

Under the rules of engagement in which the pilots were under, any moving vehicle displaying a "hostile manner" would be fired upon.

Withdrawing from the battle under orders to cease hostilities, orders that the US knew about, is the antithesis of a "hostile manner".

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Course they would - So would you if you were in their position.

How nice of you to make assumptions for me on my moral stance.

If we attempt to go with the intent of the law, which is of course highly subjective it leads down a slippery path...something youve argued against previously havent you?

No, it isn't. Law is always interpreted, and it is down to those in the relevant positions (e.g. High Court in Ireland for Irish Law?) to interpret how the law should be applied to a given situation.

In the case of the US, they are making decisions and taking actions based on their own interpretation of the law. For example, the Geneva Conventions specifically state that when someone's legal status under the convention is questionable, then it is not for either party to decide, but rather a neutral arbitrative body. In both the Highway of Death and Gitmo, this has not been done. Yes, thats not just the US' fault - because those who could make such arbitration are too scared to actually do their job and criticise the US...because they don't want to become "against us".

Look at Mr Wright - letter of the law was applied was Corks position, something you felt wasnt worth dignifying with a response.

It wasn't that the law was served that wasn't worthy of a response. It was the assumption that because the system had been used, that all must be in order. Thats like equating the existence of laws with the adherence to them.

jc

Sand

Sand, do you think Saddam was/is the modern equivalent of Adolf Hitler and that the Iraqi regime was a monumental threat to the world? If not why are you comparing Iraq with Germany?

Because of the difficulty of the task that is facing the liberating forces right now - having to build a democratic country right up from the ground, and the massive disbelief in the possibility of success.

nd why do you quote George Orwell in your sig? I'm reminded of the South Park episode where the town is arguing over whether the founding fathers would support the war or not, if they were'nt dead for a couple of hundred years.

I like the quote. It demonstrates how history repeats itself, everything we see now and all the positions we see articulated have all come before. Id stick in the January 1946 quote by Bess as well but Im probably testing the boundaries of sig size as it is.

How nice of you to make assumptions for me on my moral stance.

Well if we were to hypothetically place you in the position of the US administration having to react to such a situation, then Id have to wonder how you got there without being a politician. And Id have to wonder how long youd last in your job saying "Yeah, well we have unlawful combatants so I guess its okay for them to apply their own standards to our soldiers". Youd have mobs with pitchforks outside your door by morning - sooner even

For example, the Geneva Conventions specifically state that when someone's legal status under the convention is questionable, then it is not for either party to decide, but rather a neutral arbitrative body. In both the Highway of Death and Gitmo, this has not been done. Yes, thats not just the US' fault - because those who could make such arbitration are too scared to actually do their job and criticise the US...because they don't want to become "against us".

If it was questionable then why wasnt it brought to court by either side or even by concerned bystanders - clearly it wasnt questionable. It was wholly legal and above board and justified. The law and the legal process arent wrong. And name me a neutral arbitrative body in world politics?

It wasn't that the law was served that wasn't worthy of a response. It was the assumption that because the system had been used, that all must be in order. Thats like equating the existence of laws with the adherence to them.

Wasnt everything in order though? The only real problem is that Wright got away with what could have been murder - but the letter of the law was served. The intent of the law was ignored but havent we always been afraid of going after the intent of the law over the letter for fear of lawlessness and dangerous precedents.

Geromino

Originally posted by shotamoose
The problem is when people try to explain everything that happens in the middle east (or anywhere else) in terms of this cultural divide (or some other cultural divide). Surely it's obvious that resistance to the occupation of Iraq is not all about culture. Neither is anti-American terrorism, or the 'War on Terror'. Simplifying complex situations into these childlike dichotomies obscures more than it reveals.

So basically what you are saying is that you will find an explanation suitable to your own political beliefs no matter how inaccurate it is. Although I am not trying to explain everyithing of what is happening in the Middle East, it is still a valid point in terms of Islamic Fundamentalists rejecting western ideals of individual rights. Case in point is Nigeria, a shining example of Islamic Fundamentalism. You can also look at Iran and the Taliban govenrment (remember when they destroyed some Bahdist statues that were thousands of years of years old).

Not Saudi Arabia, then? I'd be interested to see a list of the charitable organisations in Europe that are the primary source of fundamentalist Islamist terrorism.

As I ahve stated minor countries. As far as Saudi Arabia is concerned, individuals from Saudi Arabia have contributed to terrorist groups. It does not mean that King Fahd has done so. Nor has his upper echelon govenrment officilas have contributed that we know of. But then again, the Islamic banks are not part of the international banking system, generally, and very little is known about their operations, their assets, their control techniques, and their overall structure.

I've read those stories too, except they were all about New York or some other North American city. What's your point? Was that down to a clash of civilisations too?

The point was trying to put logic to hatred. You cannot. You can attempt to explain why someone or some group does a particular event or even hold a particualr philosophy, but you cannot make into logic hatred. You will find that anyone can or will hate you no matter what you do, what you say, what you do not say, or where you live. It is their perception that you have wronged them in some way that will somehow cause this hatred and it will be based upon their actions on how to resolve it. Psychologists have for years try to explain hatred but cannot. Some psychologists will call individuals or groups of hatred as paranoid to help explain the situation, but still cannot explain it in detail.

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
That would be one of those flawed attempts to convince us all once again that these things are purely binary. You can have a, or b, but thats it.

Oh...I also noticed that the author failed to mention that the US remained in Germany from the end of the war up until the present day, and yet tell us they want to be out of Iraq ASAP. But its still the same......

As far as Iraq is concerned, a democracy would prove very vital to the world. However, what form of democracy should take place? Or should Iraq even be democratized are the questions I believe the author is asking?

And we reject theirs. We are convinced we are right and they are wrong - naturally. what amazes me is that people seem amazed that these guys just don't agree with us.

There is a difference between agreeing or disagreeing with culture. And having experienced several very different cultures, one should always not judge a culture so callously as Islamic Fundamentalists have. That is only one of their fatal flaws.

So, ummm, what the hell is the US doing in the Middle East, when the two major problem areas are itself and Europe????

Attacking the money supply is only part of the answer. Attacking the groups directly (either covertly or overtly) is the other part of the equation.

So all that remains is to explain how a car, bus, or truck (as you said), running away from your oncoming M1-Abrahms, Apache gunships, etc, could be seen as acting in a "hostile manner" and you're away with it....

"They were fired upon first" in a situation like that sounds as genuine a reason for the thousands of deaths caused as the IDF saying "he threw a rock at our tank" is for when - on occasion - the Israeli's gunned down some young kids.

From a link I found :

So technically you're right. Its not a war-crime....in the same way that if I could find a similar legal loophole, walking up to a person on the street and blowing his or her head open with a couple of well-placed rounds from an assault rifle wouldn't be murder.

Oh, and its important to note that while saying "it wasn't murder", I should also point out that the victim was part of an organisation which I felt was responsible for many murders itself - as if that was somehow relevant to my case.

The US seems awfully fond of availing of gaps in the law. The Highway of Death wasn't a war crime....the Gitmo Detainees were neither combatants or non-combatants.....

What amazes me is that neither the US - nor anyone else - seems interested in actually plugging these gaps once they've been exposed.

I'm pretty sure that if a US operative was captured in (say) the next country they are militarily involved in, and the captors completely disregarded the GC in their treatment of said operative, and justified it on the grounds of "well, we think that he isn't actually covered by the rules, so our actions are ok", the US would not be one of the most vociferous supporters of the intent - rather than the letter - of the law, and also would be amongst the first to start pointing out that it is not the right of the involved parties to make such decisions.

Note - I said "pretty sure". Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the US would actually say "fair enough...we do the same to the rules". I somehow doubt it though.

jc

Bonkey, explain the difference between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, voluntary homocide, involuntary homocide, vehicular homicide, and justifiable homocide/accident. In case you are wondering, each of these terms describe "murder" with each having a somewhat specific set of parameters to establish at what level each one is defined as, and only one is defined as a legal murder. As far as "gaps' in the laws are concerned, it is impossible for lawmakers to write laws that deal with specific circumstances of any situation known or unknown. Laws are not written that way. They are written in broad general parameters with room for interpretation. Thus the argument of legal action vs illegal action of Iraq, Gulf War actions, or other historic events come into play here. You are then going to define those paramenters even further by a political, philosophical or even both dogma to justify your argument or not justify someone else's.

Sparks

Originally posted by Geromino
As far as "gaps' in the laws are concerned, it is impossible for lawmakers to write laws that deal with specific circumstances of any situation known or unknown. Laws are not written that way. They are written in broad general parameters with room for interpretation. Thus the argument of legal action vs illegal action of Iraq, Gulf War actions, or other historic events come into play here.

Codswallop. The Geneva Convention stated in black and white that those soldiers were protected persons, and the US slaughtered them in full knowledge of that.
That's a war crime, plain and simple.

Geromino

Originally posted by Sparks
Really? You know, nationalist fundamentalists killed unionist fundamentalists here for decades. Doesn't mean that they ever spoke for the rest of us - in fact, the rest of us wanted them in jail for their actions.
You'll have to prove that the same isn't true of Islam for your point to be right.

Both or just the unionists, Sparks. I have yet to find anyone who wanted both groups, in terms of Northern Ireland's situation, in jail. More realistically, they wanted the other group in jail not their own.

No, they didn't. They withdrew, under orders which were publicly broadcast on Baghdad Radio as well as sent to the US command twelve hours before the attacks on the basra highway began.
It was a war crime, unsupported by the UN mandate the US troops were operating under, and specifically prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

If we hold this premise is true, then Saddam Hussein would have broadcasted those orders directly to his troops and at the same time in a general broadcast over the "loudspeaker." (Using public radio to broadcast those same orders.) Let us take a look at the first premise. Saddam would had to have some sort of command and control facilities and lines of communications to make those orders. This would also go against the premise that Saddam made to make Kuwait "the mother of all battles." It would also have to go against the premise in which Saddam used is elite Republican Guard to kill any officer or enlisted person who even attempted or allowed to attempt to surrender to the coalition forces. Now, let us take a look at the second premise. To be made in such, one would reasonable assume that the senior commanders heard said radio broadcasts. And not only did the US, but also the other coalition forces, namely the Arab forces of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt and Syrian forces would have too. It would also would have been heard in Jordon or by UN observers in Saudi Arabia. But then again, I guess that is one of those conspiracy theories of how we are all "bushwacked" into believing something else. But what we have not gone into are the rules of engagement in which US senior commanders make and subcommanders follow unless specifically prescribed by the Geneva Convention.

Wrong (about the white flag). And telling your enemy 12 hours prior to the attack that you're withdrawing in accordance with UN demands is about as clear and precise as I can think of.

Using white Flags is the most precise way and diret way for military units to withdraw from a theater of command. Again, if there was a broadcast, then there must be an official record and tape recorded for evidence.

What battlefield? They weren't in the fight anymore, they had withdrawn.

More precisely, Kuwait was the theater of operation and any military operational unit was within the jurisdiction of combat.

Withdrawing from the battle under orders to cease hostilities, orders that the US knew about, is the antithesis of a "hostile manner".

Again, how did the US know. See the points I made about the broadcasts and the premises of your argument.

gurramok

Because of the difficulty of the task that is facing the liberating forces right now - having to build a democratic country right up from the ground, and the massive disbelief in the possibility of success

Funnily enough the british media are reporting the perpetrators of the attacks on US forces as either insurgents or guerrilas.
Not as terrorists like some of the US govt would want the world press to indicate

The liberating forces are no longer as the country is more or less liberated from Saddam. They are turning more into an occupying force in the eyes of many iraqis (reputedly so, cannot be gauged).

A proper Iraqi govt with elected support from its people who wish to invite the US troops to stay would not have a resisting comment from me on the matter

Otherwise it is turning into another Vietnam/Afghanistan and comparison by the author with WWII is crazy

Sand

The liberating forces are no longer as the country is more or less liberated from Saddam. They are turning more into an occupying force in the eyes of many iraqis (reputedly so, cannot be gauged).

Funny that. The US is criticised for its lack of follow through in Afghanisatan. Then its criticised for following through on Iraq.

They just cant win can they?

As for the eyes of many iraqis....the *only* survey Ive seen fo Iraqis showed that only 13% of Iraqis wanted the US to leave immediately. Ive been told since the survey doesnt count but like I said its the *only* survey Ive seen and the *only* indication of what Iraqis are even loosely thinking. Id love to know what hotline to god the anti-war movement have when they claim the Iraqis want the US gone.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Funny that. The US is criticised for its lack of follow through in Afghanisatan. Then its criticised for following through on Iraq.

The US has been criticised for the nature of its follow-through in both cases, and with good cause. Afghanistan and Iraq are different cases, so it's not surprising to see different solutions offered and different criticisms made. I think that's a better way to approach the situation than simply repeating "It's just like Germany, so it must be fine" over and over again. Even the Americans don't bother with such a spurious argument.

As for the eyes of many iraqis....the *only* survey Ive seen fo Iraqis showed that only 13% of Iraqis wanted the US to leave immediately. Ive been told since the survey doesnt count but like I said its the *only* survey Ive seen and the *only* indication of what Iraqis are even loosely thinking. Id love to know what hotline to god the anti-war movement have when they claim the Iraqis want the US gone.

I've seen two polls reported, though one of them might be the one you mention.

First one carried out by Channel 4 and YouGov in Baghdad . Some results:

50% say the war against Saddam's regime was 'right', 27% say 'wrong', 23% don't know.

6% say the main reason for the war was to find and destroy WMD, 23% say to liberate the Iraqis from dictatorship, 47% say to secure oil supplies.

asked if they would prefer to live under Saddam or the Americans, 29% went for the Americans, 9% for Saddam and 47% said 'no preference'.

47% said their lives were worse than a year ago, 32% better.

There's quite a few more questions there.

Poll carried out by Gallup

Although 62% of Baghdad residents who participated in Gallup's landmark poll of that city said ousting Saddam Hussein was worth any personal hardships they have endured since the invasion, most are deeply skeptical of the initial rationale the coalition has given for its action.

Sand

The US has been criticised for the nature of its follow-through in both cases, and with good cause. Afghanistan and Iraq are different cases, so it's not surprising to see different solutions offered and different criticisms made. I think that's a better way to approach the situation than simply repeating "It's just like Germany, so it must be fine" over and over again. Even the Americans don't bother with such a spurious argument.

Hey, its got to beat "Were utterly screwed!!!!!" again and again. Critics of the American liberation often do bother with spurious arguments such as "CIA/Latin America/Cold War/Iran" etc etc and they get plenty of airtime - so long as negative examples from throughout history are applicable then logically positive examples must also be admissable?

Or maybe as I said at the start, people seem to learn from history what they want to. And if you cant find the right message in the history books you can always revise them.

I've seen two polls reported, though one of them might be the one you mention.

Yeah thats the one, havent seen the other one before but good to see it now. The general story is that the Iraqis are deeply cynical over the reasons for the American liberation, are worse off in the short term, but are optimistic that they will be better off in the long term.

They are supportive of the Iraqi representive council, and wish to return political control to the Iraqis yesterday if not sooner, but do not wish to see the Americans leave for anything between a year to several years. They believe the US is serious about democratic reform and that the US will allow Iraqis to find their own way. Whilst the model they envision is not decisive they largest bloc of support seems to be for a British/American style democracy. They believe the US is serious about Improving the Iraqis economic prospects.

They on the other hand are divided - they disagree, but again its not decisive - as to whether the US will keep Iraq unified or remove its troops within a few years. Germany - that hated example - still has US troops inside its borders all these years on so they have grounds for that belief.

Like I said though - the general opinion of the Iraqis seems to be fairly positive towards the future and the USs role in rebuilding a democratic Iraq .... where are the "US=Great Satan" crowd getting their belief that the US forces are some great evil? The students up and down Ireland and abroad must be feeling betrayed by the Iraqis lack of bile towards Bush:|

Cork

Originally posted by Sand

They on the other hand are divided - they disagree, but again its not decisive - as to whether the US will keep Iraq unified or remove its troops within a few years. Germany - that hated example - still has US troops inside its borders all these years on so they have grounds for that belief.

|

The US need a plan to both rebuild Iraq and establish democracy. This will take time.

But - It is a pity seeing organisations like the Red Cross being targeted.

There is no quick fix to the Iraqi situation.

The students up and down Ireland and abroad must be feeling betrayed by the Iraqis lack of bile towards Bush

Nope, why?

Bush is not out in Iraq. It is US troops. It is US taxpayers money that is funding the operation.

I am sure Irish people only hope for a bright future for the Iraqi people.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Hey, its got to beat "Were utterly screwed!!!!!" again and again. Critics of the American liberation often do bother with spurious arguments such as "CIA/Latin America/Cold War/Iran" etc etc and they get plenty of airtime - so long as negative examples from throughout history are applicable then logically positive examples must also be admissable?

I think those are two different types of historical comparisons. The litany of 'CIA/Latin America/Cold War' stuff shows that in its foreign adventures the US consistently puts its self-interest far above concern for human rights, justice or the welfare of others.

The German example is arguably (very arguably) an exception to this. But it is really an example of an historically unique situation where loads of circumstances that don't apply to Iraq - international cooperation, truly gigantic sums of money being spent, absence of hoards of maniacal terrorists setting off car-bombs every few days, etc - applied, and combined to produce a happy outcome.

So if you ask me the first kind of comparison is more valid, because it shows a strong consistency through a variety of contexts, than the second, which shows that if Iraq is going to become another Germany the US would have to get a lot more help, pump a lot more money in, somehow remove the threat of terrorism, and it would still be a case of 'cross your fingers and hope for the best'.

Or maybe as I said at the start, people seem to learn from history what they want to. And if you cant find the right message in the history books you can always revise them.

You're not showing or inspiring much confidence in your own appeals to history there, Sand.

Yeah thats the one, havent seen the other one before but good to see it now. The general story is that the Iraqis are deeply cynical over the reasons for the American liberation, are worse off in the short term, but are optimistic that they will be better off in the long term.

I'm sure if I lived in Iraq right now I'd hope to be better off in the long term, as the alternative - one big long stay in hell - is not exactly attractive.

Of course the Iraqis are looking forward to a better future. It's just that for people who've been 'liberated' they're not displaying the slavish devotion I'm sure the US were looking forward to.

The students up and down Ireland and abroad must be feeling betrayed by the Iraqis lack of bile towards Bush:|

You're suggesting maybe that Bush and co should be pleased with how the occupation is going? To me they seem completely taken aback by the level of resistance. But no, you're probably right, I'm sure they factored this and everything else into their extensive pre-war preparations ...

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand
Hey, its got to beat "Were utterly screwed!!!!!" again and again. Critics of the American liberation often do bother with spurious arguments such as "CIA/Latin America/Cold War/Iran" etc etc and they get plenty of airtime - so long as negative examples from throughout history are applicable then logically positive examples must also be admissable?

Or maybe as I said at the start, people seem to learn from history what they want to. And if you cant find the right message in the history books you can always revise them.



Yeah thats the one, havent seen the other one before but good to see it now. The general story is that the Iraqis are deeply cynical over the reasons for the American liberation, are worse off in the short term, but are optimistic that they will be better off in the long term.

They are supportive of the Iraqi representive council, and wish to return political control to the Iraqis yesterday if not sooner, but do not wish to see the Americans leave for anything between a year to several years. They believe the US is serious about democratic reform and that the US will allow Iraqis to find their own way. Whilst the model they envision is not decisive they largest bloc of support seems to be for a British/American style democracy. They believe the US is serious about Improving the Iraqis economic prospects.

They on the other hand are divided - they disagree, but again its not decisive - as to whether the US will keep Iraq unified or remove its troops within a few years. Germany - that hated example - still has US troops inside its borders all these years on so they have grounds for that belief.

Like I said though - the general opinion of the Iraqis seems to be fairly positive towards the future and the USs role in rebuilding a democratic Iraq .... where are the "US=Great Satan" crowd getting their belief that the US forces are some great evil? The students up and down Ireland and abroad must be feeling betrayed by the Iraqis lack of bile towards Bush:|

I guess all those roadside bombs, suicide bombs, civilians killed in protests, civilians killed daily at checkpoints, selling off of all state assets ('cept one), invasion for strategic reasons/monetary gain alone, attacks on the CPA headquarters and high officials...were also comparable aspects of the occupation of Germany by America, Russia, France and Great Britian.
Sorry, forgot about the daily killing of "coalition" troops.

Sand

I think those are two different types of historical comparisons. The litany of 'CIA/Latin America/Cold War' stuff shows that in its foreign adventures the US consistently puts its self-interest far above concern for human rights, justice or the welfare of others.

Actually I think the CIA type stuff is *less* admissable for want of a better word in the case of Iraq, as it demonstrates how the US has acted to influence other nations at arms reach during the cold war, where it was often competing for influence with those nice lads in the Kremlin - whereas Germany and Japan - both modern fully functioning democracies - are examples of where the US has engaged in its most unloved role....that of a nationbuilder. The US is in pretty much total control in Iraq, its a case of nationbuilding that faces it....not attempting to influence an independant Iraq via its secret services and covert actions.

international cooperation

Ha!

truly gigantic sums of money being spent

Rather gigantic sums are being spent in Iraq, and like the Marshall plan there are conditions favourable to US companies being attached.

absence of hoards of maniacal terrorists setting off car-bombs every few days

The IRA managed to orchestrate a similar campaign with only 800 volunteers, most of whom werent even planting the bombs - hardly hoards. The real advantage the terrorrists/guerrillas have is that their ops dont take many men or much money - something Rumsfeld alluded to in that leaked review. Given the general opinions exspressed by the Iraqis in the polls I dont view the current violence as being truly significant in terms of where Iraq is going - the US may get a new Iraqi army in there to do the fighting and dying instead of Biff and Ted from Iowa but the outcome will remain pretty much the same.

You're not showing or inspiring much confidence in your own appeals to history there, Sand.

Im appealing to history only to nullify the "Were dooomed - doooooomed!!!!!" cries of others pointing to the past and the present to predict the future - something good old Orwell moaned about as well during WW2. I see nothing in Iraq that is currently a serious threat to the long term vision of Iraq as a free democratic country - the country has problems but were talking about reversing the effects of a dictatorship/cult of personality that lasted for several decades - it aint going to happen next monday. Like the average Iraqi it seems, Im fairly confident that the coalition will succeed in Iraq, hopefully putting the last nail into the coffin of the corrupt UN in the process.

I'm sure if I lived in Iraq right now I'd hope to be better off in the long term, as the alternative - one big long stay in hell - is not exactly attractive.

Certainly you would hope but the question is not if they would hope - they were asked do they expect their lives to be better than before within 1 year/5 years.

To demonstrate the example If I were to ask you do you hope Fianna Fail become and honest, hard working and effective government you would say "Yes I hope so for the sake of Irish people". Now If I were to say do you expect FF to demonstrate those threats youd probably say something like "pffft!".

You're suggesting maybe that Bush and co should be pleased with how the occupation is going? To me they seem completely taken aback by the level of resistance. But no, you're probably right, I'm sure they factored this and everything else into their extensive pre-war preparations ...

Theyve no real reason to *that* upset with how its going - the work that remains is jumpstarting the political system and repairing the countries infrastructure. If youre talking about the deaths of coalition troops from enemy action since the end of the war in May then it may surprise you to know that the dead from enemy fire is only slightly higher than those who died in accidents in those 5-6 months. And given the potential rewards of a democratic Iraq its not excessive. When people join milatary forces they accept they will risk their lives serving the national interest as decided by their political leaders.

were also comparable aspects of the occupation of Germany by America, Russia, France and Great Britian.

Well no, with the open conflict between the two superpowers leading to the likes of the Berlin blockade, the division of Germany into two spheres and the rising threat of WW3 to be fought either conventionally or via nukes hurled across the atmosphere the stakes and the cost of failure were astronomically higher.

Ping Chow Chi

Given the general opinions exspressed by the Iraqis in the polls I dont view the current violence as being truly significant in terms of where Iraq is going

Well - the polls that the US have been conducting have pointed to the fact that support for the resistance is growing.

A US intelligence official has confirmed to the BBC that a new report by the CIA warns that the Iraq resistance appears to be gathering strength because of a lack of clear progress by the US-led coalition.

The classified document - first reported by the Philadelphia Enquirer newspaper - warns that Iraqis are losing faith in the US-led coalition and are supporting the Iraqi resistance in growing numbers.

link

Theyve no real reason to *that* upset with how its going

Well, fortunantly for the people of Iraq, Bush at least reconises that things are not going well and things do infact need to speeded up, which is why he called Paul Bremer back to the US for urgent talks.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
....not attempting to influence an independant Iraq via its secret services and covert actions.

Er, they've been trying to influence Iraq via their secret services and covert actions for decades. And they're still doing it now, trying to push their main man Ahmed Chalabi (conviction for fraud notwithstanding) as Iraq's future leader. And they'll be doing it for years after Iraq ever gets its own government.

Ha!

Ha what? There was international cooperation in Germany, as well as international friction between the superpowers. There is hardly any international cooperation over Iraq because the Americans arrogantly dismissed the views of everyone else in the run-up to the war. Course, now they've panicked at the realisation of just how screwed they are and have repeatedly gone begging to anyone for for troops, money, anything at all. Bush suddenly wants the world to share the burden of helping him out of the hole he's dug himself, but it takes time and genuine commitment to rebuild burnt bridges, neither of which he has in abundance.

Rather gigantic sums are being spent in Iraq, and like the Marshall plan there are conditions favourable to US companies being attached.

Not nearly gigantic enough. Iraq needs $55bn over the next few years. It won't get it.

The IRA managed to orchestrate a similar campaign with only 800 volunteers, most of whom werent even planting the bombs - hardly hoards. The real advantage the terrorrists/guerrillas have is that their ops dont take many men or much money - something Rumsfeld alluded to in that leaked review.

So you're saying there's a few hundred, maybe a thousand Iraqi resistance fighters / terrorists / [insert label of choice here]? Interesting. Because the CIA seems to think there's around 50,000, give or take.

Come on, Sand. Are you really suggesting that the situation in Iraq is anything like Northern Ireland? I don't recall there being dozens of attacks a day in the North, at any stage, nor were car bombs ever going off with quite the regularity we're witnessing at the moment. Did the Brits ever resort to dropping bombs on West Belfast?

Given the general opinions exspressed by the Iraqis in the polls I dont view the current violence as being truly significant in terms of where Iraq is going - the US may get a new Iraqi army in there to do the fighting and dying instead of Biff and Ted from Iowa but the outcome will remain pretty much the same.

See Ping's post. The violence is getting worse, and Iraqis seem to getting more pessimistic.

Im appealing to history only to nullify the "Were dooomed - doooooomed!!!!!" cries of others pointing to the past and the present to predict the future

I don't recall every saying "we're doomed", but I do think the US has lost control of the situation in Iraq. You either can't see this or choose to ignore it. That's just irresponsible. It's no fun seeing Iraq get worse and worse, and I just want the US and their cheerleaders to wake up to the fact that if they don't do the mature thing and try to genuinely internationalise the reconstruction the trend is likely to continue.

Like the average Iraqi it seems, Im fairly confident that the coalition will succeed in Iraq, hopefully putting the last nail into the coffin of the corrupt UN in the process.

Hilarious. Just as you seem unable to get through a post without mentioning your new hero George Orwell, you can't resist taking a pop at the UN. Didn't you just remark on how the US was favouring US corporations in spending its billions in Iraq? But it's still the UN that's corrupt? :rolleyes: Sheer hypocrisy.

Victor

Comparing Germany to Iraq is odd. The Germans had the "good sense" to surrender and violence after that time appears to be limited to some specific reprisals (i.e. assassination) against Nazis and the internment of others (one million of whom died due of "other causes" after the war).

Neither Iraq nor the USA have ended the current war.

Sand

Well - the polls that the US have been conducting have pointed to the fact that support for the resistance is growing.

Thats a concern alright, but it could be interpreted simply as people seeing the Americans unable to crush the resistance or restore normal daily life and thus throwing their hat in with whoever is able to restore peace/security - they hope anyway. Thats understandable, and should serve as a spur to increase efforts to get vital services back online and secured.

Er, they've been trying to influence Iraq via their secret services and covert actions for decades.

But why would they need to do it now when they run the country? Surely the clearest similarities now are with Gemany/Japan - not with, say the support of Irans shah?

Ha what?

East and West Germany, Berlin Blockade, Berlin Wall.

If say the US and UK were to fall out and the US was to suddenly blockade Baghdad and the UK had to mount an incredible effort to keep the city supplied with food and other supplies, if they divided the country into British and US Iraq, set up two different political systems and governments with two different currencies and then built a wall to stop people migrating from one zone to the other - even though they might have family only a mile down the road......

Youd be calling that international co-operation?

Come on, Sand. Are you really suggesting that the situation in Iraq is anything like Northern Ireland? I don't recall there being dozens of attacks a day in the North, at any stage, nor were car bombs ever going off with quite the regularity we're witnessing at the moment. Did the Brits ever resort to dropping bombs on West Belfast?

Obviously the situation is relative - Northern Ireland has a population of 1.5 million, Iraq 40 million. Relatively, even if there were 50000 activists and sympathisers in Iraq then its not much more than was in Northern Ireland when you accounted for all the activists and sympathisers there. And on the other hand you have 39,950,000 Iraqis give or take a few hundred thousand who arent activists of sympathisers.

And there were days of the multiple bombs in Belfast by the IRA ....Bloody Friday back in the 70s they set off something like 20 bombs all around the clock trying to push the emergency services to their limits. We had British Army deployed in towns and cities across Northern Ireland trying to keep a lid on the killing, we had British Army massacring protestors, we had the British Army unable to move by road in areas of the north for fear of landmines ( something well see in Iraq too I believe except the iraqis have a reliable means to take down US choppers) we had the British Army becoming deeply unpopular with the locals from a position where they welcomed when they helped prevent roving mobs of people burning people out of homes and ethnically cleansing streets. We had Loyalist death squads apparrently recieving assitance from the British government in targeting republicans and republican sympathisers. Hell we had hatred rising to such levels that people justified throwing a hand grenade at a bunch of school children going to school.

Yeah, I find the situation comparable to Northern Ireland - except Northern Ireland was much worse. But again, like the recovery of Germany and Japan it was a cakewalk wasnt it? Nothing to do with the violence in Iraq today.

I don't recall every saying "we're doomed", but I do think the US has lost control of the situation in Iraq.

Just another way of saying "Dooooooooooomed!!!!"?

It's no fun seeing Iraq get worse and worse, and I just want the US and their cheerleaders to wake up to the fact that if they don't do the mature thing and try to genuinely internationalise the reconstruction the trend is likely to continue.

Hmmm. Well looking at Germany I dont see internationalising the problem when its an obvious political football as being a great help -a problem shared in this case could be a problem doubled. Also Im curious as to why you feel the Iraqi resistance will respond better to non-US forces when the brave guerilla fighters bombed the headquarters of the oppressive UN in Iraq, killing the UNs chief representitive in the country in the process?

Hilarious. Just as you seem unable to get through a post without mentioning your new hero George Orwell, you can't resist taking a pop at the UN. Didn't you just remark on how the US was favouring US corporations in spending its billions in Iraq? But it's still the UN that's corrupt? Sheer hypocrisy.

Hey I didnt raise the matter of my sig. Its just a nice articulation of a general theme throughout history. If it disturbs you then great imo.

As for the UN - http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm

You wouldnt know whether to laugh or cry would you?

Yeah - lets get those lads in on the decision making, see what insights they can bring.

Comparing Germany to Iraq is odd. The Germans had the "good sense" to surrender and violence after that time appears to be limited to some specific reprisals (i.e. assassination) against Nazis and the internment of others (one million of whom died due of "other causes" after the war).

They had the good sense after the death of the regime in the personage of Hitler. Up until then the Germans fought on depite the fact the war was quite clearly lost - in taking Aachen the US lost 5000 dead and so did the Germans, indeed the Allied soldiers developed quite a hatred of the German soldiers because they would not surrender even though it was futile - thus leading to soldiers on both sides having to die when the conclusion was already known. The Iraqi situation is similarly futile for the resistance.

As for Japan they were forced to surrender by being nuked, twice with a third bomb on the way - and even as the bombs fell a coup by elements of the Japanese army was planning to take control of the Imperial Palace and force the emperor to continue the fight - thankfully it failed.

The point is that the Allies overcame similarly tough resistance and cultural mindsets before and Ive no reason to doubt theyll do it again.

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand
East and West Germany, Berlin Blockade, Berlin Wall.

If say the US and UK were to fall out and the US was to suddenly blockade Baghdad and the UK had to mount an incredible effort to keep the city supplied with food and other supplies, if they divided the country into British and US Iraq, set up two different political systems and governments with two different currencies and then built a wall to stop people migrating from one zone to the other - even though they might have family only a mile down the road......

So in your own words post-war Germany and the still engaged war in Iraq are not good comparisons?

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Thats a concern alright, but it could be interpreted simply as people seeing the Americans unable to crush the resistance or restore normal daily life and thus throwing their hat in with whoever is able to restore peace/security - they hope anyway. Thats understandable, and should serve as a spur to increase efforts to get vital services back online and secured.

So despite the situation in Iraq being no worse than a wet week in Northern Ireland, people are so desperate for peace and security that they're transferring their support to a bunch of car-bombers, Baathists, jihad tourists and god knows who else? Blimey! Iraqis' faith in the US must be pretty shakey!

East and West Germany, Berlin Blockade, Berlin Wall.

If say the US and UK were to fall out and the US was to suddenly blockade Baghdad and the UK had to mount an incredible effort to keep the city supplied with food and other supplies, if they divided the country into British and US Iraq, set up two different political systems and governments with two different currencies and then built a wall to stop people migrating from one zone to the other - even though they might have family only a mile down the road......

Youd be calling that international co-operation?

Why do you attribute the incredible success of the German reconstruction (West German, I presume) solely to the US, but any problems that came up solely to the baleful presence of other countries? Weren't there three countries running West Germany for several years after WWII? Weren't the Berlin blockade and subsequent division something to do with the conflict between two diametrically opposed superpowers?

If you can point out to me which communist superpower is just waiting for its first chance to seize power in half of Iraq, I'd be grateful. Otherwise enough with the waffle.

Obviously the situation is relative - Northern Ireland has a population of 1.5 million, Iraq 40 million.

25 million, actually.

And there were days of the multiple bombs in Belfast by the IRA ....Bloody Friday back in the 70s they set off something like 20 bombs all around the clock trying to push the emergency services to their limits.

One day. There are two dozen attacks on US forces in Iraq every day.

We had British Army deployed in towns and cities across Northern Ireland trying to keep a lid on the killing, we had British Army massacring protestors, we had the British Army unable to move by road in areas of the north for fear of landmines ( something well see in Iraq too I believe except the iraqis have a reliable means to take down US choppers) we had the British Army becoming deeply unpopular with the locals from a position where they welcomed when they helped prevent roving mobs of people burning people out of homes and ethnically cleansing streets. We had Loyalist death squads apparrently recieving assitance from the British government in targeting republicans and republican sympathisers. Hell we had hatred rising to such levels that people justified throwing a hand grenade at a bunch of school children going to school.

I don't think the British ever resorted to bombarding Northern Irish towns, did they?

Yeah, I find the situation comparable to Northern Ireland - except Northern Ireland was much worse.

Seeing as you're basing this not on an accurate grasp of the facts (see above), what exactly are you basing it on? Your intimate experience of both settings? Or simple wishful thinking?

Also Im curious as to why you feel the Iraqi resistance will respond better to non-US forces when the brave guerilla fighters bombed the headquarters of the oppressive UN in Iraq, killing the UNs chief representitive in the country in the process?

It's impossible to know for sure, but I think it's likely the UN were attacked because they were viewed as tools of the US occuppiers. As long as the US hangs onto total military command in Iraq everybody else will be viewed the same way. But I wouldn't dare assume that everything would be fine and dandy if the reconstruction was properly internationalised. No doubt you would instantly decide that Iraq was a violent hellhole crying out for American help, just to be consistent.

As for the UN - http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm

By definition, any world body will have undesirable members. That does not mean it's irredeemably evil. Just because there's scumbags on the Human Rights Committee or some bastards keep vetoing Security Council resolutions condemning Israel's terrorism in Palestine does not mean that the UN cannot do a good job. See East Timor, for example (note that I am not saying the situation in Iraq is the same as that in East Timor).

If you've got a better idea for an all-inclusive world forum of nations, I'd like to see it. Or perhaps you'd prefer a simple 'do as America says' rule for all?

Sand

So in your own words post-war Germany and the still engaged war in Iraq are not good comparisons?

Oh I think theyre good comparisons - Im just making the point that Germany had its problems and so does Iraq. Germany was a success and I see no reason why Iraq wont be. If the comparison I made demonstrates anything its that things arent as bad in Iraq as they were in Germany - or as they could be.

So despite the situation in Iraq being no worse than a wet week in Northern Ireland, people are so desperate for peace and security that they're transferring their support to a bunch of car-bombers, Baathists, jihad tourists and god knows who else? Blimey! Iraqis' faith in the US must be pretty shakey!

Change a few faction names and youve got Northern Ireland - who is the law in large swathes of Belfast and the North, who carries out the punishment beatings and in doing so maintains their own brand of law and order, who reports them to the police? who refuses to recognise the police and other institutions as being a viable option? Where did their support come from? Hell its likely that when the elections come that Iraqis will vote for their political representitives, over here we seem to have no problem with electing murderers - mind you they say theyll get things done right, so long as they make the trains run on time.

Why do you attribute the incredible success of the German reconstruction (West German, I presume) solely to the US, but any problems that came up solely to the baleful presence of other countries? Weren't there three countries running West Germany for several years after WWII? Weren't the Berlin blockade and subsequent division something to do with the conflict between two diametrically opposed superpowers?

Well you had the US and Britain - who are in Iraq today ( another similarity - cheers ) and then you had France, who were given an occupation zone over the protests of the Soviets because they were defeated by the Nazis - Britiain and the US had to cede a zone to France cos the Soviets refused point blank to give them the time of day:|

Now France isnt in Iraq, and were all heartbroken over that but youre still down to a small coalition running the show rather than the UN or some "design by committee" bunch wholl just love playing political football with every decision.

25 million, actually.

I stand corrected - thats still approximately, what 16-17 times Northern Irelands population?

One day. There are two dozen attacks on US forces in Iraq every day.

So if we were to exspress that relatively youre talking about 1.4 attacks per day throughout all of Iraq in comparison to Northern Ireland. Forgive me if Im not totally impressed.

I don't think the British ever resorted to bombarding Northern Irish towns, did they?

And? The British didnt have to cover such a wide spread of terrain with a couple of hundred thousand troops - using airpower makes sense in that case.

Seeing as you're basing this not on an accurate grasp of the facts (see above), what exactly are you basing it on? Your intimate experience of both settings? Or simple wishful thinking?

I gave my reasons. If you dont agree then fine - no point in me saying them again in a slightly different way is there? When the hatred reaches the levels of them happily throwing exsplosives at children to make a political point then Ill concede its as bad as Northern Ireland.

Or simple wishful thinking?

Spreaking of wishful thinking

It's impossible to know for sure,

Ah good old wishful thinking ahead.....

but I think it's likely the UN were attacked because they were viewed as tools of the US occuppiers. As long as the US hangs onto total military command in Iraq everybody else will be viewed the same way. But I wouldn't dare assume that everything would be fine and dandy if the reconstruction was properly internationalised.

No I dont think so - Given the rumoured makeup of the resistance - Old regime diehards and Islamic fundamentalists - I dont think they give a flying **** whose taken the power they view as rightfully theirs or is not turning Iraq into a fundamentalist state. The idea that theyll suddenly fall into line with the UN is laughable. I think the UN was attacked because its a symbol of the West - remeber who was enforcing the sanctions on Iraq....thats right, the UN.. And no, you cant say its the USs fault, because if the UN is going to claim a right to leadership then its going to have to carry the can as well - all decisions regarding the sanctions were made by the UN werent they?

So it is wishful thinking to think if the UN show up everything will be just fine. You know it wont be either - so whats the point of bringing the UN in ....oh thats right, to try and prove a political point - bring on the football.

No doubt you would instantly decide that Iraq was a violent hellhole crying out for American help, just to be consistent

No doubt youd be saying It wasnt as bad as I was making out and that the UN had a proven track record of nationbuilding (Ha!). Just to be consistent.

If you've got a better idea for an all-inclusive world forum of nations, I'd like to see it. Or perhaps you'd prefer a simple 'do as America says' rule for all?

Oh Id love to see a world body that didnt spit on the very institutions it claimed to protect by giving manifestos to laughably ironic members. Maybe if you had some sort of standards set on membership, beyond not being the US or not being Israel. Hell lets see what Amnesty International has to say about one of the governments the UN feels able to provide insights on human rights......

http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/cog-summary-eng

Well lets see , government forces machinegunning villages, villages burnt so as to leave people homeless, humanitarian workers kept away for two months - this is something Israel is slated for, but these guys are on the Human rights council so I guess they get an exemption or something - malnutrition and starvation seemingly used as a weapon, hundreds of women raped - by the government forces, plenty of young men who have been "dissapeared", refugees apparently massacred and of course political prisoners.

These are the people who are given power by the UN. Now I know the US aint perfect, and I know Britain aint perfect, and I know Italy and the other "willing" nations aint perfect but no way in hell should the moral high ground be ceded to the UN when they represent such contempt for principles they claim to hold dear to their heart. No thank you, if thats internationalism then its not going to help things.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Sand
Oh I think theyre good comparisons - Im just making the point that Germany had its problems and so does Iraq.

No it's a terrible comparison that conveniently ignores the historical cultural and political links between the US and Germany. They both had the white anglo-saxon protestant thing going on for a start. America had its own ideas about racial purity and segregation at that time too.

"In April 1944 Corp. Rupert Timmingham wrote Yank magazine. "Here is a question that each Negro soldier is asking," he began. "What is the Negro soldier fighting for? On whose team are we playing?" He recounted the difficulties he and eight other black soldiers had while traveling through the South -- "where Old Jim Crow rules" -- for a new assignment. "We could not purchase a cup of coffee," Timmingham noted. Finally the lunchroom manager at a Texas railroad depot said the black GIs could go on around back to the kitchen for a sandwich and coffee. As they did, "about two dozen German prisoners of war, with two American guards, came to the station. They entered the lunchroom, sat at the tables, had their meals served, talked, smoked, in fact had quite a swell time. I stood on the outside looking on, and I could not help but ask myself why are they treated better than we are? Why are we pushed around like cattle? If we are fighting for the same thing, if we are to die for our country, then why does the Government allow such things to go on? Some of the boys are saying that you will not print this letter. I'm saying that you will."

http://www.worldwar2history.info/Army/Jim-Crow.html

A better comparison might be France's occupation of Algeria, except France was probably more successful there than the US might be in Iraq.

Originally posted by Sand
Change a few faction names and youve got Northern Ireland -

This is not a good comparison either. Who's who? Who's Iraq's Ian Paisley? Are the IRA the equivalent of saddam loyalists? Or do we go back to the 60's when the north was a not very democratic kind of place run by the protestants? That would make the IRA the freedom fighters and the loyalists paramilitaries/british army the evil ba'athists then would it? Or were the Shankill butchers and Brian Nelsons and the forces of the crown the good guys or what?

So if we were to exspress that relatively youre talking about 1.4 attacks per day throughout all of Iraq in comparison to Northern Ireland. Forgive me if Im not totally impressed.

I dunno how you're working this out but there weren't attacks (from the baddies the IRA?) every day in northern Ireland. Even if you combine attacks from both sides and include non-fatal attacks. So it's an entirely misleading comparison.

If you're such a big fan of George Orwell then you'll appreciate this quote from The Lion And The Unicorn which could be applied to both the US and Iraq:

"One cannot see the modern world as it is unless one recognizes the overwhelming strength of patriotism, national loyalty. In certain circumstances it can break down, at certain levels of civilization it does not exist, but as a positive force there is nothing to set beside it. Christianity and international Socialism are as weak as straw in comparison with it. Hitler and Mussolini rose to power in their own countries very largely because they could grasp this fact and their opponents could not."

Sand

No it's a terrible comparison that conveniently ignores the historical cultural and political links between the US and Germany.

I dont think the weak links that existed had any real effect on the rebuilding of Germany when the US elite has been primarily Anglo-Saxon (i.e British descent, not German as you seem to believe with the WASP comment ) ) and the strongest immigrant identities are Irish and Italians and Africans, Germans dont even register despite their numbers. Hell, Germany didnt even exist when the mass of emigration from its territory to the US occurred and the US didnt speak the same language, the US sided twice against Germany in favour of the French and the British and up until WW1 the US was engaged in its own splendid isolation, a brief break during and immediately after the war, prior to sinking back into isolationism and protectionism up until the second world war - the greatest link Germany and the US shared was maybe Marlene Deitrich. Somehow I wouldnt describe that as a key issue in the rebuilding of Germany - in the immediate post war years the Allies after all undertook a campaign to permantly weaken Germany by crippling her industrial base, only the outbreak of the Cold War and the need for a strong German bulwark against the Soviet hordes in the east led to a reversal of that policy.

Its a real stretch to describe the US and 1940s Germany as going way back.....

A better comparison might be France's occupation of Algeria, except France was probably more successful there than the US might be in Iraq.

No that would be a worse comparison because the French had 1 million french citizens living in algeria at the time, who werent prepared to leave - leading to a spate of assassination attempts by French-Algerian settlers/citizens against any French political leader who discussed simply pulling out of Algeria - see De Gaulle. This is not a factor in Iraq.

Also it was Frances initial strategy to retain Algeria as part of its territory as Algeria was a part of France proper at that time - not just another colony like French Indo-China. The Americans do not wish to retain and garrison and rule Iraq as the 51st state and up the senate by two to represent the Iraqis.....their objectives seem to be to set up a friendly Iraqi government that is a ally in the region and will keep the oil flowing.

So no, in my eyes its a bad comparison. Germanys a closer example as again the Americans did not annex Germany as part of the US.

This is not a good comparison either. Who's who? Who's Iraq's Ian Paisley?

You mean who in Iraq is the fundamentalist religious leader, painting the enemy as godless heathens and foreign usurpers who must be resisted and that all who deal with them are traitors? Theres a limit to how much you can fit in one post:|

The point which seems to have gone flying over your head was that people in situations where the forces of law and order seem to be ineffective will turn to other factions seeking security and leadership that the "recognised" institutions cant seem to provide.

Thats where the IRA and the Loyalists got their support, and its where the Iraqi resistance are getting their support - for as long as the coalition are seen to be unable to defeat the resistance, there will be those willing to throw their hat in with the resistance - especially when its so easy, as in northern Ireland, to paint the IRA/Loyalists as the good guys fighting a desperate war to protect their people from the foreigners - be they Fenians or Brits.

Substitute IRA/Loyalists for the regime/fundamentalist resistance and the coalition for the foreigners in this particular case. The resistance arent nice guys, but then neither were the IRA and Gerry Adams is still milking the knee jerk tribalism they exploited.

I dunno how you're working this out but there weren't attacks (from the baddies the IRA?) every day in northern Ireland. Even if you combine attacks from both sides and include non-fatal attacks. So it's an entirely misleading comparison.

Relative..... seeing as Iraq has 17 times the population of N.I. its not surprising that the absolute number of resistance is greater than the absolute number of terrorists in N.I. - in fact it stands to reason. Now whilst the regime/fundamentalists are attacking the coalition forces up to 25 times a day in absolute terms if you were to convert that to N.I. terms, to see how relatively bad it is compared to N.I. youre talking about 1.4 terrorist attacks per day.

Comparisons in absolute terms is usually less helpful than comparisons in relative terms. Now if you were to simply say there are estimated to be 50000 resitiance sympathisers and fighters in Iraq and there were 800 IRA members hence the situation is miles worse or that the resistance enjoys popular support, and never stop to consider the fact that the populations of Northern Ireland and Iraq are wildly different, or that the membership of the IRA was merely one faction of many in the north, then you are painting a misleading picture.

If you're such a big fan of George Orwell then you'll appreciate this quote from The Lion And The Unicorn which could be applied to both the US and Iraq:

Yes it could, but maybe not in the way you think - Orwell is describing the power of patriotic feeling, tribalism, us and them - whilst he mentions Mussonlini and Hitler there, if you look at my sig then youll have to ask yourself what helped give the British the determination to continue the fight against the Nazis when they were on their own against a seemingly unbeatable foe? Their educated classes? Pffft - they were no doubt brushing up on German lessons, it was that base tribalism again - the British against the huns.

What motivated the Russians to fight so hard against the Germans - love for Stalin or the communist system which murdered millions of them and kept millions more in gulags? Or that ugly patriotic tribalism again?

Whilst patriotism has been exploited for as many evil ends as good, it is nothing more than fact of life that can be manipulated by any and all politicians to accomplish their goals. It doesnt make patriotism a vile thing as you imply. I could argue that because Bush and Blair might call up upon patriotic fervour they can be compared to the efforts the British and the Russians made against another fundamental evil.

monument

Originally posted by Sand
Its sad how people never learn from history, and reject out of hand its lessons when they dont fit in with their own views.

It really is - one would think that the UK would know better then to use massive force fighting terrorist armies. Well, some will never learn.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Sand
I dont think the weak links that existed had any real effect on the rebuilding of Germany when the US elite has been primarily Anglo-Saxon (i.e British descent, not German as you seem to believe with the WASP comment ) ) and the strongest immigrant identities are Irish and Italians and Africans, Germans dont even register despite their numbers.

And where did the Saxons come from? And where did protestantism originate? And how many non-protestant presidents of the USA have there been? I don't know which pub drunk told you that "germans don't even register" in America but you're a little bit out there according to the 1990 US census and this chronology of Germans in America.

The Top Fifteen Ancestry Groups
as reported in the 1990 census:
(numbers have been rounded)

German 23% 58 million
Irish 16% 39 million
English 13% 33 million
Afro-American 10% 24 million
Italian 6% 15 million
American 5% 12 million
Mexican 5% 12 million
French 4% 10 million
Polish 4% 9 million
American Indian 4% 9 million
Dutch 3% 6 million
Scotch-Irish 2% 6 million
Scottish 2% 5 million
Swedish 2% 5 million
Norwegian 2% 4 million

Hell, Germany didnt even exist when the mass of emigration from its territory to the US occurred and the US didnt speak the same language,

Nope, Germany, or Germania as the Romans used to call it, has been around for quite a while. As for language, it's merely one aspect of culture, religion is another. In the west there's been a tradition of enmity between jews, catholics and protestants even when they do share a common language.

Its a real stretch to describe the US and 1940s Germany as going way back.....

While Germans have been in America since 1608, the 'thousand year" reich lasted only 12 years, not really long enough to alter the relationship between the two countries. I've already pointed out that blacks had to suffer institutionalised racism, segregation and discrimination in the 1940's, which lasted until long after the 1940's of course. As bad as the Nuremberg Laws? You decide.

No that would be a worse comparison because the French had 1 million french citizens living in algeria at the time, who werent prepared to leave - leading to a spate of assassination attempts by French-Algerian settlers/citizens against any French political leader who discussed simply pulling out of Algeria - see De Gaulle.This is not a factor in Iraq.

There were 1 million French citizens in Algeria because they successfully invaded the country. The invasion was successful because it was brutal. General Bugeaud, the commander of the invasion forces, wrote at the time, “we have burnt a great deal and destroyed a great deal. It may be that I shall be called a barbarian, but as I have the conviction that I have done something useful for my country, I consider myself as above the reproaches of the press.” Sounds sort of familiar, but unless the US and Britain go in for full scale massacres, displacement and large scale internment then personally I don't see them having even a chance of being successful. But then again even massacres in places like Vietnam couldn't eliminate nationalist opposition.

The pretext for the invasion of Algerian was not as pathetic as the one used by Bush and Blair to invade Iraq though. The local ruler of Algiers hit the French consul with his flyswatter, something to do with debts, and wouldn't apologise.

The Americans do not wish to retain and garrison and rule Iraq as the 51st state and up the senate by two to represent the Iraqis.....their objectives seem to be to set up a friendly Iraqi government that is a ally in the region and will keep the oil flowing.

Yes that's what they want, but I'm afraid that they're deluding themselves and ignoring the existence of pan-arab nationalism.

Thats where the IRA and the Loyalists got their support, and its where the Iraqi resistance are getting their support - for as long as the coalition are seen to be unable to defeat the resistance, there will be those willing to throw their hat in with the resistance - especially when its so easy, as in northern Ireland, to paint the IRA/Loyalists as the good guys fighting a desperate war to protect their people from the foreigners - be they Fenians or Brits. Substitute IRA/Loyalists for the regime/fundamentalist resistance and the coalition for the foreigners in this particular case.

The loyalists and the army and police were on the same side, I don't see the point in pretending that they weren't. The IRA/pan nationalist front were not "the regime" in northern Ireland as you're probably well aware. The regime, a protestant fundamentalist regime, was controlled by the unionist population, backed unfailingly by the British government until only recently.

Relative..... seeing as Iraq has 17 times the population of N.I. its not surprising that the absolute number of resistance is greater than the absolute number of terrorists in N.I. - in fact it stands to reason. Now whilst the regime/fundamentalists are attacking the coalition forces up to 25 times a day in absolute terms if you were to convert that to N.I. terms, to see how relatively bad it is compared to N.I. youre talking about 1.4 terrorist attacks per day.

I'd prefer not to pursue this sort of reasoning if you don't mind. It makes absolutely no sense and is entirely irrelevant in any case.

Comparisons in absolute terms is usually less helpful than comparisons in relative terms. Now if you were to simply say there are estimated to be 50000 resitiance sympathisers and fighters in Iraq and there were 800 IRA members hence the situation is miles worse or that the resistance enjoys popular support, and never stop to consider the fact that the populations of Northern Ireland and Iraq are wildly different, or that the membership of the IRA was merely one faction of many in the north, then you are painting a misleading picture.

So in other words the IRA were the Ba'athists and religious fundamentalist crackpots of northern Ireland who were trying to hold onto power (!?) and/or turn the place into a catholic fundamentalist state and the loyalist paramilitaries/RUC/British army were the good guys who were only trying to bring about democracy, civil rights and equal opportunity. That's that clarified then.

Yes it could, but maybe not in the way you think - Orwell is describing the power of patriotic feeling, tribalism, us and them -

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Mr.Bush said. Sounds pretty tribal and fundamentalist to me.

whilst he mentions Mussonlini and Hitler there, if you look at my sig then youll have to ask yourself what helped give the British the determination to continue the fight against the Nazis when they were on their own against a seemingly unbeatable foe?

Possibly some of the same nationalism stuff that's making some Iraqis fight against their occupiers. I don't like seeing them dismissed as fanatics and remnants of the old regime and whatnot until we know what their makeup is and what sections of the population are supporting them.

Their educated classes? Pffft - they were no doubt brushing up on German lessons, it was that base tribalism again - the British against the huns.

There's a difference between being defeatist and being proactively pro nazi as quite a bunch of british royals and well-to-do were at the time. By the way the british royal family are huns for crissakes, since 1714. They changed their name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor in 1917.

What motivated the Russians to fight so hard against the Germans - love for Stalin or the communist system which murdered millions of them and kept millions more in gulags? Or that ugly patriotic tribalism again?

But we're told that Iraqi resistance can only be a bunch of Saddam's thugs or crazies.

Whilst patriotism has been exploited for as many evil ends as good, it is nothing more than fact of life that can be manipulated by any and all politicians to accomplish their goals. It doesnt make patriotism a vile thing as you imply. I could argue that because Bush and Blair might call up upon patriotic fervour they can be compared to the efforts the British and the Russians made against another fundamental evil.

I don't imply that patriotism is a vile thing at all. I'm merely pointing out that Iraqi resistance may be being drawn from the idea that nobody likes having their country invaded. Your hero Orwell said, 'Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By "patriotism" I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseperable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.'

Sand

And where did the Saxons come from? And where did protestantism originate? And how many non-protestant presidents of the USA have there been?

Your argument is with www.dictionary.com , not me.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=W.A.S.P.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Anglo-Saxon

I don't know which pub drunk told you that "germans don't even register" in America but you're a little bit out there according to the 1990 US census

Im not your English teacher. Read what I said again.

Nope, Germany, or Germania as the Romans used to call it, has been around for quite a while.

Im not your history teacher either - Look up Bismark, the various German confederations throughout the mid 19th century and the Franco-Prussian War.

There were 1 million French citizens in Algeria because they successfully invaded the country.

No, they successfully colonised Algeria. Invasion != Colonisation, no matter what angry arts students will have you believe.

Sounds sort of familiar, but unless the US and Britain go in for full scale massacres, displacement and large scale internment then personally I don't see them having even a chance of being successful.

Im not surprised you view the above as being successful, if reprehensible, strategy despite their utter failure in the case you provided.

I'd prefer not to pursue this sort of reasoning if you don't mind. It makes absolutely no sense and is entirely irrelevant in any case.

Its okay, Im not your maths teacher either. When he feels youre ready hell introduce the concepts of absolute and relative.

So in other words the IRA were the Ba'athists and religious fundamentalist crackpots of northern Ireland who were trying to hold onto power (!?) and/or turn the place into a catholic fundamentalist state and the loyalist paramilitaries/RUC/British army were the good guys who were only trying to bring about democracy, civil rights and equal opportunity. That's that clarified then.

No in other words your missing the forest for the trees. But like I said Im not your english teacher, read what I said again.

But we're told that Iraqi resistance can only be a bunch of Saddam's thugs or crazies.

Thats the accepted opinion alright - they certainly have cause to hate the new Iraq. Actually calling it the Iraqi resistance may even be misleading, as the goals of the resistance may not be widely shared by Iraqis or motivated by Iraqi needs. The resistance is apparently staffed by foreign arab fighters and regime diehards, and thus probably even less representitive of Iraqi opinion than the IRA was or is of Irish.

It certainly fits with the impression being created by polls in Iraq that the Iraqis arent zealous Democrat voters as no doubt some hoped. It also fits with the fact that there is a so called Sunni Triangle, part of Iraq from between Baghdad and Tikrit in which 80% of the attacks against the coalition occur - makes you think the resistance is localised and limited mostly to Sunni regions doesnt it? That most of Iraq is relatively peaceful?

It is however critical that the coalition ensure that the resistance do not gain widespread support - that the resistance suddenly become seen as fighting for Iraqis rather than fighting for Sunni dominance in Iraq or Wahabbi fundamentalism in Iraq. It is a battle for hearts and minds, and if Iraqis continue to be frustrated by failings on the part of the coalition forces and administration there is the danger they will increasingly turn to the resistance - much as Irish frustration against the political status quo in Ireland is leading to increasing support for the likes of Sinn Fein.

By "patriotism" I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseperable from the desire for power.

And what sparked the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and led to the US generally flexing its muscle across the globe? 9/11, an attack on the US mainland which it could be argued led to great shows of patriotism by the US, encouraged by the view that the U.S. was under attack and had to be defeneded.

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand
Thats the accepted opinion alright - they certainly have cause to hate the new Iraq. Actually calling it the Iraqi resistance may even be misleading, as the goals of the resistance may not be widely shared by Iraqis or motivated by Iraqi needs. The resistance is apparently staffed by foreign arab fighters and regime diehards, and thus probably even less representitive of Iraqi opinion than the IRA was or is of Irish.

When the "resistance" or "foreignors" or "terrorists" can attack at will and very little cooperation is received by the Iraqi population, as well as US commanders commenting on no real evidence of foreign fighters... (and they've descended into Israeli tactics of bulldozing) it seems that the "accepted" opinion is probably just knee-jerk speculation.
The CIA even admits that it's intelligence on the resistance is terrible, while the resistance on the "coalition" is effective.
It's hard to say where the resistance lies, but it obviously (at the very least) enjoys apathy from the general population.

It also fits with the fact that there is a so called Sunni Triangle, part of Iraq from between Baghdad and Tikrit in which 80% of the attacks against the coalition occur - makes you think the resistance is localised and limited mostly to Sunni regions doesnt it?

Not really considering the increased attacks in Mosul and in the mostly Kurdish areas as well as just about every pary of Iraq.

That most of Iraq is relatively peaceful?

Is this sarcasm? Sorry I know we Americans' lack a sense of it.

It is however critical that the coalition ensure that the resistance do not gain widespread support - that the resistance suddenly become seen as fighting for Iraqis rather than fighting for Sunni dominance in Iraq or Wahabbi fundamentalism in Iraq.

That assumes that they aren't fighting for Iraqi's or that different groups haven't joined together in an aim to force out the occupiers and undermine anyone that does cooperate with them.

It is a battle for hearts and minds, and if Iraqis continue to be frustrated by failings on the part of the coalition forces and administration there is the danger they will increasingly turn to the resistance -

This assumes that the "coalition" had altruistic motives for invasion in the first place, which most evidence shows isn't the case. Most Iraqis probably don't think so either, but some might be waiting to see if life might get better anyway.

And what sparked the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and led to the US generally flexing its muscle across the globe? 9/11, an attack on the US mainland which it could be argued led to great shows of patriotism by the US, encouraged by the view that the U.S. was under attack and had to be defeneded.

Considering the recent history prior to 9/11 that argument has scant evidence to support it.
Not sure what your point is unless you wanted to support the notion that Iraqi resistance is patriotic whilst the American invasions are nationalistic.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Sand
Your argument is with www.dictionary.com , not me.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=W.A.S.P.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Anglo-Saxon

"A member of one of the Germanic peoples, the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes, who settled in Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries."

White protestant Americans and English are basically Germanic peoples. Is that clear enough for you? A cursory look at Iraqis reveals that they are muslim and dark therefore there's no cultural similarity or valid comparison. None. But go ahead and knock yourself out, delude yourself that Iraqis and muslims in general are basically dark skinned Germans.

Im not your English teacher. Read what I said again.

I did. I had to read it twice in fact because it doesn't make any sense. The dominant ethnic group in America, a quarter of the country's population, "doesn't even register", according to your research. You're saying that John Jacob Astor, J.D Rockefeller, Kurt Vonnegut, Dwicght d Eisenhower, Babe Ruth, Thomas Nast and Albert Einstein amongst others "didn't register". Is that right? I must have imagined seeing the Rockefeller centre when I was in New York. A few of the signatories of PNAC's statement of principles seem to have German sounding names, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Gary Bauer, Midge Decter, Aaron Friedberg, Paul Wolfowitz and there's a few I'm not sure about. And how did words like kindergarten, frankfurter, hamburger, wiener (hur hur), bratwurst, and my favourite, pretzel, manage to find their way into common usage in America if it hadn't been for Germans? I trust you had a look at that chronology.

Im not your history teacher either - Look up Bismark, the various German confederations throughout the mid 19th century and the Franco-Prussian War.

So everyone lied on the census form then. Ok.

No, they successfully colonised Algeria. Invasion != Colonisation, no matter what angry arts students will have you believe.

I'm not claiming it's a perfect comparison, merely better than the ridiculous ones you're citing. Just about everythng in Iraq is being privatised so no matter what The Sun tells you to think, it's colonialism dressed up as "liberation".

Im not surprised you view the above as being successful, if reprehensible, strategy despite their utter failure in the case you provided.

The feeling I get is that some elements in the US administration and military would like to really take the gloves off and shock the Iraqis into submission. Domestic public opinion probably wouldn't stand for it though.

Its okay, Im not your maths teacher either. When he feels youre ready hell introduce the concepts of absolute and relative.

There's no credible comparison between northern Ireland and Iraq. Using some half-arsed method to compare the rate of attacks won't create one.

No in other words your missing the forest for the trees. But like I said Im not your english teacher, read what I said again.

You said "Change a few faction names and youve got Northern Ireland." Quit waffling and tell us how you came to this bizarre conclusion, and who's supposed to be who.

The resistance is apparently staffed by foreign arab fighters and regime diehards, and thus probably even less representitive of Iraqi opinion than the IRA was or is of Irish.

It's certainly convenient to label them all as regime diehards or jihad tourists but nobody seems to have a clue how many groups there are or what their aims are. But I'm arguing that straightforward patriotism and the distrust of foreign invaders, especially those of different race and religion figures as part of the motivation amongst at least some fighters.

It certainly fits with the impression being created by polls in Iraq that the Iraqis arent zealous Democrat voters as no doubt some hoped. It also fits with the fact that there is a so called Sunni Triangle, part of Iraq from between Baghdad and Tikrit in which 80% of the attacks against the coalition occur - makes you think the resistance is localised and limited mostly to Sunni regions doesnt it? That most of Iraq is relatively peaceful?

Cool. Sunni arse should be given an almighty booting then. Get the shiites and whatnot on board, and tool them up. Stir up ethnic rivalries and divide and conquer. Like what the Brits were excellent at. That's the ticket.

It is however critical that the coalition ensure that the resistance do not gain widespread support - that the resistance suddenly become seen as fighting for Iraqis rather than fighting for Sunni dominance in Iraq or Wahabbi fundamentalism in Iraq. It is a battle for hearts and minds, and if Iraqis continue to be frustrated by failings on the part of the coalition forces and administration there is the danger they will increasingly turn to the resistance - much as Irish frustration against the political status quo in Ireland is leading to increasing support for the likes of Sinn Fein.

Hearts and minds is such a silly meaningless phrase. I can't believe people still use it. What's it mean?

And what sparked the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and led to the US generally flexing its muscle across the globe? 9/11, an attack on the US mainland which it could be argued led to great shows of patriotism by the US, encouraged by the view that the U.S. was under attack and had to be defeneded.

You know as well as I do that neither the Taliban nor Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 and the destruction of their respective regimes has not made America or anywhere else any less vulnerable to attack. It did offer the neocons an opportunity to stir up some ugly nationalistic feelings amongst Americans though. I understand it though. When I was a teenager in the 80's I remember feeling fiercely nationalist and sectarian everytime there was something like the Gibraltar killings or Milltown cemetery attacks or whatever. Some people grow out of it, some don't and get sucked further in. But now, I despise the way Sinn Fein wave the tricolour about as if to claim a monopoly on Irishness just as many Americans despise the way their patriotism is called into question if they don't support their government's wars unconditionally.

Sand

When the "resistance" or "foreignors" or "terrorists" can attack at will and very little cooperation is received by the Iraqi population, as well as US commanders commenting on no real evidence of foreign fighters... (and they've descended into Israeli tactics of bulldozing) it seems that the "accepted" opinion is probably just knee-jerk speculation.

The resistance appears to have been targeting Iraqis who co-operate with the coalition forces or work with them just as much as the coalition forces themselves. It is a effective tactic to prevent the coalition forces from gaining the trust of the local Iraqis - if anyone who informs on the resistance or who works with the coalition runs the risk of dissapearing in the night then youll find very little co-operation and that the resistance will be able to attack at will. Who would dare inform on them? Who would dare be seen with the coalition if it endangered their very lives?

As for the foreign fighters it seems that a lot of young muslim fundamentalist types have left their communities across Europe and the intelligence forces are unable to account for them surprise surprise. Along with an upsurge in suicide bombings which was not a hallmark of Saddams forces, it seems reasonable to suggest theyre in Iraq.

Not really considering the increased attacks in Mosul and in the mostly Kurdish areas as well as just about every pary of Iraq.

80% of the attacks occur in the Sunni Triangle and you think its fair to describe the resistance as popular across all of Iraq? I think its fair to say its localised, otherwise there wouldnt be that sort of concentration of attacks in a particular region would there?

Of course that doesnt fit with the "Doooooooooooooomed" thesis but hey.

That assumes that they aren't fighting for Iraqi's or that different groups haven't joined together in an aim to force out the occupiers and undermine anyone that does cooperate with them.

They dont seem to represent the opinions of Iraqis as exspressed in polls though - you dont need an army to run a guerilla campaign, its not hard to bomb the UN or the Red Cross afterall but dont you think if they were fighting for Iraqis there would be some reflection of their views in the polls - only 13% wanted the coalition gone right now last i heard.

This assumes that the "coalition" had altruistic motives for invasion in the first place, which most evidence shows isn't the case. Most Iraqis probably don't think so either, but some might be waiting to see if life might get better anyway.

It assumes that there are half way intelligent people somewhere within the coalition decision making process. Even if they wanted to suck Iraq dry of oil and leave its rotting carcass in the sun, they dont want their troops dying in a foreign land in an election year - hence you would assume they would make every effort to keep the Iraqis sweet.

Considering the recent history prior to 9/11 that argument has scant evidence to support it.

Merely making the point that whilst some might say the US is nationalistic, its just as easy to argue its patriotic - My point doesnt require you to agree with an example, I didnt even raise the issue in the first place, patriotism/nationalism/whatever the hell you want to call it is a tool, used by others for good or ill ends. Nothing more, nothing less.

Victor

Originally posted by Redleslie
Hearts and minds is such a silly meaningless phrase. I can't believe people still use it. What's it mean?

No, it's not silly. In South Lebanon, Irish troops openly fraternised with the locals (but not the militias). They bought food from their shops and drank coffee in their cafés. They helped with the schools, hospitals and orphanages. Why? Because it meant the locals were then less tolerant of the militias who wouldn't then be able to kill UN soldiers with impunity. Any militia needs the support of the local population to operate.

Israel often condemned this fraternisation as being one sided and to a degree it was - as was mandated by the UN. That said the Israelis appreciated when the Irish .50 calibre machines guns would open fire whenever anyone's trip flares (a rocket flare attached to a trip wire that would illuminate a large area at night) went off. This stopped militias from trying to use the cover of darkness to stage attacks.

Paying “blood money” for people killed by UN forces prevented feuds erupting that in the early days, led to UN (including Irish) soldiers being killed in retaliation.

The problem with the Americans is they are trying to win hearts and minds, while still pointing guns (the order is “at all times”) at civilians, having male soldiers search female civilians, and engaging in disrespect and maltreatment (e.g. placing the shoes of civilians on their head while interrogating them at checkpoints). Soldiers aren’t allowed spend any money locally (although specific purchasing officers are allowed buy local produce). Because the Americans (other than the Marines) haven't invested in wheeled APCs, they are either driving around in armoured tracked vehicles (M1, M2/3, M113), everyone is annoyed as the tracks tear up local roads. The result is the guerrillas are targeting the ubiquitous lightly protected Humvee jeeps and trucks.

The attack at the weekend where the locals desecrated the bodies of two dead soldiers is what happens when you put assault troops (82nd and 101st divisions) among civilians.

This means the ordinary Ali in Iraq is feeling all of the pain and little of the benefit of occupation.