[Alph]

Hi Viper,
I see a win as 0 fatalities and 0 economic impact in the world as a whole. History holds out fantasy when in reality War of recent time no one gained any tangible useful real estate policy change in culture. A win with no PTSD and usable real estate or a point taken and implemented IE Korea is a 53 state in the US that's a win. To me a war is to make the enemy see our view of the world and become that. Complete submission to our beliefs and ways of life or converting nations to Democracy has never happened. Those are your history books that don't want you to know our policy in the world is just ours just for Americans. The history I'm talking about is NOW it's not written yet...

[bsmith13]

Originally Posted by Alph

Hi Viper,
I see a win as 0 fatalities and 0 economic impact in the world as a whole. History holds out fantasy when in reality War of recent time no one gained any tangible useful real estate policy change in culture. A win with no PTSD and usable real estate or a point taken and implemented IE Korea is a 53 state in the US that's a win. To me a war is to make the enemy see our view of the world and become that. Complete submission to our beliefs and ways of life or converting nations to Democracy has never happened. Those are your history books that don't want you to know our policy in the world is just ours just for Americans. The history I'm talking about is NOW it's not written yet...

Alph,

I am not trying to be obtuse, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. Zero fatalities and zero economic impact is a win? That would make every war fought a loss from anyone's point of view.

And no PTSD? Dude, combat takes people out of normal life an inflicts the most unimaginable horrors on them. PTSD has always existed, it just wasn't recognized until the Vietnam conflict.

War usually has nothing to do with the world view of the combatants. It is a way to enforce national policy by violent means, hopefully when all other means have failed. Thus the Colonies rebelled against the Crown because their legitimate complaints were ignored by legislative bodies.

And I can't think of a single instance when the US has attempted to "convert" nations to democracy. According to Darwin, rule belongs to the strongest. According to Jefferson, rule belongs to the people. In the past (and currently), the US has attempted to place the tools of goverment back in the hands of the people, rather than let a despotic individual or committee lead.

It may be that I only rephrased what you said, and if so, I apologize for the repeat. But I still really have no idea what you were trying to say.

[DADoser]

War is a force that Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges (2002)
From Publishers Weekly
"The communal march against an enemy generates a warm, unfamiliar bond with our neighbors, our community, our nation, wiping out unsettling undercurrents of alienation and dislocation," writes Chris Hedges, a foreign correspondent for the New York Times. In War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, Hedges draws on his experiences covering conflicts in Bosnia, El Salvador and Israel as well as works of literature from the Iliad to Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism to look at what makes war so intoxicating for soldiers, politicians and ordinary citizens. He discusses outbreaks of nationalism, the wartime silencing of intellectuals and artists, the ways in which even a supposedly skeptical press glorifies the battlefield and other universal features of war, arguing not for pacifism but for responsibility and humility on the part of those who wage war.

From Library Journal
This moving book examines the continuing appeal of war to the human psyche. Veteran New York Times correspondent Hedges argues that, to many people, war provides a purpose for living; it seems to allow the individual to rise above regular life and perhaps participate in a noble cause. Having identified this myth, Hedges then explodes it by showing the brutality of modern war, using examples taken from his own experiences as a war correspondent in Latin America, the Middle East, and the Balkans. These examples highlight the devastating effects of war on life, community, and culture and its corruption of business and government. Hedges is not a pacifist, acknowledging that people need to battle evil, but he thoughtfully cautions us against accepting the accompanying myths of war. This should be required reading in this post-9/11 world as we debate the possibility of war with Iraq. For all libraries.
Stephen L. Hupp, West Virginia Univ. Lib., Parkersburg


War Made easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death by Norman Soloman (2005)
Review
Media critic Solomon (Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You) looks at the pro-war propaganda generated by the U.S. government during military interventions, emphasizing the influence of the media upon public opinion. He begins in 1965, when President Johnson crafted public messages as he sent troops to the Dominican Republic. Solomon claims that LBJ's handling of this invasion established the prototype for a media agenda employed by subsequent presidents to create public approval for their actions. He finds several formulaic messages that help persuade the public to support military intervention. These include portraying America as a fair and noble superpower, whose honest leaders work hard to avoid war, and the enemy leader as an aggressive, Hitler-like violator of human rights who will do much harm unless the United States intervenes. Solomon's timely analysis, which continues through the current war in Iraq, provides the public, analysts, and journalists with useful tips on how to evaluate the prewar messages of any administration, current or historical. Of interest to both public and academic libraries.-Judy Solberg, George Washington Univ. Libs., Washington, DC (Library Journal, July 15, 2005)

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Alph

Hi Viper,
I see a win as 0 fatalities and 0 economic impact in the world as a whole. History holds out fantasy when in reality War of recent time no one gained any tangible useful real estate policy change in culture. A win with no PTSD and usable real estate or a point taken and implemented IE Korea is a 53 state in the US that's a win. To me a war is to make the enemy see our view of the world and become that. Complete submission to our beliefs and ways of life or converting nations to Democracy has never happened. Those are your history books that don't want you to know our policy in the world is just ours just for Americans. The history I'm talking about is NOW it's not written yet...

Alph, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying exactly. But in any event, I would say we did change Germany and Japan from dictatorships into democracies, and they seem to be doing OK these days. Plus just ask the Eastern Europeans if the fact that we won the cold war made no difference to them. It does, trust me. I mean, you keep making sweeping statements that are so easily shown to be false ("no one wins wars", converting nations to democracy has never happened", etc,,,) that I don't know what else to say.

You need to take some trips around the world, Alph. Just a recommendation. You'll see a lot of people that are still grateful for what the US did for them. The fact that newer generations are forgeting all that and taking it for granted is sad, but it doesn't make it less true that we Americans have done a lot to make people's lives better all over the world. Even though it doesn't always turn out the way we figured it, sometimes it has and we should be proud of that.

FVD

[DADoser]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

...But in any event, I would say we did change Germany and Japan from dictatorships into democracies, and they seem to be doing OK these days...
FVD

Not wanting to get too argumentative nor too much in this argument....however, just for point of clarification.

Germany had begun a democratic tradition. Hitler was elected and made dictator through a "legal" democratic process. (He hyped an external Communist threat/attack - Reichstag fire - combined with a domestic threat - the Jews - and moved to solidify power in the German executive branch.) Hitler was a dictatorial blip on the democratic development that Germany shares with the rest of western Europe. We (U.S. and allies) didn't change Germany into a democracy - we helped return them to the democracy they already were - BEFORE Hitler. The Germans knew democracy before dictatorship.

Japan on the other hand - no history of Democracy. But turning them into a democracy may be the lesson of how its done. (And I'm not advocating this here) But ONE way to transform a culture that has no tradition or history of democracy seems to be to bomb them into the stone age and completely demoralize them - strip them of their will to resist - THEN make them do whatever you want them to do. You must totally annihilate the institutions AND the ability/will to resist in order to transform a culture. Again, while I'm NOT advocating this as a solution in Iraq/Middle East - history would seem to back up this strategy for transforming a nation/culture into a democracy.

History shows a "hearts and minds" strategy in insurgencies/nation building to not be effective - i.e. Vietnam; current Iraq; N. Africa; etc. Of course when you go the other way you get "We had to destroy the village to save it" - then what is the point. (Which I think is where Alph is at)

Regardless of your political leaning/slant - an honest objective analysis of current Iraq offers no good solutions/outcomes. (At least if you listen to most experts who don't seem to have a political agenda - with leaves out the current administration as well as most Democrats and Republicans in congress.)

I don't want to be too glip here - but I'll bet with just the money that we've lost (due to corruption) in Iraq could have paid for an assin to take out Saddam - lessening our (U.S.) cost in blood and treasure.

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by DADoser

Not wanting to get too argumentative nor too much in this argument....however, just for point of clarification.

Germany had begun a democratic tradition. Hitler was elected and made dictator through a "legal" democratic process. (He hyped an external Communist threat/attack - Reichstag fire - combined with a domestic threat - the Jews - and moved to solidify power in the German executive branch.) Hitler was a dictatorial blip on the democratic development that Germany shares with the rest of western Europe. We (U.S. and allies) didn't change Germany into a democracy - we helped return them to the democracy they already were - BEFORE Hitler. The Germans knew democracy before dictatorship.

Incorrect. While technically, yes, Germany was a "democracy" during the Weimar Republic, the German people had no idea how to run and sustain a democracy, certainly not a liberal democracy (where individual freedoms are guaranteed against egregious abuse by the majority). They had NO democratic tradition. Which explains why Hitler came to power so easily in this "democracy" and was able to smoothly transition to dictatorship with hardly a sign of protest on anyone's part, rather quite the opposite. Germany, and the German people, only embraced true democracy when we imposed it on them (granted, their shame over their wartime actions, particularly the holocaust, played a part in that as well).

But my point to Alph was that he says imposing democracy on others cannot be done; I showed two examples of where it was done. Just because there are cases where it's difficult, or even impossible to do (perhaps Iraq is such a case, but we don't know yet and won't for quite a while), the sweeping statement that it is NEVER possible is simply false.

FVD

[DADoser]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Incorrect. While technically, yes, Germany was a "democracy" during the Weimar Republic, the German people had no idea how to run and sustain a democracy, certainly not a liberal democracy (where individual freedoms are guaranteed against egregious abuse by the majority). They had NO democratic tradition. Which explains why Hitler came to power so easily in this "democracy" and was able to smoothly transition to dictatorship with hardly a sign of protest on anyone's part, rather quite the opposite. Germany, and the German people, only embraced true democracy when we imposed it on them (granted, their shame over their wartime actions, particularly the holocaust, played a part in that as well).

But my point to Alph was that he says imposing democracy on others cannot be done; I showed two examples of where it was done. Just because there are cases where it's difficult, or even impossible to do (perhaps Iraq is such a case, but we don't know yet and won't for quite a while), the sweeping statement that it is NEVER possible is simply false.

FVD

I think we may be getting into "what the definition of 'is' is." : ) (can't edit to put in the smilie icon)

What I said was:
"Germany had begun a democratic tradition.[This is not incorrect - I didn't say they were a full-fledged liberal democracy. A democracy in its infancy is still beginning a democratic tradition] Hitler was elected and made dictator through a "legal" democratic process. [TRUE - not incorrect - and I did place legal in quotes] (He hyped an external Communist threat/attack - Reichstag fire - combined with a domestic threat - the Jews - and moved to solidify power in the German executive branch.) Hitler was a dictatorial blip on the democratic development that Germany shares with the rest of western Europe. We (U.S. and allies) didn't change Germany into a democracy - we helped return them to the democracy they already were - BEFORE Hitler. The Germans knew democracy before dictatorship. [Again they were a democracy in their infancy - but still a democracy. The building blocks/partial foundation were there]"




I guess my "big picture" point is that Germany - even after the Hitler years - still had much more in common historically and culturally with Western Europe - this made "making" them a democracy a much smoother and logical process. (Also the bombing campaign; fire-bombing Dresden; and defeating their army put an explanation point on the allied victory - similiar to Japan's total defeat.) Germany easily going to a Democracy after Hitler's defeat and in historical context doesn't seem to be THAT big of a stretch to me. (Also - I believe Zinni recomended the same troop to civilian ratios for the occupation of Iraq that were in place in Germany in 1945 - But we know what happened to Zinni's career/recommendations.)

Holding up German and Japan as successfull democracies that the U.S. (West) has made just aren't relevent to the history/culture/issues of turning modern Iraq (or the Middle East) into a democracy. Iraq does not have the culture/tradition/history that made Germany a successful democracy after Hitler. And we never went into Iraq with the overwhelming force/anihilation strategy in which we demoralized and destroyed Japan with (probaby would not be considered appropriate in the modern world - I doubt Britain would have even signed on for that)- setting the stage for Japan's successful democratic transition.

The soviet union is a good example for failed nation building. The Soviets could only "transform" nations into communist satelites as long as they could control the populations with armed presence/threat of force. A "government of the people" can only truly come from the people. What Iraq becomes will have very little to do with what we did there. Iraq will become the government Iraq wants to become. It may be close to what we hope for - but once we leave, they will do whatever they want. (Whether what we did there is viewed as "worth it" will be based on the individual soldiers hindsight and "how" he/she wants to remember or frame the conflict - i.e. just like the radically different memories/views of Vietnam vets - as witnessed in the Swift boat ads/memories/counter memories.)

With enough time/soldiers/money we can transform Iraq - the question/debate is: Are the costs worth the benefits? In a democracy, eventually the will of the people will decide - not one or 2 presidents.

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by DADoser

Holding up German and Japan as successfull democracies that the U.S. (West) has made just aren't relevent to the history/culture/issues of turning modern Iraq (or the Middle East) into a democracy.

Who ever said that was relevant? Again: Alph says building democracies is impossible, I say it's been done. Never said it was easy or that it would always succeed. I also never talked about which circumstances are better/worse for it to happen. The only point I need to show is that it's been done.

Please re-read my posts. I am not talking about Iraq specifically. I am only arguing against Alph's categorical denial of even the concept's very possibility. All the points you make are interesting and most of them even valid, but not relevant to my point.

There is a huge difference between "hard-to-do" or "too expensive" and "impossible."

FVD

[DADoser]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Who ever said that was relevant? Again: Alph says building democracies is impossible, I say it's been done. Never said it was easy or that it would always succeed. I also never talked about which circumstances are better/worse for it to happen. The only point I need to show is that it's been done.

Please re-read my posts. I am not talking about Iraq specifically. I am only arguing against Alph's categorical denial of even the concept's very possibility. All the points you make are interesting and most of them even valid, but not relevant to my point.

There is a huge difference between "hard-to-do" or "too expensive" and "impossible."

FVD

Again - I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just trying to add to/further the discussion. I think the Iraq/Germany/Japan thing gets held up a lot as "See we did it in Japan, we can do it in the Middle East." I was responding more to that idea vs. reading/thinking you actually said that or made that comparison. I think in the current world situation anytime that idea gets thrown into a discussion - whether intended or not - people take the implication as applied to Iraq.

Again - I'm not trying to come "at" you in a personal way. I see it as we're 2 friends talking in the pub about current events/history. Since its typed w/time gaps, things/meaning/intentions can easily get left out and/or assumed.

Hope you haven't taken offense to anything I've said - as we have had a couple PM exchanges and I really think you contribute positively to the hobby/forum.

Take care,

[jim]

Originally Posted by DADoser

Again - I'm just trying to add to/further the discussion.
Again - I'm not trying to come "at" you in a personal way. I see it as we're 2 friends talking in the pub about current events/history. Since its typed w/time gaps, things/meaning/intentions can easily get left out and/or assumed.

Hope you haven't taken offense to anything I've said - as we have had a couple PM exchanges and I really think you contribute positively to the hobby/forum.

Take care,

This is a first class discussion, please keep it going , you have proved we can voice opinions without shouting down each other, Hey that means we just may be democratic on the Hanger.

Btw way I just had to add a comment. Germany could hardly have been called a democracy anytime before WW11.
They had enough trouble just trying to hold Germany together as a nation.