06-04-2004 20:53									#151
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I agree GePap.

But the world's current set of leaders seem too poor quality to make such arrangements.

	06-04-2004 21:58									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Sava am I wrong for thinking that? give me a link to a source that says otherwise.

Try reading any history of the Vietnam War. Diem was a dictator. If South Vietnam had been in anyway shape or form democratic, there would have been no war because the country would have united after the elections of 1956.

	06-04-2004 22:44									#153
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Comment on the Vietnam comments

Of course the US lost the Vietnam War but it was weird in that the US military was not defeated in the sense that military forces are defeated in most wars. Usually you lose when you are unable to resist the power of the enemy. I'm betting that the day that the US pulled out they had the capability to take and occupy the bulk of South Vietnam all over again-- It was a political defeat.


Iraq is a a similar quagmire in that it is unlikely that any combination of forces will arise that would seriously challenge the US ability to occupy any portion of Iraq it wishes. But the question will be the US resolve to remain with the deaths that will be part of remaining. The backdrops may be very different but both are questions of political will.


Unfortunately, the current situation was pretty predictable. That factional claims will arise when dictatorial rule ends is almost inevitable. Frankly, I don't know what options the US has at the moment that would be considered good, but staying for a number of years seems to me to be a foregone conclusion if they expect to avoid anarchy

	07-04-2004 05:12									#154
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by POTUS Yeah, but at what cost? The VC was effectively destroyed, and the (relatively) small NVA was forced to confront a much better army. Then, that army got scared and ran away.

Not so, the North Vietnamese didn't care about the cost. In fact the weakening of the VC by losses during Tet helped them to take control in the South. The VC had been somewhat independent before that.

	07-04-2004 05:27									#155
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich But not militarily, politically.

Well that's hair splitting - military operations serve political objectives. It is the continuation of policy, usually foreign policy, by other means. Go and read your Clausewitz.

Seen in the proper light, Tet was spectacular and brilliant military success. America lost the will to fight on.

Rather haunting considering what is happening right now.

	07-04-2004 05:45									#156
	Re: The US must stay the course in Iraq Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat But if we back down, we send a signal to all would-be aggressors that the US is not willing to fight and die for what it believes in.

Actually, the more appropriate method is to fight and kill. Gen. Patton and all that.

quote: If that would be the case, then we have already lost because it means that any would-be enemy can just come and kick us around and get their way.

Or it would just prove that third-world shithole countries are a pain in the ass to occupy, so we should try to avoid doing that in the future.

quote: In Iraq, we have two sides that want to take over control of the government. We have radical shiites that want power and we have baathist militants that want power. They think that if they hurt us enough, that we will withdraw and then they can fight it out in a civl war and take over the country all to themselves.

A lot more than two, and do you really think we're going to babysit them for the next century? Or that they're suddenly gonna be "just like us" and do their *****ing every four years at the ballot box?

quote: We have to win. We have to stay tough no matter how many lives we lose.

Fanaticism neither wins wars nor sells in election years.

quote: We have to crush the militants or terrorists or whomever wishes us harm, until they surrender and Iraq can live in peace.

Read al Qutb and al Maududi (peace be upon them). These boys aren't going to quit, not now, and not in a hundred years.

quote: We have to win because if we don't, we send a signal to all would-be enemies that the US is weak and can be kicked around at ease.

Yeah, we're "weak" when we knock over governments at will. These guys are the home team, we're the visitors. As long as we keep fighting on their turf, all they have to do is keep being there, ready to stick us or our proxies in the back whenever we decide we can afford to lower our guard.

	07-04-2004 06:12									#157
	Support Apolyton

Another problem with the whole situation is the "freedom" the coalition wants to give them is not the "freedom" they seem to want.

By that I mean, they want religious "freedom" and ethnic "freedom", not necessarily pluralist parliamentary democracy.

	07-04-2004 11:14									#158
	The Iraqis must follow the Turkish model Enter the AD-FREE zone

We have really screwed up in our invasion of Iraq. It seems to me Big Bush has no idea how to set up democracy in Iraq (not that he cares or anything, his priority is to get voted).

The previous situation in Iraq was much better than what is happening now. The secular dictatorship was very brutal, but it held the country together and didn't allow ethnic conflict. Democracy in Iraq is almost impossible for several reasons. First off the country is third world and still developing (and this was hindered by invasions) and has little infrastructure, poverty is rampant (mainly because of the sanctions America pushed for), and there are plenty of socio-economic problems. All of these do not mix well with democracy. Successful democracies are always wealthy, developed countries. But the main problem is the country has severe ethnic problems, many want a theocracy, and the Iraqis have no idea how to run a democracy. The country will fall apart, it will be another Algeria but worse. However, there is a solution.

During the early 20th century, the Ottoman Empire was falling apart. It had just lost World War 1. Poverty was rampant. Industry and infrastructure were almost nonexistant. The Islamic people were arrogant and had ignored western ideas for centuries. They knew nothing of how to run a democracy. Fortunately, Ottoman reforms had created some education system. The rich kids got to go to school and learned European ideas. These people were the ones who were capable of running the country. So what happened?

First, a dictatorship was created. Before democracy was to happen, the conditions needed to be right, and a dictorship needed to be established. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was the dictator. He had been through the schools and knew the European ideas. He wanted to establish democracy in Turkey, but the Turks were not ready. He needed to make them ready. He made economic reforms and created industry and modernized the country. He greatly improved the economy and greatly reduced poverty. But the most important thing he did was education reforms. He created a huge public school system. All children were to be educated in European ideas, and the people were taught what a democracy was and how to run it. He also stamped out many of the old ways and traditions. Certain Islamic clothes were banned. Tolerance, open-mindedness to western ideas, and secularism was adopted and taught to the people. By the end of his 20 year rule, the Turkish people were ready for a democracy. The country was ready and the people knew how to rule themselves and run a European style democracy. It was an authentic democracy run by Muslims.

This is what is needed in Iraq. The economy needs to be improved, the people need to be educated in how to run a democracy and they need to learn new ways. They must learn to be secular, tolerant, and they must learn to work together and work past ethnic problems.

However, I am not too naive, and I know if the US takes control of Iraq, they will simply twist everything for their own interests. I do not trust any outside government, especially the United States, to try such an operation. The Iraqi people wouldn't benefit and the occupying country would. And if the US simply installs and Iraqi to carry out reforms, they will install one that will do whatever is best for US interests and not Iraqi interests. They will prop up another brutal dicator, just as they have done in so many other countries. And even if the UN does it, each nation will lookout for himself and nothing will be for helping out the Iraqi people. Therefore, there is no real way to carry out such a reform, unless we get lucky and a great Iraqi leader arises, kicks out the Americans, and follows the plan. But this won't happen, as America won't allow it. And it is a shame.

	07-04-2004 22:37									#159
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Try reading any history of the Vietnam War. Diem was a dictator. If South Vietnam had been in anyway shape or form democratic, there would have been no war because the country would have united after the elections of 1956.

Chegitz, some people would rather be ignorant in their patriotic correctness rather than read scholarly studies on the history of Vietnam.

Just let those buffoons be.

	08-04-2004 16:02									#160
	Support Apolyton

Constitutions have been written and an election held in countless countries and in virtually none has democracy taken hold as a result. If you look at the history of those countries which now have a firmly established democratic tradition there is always quite a lengthy process during which the institutions which support a democratic system gradually develop.

Two of the most important institutions are an army with an unshakeable tradition of acting under the instruction of the current political leaders and a police force with an unshakeable tradition of supporting the rule of law. Those two alone tend to take a hundred years or so to entrench. And that is if they can develop their tradition under successive governments which are strong and secure.

Iraq strikes me as a country which, before recent events, was little further advanced than a loose coalition of tribes. Saddam Hussein was the strongest of the tribal leaders and he held other tribes in subjugation by the standard methods of the dictator. Recent events have not advanced the country, rather their likely effect is to set it back a bit.

So the only political future that makes any sense to me is a power struggle ending in the establishment of a new dictatorship. Conceivably a charismatic cleric might succesfully create a crude theocracy but the Sunni/Shia divide stands pretty firmly in the way of that.

How on earth the US/UK forces might maintain some measure of order while staying out of the power struggle itself I really don't know. Perhaps that is just not possible and the two governments will have to resort to the tired old rubbish of supporting one candidate or another. Just to get into a situation (eventually) when there is enough stability to allow the occupying forces to withdraw.

The prospect of yet another puppet dictator is deeply unappealing. But the only obvious alternative is just to withdraw and let whatever then happens occur unchecked. Which is more unappealing still. To subject the people of Iraq first to invasion and then to the consequences of a power vacuum would be pretty mean spirited.

	08-04-2004 16:10									#161
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The US can't really "win" in Iraq unless they get the people on their side. They certainly can't win the occupation by military means. However given that the people hate foreigners, westerners and more specifically Americans, that will be hard short of a mass drugging operation.

	08-04-2004 17:03									#162
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Interesting analysis EStT.

If it takes one hundred years to build the basis on which democracy can be build (and I agree on that), does not that mean that removing Saddam last year or next year, as satisfactory as it could appear, or not at all, would not significantly, if at all, shorten the one hundred years delay.

	08-04-2004 17:20									#163
	Tired of ads?

There are a few instances of countries being able to abide by democratic rule without a period of recurring civil wars interspersed by the rule of dictators. India comes to my mind. The point EST makes about needing an army and police force who support democratic rule is a good one.

	08-04-2004 18:40									#164
	Tired of ads?

I would say Russia, the Baltic states and South Korea has moved quite fast into democracy. They still have a long way to go, especially Russia, but it can happen much faster than 100 years.

I'm not so optimistic about Iraq though. If I was American commander, the first priority would be to disarm all civilians. They have no good use for pistols and AK-47s, have they?

	08-04-2004 18:53									#165
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

First of all, makign dmeocracy and keeping democracy are too different things: Latin American states begun as dmeocracies close to 150 years ago, eyt all of them have seen at least one stretch of authoritarian rule, if not more....so simply having a writen constitution means little.

If only there was a simple mix for democracy, or even a tried and true method of making it....but the evidence is too random.

	10-04-2004 07:37									#166
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I have always thought India is very lucky that it is a somewhat stable democracy. First off, there is a great amount of poverty, and that never mixes well with a democracy. It also wasn't industrialized, which leads to a society with rigid social classes, and in that case usually the aristocracy is the only class with any power. But most of all, India has two completely different religious groups. One would think that this would cause the democracy to fall apart with the two groups fighting each other, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

I believe this is for a few reasons. One reason is that the Muslims have always been the minority, and they have never had the strength to fight the Hindus. Another is that the Hindus are very tolerant. Additionally, the Hindu religion seems to mix with secularism a lot better. Islam has the "Law of God," the Quran, etc. which causes Muslim leaders to want to rule by these laws. And of course they can't because they are a minority. Another reason is that India started off becoming a country by uniting together for a common goal (beating the British). Now if Pakistan would have been included in this state, there would have been conflict. But Pakistan broke away.

I firmly believe that the Turkish model must be followed in democracy for Iraq. The reason it is hard to find a formula for democracy is that every country is different and has a unique set of problems and factors. Iraq is very unique, but the one nation that has an effective democracy that is very similar is Turkey. Does anyone else agree?

BTW sorry for bumping the thread if the discussion is already dead. I didn't get to read it until a couple days ago (and by then the discussion was pretty much done with), and right after I posted I left on two day trip and didn't get to follow up.

	10-04-2004 07:41									#167
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove There are a few instances of countries being able to abide by democratic rule without a period of recurring civil wars interspersed by the rule of dictators. India comes to my mind. The point EST makes about needing an army and police force who support democratic rule is a good one.

Does the US count, with just one?

	10-04-2004 08:32									#168
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich Does the US count, with just one?

Most of the colonies had enjoyed a high degree of quasi-autonomous democratic rule for a long period of time before the American Revolution. The founding fathers were probably as experienced a body of parliamentary politicians as any other then existing in the entire world.

	10-04-2004 08:33									#169
	Put an end to popups!

Was that a yes or a no?

	10-04-2004 08:36									#170
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The latest word is that a number of the top ranking representatives on the Iraqi council are threatening to quit. I don't know how this situation can be resolved. Right now the British parliamentary system, complete with the option of removing the chief executive with a vote of no confidence sounds very attractive to me. We need someone with the diplomatic acumen to plunge into the fray and negotiate a solution.

	10-04-2004 09:05									#172
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Most of the colonies had enjoyed a high degree of quasi-autonomous democratic rule for a long period of time before the American Revolution. The founding fathers were probably as experienced a body of parliamentary politicians as any other then existing in the entire world.

Actually, it seemed that only white settler colonies had any substantial autonomy, compared to colonies that lacked significant white settler populations.