CA AIDS fundings cut

[John Reynolds]

What about Bush pre-9/11? Forget about that John?

Last I checked, Bush was proposing raises in Defense Spending and upon appointing Donald Rumsfeld, had his administration embark on a forward looking program to identify threats in the future and dramatically retool the US Military Machine for the low-intensity conflict they envisioned.

So they saw future military conflict as being on a smaller scale (a la Somalia). Not hard to predict with the end of the Cold War and no other superpower in sight.

Because, IMHO it's apparent that their reasoning is much deeper than you can comprehend. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. Hell, I don't believe I'll ever see the entire range of influences and options - but it's alot better than your college-liberal-rambling-while-smoking-some-pot mentality.

LOL And, for the record, I've never smoked pot in my life. But thanks for the insinuation anyways.

The very nature of a superpower make this intrinsic, it’s inescapable. Surviving as a superpower necessitates a level of freedom, the creation of freedom necessitated power, power is dispersed.. it is concentrated. The Roman Republic/Empire saw an analogous occurrence with the downfall of the Julio-Claudian System – all superpowers are too large (be it physically or virtually) to guard all levels of it’s society from attack – in which it progressively lost it’s client states (that were under loose cultural control) which served as physical and ideological buffers against the world and threats around it. This became an immeasurable loss (due to many factors) which ultimately required that Roman Imperial forces must guard against all threats, invasions, incursions, insurrections – where as before the clients would handle such low-intensity threats. As I said before, no superpower can do this – and they eventually suffered many incursions which brought the former republic to it’s knees.

Revisionist history. Romans were extremely effective at incorporating other cultures, Romanizing the people while withholding full citizenship from them. Ambitious Roman politicians, from Gaius Marius to Sulla to Caesar, weakened the traditions of the Republic and eventually destroyed it, not external incursions.

So, work backwards from the Roman’s. Create a contemporary client state in the Middle East which will serve the purpose Cappadocia once did, but in a virtual way. Walls are futile, standing armies are futile. This is a war over populace, ideology… emotion.
So, pander exactly to that, create a free nation-state in the Middle East, one which is educated, prosperous, forward-looking and yet manageable. It’s effect will (and as we’ve seen in Iraq) serve as a virtual buffer, appealing to the human emotion and draw the ideological enemy in to fight as opposed to a world away in the United States.

The Short-term effects are exactly as I stated, to act as a buffer. We’ve seen it in effect; we’re seeing it become a battleground removed from the continental United States. There are also strong psychological effects of the shift from a war on the Americans, who it’s acceptable to kill, and your theological and cultural brothers.

This will manifest itself in the long-term by reinforcing the ultimate goal of democratization of the ME. It’s going to happen, as the 20th century has shown,
freedom is intoxicating and where there is a seed – a fanatical regime will fall given time.

The Saudi’s are insignificant fools in the long-term. They’re homeland is off-limits to military moves by a western power due to ideological and theological meaning. They’re a perfect case of geopolitics and why Iraq was the best choice. Saudi is a country on the edge due to its significance for much of the region, much better to let it sort itself out. Iraq on the other hand was a horrible regime, one which tried to Assassinate an American president, inflamed the Israeli-Palestinian issue by financing terrorists, had WMD and led the world to believe they were a threat at the least, they had connections to Al-Qaeda, and they have a stable country, educated middle class and working infrastructure oppressed under an asshole leader.

Why Iraq? Because it’s the key to American security in the 21st century. As I said before, the creation of the Iraqi Client State will be the greatest American achievement since the Monroe Doctrine.

Congratulations. Thomas Jefferson just rolled over in his grave and vomited.

 

[John Reynolds]

primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation"

Here's a shocker: though no fan of Kerry's, I tend to agree. The use of the word primarily does not mean absolutely no military application of force. There is a world of difference between using our intelligence to disrupt terrorist organization's ability to obtain dangerous materials, to plan their use, to receive financial support, and creating client states on the far side of the world on the bones of a secular government.

And didn't I write in another thread about right wing fundies expousing to cherish the ideals of our Founding Fathers and yet being utterly clueless as to what they really believed? A client state being our great work of the 21st century? Truly scary. Reichstag scary. Especially in light of it being a radical departure from all previous American diplomacy and coming from this administration.

 

[Vince]

So they saw future military conflict as being on a smaller scale (a la Somalia). Not hard to predict with the end of the Cold War and no other superpower in sight.

They funded the correct increases in defense spending. Which, oddly enough, nullifies your comment of:

The entire government cut intelligence and defense budgets throughout the '90s. That was before 9/11. What do you think Bush's voting record would've been radically different? If he had any sort of record we could look at and cast judgement on, that is.

Bush, pre-9/11, did fund increased in defense and electronic intelligence. Ergo, you're full of shit.

Revisionist history. Romans were extremely effective at incorporating other cultures, Romanizing the people while withholding full citizenship from them. Ambitious Roman politicians, from Gaius Marius to Sulla to Caesar, weakened the traditions of the Republic and eventually destroyed it, not external incursions.

John, please don't talk when you have no clue WTF you're talking about. The Roman's shift from retaining a Client State system to conquering it's clients and utilizing direct imperial control (your "Romanizing") created the conditions which set the stage for external incursions. The "Romanized" often turned against the Roman's for their treatment, such was the case with the Visgoths who in 375 had an imperial agreement with the Roman's which allowed for said "Romanization." They later turned on the Roman's in 378 and sacked Rome.

With the border pushed so far forward under the Antonian System (a follow-on to the Julio-Cladian system I mentioned before), which is systemic of the imperialization of the clients, it actually reinforces my point as it was highly vulnerable to simultanious threats.

As was the case in 162 when the Parthians invaded Armenia and it caused unholy hell with the defense of the Empire. With the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 (IIRC), the front finally stabalized but it highlighted my point towfold. First, without a client-system the border was incapable of defense - this is fact. Second, unlike the Eastern wars which were fairly static and convention (with a beginning and end) the Gaulic Conflicts were totally assymetrical and highlighted what happened when the clients in the East dissapeared and the Imperial Power was dispersed as it was.

]Congratulations. Thomas Jefferson just rolled over in his grave and vomited.

John, you're killing me. Is this the same Thomas Jefferson who in a letter to James Monroe on the Monroe Doctine talked about his thoughts of conquering Cuba and whose second, since the US couldn't leverage a war, was a wish of creating an independant Cuba from Spain and European influences?

The same guy who talked of invading Canada several times during the war of 1812, even entill the very end of the conflict?

"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots."

 

[Vince]

A client state being our great work of the 21st century? Truly scary. Reichstag scary. Especially in light of it being a radical departure from all previous American diplomacy and coming from this administration.

Monroe Doctrine, ever hear of it? It was a more static form of what has been articulated in the 'Bush Doctrine', but it's very analogous in that it was ultimately a product of an attack on the United States's core during the War of 1812... and even your boy Thomas Jefferson supported it.

The more "static" nature when viewed side-by-side isn't because this administration is more "imperialistic" or "war hungry" or such, but rather is a result of the changing world and the increase in danger due to technology. The Monroe Doctrine and keeping the America's off-limit via American force worked in the day and age of transit taking weeks, not in the day of a 10kt nuclear device in a backpack.

The Truman Docrine was somewhat similar, it's ideology leading indirectly to the "Hot" Communist containment in Korea and Vietnam.

You, my man, are just... heh

 

[John Reynolds]

John, please don't talk when you have no clue WTF you're talking about. The Roman's shift from retaining a Client State system to conquering it's clients and utilizing direct imperial control (your "Romanizing") created the conditions which set the stage for external incursions. The "Romanized" often turned against the Roman's for their treatment, such was the case with the Visgoths who in 375 had an imperial agreement with the Roman's which allowed for said "Romanization." They later turned on the Roman's in 378 and sacked Rome.

And the Germanic tribes pushing south in the 2nd century BC were of course a direct result of this shift from client state to direct imperial control, even though there was no imperial power in Rome at this point in time? I'm tempted to use the rollseyes emoticon.

Nice dodge of my point on why the Republic fell. Or did you mean the Empire? There is, in case you didn't know, a distinct difference.

With the border pushed so far forward under the Antonian System (a follow-on to the Julio-Cladian system I mentioned before), which is systemic of the imperialization of the clients, it actually reinforces my point as it was highly vulnerable to simultanious threats.

As was the case in 162 when the Parthians invaded Armenia and it caused unholy hell with the defense of the Empire. With the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 (IIRC), the front finally stabalized but it highlighted my point towfold. First, without a client-system the border was incapable of defense - this is fact. Second, unlike the Eastern wars which were fairly static and convention (with a beginning and end) the Gaulic Conflicts were totally assymetrical and highlighted what happened when the clients in the East dissapeared and the Imperial Power was dispersed as it was.

And all this related to the Roman Republic how? You draw parallels with the Roman Republic, erroneously ascribing external threats as the cause of its downfall, when in reality it was eroded from within by ambitious men who were more concerned with their careers than respecting the traditions of their body politic, and who used the excuses of those external threats as justification for the broadening of their office's powers. Interesting correlations could be drawn from that historical truth. Times of crises indeed.

John, you're killing me. Is this the same Thomas Jefferson who in a letter to James Monroe on the Monroe Doctine talked about his thoughts of conquering Cuba and whose second since the US couldn't leverage a war, was a wish of creating an independant Cuba from Spain and European influences?

"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of
tyrants and patriots."

Oh, you mean European influences that, at the time, posed a clear, geographically close via Cuba, and imminent threat to America? And an independent state free of direct European influence as opposed to a client state under direct "imperial" American control is your analogy? John Quincy Adams said it best:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [America's] heart, her benediction, and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. . . . She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication. . . . The fundamental maxims of her policy would change from liberty to force.

How engrossingly prophetic!

 

[John Reynolds]

The Truman Docrine was somewhat similar, it's ideology leading indirectly to the "Hot" Communist containment in Korea and Vietnam.

You, my man, are just... heh

The Truman Doctrine was not even remotely similar, but since you can't have a debate without the unnecessary insults flying about. . . .

And WTF is it with you guys and that emoticon?

 

[Vince]

And the Germanic tribes pushing south in the 2nd century BC were of course a direct result of this shift from client state to direct imperial control, even though there was no imperial power in Rome at this point in time? I'm tempted to use the rollseyes emoticon.

Nice dodge of my point on why the Republic fell. Or did you mean the Empire? There is, in case you didn't know, a distinct difference.

Dodge? You've shown no history, probably because you know little. You're fighting merely on semnatics, which is an argument I don't need enter. My comments all stand on their own and history shows them to be true. For note, I did state "Republic/Empire" for a reason - which I'll get to.

John, sometimes it's better to walk away.

And all this related to the Roman Republic how? You draw parallels with the Roman Republic, erroneously ascribing external threats as the cause of its downfall, when in reality it was eroded from within by ambitious men who were more concerned with their careers than respecting the traditions of their body politic, and who used the excuses of those external threats as justification for the broadening of their office's powers. Interesting correlations could be drawn from that historical truth. Times of crises indeed.

What horsehit, I stated:

The Roman Republic/Empire...

If you wish to fight on my mentioning "Republic" - which is a semantic argument because anybody who knew what was being discussed would realize that the Julio-Claudian Sytem was in effect under the Republic and early Empire periods (which is why I stated both) and effectivly kept external ideologies and invaders out of the state a concept written on by many including Luttwak's excellent book. Also, I clearly stated "Imperial" 4-5 times, a term disctinctly Empire implying.

But, again, if you had a clue as to what was being discussed you'd understand and formulate a sunbtantive answer.

Oh, you mean European influences that, at the time, posed a clear, geographically close via Cuba, and imminent threat to America? And an independent state free of direct European influence as opposed to a client state under direct "imperial" American control is your analogy? John Quincy Adams said it best

Um, John. Again, your lack of knowledge is impeeding this discussion. A Client-State doesn't have to be under direct Imperial control - in fact many Roman ones weren't which is what's elegent about the "solution." Asw I clearly stated the relationship:

The Roman Republic/Empire saw an analogous occurrence with the downfall of the Julio-Claudian System in which it progressively lost its client states (that were under loose cultural control) that served as physical and ideological buffers against the world and threats around it

In conclusion. You're a political tool and nothing more, you lack any deep understanding (of which I admit I'm continually struggling to attain) and your comments are politically charged and biased - from your use of "Imperial" in regard to American power to emotion attachment to a "Client-State" being bad or invoking the Nazi's with the "Reichstad" comment. You have no use in this type of discussion and it's clear. I believe my case stands, and while I'm by far more inflammatory in my argument style - there is substant underlying it... you're nothing more more than political troll.

 

[Florin]

And WTF is it with you guys and that emoticon?

Good question. The damn thing is annoying and so are many of the people who tend to use it.

 

[John Reynolds]

In conclusion. You're a political tool and nothing more, you lack any deep understanding (of which I admit I'm continually struggling to attain) and your comments are politically charged and biased - from your use of "Imperial" in regard to American power to emotion attachment to a "Client-State" being bad or invoking the Nazi's with the "Reichstad" comment. You have no use in this type of discussion and it's clear. I believe my case stands, and while I'm by far more inflammatory in my argument style - there is substant underlying it... you're nothing more more than political troll.

I'll unbold this since yelling is fairly immature. And let's drop the whole Roman issue you introduced (I'm sure you'll say it's a dodge, but that's fine) because it's not really all that pertinent.

You somehow think this great work in progress--the creation of a client state in Iraq--is a continuation of previous policies (Monroe/Truman doctrines). It's not. And since I'm such an ignorant, uneducated troll, and you the refined, articulate soul of Emily Post-like manners, please point to me an example where America has been so successful in exporting democracy through means of direct military force. Please, just one clear, unequivocable example.

Oh, and I call dibs on Haiti. 8)

 

[epicstruggle]

I'll unbold this since yelling is fairly immature. And let's drop the whole Roman issue you introduced (I'm sure you'll say it's a dodge, but that's fine) because it's not really all that pertinent.

You somehow think this great work in progress--the creation of a client state in Iraq--is a continuation of previous policies (Monroe/Truman doctrines). It's not. And since I'm such an ignorant, uneducated troll, and you the refined, articulate soul of Emily Post-like manners, please point to me an example where America has been so successful in exporting democracy through means of direct military force. Please, just one clear, unequivocable example.

Oh, and I call dibs on Haiti. 8)

Japan, Germany, (indirectly, cold war et al) balkan states and eastern europe. Afhgan is a nice work in progress. Is that enough for you. Ill get more if you want.

later,
epic

 

[Natoma]

Germany had experience with democracy prior to Hitler. The balkan states and Eastern europe weren't freed because of military force, nor did their experiences with Democracy come, initially, because of military force. I know you mentioned it in your parentheses, but they shouldn't have been brought up.

Afghanistan is certainly not a nice work in progress. Outside of Kabul, that country is run by the Warlords who we entrusted to help us capture Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, rather than put our own troops on the ground and put them out of business.

Japan... We destroyed that country with two atomic bombs and a blitz of regular bombs that decimated practically every major city because of the fires they created. Definitely a case of military force. However, many historians classify pre-war Japan as an Imperial Democracy. Japan had a capitalist society in the 19th century, and opened the door to many democratic changes in the government and economy. It's a fudge, but it certainly doesn't fit the mold of exported democracy (unless you mean our brand of it) via military force.

I can't think of any historical example of a country that had no prior experience with democracy being turned into a democracy by an invading power. Iraq and Afghanistan would be the first I think, if they succeed.

 

[dreamin']

Japan, Germany, (indirectly, cold war et al) balkan states and eastern europe. Afhgan is a nice work in progress. Is that enough for you. Ill get more if you want.

later,
epic

sorry to interject, but i'd be interested to know if afghanistan is really brought up as a good example of "exporting democracy through military means" in any major us media? Every report i read about the current situation pretty much says what Natoma says, that there's Kabul that's more or less controlled of the international forces and noticably different from before the war, but the rest of the country is run by those warlords that were smart enough to side with us against the taliban, and life there is no different from before for common people...

 

[epicstruggle]

Germany had experience with democracy prior to Hitler.

So, what? We did bring democracy to germany, which was under a dictator when we came in. JR only asked where we brought democracy with military force. Satisfies both conditions of his request:make a democracy where there wasnt, by the use of force.

The balkan states and Eastern europe weren't freed because of military force, nor did their experiences with Democracy come, initially, because of military force. I know you mentioned it in your parentheses, but they shouldn't have been brought up.

I brought it up because technically we did use the military build to bring down the Soviets.(I know there are more reasons. No need to bring it up)

Afghanistan is certainly not a nice work in progress. Outside of Kabul, that country is run by the Warlords who we entrusted to help us capture Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, rather than put our own troops on the ground and put them out of business.

I dont know what your expectations were, but I knew this wasnt going to be a overnight project. Its going to take at least a decade for democracy to flourish over the whole country. But it is nice to know that the conditions for many of its citizens has dramatically improved. Must be killing you that Bush is the reason we went in.

Japan... We destroyed that country with two atomic bombs and a blitz of regular bombs that decimated practically every major city because of the fires they created. Definitely a case of military force.

Were you expecting the military to go in and straigthen all the furniture. BTW lest you forget, they started by blindsiding us with a horryfic attack.

However, many historians classify pre-war Japan as an Imperial Democracy. Japan had a capitalist society in the 19th century, and opened the door to many democratic changes in the government and economy.It's a fudge, but it certainly doesn't fit the mold of exported democracy (unless you mean our brand of it) via military force.

Call it what you will, but the before and after are completly different. Japan after the war was able to elect who they wished, whereas before they couldnt.

I can't think of any historical example of a country that had no prior experience with democracy being turned into a democracy by an invading power. Iraq and Afghanistan would be the first I think, if they succeed.

I think Ive mentioned some, sorry you disagree. Was mussolini a dictator?

later,
epic

 

[epicstruggle]

sorry to interject, but i'd be interested to know if afghanistan is really brought up as a good example of "exporting democracy through military means" in any major us media? Every report i read about the current situation pretty much says what Natoma says, that there's Kabul that's more or less controlled of the international forces and noticably different from before the war, but the rest of the country is run by those warlords that were smart enough to side with us against the taliban, and life there is no different from before for common people...

I guess this is one of the side effects of an "instant gratification nation", people expect results instantly. Sorry to show you the light, but it takes time to create lasting change. It will take time for every single person in Afghan to experience freedom. HOWEVER, its still a nice 'work in progress'. Get it, we still need to put in more work, but its infinitely better than before.

later,
epic

 

[Vince]

You somehow think this great work in progress--the creation of a client state in Iraq--is a continuation of previous policies (Monroe/Truman doctrines). It's not.

John, do you even have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about? The Monroe Doctrine basically told the European Powers that any attempt at colonization in the America's or attempt at interfereing with American land claims would be considered the "manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States" at which point as your buddy Thomas Jefferson pointed out, you go before Congress and ask for a Decleration of War.

The Doctrine was, in large part, resultant of the outcome of the War of 1812 and the burning of Washington. The United States embarked on a policy of basically taking land and state which would provide a defensive buffer against agression and to deny the Europeans the ability to attack the Unites States in short order from the America's.

After this policy was enacted, the United States invaded Mexico and disposed Santa Anna from his powerful position with the regime, aswell as taking what's now the Western United States. We invaded Cuba and the Phillipenes, taking both and democratizing them (for the next several decades).

How is this policy any different with the exception being that the 'Bush Doctrine' takes into account the changing times and technological differential? Where as the Monroe Doctrine provided security against imminent threats by keeping the hemesphere off-limits, in todays world of 24hour flights anywhere and NBC weapons there are no such temporal constructs - instead you must eliminate the threat preempitvly.

The Truman Docrine was somewhat similar, it's ideology leading indirectly to the "Hot" Communist containment in Korea and Vietnam.

You, my man, are just... heh

The Truman Doctrine was not even remotely similar, but since you can't have a debate without the unnecessary insults flying about. . . .

And WTF is it with you guys and that emoticon?

You're such a troll. I clearly formulated the Monroe Dotrine as the cornerstone of my responce to you, a roll which it's perfectly analogous to.

So, you overlook it completely and respond to my self described "indirect" comparason to the Truman Doctrine which set a precedance of American challenge to Soviet aggressive ambition around the world.

We get emotional because we're fighting idiots. It pains us.



Natoma;

West Germany and Japan are both highly valid examples due to the regimes in power at the time and the gravity of support they heralded from the populace. Just because they were once a country wih Democratic trends does it forever mean they're exempt.

Also, Mexico, Panama (twice depending on your standards), and Cuba off hand.

 

[Vince]

sorry to interject, but i'd be interested to know if afghanistan is really brought up as a good example of "exporting democracy through military means" in any major us media? Every report i read about the current situation pretty much says what Natoma says, that there's Kabul that's more or less controlled of the international forces and noticably different from before the war, but the rest of the country is run by those warlords that were smart enough to side with us against the taliban, and life there is no different from before for common people...

Don't be sorry. And it's basically correct but for valid reasons. Afghanistan will take alot more time than, say, Iraq, because the country had little infastructure that wasn't ravaged by the previous war with the Soviets and then rule under the Taliban; there is little natural resources present; the work force is uneductaed; and this means that it will take large volumes of external funds to bring he country upto speed.

This is something the current politic in America (read Democratic Party) won't allow. The Bush Administration is already underfire for it's funding of Iraq and it's reconstruction while American's are "unemployed" or some such argument heard on the Democratic Stump. Funding Afghanistan, which would require huge funding increased is just politically impossible now....

Although, here's some interesting (and promising) facts about Afghanistan taken from Time - Afghanistan: The Other War.

Education:
     Taliban: 1 Million (all male)
     Currently: 4 Million (1.4M girls)

Wages:
     Taliban: $2.70
     Currently: $6.25

Foreign Aid:
     American: $4 Billion
     EU, UK, Japan, Germany, Canada, WB: $5.2 Billion

 

[Natoma]

Germany had experience with democracy prior to Hitler.

So, what? We did bring democracy to germany, which was under a dictator when we came in. JR only asked where we brought democracy with military force. Satisfies both conditions of his request:make a democracy where there wasnt, by the use of force.

A dictator who was democratically elected remember. Look all I'm saying is that Germany had the groundwork for Democracy in their society already. It'd be no different if one of our Presidents decided to take over the world, was defeated, and the winners came in and said they were "exporting Democracy" to America imo. That's the angle I'm coming from.

The balkan states and Eastern europe weren't freed because of military force, nor did their experiences with Democracy come, initially, because of military force. I know you mentioned it in your parentheses, but they shouldn't have been brought up.

I brought it up because technically we did use the military build to bring down the Soviets.(I know there are more reasons. No need to bring it up)

Yes, if you want to be technical about it. But I wasn't being so granular.

Afghanistan is certainly not a nice work in progress. Outside of Kabul, that country is run by the Warlords who we entrusted to help us capture Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, rather than put our own troops on the ground and put them out of business.

I dont know what your expectations were, but I knew this wasnt going to be a overnight project. Its going to take at least a decade for democracy to flourish over the whole country. But it is nice to know that the conditions for many of its citizens has dramatically improved. Must be killing you that Bush is the reason we went in.

My expectations were to have more of the country "democratized" than just Kabul. We've been in Afghanistan for a little over 2 years now, and only Kabul is "democratized." The rest of the nation is a warlord wasteland. We're talking about Afghanistan, not just a tiny portion of it.

And no, Bush isn't the reason we went in. We went in because we were attacked. Frankly it pisses me off more than anything that anything that occurs must have been because of the greatness of Bush and anyone who disagrees obviously must have some hatred of the man.

I agreed completely with the Afghanistan decision. Frankly in the days after 9/11 I had to catch myself because I found that I wanted to nuke the whole damn country. So please, enough.

Japan... We destroyed that country with two atomic bombs and a blitz of regular bombs that decimated practically every major city because of the fires they created. Definitely a case of military force.

Were you expecting the military to go in and straigthen all the furniture. BTW lest you forget, they started by blindsiding us with a horryfic attack.

Epic your interpretation isn't why I wrote what I wrote.

However, many historians classify pre-war Japan as an Imperial Democracy. Japan had a capitalist society in the 19th century, and opened the door to many democratic changes in the government and economy.It's a fudge, but it certainly doesn't fit the mold of exported democracy (unless you mean our brand of it) via military force.

Call it what you will, but the before and after are completly different. Japan after the war was able to elect who they wished, whereas before they couldnt.

Is that the only marker of democracy epic? Because the Japan of today culturally and structurally is really no different than the Japan of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

I can't think of any historical example of a country that had no prior experience with democracy being turned into a democracy by an invading power. Iraq and Afghanistan would be the first I think, if they succeed.

I think Ive mentioned some, sorry you disagree. Was mussolini a dictator?

later,
epic

Mussolini was elected to power, along with the faschists. He then used that power and overthew the government, but still, the election process was there.

 

[Natoma]

Don't be sorry. And it's basically correct but for valid reasons. Afghanistan will take alot more time than, say, Iraq, because the country had little infastructure that wasn't ravaged by the previous war with the Soviets and then rule under the Taliban; there is little natural resources present; the work force is uneductaed; and this means that it will take large volumes of external funds to bring he country upto speed.

This is something the current politic in America (read Democratic Party) won't allow. The Bush Administration is already underfire for it's funding of Iraq and it's reconstruction while American's are "unemployed" or some such argument heard on the Democratic Stump. Funding Afghanistan, which would require huge funding increased is just politically impossible now....

Excuse me? If anything, people are upset about the fact that we went to Iraq while forgetting about the problems in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan had been taken with the number of troops we sent to Iraq, I believe wholeheartedly that Al-Qaeda and all the Taliban would have been caught at Tora Bora. Instead we depended on warlords to do it for us, and surprise surprise, they got away.

People are upset about Iraq because we were told that the oil would pay for everything and we'd have minimal outlays. We were told that there would be WMD. We were told that there would be terrorist ties. When all of those didn't come to pass, people were naturally reluctant to want to do anything further for the situation. Of course at this point, we have no choice and we have to march forward and make it a success.

So please, enough with the sniping.

 

[John Reynolds]

So, what? We did bring democracy to germany, which was under a dictator when we came in. JR only asked where we brought democracy with military force. Satisfies both conditions of his request:make a democracy where there wasnt, by the use of force.

Actually my point, which I thought rather obvious, was democracy exported to a nation that had never before had such a form of government. None of your examples apply.

 

[Vince]

Excuse me? If anything, people are upset about the fact that we went to Iraq while forgetting about the problems in Afghanistan. If Afghanistan had been taken with the number of troops we sent to Iraq, I believe wholeheartedly that Al-Qaeda and all the Taliban would have been caught at Tora Bora. Instead we depended on warlords to do it for us, and surprise surprise, they got away.

Didn't the Soviet's try to invade the country with several divisions too? Natoma, the brilliance of our campaign was the use of Special Ops with overwhelming Airpower and the use of the warlords.

Putting massive American troops would have just raised the 108 American's currently dead into the thousands with little tangible gains guaranteed.

Also, if the Soviets taught us anything that we shoudl all grasp, it's that putting the "number of troops we sent to Iraq" into Afghanistan would have been a disaster. Most of those forces are conventional armored divisions and/or mobile infantry who aren't suited to an assymetrical war. Lets try not to generalize as you did - just putting "troops" down doesn't mean shit.

People are upset about Iraq because we were told that the oil would pay for everything and we'd have minimal outlays. We were told that there would be WMD. We were told that there would be terrorist ties. When all of those didn't come to pass, people were naturally reluctant to want to do anything further for the situation. Of course at this point, we have no choice and we have to march forward and make it a success.

First off, "people" aren't upset. Liberals are upset, they've been upset since 2000. I do believe you'll see in the upcoming election that people do understand, that your WMD issue (which is political BS anyways as even Clinton supported attacks into their soverignty under the aegis of WMD) doesn't hold. There are terrorist ties, as has been posted; and Iraq has become the exact type of virtual client state I talked about. It is the centre of the war on terrorism and will be the key to long-term victory.