The Bleeding Out of America

tabs · 08-04-2005, 04:14 AM

This is my current take on America's war with Terrorism...

The USA is currently a Global Economic Empire... unlike Roman before her which used military occupation to enforce her will, the USA uses finance and capital investment to control....military force is used as a adjunct when needed

On this front the 911 event opened the Abyss and nearly brought the system down...thus the massive response of the USA to combat Terrorist activity...

On this front the USA has prevailed and no new attack of the magnitude of 911 has reoccured...however it is noteworthhy that the recent attack in London while iniatially causing the NY Stock Exchange to drop in value in intraday trading actually closed up. That simply means that the Empire has become innered to the Jihadists efforts at least on this scale.

The Economic Empire will simply steam on...while tolerating these sporadic attacks much as a dog tolerates a flea....

On the specfic issue of Iraq....the question becomes could an insurgency which really is another name for Civil War have been averted? It's now a case of shoulda, woulda coulda.... The only thing that can be said is that a CW was almost inevitable in that the country is made up of 3 main ethnic groups which have never gotten along....The insurgency is mainly made up of indivduals who were in power and have now been ousted and a small number of foreign Jihadists...the Sunni's or Arab Muslims...The Shia Muslims which are of Persian extraction and are the majority of the population are now seeking their vengence against the Sunnis as well via political assination and death squads...The role of the USA is to assure that the place doesn't disentigrate into another Sommila...the Strategic Stakes are too high...National Security is directly threatened...instability in Iraq means instabililty in the region which spells OIL...which is the fuel of choich for the Global Economy ....which is spelled EMPIRE....

It does seem like a grave error in judgement on the part of the current administration to believe they could Democratize Iraq given that there has been no traditon of western style Democracy and the only unifying force the country has ever known is by brutal oppression of one minority facion over another...to whit the likely outcome will be a gradual bleeding out of the occupying USA military forces and that of the Iraqie population, until one faction or another imposes it's will and again clamps down on the oposition....

.

tabs · 08-04-2005, 04:18 AM

PS i don't think Iraq will avert back to a Sadam style Dicatorship, but one of a Pakistani style democracy...

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
the USA uses finance and capital investment to control...

With the level of debt and hocking all of our manufacturing capacity for short-term profits, can this be effective over the long haul? The Chinese pretty much own us, and are simply waiting for the pink slip to come in the mail.

On this front the USA has prevailed and no new attack of the magnitude of 911 has reoccured

So you're assigning credit for this to whom and based on what?

...however it is noteworthhy that the recent attack in London while iniatially causing the NY Stock Exchange to drop in value in intraday trading actually closed up. That simply means that the Empire has become innered to the Jihadists efforts at least on this scale.

"Priced-in" as the analyst wankers on TV would say.

1967 R50/2 · 08-04-2005, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
It does seem like a grave error in judgement on the part of the current administration to believe they could Democratize Iraq given that there has been no traditon of western style Democracy ..
.

History has proven that having a "Tradition" of democracy does not matter.

Both Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany had no history of Democracy before the end of WW2. Sure Germany had a brief fling with the disfunctional Weimar republic, but it was REAL dysfunctional.

The Iraqi people are just as smart as people anywhere else. They can grasp the ideas and benefits of democracy...just like a certain country of farmers, trappers and bumpkins did 229 years ago.

tabs · 08-04-2005, 09:52 AM

Wide....USA = US based corporations....MB + Chrysler, Ford = Volvo, Jaguar, Aston Martin, Coca Cola, Disney, Micro Soft, Intel, NIke, Wal Mart, MMM, GM, MOT....sure most of the mfg is located overseas...but who OWNS/Partnered in those facilities...

Credit for preventing a new catastrophic event goes to the Security Forces of virutually every country in the world....including Syria and Libya....NO country wants the status quo to be changed...or to see chaos reign....think Somillia on a world wide basis...this prevention includes the interevention of personel/sympathizers and the transfer of financial assets...

THe low on the Nasdq was about 1000 now it is 2100, the low on the DOW was 8700 @ now it is 10,600...true to some extent worry over Terrorist activity has supressed the value of stocks however the markets are well off their lows and any kind of shock to the system will send it reeling...

Deschodt · 08-04-2005, 10:09 AM

>It does seem like a grave error in judgement on the part of the current administration to believe they could Democratize Iraq given that there has been no traditon of western style Democracy and the only unifying force the country has ever known is by brutal oppression of one minority facion over another.

I agree with that. As of today, the only stable arabic countries are those ruled by an all powerful dictator (benevolent or not) with a firm grip on his country. Think about it for a minute and see if I am wrong...

Democracy has a very spotty record there. Look at algeria after they won their independance for one, while technically still a democracy, the country is rushing back towards the middle ages... Regardless, Iraq was indeed a coalition of tribes/religious groups who never liked each other and only Saddam's grip was holding the place together. Not saying he was a good guy either, but he was holding the place together...

Also ironic was that Iraq was probably the most secular arabic country around, and now it's heading full tilt towards extremist islam. Will we have accomplished something good in the end ? I wonder...

I think it was naive of the US gov't to think they could reshape the area into a democracy. Those things happen from within, generally (Japan excepted I guess), and are easier to setup when people have a "standard of living", cable TV, a fridge, a job... Something to lose...

My bet is the minute the US troops leave, Iran will effectively take power by placing remote controlled long-bearded-guys in the iraqi gov't ;-(

tabs · 08-04-2005, 10:12 AM

Both Japan and Germany had homogenius populations...in Japan the culture stressed obedience...to the Emperor and the new defacto emperor was McArthur...who said let there be Democracy...also before WW2 Japan had a cabinet.... Tojo was the real leader of Japan during the war...

Germany...I believe Germany had a parliment of sorts before WW1...if memory serves me well... Germany has the benfit of Western European Culture..which is why the Holocost was such a shock...as in How could such a CIVILIZED nation do such barbaric things....

While the Emperor and Kaiser had the last word, neither Japan nor Germany was without some kind of Democractic institutions..

Iraq has very dispariate population and the only kind of rule they have ever had is one kind of despot or another... also the culture is based more on Kinship and Clan....

tabs · 08-04-2005, 10:18 AM

With regards to Iran taking over...via Mullah Power...I think it would be a mistake to assume that the strings would be pulled from Teheran....remember many of the sacred Shia sites are in Iraq and the Shia there while sympathetic to Iran would be viaing for Shia power...

Deschodt · 10:27 AM

I don't know, but one way or another the bearded mullahs will be in power soon... Whatever democracy we leave behind won't last long, it'll probably most resemble Iran's - sure they vote, but the bearded guys control the country. Is that much better than Saddam was ? I don't know... Time will tell.... Was it worth the american lives and billions of dollars ? Hmm... I doubt it. My head spins when I think of what we could have done in the US for americans with that kind of money...

Then again, if the plan all along was to draw out the terrorists there and fight them in the middle east instead of here, that was a great idea. I just wish the gov't would come out with it and say so, instead of using that WMD excuse initially... Most people these days crow about "bringing democracy to Iraq" but most of those folks could not put Iraq on a map, and that idealistic goal was nowhere on the agenda when the war was being planned...

tabs · 08-04-2005, 10:30 AM

Who said we were leaving.....there will be a draw down...but there will be USA troops in Iraq for a long time to be a force of last resort to keep the place from falling into Chaos...

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

The borders of Iraq were originally drawn up to maintain chaos between three enemy tribes. The British thought this was a way to keep them ensconced firmly in the third world. It worked pretty well. Today, we cannot afford that chaos because surrounding M.E. countries have gotten their acts together and would invade a weakened Iraq.

So (and I never thought I'd say this) Tabs is right.

1967 R50/2 · 08-04-2005, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
Both Japan and Germany had homogenius populations...in Japan the culture stressed obedience...to the Emperor and the new defacto emperor was McArthur...who said let there be Democracy...also before WW2 Japan had a cabinet.... Tojo was the real leader of Japan during the war...

Germany...I believe Germany had a parliment of sorts before WW1...if memory serves me well... Germany has the benfit of Western European Culture..which is why the Holocost was such a shock...as in How could such a CIVILIZED nation do such barbaric things....

While the Emperor and Kaiser had the last word, neither Japan nor Germany was without some kind of Democractic institutions..

Iraq has very dispariate population and the only kind of rule they have ever had is one kind of despot or another... also the culture is based more on Kinship and Clan....

Sorry. Germany before WW1 had a parliment, but the Kaiser could do whatever he wanted and did. There was no political party to replace the Kaiser. This is not democracy in any modern sense.

Japan was fascist. Plain and simple. Ruled by a god-king. Likened more to pharonic Egypt than a modern democracy. And like the Pharoahs, they relied on generals to get things done. Generals like Tojo.

In either place if you had raised your voice against the Kaiser or the Emperor you would be shot for treason. That is not democracy.

"The Benefit of Western Culture"....please...that statement is both revisionist AND Euro-centrist. Until the 20th century the only "Western" countries that had long-standing true democracies...not constitutional monarchies...not oligarchies but REAL democracies, were the US and Iceland.

Again, a diverse population does not mean that democracy will not work. The US is very diverse. Much moreso than Iraq, but everyone gets along. In fact it is the only place where you will find Arabs and Israelis getting along.

India is another example. We tend to see India as a monolith, but it is far from it. Yet democracy works.

tabs · 08-04-2005, 12:12 PM

Didn't I say the Emperor and the Kaiser had the last word?

So your saying that a Jeffersonian Democracy could have been put in place in Iraq....and you used both Japan an Germany as your examples of successfull transitions...

I personally think trying to use Germany and Japan as models is a weak analogy...both countries are far different than what U find in Iraq...Both countries fought wars based upon Nationalistic goals and had homogenius populations whereas Iraq....Iraq is more akin to the old Yugoslavia..which fell apart after Tito died.... Or Chezchoslavika..which was a put together country by the Brits and French after WW1 and fell apart after the fall of communism...

Britain and France didn't put Iraq together because they wanted different groups to fight....it was a convient way to solve the problem..just draw the lines on the map and make it a country..which was still occupied by the Brits and......Faisal was the ruler or King of the place...until he was assinated and the Baathist party took over. Before the Brits in Iraq it was part of the Ottoman/Turkish Empire Whereas India had 200 years of British rule....

U forgot Spain...Dictatorship to Demcoracy wt a King...

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

With 14 shiny new US bases in Iraq, nobody is going anywhere anytime soon.

1967 R50/2 · 08-04-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
Didn't I say the Emperor and the Kaiser had the last word?

You did and I am agreeing. Not Democracy.

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
So your saying that a Jeffersonian Democracy could have been put in place in Iraq....and you used both Japan an Germany as your examples of successfull transitions...

Clearly that is what I am saying.

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
I personally think trying to use Germany and Japan as models is a weak analogy...both countries are far different than what U find in Iraq......

As I stated, diverse populations is a specious argument against successful democracy as proven by the US. No doubt Japan and Germany are different than Iraq. After WW2, they were much worse off. They were completely leveled with MILLIONS dead, no food, no industry and no government.

Quote:

Originally posted by tabs
U forgot Spain...Dictatorship to Demcoracy wt a King...

Re-read what I wrote: "Until the 20th century the only "Western" countries that had long-standing true democracies...not constitutional monarchies...not oligarchies but REAL democracies, were the US and Iceland"

Spain's democracy started in the LATE 20th century.

tabs · 08-04-2005, 02:14 PM

The USA at the time of inception had a homgenous population..that was under British rule...sure there wer Dutch in NY and Germans in Pennsylvania...but the Brits were in control of the place for around 100 years at the time of the Revoulution....So U can't use the USA as an example...of a dispariate population...

And I am fully aware that Franco is 20th Century...

Again like the Neocons before U, used Germany, Japan and France as models of how easy it would be to install Jeffersonain Democracy in Bagdad....quiet frankly those analogys were and have proved to be insane to have used..simply from the Cultural, Religious, Demographic as well as Govermental backgrounds. The differences is the differnece between night and day..Now if you had pointed to Yugoslavia with it's Christian and Muslim populations then it makes sense...as a matter of fact the Muslims tended to fight with the Germans in WW2...

Germany for example had a functioning Civil Service...like the Army they swore allegience to Hitler..but they didn't disappear under Hitler nor did they disappear after the war...Patton was even accused of using Nazis to run the government...in Bagdad there was no Civil Sevice left they had all been wiped out during 30 years of purges...

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Okay, guys, "diverse" is one thing. "warring factions" quite another.

Please name an example of a successful impostion of democracy on a populace comprised of factions tha have been fighting for generations.

dd74 · 08-04-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by techweenie
Please name an example of a successful impostion of democracy on a populace comprised of factions tha have been fighting for generations.

Sure. Los Angeles.

dd74 · 08-04-2005, 03:17 PM

Of Mullah Power - it's not far fetched to think Iraq and Iran might pool their resources - resources which are bridged by "freedom-fighter extremists" ubiquitous to both countries and a budding religious movement toward the conservative. Imposition of democracy was hoped for in Iran, particularly from the young Iranians, but look what happened with whom they elected: an Ayatollah who is far more religiously conservative than the last. With the fall of Sadam in Iraq, less secular Muslim Iraqis should eventually take power, but only through a limited Civil War, as there are few remaining Sunnis in comparison to Shia. But the U.S. should be less concerned with this as our oil reserves aren't entirely dependent on Iraq, but more so on Saudi Arabia - which might soon have its own problems as many terrorists and terrorist networks are found to be of SA origin, including Osama bin Laden and al Queda.

No, if I were the U.S., my fear would be Iraq and Iran banding together, particularly as reports surface that Iran already has a nuclear bomb in their possession.

stevepaa · 08-04-2005, 03:30 PM

I do not see India as a good example of a diverse population joining together in a democracy. The thousands killed in the migration of Hindus out of Pakistan and of the Muslims out of India does not indicate that smart people can get along under democracy. Even now India is 80% Hindu with Muslims at 15% and they still have bloody massacres.

I expect much the same from Iraq and I expect we will be there long after I am dead.