Still no sign of an exit strategy? [Archive]

sam i am

10-01-2005, 12:06 PM

Here is a story from yesterday's LATimes (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiraq1oct01,0,7766978.story?coll=la-home-headlines), amazing in itself, yet the last paragraph just blows me away.

We keep testing them, they keep killing us.

"The advisor said that U.S. commanders were concerned that Iraqi troops could become too dependent on the American presence, but that there were no plans for a hasty pullout from the violent provinces before the Iraqis were up to the task.

"There's a line between what constitutes casual dependence and what constitutes not being ready to fight," he said. "For the most part, [Iraqi troops] are not ready to do the job. And stepping back is just going to leave them vulnerable to a battle-tested army of insurgents."

Those are the last two paragraphs verbatim. ^^^^

Contextually, sounds like a sound strategy, but we've thought a lot that we had sound strategy, then been kicked in the balls.

The interesting thing to me is that there has been a pronounced increase in violence again leading up to the next round of voting/elections on the Constitution, just as predicted. Most articles I've read focus on the Sunnis trying to intimidate the Shiites into NOT voting so that the Sunnis can retain some kind of grip on power.

Sooner or later, I have the feeling the Shiites are going to get pissed off enough and you'll start seeing Sunni concentration camps or another Armenian-style genocide.

Don't the Sunni's realize they're only 20% of the population? They're vastly outnumbered and the Shiites have the Iranians right next door, with the same sect of Islam on their side!

QueenAdrock

10-02-2005, 04:11 PM

Exit strategies only strengthen the enemy, everyone knows that. :rolleyes:

EN[i]GMA

10-02-2005, 04:29 PM

Exit strategies only strengthen the enemy, everyone knows that. :rolleyes:

There is truth to the statement.

Say for instance, the SWAT team was surrounding a house where a criminal was holding a person hostage.

Would it be logical for the SWAT team to say "If you don't give up by 6:00 tonite, we're going to pack up and go home!"?

EN[i]GMA

10-02-2005, 08:10 PM

bad analogy, a SWAT team is nothing like an invading military

But it's quite like an occupying military.

QueenAdrock

10-02-2005, 08:44 PM

GMA']There is truth to the statement.

Say for instance, the SWAT team was surrounding a house where a criminal was holding a person hostage.

Would it be logical for the SWAT team to say "If you don't give up by 6:00 tonite, we're going to pack up and go home!"?

No, because there's an actual way out of that situation. You can be very clever in situations like that, especially when there's a whole team, versus ONE criminal. If there's thousands of men versus twice as many insurgents that refuse to give up, there's no way out of that situation. But the very least Bush could do is come up with some sort of BS exit plan of how to 'achieve peace' and when that's done, say "Hey we won the war, good job, everyone home," and then once the troops leave, the insurgents will take over the democracy. Just like Vietnam.

I mean, there's no way we can "win" according to his standards, unless we stay there indefinitely as peace keepers.

Medellia

10-03-2005, 12:08 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4260540.stm
-- Awww bless. Needs to ask toilet for a peepee break.
Ahem. (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=56805)

Ali

10-03-2005, 01:18 AM

If the US exit now, the entire country will go mad.

Basara (http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4432958) is supposed to be much quieter than Baghdad, but lately:

Peace prevails in the south, ... at the Islamist militias' decree.

According to Basra's previous police chief, barely a quarter of the city's police are dependable. Most are probably moderate—and they do a reasonable and improved job of combating petty crime. But they will not stand against the militiamen in their ranks, who are a very bad lot indeed. At least two journalists, one American and one Iraqi, have been murdered in Basra in recent weeks: both were investigating the militias' activities, which include running protection rackets and assassinating rivals, before their bodies are dumped in a rubbish tip on the edge of the city known as “the lot”. When not thus engaged, the militias rigorously enforce Islamist strictures, beating up women who show an ankle or attacking students enjoying an innocent picnic. A British officer struggled to sound upbeat this week. “There's an unstable sort of stability in Basra,” he said.

The city's governor, Muhammad al-Waili, does not paint a much happier picture. He condemned Britain's actions as “savage, barbaric and irresponsible.” Mr Waili is a member of Fadhila, an Islamist party that fell out with Mr Sadr and has close ties with the ayatollahs in Iran's holy city of Qom.

Badrists v Sadrists
Yet Basra may be the most tightly controlled of the four southern “British” provinces. Of the rest, Muthanna, home to a small Australian garrison, is fairly tranquil, but dominated by the local officials of SCIRI. Farther east, much of Maysan, bordering Iran, including the city of Amara, near where six British military policemen were killed in 2003, is out-of-bounds to British troops; SCIRI's Badr Brigades and the Sadrists vie for control of Maysan as well as neighbouring Dhi Qar province, especially its main town of Nasiriya, where a small garrison of Italian troops is loth to leave its base.

America's government, and many in Iraq's also, like to see Iran's hand in all this. Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, this week warned Iran not to meddle in Basra. And it does seem likely that individuals in all of Basra's main factions are taking the Iranian rial. Though they spend a lot of time squabbling, Basra's four main parties are all dominated by conservative Shias who would like an Islamist state modelled on Iran. To some extent, each party also sees the British as rivals for power, and wants to see them go.

They may get their wish fairly soon. Britain hopes to quit Muthanna, and perhaps Maysan, this year, and Dhi Qar and Basra next year. As this week's violence shows, it will not be a glorious exit: nowhere in southern Iraq is the central government in firm control. Yet with so few forces to control so vast and vexed a region, the British have never pretended to be doing much more than paper over the cracks.

Well done, guys. The country's in chaos. You can leave now..

Ace42X

10-03-2005, 07:43 AM

Ahem. (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=56805)

Doh, was that posted in my absence? Totally missed that.

Qdrop

10-03-2005, 09:34 AM

a hornets nest...with an eternal supply of hornets.
...as with all middle east countires (or persian).

when you are dealing with politics in these regions, there is no such thing as "victory" or "success" as we define them.....

the whole fuckin planet should just turn thier backs on them...and let them creep back into the stone ages...

if we can ever get off thier oil, that is......

sam i am

10-03-2005, 04:41 PM

If the US exit now, the entire country will go mad.

Well done, guys. The country's in chaos. You can leave now..

That's part of the reason we're not leaving YET. Wait until the elections, then see what happens.....

QueenAdrock

10-03-2005, 09:56 PM

I talked to my friend in Iraq, and he said that it's horrible around election time, and this time will be no different.

He also told me the rainy season is coming, and there are electrical storms in the desert. The first time he heard the enormous clap of thunder, he and his troop ducked, because they thought it was "just another explosion", as he put it. It's so sad to think that one of my best friends is totally used to the sound of violence. He's gonna be totally screwed up when he comes home. :(

On the upside, he said they're slowly condensing their troops there, and sending some home. He does get to come home (not here, out to Utah) for about 2 weeks at the end of this month, to be there for his baby's birth. (y)

Medellia

10-03-2005, 09:59 PM

Doh, was that posted in my absence? Totally missed that.
Yeah. No biggie.

Ali

10-04-2005, 03:50 AM

That's part of the reason we're not leaving YET. Wait until the elections, then see what happens.....Elections?

Did you READ the article? Though they spend a lot of time squabbling, Basra's four main parties are all dominated by conservative Shias who would like an Islamist state modelled on Iran. What kind of election are they gonna have with that complete and utter mess?

synch

10-04-2005, 04:10 AM

"The advisor said that U.S. commanders were concerned that Iraqi troops could become too dependent on the American presence, but that there were no plans for a hasty pullout from the violent provinces before the Iraqis were up to the task.

"There's a line between what constitutes casual dependence and what constitutes not being ready to fight," he said. "For the most part, [Iraqi troops] are not ready to do the job. And stepping back is just going to leave them vulnerable to a battle-tested army of insurgents."

Those are the last two paragraphs verbatim. ^^^^

Contextually, sounds like a sound strategy, but we've thought a lot that we had sound strategy, then been kicked in the balls.
That's not a strategy, that's them admitting that they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

It also seems fairly evident to me that they either haven't trained the iraqi troops to be self dependent or have tried and failed miserably.

Ali

10-04-2005, 05:38 AM

That's not a strategy, that's them admitting that they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

It also seems fairly evident to me that they either haven't trained the iraqi troops to be self dependent or have tried and failed miserably.Iraq and a hard place :p

Hmmm. I wonder what training these Iraqis get.

"here's some money, now take this gun and go and shoot those insurgents, we'll be right behind you."

At least Saddam kept things under control. Why wasn't there this much resistance to his regime?

SobaViolence

10-04-2005, 08:43 AM

iraqi oil powers american cars, while american pride powers the iraqi war.

just leave. it's not that hard...

Qdrop

10-04-2005, 08:53 AM

just leave. it's not that hard...

yeah, cause that worked out so well for Afganastan in the late 80's....

that's a big piece of why Osama turned on us and went ape-shit anti-american....after we trained him and supplied him with tons of weapons for years- then just left afganastan sitting in rubble after the Russians pulled out.

we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.
the world needs to learn that if anything is to change in the middle east, it will require a global, multi-national effort....not just one or two cowboy countries trying to bear the load.

Schmeltz

10-04-2005, 09:29 AM

the world needs to learn that if anything is to change in the middle east, it will require a global, multi-national effort

The world already knew that. It was only you guys that had a problem figuring it out.

Qdrop

10-04-2005, 10:29 AM

The world already knew that. It was only you guys that had a problem figuring it out.

yet, the rest of the world does nothing...

granted, in this particular case...the "facts" were fabricated, etc etc.....the current Iraq war is a bad example i suppose.

i'm talking on a broader board....when discussing politics/civil rights abuses/dictatorships/religious war/terrorism in any middle easter/muslim country...and how to curb it.

but seeing as how this thread is about the current war in Iraq, i suppose i was off topic...

--------

what i mean by "the rest of the world does nothing"...
i'm speaking about how other countries, particulary European ones, seem to take a stand to "live and let live" with other nations, when all is said and done, while talking out of the otherside of their mouths and denouncing civil rights abuses and dictatorships, religious zealotry....

take any muslim country where women are treated as secondary citizens and be-headed for claims of adultry (as are homosexuals), civil rights are abused daily, one can go on and on...
what to do of it?
everyone agrees it's aweful....but not aweful enough to take arms against it.
cause that would just be bad....and we are suppose to respect other soverign nations ways, right?....even it means abusing women and slaughtering those that defy you....right?
and other dictatorships world wide....acts of genocide in Africa...
we can't pretend that sanctions actually work...

when will the world (the UN) justify taking arms...and against what? where should the line of "armed, offensive initiative" be drawn?

Ace42X

10-04-2005, 10:45 AM

when will the world (the UN) justify taking arms...and against what? where should the line of "armed, offensive initiative" be drawn?

Hopefully never, and it shouldn't.

"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo.

Imposing a "benign" dictatorship (IE one that suits our morality and interests more than theirs) is no more ethical than the dictatorship you are intending to over-throw. Until the people of these places accept freely that what they are doing is "wrong" - you will have little to no success in forcing them to do what you consider is "right."

However, as for the "UN" taking arms, it has Peace Keepers armed in a lot of places. Admittedly there have been failings (the child prostitution in the Congo, etc) and the impotence of the UN is in no small thanks to individual nations frustrating its ability to intervene. Notice that with the Suez crisis (which had little to no impact on civillian life, and was an explicitly military enterprise) the US managed to oblige UN Peacekeepers to go head to head with UK, French, Israeli troops - and yet it the cases you cited where there is no loud voice to object, little gets done.

I think no European (nor European nation) would object to UN peace-keepers safe-guarding the human rights of citizens in its member nations, but it is the use of peace-keepers as a political tool (rather than a solely protective force) that people object to. And surely you can see how open it is to abuse, and how redundant it is in the face of unilatteralism by the US. I believe there are plenty of UN peace-keepers (and international forces not under the peace-keeper umbrella) in Afghanistan at present, for example. Illustrating how a more pro-active role is redunant when they are needed to clean up the US's mess.

But really, are you implying a truly benign dictator has the right to impose his will over others (and your nation would be in the firing line) for their "benefit" ? What if it involved forcing socialism on them?

Schmeltz

10-04-2005, 11:22 AM

everyone agrees it's aweful....but not aweful enough to take arms against it.
cause that would just be bad

Uh... yeah. Yeah, it would. Your gunslinging President took up arms against Iraq and made it worse. Imagine the debacle that would ensue if any Western nation took up arms against Iran or Pakistan. Bombing countries into democracy and modernity isn't just shortsighted and greedy, it also plain doesn't work. People aren't going to change unless they themselves want to, and that's why education, above all, is the key. If people who think of beheading homosexuals and flogging rape victims as moral can be shown the productive benefit of thinking another way, they will adopt it. Not without a struggle, and certainly not immediately, but granted enough time and a good example, they will.

The principles of liberty, individualism, and human rights on which Western civilizations are founded are quite novel ideas, in the broad spectrum of history, and took centuries to develop and refine. It's shortsighted to expect anything different from the rest of the world, and stupid to expect that such principles can be implemented at the point of a gun. These things take time, and lots and lots of education and introspection.

sam i am

10-04-2005, 12:07 PM

Elections?

Did you READ the article? What kind of election are they gonna have with that complete and utter mess?

I was talking about the national elections. Although the country is 60% Shiite (mostly concentrated in the South), there are two other large demographic groups in Iraq : the Kurds (approx. 20%) and the Sunnis (approx. 20%, but dropping steadily as they kill themselves off).

So, elections are NOT just based on what is happening in the Shiite areas. The December elections are intended to ratify the Constitution and give the Iraqis the ability to GOVERN THEMSELVES.

sam i am

10-04-2005, 12:10 PM

Iraq and a hard place :p

Hmmm. I wonder what training these Iraqis get.

"here's some money, now take this gun and go and shoot those insurgents, we'll be right behind you."

At least Saddam kept things under control. Why wasn't there this much resistance to his regime?

You are NOT making that argument, are you?

Sure, put Sadaam back in with his torture chambers, his sons running around shooting and killing people randomly with impunity, his military used to cause ecological disasters like draining the swamps in the South of the country, or invading Kuwait, or threatening Saudi Arabia or gassing and massacring 10's of thousands of Kurds, or attacking Iran and starting a ten year war that killed a couple MILLION people.

Sure....put him back in power. He'd be just like Mussolini - the trains run on time and "things are under control," but at what price?

sam i am

10-04-2005, 12:18 PM

Uh... yeah. Yeah, it would. Your gunslinging President took up arms against Iraq and made it worse. Imagine the debacle that would ensue if any Western nation took up arms against Iran or Pakistan. Bombing countries into democracy and modernity isn't just shortsighted and greedy, it also plain doesn't work. People aren't going to change unless they themselves want to, and that's why education, above all, is the key. If people who think of beheading homosexuals and flogging rape victims as moral can be shown the productive benefit of thinking another way, they will adopt it. Not without a struggle, and certainly not immediately, but granted enough time and a good example, they will.

The principles of liberty, individualism, and human rights on which Western civilizations are founded are quite novel ideas, in the broad spectrum of history, and took centuries to develop and refine. It's shortsighted to expect anything different from the rest of the world, and stupid to expect that such principles can be implemented at the point of a gun. These things take time, and lots and lots of education and introspection.

But who pays the price in the meantime for your long-term grand strategy : the very people you most purport to support and want to have a better life - namely women and children.

Q's examples of women abuses in countries with dictatorships is very spot-on. It's happened throughout history that women and children get the short end of the stick, and the most abuse and neglect, when a country is run by a dictatorship. Look at Nazi Germany, with it's encouragement of women out of labor, into the homes, barefoot and pregnant. The children were forced in the Nazi youth movement - with all of it's benevolent "education" - read brainwashing.

Look at Iraq and Afghanistan prior to the US intervention there - women beheaded in public. Literacy at all time lows. Children in poverty (ace's big bugaboo) rampantly.

Now look at Europe and the US/Canada - women's rights protected and extended. Children educated and free. Civil and religious rights enforced and/or tolerated by LAW.

I'll take the latter any day and work hard to have those who don't have it to have it.

Guess that's not "noble" or "righteous" enough for those who bleat for the Taliban or Sadaam to return, but you are on the wrong side of history, my friends.....watch it happen, "over time," as Schmeltz so eloquently put it.

Qdrop

10-04-2005, 01:14 PM

Uh... yeah. Yeah, it would. Your gunslinging President took up arms against Iraq and made it worse. Imagine the debacle that would ensue if any Western nation took up arms against Iran or Pakistan. Bombing countries into democracy and modernity isn't just shortsighted and greedy, it also plain doesn't work. People aren't going to change unless they themselves want to, and that's why education, above all, is the key. If people who think of beheading homosexuals and flogging rape victims as moral can be shown the productive benefit of thinking another way, they will adopt it. Not without a struggle, and certainly not immediately, but granted enough time and a good example, they will.

The principles of liberty, individualism, and human rights on which Western civilizations are founded are quite novel ideas, in the broad spectrum of history, and took centuries to develop and refine. It's shortsighted to expect anything different from the rest of the world, and stupid to expect that such principles can be implemented at the point of a gun. These things take time, and lots and lots of education and introspection.

oh, i agree with that...history has, by and large, shown that to be true.
a slow generational change is the best and bloodless....
but how can that be accomplished in countries where such education is not possible...where religious zealotry puts it's foot on the throat of contemporary or western thought?
we should just sit back and hope they see the light and instill change on thier own?...
meanwhile, women continue to be oppressed and killed, those of adverse religious beliefs are slaughtered, homosexuals are killed....
how is allowing that to happen any better than those same people being killed in collateral damage during a military offensive?
it's no-win....

Ace42X

10-04-2005, 01:35 PM

how is allowing that to happen any better than those same people being killed in collateral damage during a military offensive?
it's no-win....

primum non nocere

Qdrop

10-04-2005, 01:44 PM

primum non nocere

yet harm is inflicted regardless....

that doesn't answer the question.

Ace42X

10-04-2005, 01:45 PM

yet harm is inflicted regardless...

That is to miss the point of the dictum. If someone is suffering regardless, the dictum doesn't mean "oh well then, break out the scalpels."

Adding to the body count with collateral damage isn't anywhere near close to a sound course of action.

Qdrop

10-04-2005, 02:14 PM

Adding to the body count with collateral damage isn't anywhere near close to a sound course of action.

WHICH IS?!!?

sam i am

10-04-2005, 02:22 PM

Adding to the body count with collateral damage isn't anywhere near close to a sound course of action.

How is it collateral? It's pretty damn direct in most instances.

sam i am

10-04-2005, 02:28 PM

See the latest.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051004/ts_nm/iraq_dc

Ace42X

10-04-2005, 02:44 PM

WHICH IS?!!?

Not making it worse by invading. Just for starters like. That or using the weight of memes and arguments to reform, rather than guns and deaths. We've seen peaceful revolutions in various countries, and we may see more. There is no need for foreign manipulations.

sam i am

10-04-2005, 03:38 PM

Not making it worse by invading. Just for starters like. That or using the weight of memes and arguments to reform, rather than guns and deaths. We've seen peaceful revolutions in various countries, and we may see more. There is no need for foreign manipulations.

Once we've already "invaded," there's not the option of "not invading" on the table, so your whole point is moot, ace.

EN[i]GMA

10-04-2005, 04:13 PM

Not making it worse by invading. Just for starters like. That or using the weight of memes and arguments to reform, rather than guns and deaths. We've seen peaceful revolutions in various countries, and we may see more. There is no need for foreign manipulations.

"You better reform, or we'll break out the Memes!"

If only we had memes back when Idi Amin was around...

sam i am

10-04-2005, 04:49 PM

GMA']"You better reform, or we'll break out the Memes!"

If only we had memes back when Idi Amin was around...

Or Hitler (oh, wait, didn't the British and French TRY that with Czechoslovakia? The whole "pecae in our time" thing REALLY worked out well then. History shows that evil MUST be contained and stopped or it grows and spreads like a disease).....

Schmeltz

10-05-2005, 02:20 AM

but how can that be accomplished in countries where such education is not possible...where religious zealotry puts it's foot on the throat of contemporary or western thought?

Hey - remember that the values on which Western civilization is founded emerged from societies very similar to the fundamentalist theocracies that dominate the Middle East today. Who would have thought that a European continent gripped by the idiocy of the Thirty Years' War could have produced the dynamic, world-spanning cultures that in turn gave birth to the principles of liberty and individualism? Even when their culture takes a turn for the worse (as Western culture has arguably done time and time again), people in general will remain fundamentally committed to a path of action that yields a productive and beneficial result for the whole. No matter how bad things get, there is always hope - that's the lesson I've taken from my own personal examination of history. Education is always possible. People simply need to be shown that at the end of the struggle there will emerge a better way. That, I think, was the belief of every truly progressive movement in human history - that there was a way out, if only it could be revealed.

Our task must be to reveal the next step for the people who have yet to catch up. The solution - the "sound course of action" to which you guys refer - lies within our own history. It's not pretty or clean or bloodless or immediate, but it's ours for the taking if only we can supply the means.

Shit, I probably sound as dogmatic as racer.

yet harm is inflicted regardless

There is no path without harm. The key is to recognize the path most likely to yield the best long-term result. That path can never be defined only with brute force.

sam i am

10-05-2005, 06:36 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051004/ts_nm/iraq_dc

More updates from Iraq.

As confusing and excruciaiting as it is over there, the process of getting a legitimate government in place continues apace.... (y)

sam i am

10-05-2005, 06:44 AM

Hey - remember that the values on which Western civilization is founded emerged from societies very similar to the fundamentalist theocracies that dominate the Middle East today. Who would have thought that a European continent gripped by the idiocy of the Thirty Years' War could have produced the dynamic, world-spanning cultures that in turn gave birth to the principles of liberty and individualism? Even when their culture takes a turn for the worse (as Western culture has arguably done time and time again), people in general will remain fundamentally committed to a path of action that yields a productive and beneficial result for the whole. No matter how bad things get, there is always hope - that's the lesson I've taken from my own personal examination of history. Education is always possible. People simply need to be shown that at the end of the struggle there will emerge a better way. That, I think, was the belief of every truly progressive movement in human history - that there was a way out, if only it could be revealed.

Our task must be to reveal the next step for the people who have yet to catch up. The solution - the "sound course of action" to which you guys refer - lies within our own history. It's not pretty or clean or bloodless or immediate, but it's ours for the taking if only we can supply the means.

Shit, I probably sound as dogmatic as racer.

There is no path without harm. The key is to recognize the path most likely to yield the best long-term result. That path can never be defined only with brute force.

Ok. Wait a minute......

The Thirty Years' War was from 1618-1648, right? Yes.

So.....by that time the English, French, and Spanish (not to mention the Portugese and the Dutch) had alreay established globe-bestriding empires and colonies, hadn't they? Yes.

Also, hadn't they taken advantage of the already flourishing slave trade to bring African slaves to the new world? Yes.

Hadn't they fought wars aplenty both prior to and after the Thirty Years' War? Yes. The Napoleonic Wars and the World Wars come immediately to mind.

Ok. So your argument is that we cannot make changes with brute force, huh? Well, the study of history shows JUST THE OPPOSITE :

The Revolutionary Wars, the Wars of the Roses, the World Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, etc., etc., et al all brought about rapid changes in technological, social, and political changes. The gradualism of which you and ace seem to be such fans did not even take place in British history. Yes, they had the Magna Carta in 1215 - followed by the upheavals of colonialism, nationalism, conquest, wars, etc.

So, your analysis is incorrect from the unending examples of history.

Schmeltz

10-05-2005, 11:25 AM

Are you attempting to argue that the values of Western culture emerged solely from the use of armed force?

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

franscar

10-05-2005, 01:57 PM

Ok. So your argument is that we cannot make changes with brute force, huh?

I don't think that was his argument at all and I'm really struggling to see how you arrived at that conclusion.

sam i am

10-05-2005, 05:23 PM

Are you attempting to argue that the values of Western culture emerged solely from the use of armed force?

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

No. Not solely. Were expedited by the use of force? Yes.

Force ended Nazism, not the gradual decay of Nazism as an idea.

Weight of arms ended Soviet "Communism," not some kind of discourse or memos or international agencies.

Force created the Industrial Revolution : the arms trade was ONE of the driving factors behind Industrialism.

I could go on and on, but I think my point is made....

Ali

10-06-2005, 12:44 AM

No. Not solely. Were expedited by the use of force? Yes.

Force ended Nazism, not the gradual decay of Nazism as an idea.

Weight of arms ended Soviet "Communism," not some kind of discourse or memos or international agencies.

Force created the Industrial Revolution : the arms trade was ONE of the driving factors behind Industrialism.

I could go on and on, but I think my point is made....One of the most brutal regimes this world has ever known was defeated in 1989, in South Africa, without a shot being fired.

STANKY808

10-06-2005, 10:16 AM

Right "without a shot being fired". But I recall a few necklacings...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/images/_33659_necklace.jpg

I'm not taking sides on the subject of this thread, but I do think there was quite a violent struggle to gain independence in SA.

Schmeltz

10-06-2005, 11:43 AM

I could go on and on, but I think my point is made...

... poorly and superficially, if you ask me. The disintegration of the Soviet Union came about as much as the result of internal factors as external pressure from "weight of arms" (do you mean the arms race in which no shots were fired?). Force did not create the industrial revolution, textile production created the industrial revolution. And force may have ended Hitler's regime, but it's education that will prevent it from rising up again.

There's a much stronger case to be made for Western values having been expedited in spite of destructive force, not thanks to it. I don't doubt that warfare plays a role in the transmission of culture, but I would point to the Western world's distinct aversion to armed conflict as the most powerful lesson to be drawn from your own points. Of course, you are champion of the most militant and destructive government in the Western world, so I don't expect you to grasp that particular point.

EN[i]GMA

10-06-2005, 03:49 PM

One of the most brutal regimes this world has ever known was defeated in 1989, in South Africa, without a shot being fired.

How was South Africa one of the most brutal ever?

Oppressive, certainly, but 'brutal'?

It's not even close to the top of the pack in its own area.

Ace42X

10-06-2005, 03:55 PM

I concur. And the ANC were bombing people left right and centre... Shootings were far from unheard of.

Ali

10-07-2005, 03:42 AM

Compared with how things could have gone, it was peaceful and did not require the invasion and occupation of the country by any other foreign power. The Nationalist government realised that they couldn't continue in the face of such global opposition and the rest is history.

A lot of the black on black violence was stirred up by the Apartheid govt supporting the IFP against the ANC. There were tribal rivalries between these parties, which the Nationalists capitalised on and Buthelezi was keen to maintain his Parlimentary position for as long as possible, so opposed the ANC.

Of course there was violence, but it wasn't the reason that the Nats gave up. The violence worked in their favour, they used it to 'prove' that the blacks weren't fit to govern themselves. As for the bombs... the ANC were peaceful - and unheard of -until they started to make a noise. Sometimes even the most noble of people need to do despicable things in order to get the world to pay attention.

Whites were terrified of what could happen (thanks to the Government - controlled newspaper and TV station) and the relief we felt when Mandela told everybody to forget about the past and work together to build a strong, unified country was immeasurable.

I'm sure the foreign press wanted to make a story of it, but it was really a very quiet transition, especially when you compare it to Afghanistan and Iraq.

yeahwho

10-07-2005, 04:51 AM

Back to Iraq and the US exit strategy.

The problem as I've seen ever since this ill thought out invasion began can be laid out in 3 simple steps, we're somewhere between 2 & 3.

1. Declare war and invade Iraq
2. ?????....uh...didn't really have any plan for 2...?????
3. Profit

Ali

10-07-2005, 05:49 AM

sam i am

10-10-2005, 10:23 AM

... poorly and superficially, if you ask me. The disintegration of the Soviet Union came about as much as the result of internal factors as external pressure from "weight of arms" (do you mean the arms race in which no shots were fired?). Force did not create the industrial revolution, textile production created the industrial revolution. And force may have ended Hitler's regime, but it's education that will prevent it from rising up again.

There's a much stronger case to be made for Western values having been expedited in spite of destructive force, not thanks to it. I don't doubt that warfare plays a role in the transmission of culture, but I would point to the Western world's distinct aversion to armed conflict as the most powerful lesson to be drawn from your own points. Of course, you are champion of the most militant and destructive government in the Western world, so I don't expect you to grasp that particular point.

I "grasp" your point, sir. Your sarcasm is unwarranted.

I would respectfully continue to disagree with your basic premise. Force was, is, and will always be a vital component in any kind of mass change in the arena of state and/or global geopolitics.

The UN has failed, miserably, to prevent any of the mass destruction it was setup to stop in the first place. The UN Charter is pretty specific about the INTENTIONS of the states that are members.

Unfortunately, as with the League of Nations before it, it is toothless in the face of naked agression.

Let's take a few examples : Rwanda, Yugoslavia, East Timor, Afghanistan, the Iran-Iraq War, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Should I go on?

All of these conflicts, and countless others, have been resolved by one nation or another winning through force of arms.

Now, you TRIED to say, above, that the Cold War was won through internal processes in the old Soviet Union causing the collpase of the "Communist" system. You actually make my point. History has proven that the Soviets were unable to keep up with their MILITARY (and, to a lesser extent, Space) expenditures, which eventually bankrupted the system and CAUSED the collapse of the Union. People in the Soviet states got fed up with the lack of basic consumer goods and the lack of freedom at the expense of supporting a HUGE military, both conventional and nuclear.

The same is happening in North Korea, except that you have a much smaller, more cowed population. Even there, however, escapees from North Korea report that SOME news and ideas are getting through and the people are sick and tired of supporting a MILITARY while they are starving.

It is all well and good to argue that ideas are the driving force behind historical changes, but without the military muscle to back it up (reasonably, of course), ideas can NEVER be IMPLEMENTED, which is all that counts.

Unimplemented ideas are philosophy; implemented ideas are history.

sam i am

10-12-2005, 12:54 PM

More news from Iraq....

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq

Is this a sign the Sunnis may approve the Constitution?

Stay tuned....

Schmeltz

10-13-2005, 12:43 PM

Force was, is, and will always be a vital component in any kind of mass change in the arena of state and/or global geopolitics.

Oh, I agree. I simply feel that it is much more productive to rely on more peaceful means of attaining geopolitical objectives, and that this ought to be the goal of international relations in the future. There will always be a role for armed force in human society, but the lessons of the last century have taught us that we practice it at our collective peril, and that there must be a better way.

The UN has failed, miserably, to prevent any of the mass destruction it was setup to stop in the first place.

Not for lack of effort. Perhaps it would have a greater success rate if more people were willing to put stock in it as a concept, instead of harping on their own narrow nationalism. Keep in mind as well that the UN is a very, very young institution, comparatively untried relative to the polities it purports to safeguard, and that with time it may very well prove to be more effective at realizing its objectives. If, as I say, it is granted the necessary support from its members.

without the military muscle to back it up (reasonably, of course), ideas can NEVER be IMPLEMENTED, which is all that counts.

That's straight up bullshit. Female suffrage, the abolition of slavery (except in your country, tellingly), rationalism, empiricism, capitalism, democratic socialism - virtually all of the ideas that underpin contemporary Western society came about peacefully and progressively. If armed force played a role in these developments it was indirect and merely a part of the equation (as is the case with your Soviet example). Your blind love of armed force is very unsettling.

sam i am

10-13-2005, 12:55 PM

Oh, I agree. I simply feel that it is much more productive to rely on more peaceful means of attaining geopolitical objectives, and that this ought to be the goal of international relations in the future. There will always be a role for armed force in human society, but the lessons of the last century have taught us that we practice it at our collective peril, and that there must be a better way.

Thanks for agreeing. We found some common ground. I would agree that it is surely PRUDENT, especially with the advent of nuclear arsenals, to seek non-confrontational ways to resolve conflicts, but the fact remains that much of human history is littered with the flotsam and jetsam of idealists who proferred peace but were ravaged by war.

Not for lack of effort. Perhaps it would have a greater success rate if more people were willing to put stock in it as a concept, instead of harping on their own narrow nationalism. Keep in mind as well that the UN is a very, very young institution, comparatively untried relative to the polities it purports to safeguard, and that with time it may very well prove to be more effective at realizing its objectives. If, as I say, it is granted the necessary support from its members.

Good point. There COULD be an eventuality to what you are stating, but the short to mid-term is not promising. The true argument here could be the rise of nationalistic forces versus the imperative, if you'd like, of a uber-government that can contain and focus those nationalistic desires into cooperative paradigms. Unfortunately, without a huge effort at educating much of the world as to the beneficial and non-interventionary desires of those who would impose such a uber-government (I'm referring solely to the UN now), this is not a likely outcome. Look at the EU, for example, where you have large problems with anti-immigrant rhetoric from the Right and a lack of ability to have the population necessary to support wanted and desired services at a State level with a non-replacement mentality of population to support it. Estimates have been put at the necessity of over a BILLION new immigrants into Europe over the next 50 years just to MAINTAIN services at the levels they're at now, let alone add any new ones. There could be a hot debate on the efficacy and outcome of such a model actually materializing in reality.....

That's straight up bullshit. Female suffrage, the abolition of slavery (except in your country, tellingly), rationalism, empiricism, capitalism, democratic socialism - virtually all of the ideas that underpin contemporary Western society came about peacefully and progressively. If armed force played a role in these developments it was indirect and merely a part of the equation (as is the case with your Soviet example). Your blind love of armed force is very unsettling.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so. I'm coming from the perspective of actual history and outcomes. You're coming from the perspective of idealistic future-think. The problem with the implementation of all of the "isms" you quoted is that they all came at the price of armed conflict and enormous human suffering and depravity. NONE of your isms materialized overnight, nor were they implemented INDEPENDENT of death, destruction, and despair - including capitalism. Ignore human history at your own peril, but my worldview is solidly grounded in the realism of history, not idealistic grasping at straws.

Unimplemented ideas are philosophy; implemented ideas are history.

sam i am

10-13-2005, 02:08 PM

More new from Iraq...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20051013/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_051013164157

The voting this weekend will determine the course for quite awhile. What do you think'll happen as far as outcomes at this point?

Schmeltz

10-13-2005, 04:22 PM

the fact remains that much of human history is littered with the flotsam and jetsam of idealists who proferred peace but were ravaged by war.

And you would prefer to see things remain that way, I take it. Not I.

The true argument here could be

No, you're just conversing with yourself from that point on. The true argument would be that the UN could serve as a useful arbiter of international disputes, with sufficient firepower to quell disturbances that might arise as a result of said disputes, if people would commit themselves to making this a reality. I don't think anybody wants a world government; the very fact that you conjured up that spectre is proof positive that you exemplify the antithesis of the idea I'm trying to describe. I would expect no less.

I'm coming from the perspective of actual history and outcomes. You're coming from the perspective of idealistic future-think.

Thanks, but you are completely wrong. Your ridiculous analysis of the French in that other thread draws a chuckle in response to your alleged mastery of history. But think whatever you please.

they all came at the price of armed conflict and enormous human suffering and depravity.

That is very, very debatable. But even in cases where these ideas were perpetuated alongside the use of armed force, I would argue that such force was largely incidental and that these ideas succeeded for the most part in spite of violence, not thanks to it. Capitalism did not succeed because of mercantilist imperialism, nor because of horrific labour conditions in 19th-century Europe, but because those very things fell by the wayside.

What you fancifully term realism is merely ideology cloaked in a bizarre, surreal kind of optimism. But again, think as you will.