War on Iraq?

[Gav]

Maybe I should do some clarifying.

Yes I doubt that most of the army will fight. I also doubt that most of the civillians will fight. However their surrendering doesn't necessarily stop them from being affected by WOMD (what a horrible acronym!). If Saddam and his guard units do become 'cornered' I would fully expect them to use whatever comes to hand (guns, bombs, chemicals, biologicals - bricks!) to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible with probable detrimantal effects on his own populace and regular army.

[civiltech]

Originally posted by Gav
Civiltec mentions the 'Boer' War. The British eventually 'won' it (if it can be said that anyone can beat an ethnic group) and developed the evil of concentration camps at the same time. If I remember correctly 25000+ Boer's (Men, Women and Children) were killed during their internship.



Most of the younger generation here in the UK do not look back on the Empire with any affection. The fact that a lot of terrority was handed back peacably is good. The act of Empire building and the prejuidice this created was bad. There is still a lot of harking back to the Empire in the UK - mostly in the 2 generation above mine - and this [I believe] holds back the UK. If we (our leaders, particularly the Tories) look backward then they are not engaging the now. If we are not dealing with the present then we will eventually decay and this is also bad. The UK which has learned the mistakes of it's Empire period (as with all of the other European nation who have) has a lot to offer the world. If we can get our act together and look forwards and develop ourselves in that direction then all will be well. If not...

In response to your first paragraph: Much better than the evil the the Boer's took upon themselves to take part in. But I would agree with you the above actions are not acceptable to today's standards. It's very easy to look back in history to exemplify the positive's, and try and sweep the negatives under the rug. My bad! Keep in mind Hind site is 20/20.



I would disagree with your second paragraph. The Empire was a great institution which guided Britains colonies into the present. Please don't disregard your countries culture, and history. By that I mean quietly let it drift off in the history books, and leave the monarch as a silly little cermonial thing. It's my history to. And she is our Queen as well. Maybe in Britain there is lack of affection for the old empire...and that's fine..those days are over. But the Monarch is very strong, and so is her beloved Commonwealth. And THAT institution has no hidden agenda, just to bring junior members along, to help strenghthen economic, political, and personal freedoms.

[Swordsman]

Once again, Inquartata, thank you - you just saved me the breath of trying to say the same thing a lot less effectively.

As for the UK, US, etc: As I've seen world history so far, ANY nation goes through its imperial phase. The US did as well, which led to the Mexican war, etc. It's never a good or right thing, and it usually gets reversed. But here's the big thing: We have to look at NOW, not then. No nation is spotless; we all have our skeletons in the closet. The US wiped out most of its natives; so did Britain, though, as well as Russia, and a lot of countries. Most countries eventually decide to get out and expand and get themselves more land. And most end up stabilizing, releasing some of that territory, and turning into not-too-bad guys. Britain treated its American colonies (if not horribly) badly. However, it's passed, and we're allies now. The US invaded Mexico and basically stole a bunch of it, then paid them as an afterthought out of guilt. Now, even if we're not exactly allies, the border doesn't have a DMZ, either.

Look at now: We're not the ones threatening the world with WOMD, and using them on our own people. We're the republic, not the dictatorship. We're the ones who had more than one presidential candidate.

As for the wars in American history: First was for independence; without it there would be no America. Second one was against Britain again - not Canada. There was no Canada then. The civil war was not by any means for the sake of war, it was to keep the country together. Had the north not won, the country would have split, then split again, then just gotten grabbed back up by various other European countries, piece by piece. As for the war for every presidential term, where was Clinton's? And beyond that, is it our fault that there's evil people in the world? If we didn't do all this, people would be yelling at us for having all sorts of power and influence and wasting it.

[civiltech]

Originally posted by Swordsman
Once again, Inquartata, thank you - you just saved me the breath of trying to say the same thing a lot less effectively.

As for the UK, US, etc: As I've seen world history so far, ANY nation goes through its imperial phase. The US did as well, which led to the Mexican war, etc. It's never a good or right thing, and it usually gets reversed. But here's the big thing: We have to look at NOW, not then. No nation is spotless; we all have our skeletons in the closet. The US wiped out most of its natives; so did Britain, though, as well as Russia, and a lot of countries. Most countries eventually decide to get out and expand and get themselves more land. And most end up stabilizing, releasing some of that territory, and turning into not-too-bad guys. Britain treated its American colonies (if not horribly) badly. However, it's passed, and we're allies now. The US invaded Mexico and basically stole a bunch of it, then paid them as an afterthought out of guilt. Now, even if we're not exactly allies, the border doesn't have a DMZ, either.

Look at now: We're not the ones threatening the world with WOMD, and using them on our own people. We're the republic, not the dictatorship. We're the ones who had more than one presidential candidate.

As for the wars in American history: First was for independence; without it there would be no America. Second one was against Britain again - not Canada. There was no Canada then. The civil war was not by any means for the sake of war, it was to keep the country together. Had the north not won, the country would have split, then split again, then just gotten grabbed back up by various other European countries, piece by piece. As for the war for every presidential term, where was Clinton's? And beyond that, is it our fault that there's evil people in the world? If we didn't do all this, people would be yelling at us for having all sorts of power and influence and wasting it.

Points well taken!

Your recolection of history is a little slanted, but moreless correct.

Not to be confrontational, but I believe the reason the US is centered out, and considered a prime target, is that US policy still interferes with other countries politics, and economies. The days of Imperial US are not over. You can't deny that the US is heavily involved in other countries politics, and internal issues in it's own best interest, and to better it's own state in this world. I don't think people would be yelling at the US for having all sorts of power, and minding there own business.

The UN is basically holding back a war machine just itching to get into battle. The UN HAS corrected the US on WHEN, AND HOW it may go about armed conflict with Iraq. According to George Bush, we would have gone to war last week. He was politely corrected again.

The FACT that popular media in the states continually pump one sided information to the public at large should be a sign that US is going to war. On CNN now:

SHOWDOWN: IRAQ

Tell me that the US doesn't plan to attack.

Your points are all well taken swordsman. However in response to your final comment about Iraq: Iraq is a republic as well. Although they had one viable candidate for leadership, I heard the US only really had two viable candidates. Can you please confirm or refute this?

[Inquartata]

The US has got to be the mildest, most reluctant, hand-wringingly agonized "imperial power" in history. The degree of our "interference" abroad is positively timid in comparison to hegemonic states which have gone before us, including a number the remnants of which now whine the loudest about our various interventions in their area. Ottoman Empire, anyone? How about the Arab "conversion" of half the known world to Islam in under a century ( including Spain and Portugal and very nearly the rest of Europe but for Charles Martel ). Think those conquests and conversions were a bit rougher than what we have been up to? Even the British and French Empires made us look like schoolmarms with their colonial policies. Don't get me started on the Romans or the Mongols or the Egyptians or the Persians or the Assyrians or....

Yet to hear the mullahs you'd think we had troops raping and murdering children everywhere, and cooking sausages in mosques.

Excuse me if I have no sympathy for the complaints of the radical Islamicists whose venerated forefathers probably did far worse when THEY were ascendant in the world---and whose enormities made possible the very existence of the Holy Places we are now supposedly "desecrating".

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by civiltech
Points well taken!

Your recolection of history is a little slanted, but moreless correct.

Not to be confrontational, but I believe the reason the US is centered out, and considered a prime target, is that US policy still interferes with other countries politics, and economies. The days of Imperial US are not over. You can't deny that the US is heavily involved in other countries politics, and internal issues in it's own best interest, and to better it's own state in this world. I don't think people would be yelling at the US for having all sorts of power, and minding there own business.

The UN is basically holding back a war machine just itching to get into battle. The UN HAS corrected the US on WHEN, AND HOW it may go about armed conflict with Iraq. According to George Bush, we would have gone to war last week. He was politely corrected again.

The FACT that popular media in the states continually pump one sided information to the public at large should be a sign that US is going to war. On CNN now:

SHOWDOWN: IRAQ

Tell me that the US doesn't plan to attack.

Your points are all well taken swordsman. However in response to your final comment about Iraq: Iraq is a republic as well. Although they had one viable candidate for leadership, I heard the US only really had two viable candidates. Can you please confirm or refute this?

A little slanted? But of course. I get American history, and my teacher is a definite patriot. But I like to think I've got things pretty much straight in terms of fact and fiction.

Yes, the US is heavily involved in politics, etc. in other countries. But with our own politics and economy, NOT military. Yes, we are involved militarily in many places, but those places have a common factor: Something going on there is of INTERnational importance, and frequently us in specific. If we had a problem with every country's domestic policy, we'd be trying to eradicate half of Africa for cannibalism.

The media gives America what they want: Controversy. The numbers right now are slanted toward war with Iraq, and so we get "Showdown: Iraq". There is, however, a significant section of the populace that doesn't want a war. And were they the majority, the media would be condemning the next Vietnam.

Iraq is a republic? I guess that makes China a republic, too. After all, aren't they the People's Republic of China? (Or the Republic of China. I can never keep the two straight. Either way, it's a "republic".) I'm talking about the huge, billion-plus person country on the Asian mainland. Is there any doubt that it's a communist country? Was there any doubt about it back in the 1960s? And yet they are also a "republic". Don't be so quick believe what a country calls itself. Saddam boasted being the only candidate; of course, any competition would have been killed. He also boasted 100% voter turnout, and a unanimous vote - while not mentioning the obvious fact that had anybody not voted, or not voted for him, their entire family would have died a slow, horrible death. Call me crazy, but that's why I think "despotic dictatorship" fits Iraq a little bit more accurately than "republic".

As for US - yes, we had only two really viable presidential candidates. Why? Were others afraid of consequences if they expressed dissatisfaction? Did they think they would be branded treasonous if they ran? No. They just didn't think they had much of a shot. Most of the country identifies itself with one of the two main political parties, and this makes it pretty hard for a third-party candidate to get a substantial number of votes. So if there aren't many candidates, that's the people's doing, not the government. And besides, when's the last time we've had one president for more than ten years? And when's the last time a president has had to seize power by force, or lost it the same way?

You really can't compare Iraq and the US, even if they both call themselves republics.

[epeemike81]

The United States IS an imperial power.

First, think of cultural imperialism. THAT alone is staggering.

Second, consider all of our covert actions in the last half century. As I pointed out in another thread, most of the dictators we displace were put into power or supported by us. We support totalitarian regimes (which Iraq clearly is. to claim it is a republic is beyond rediculous) because they are easier to control than democracies, and easier to demonize if they deviate from our positions. The entire cold war was nothing but two imperial powers playing a worldwide game of chess, and no part of the world was unaffected. We are imperial in a much more sinister way than the Romans Byzantines or Ottomans. at least they had the decency to admit and recognize the existence of their empire. Americans still cling to ideals which our nation obviously doesn't follow.

-m

[135711]

why don't all the middle eastern nations become like one big nation: United States of the Middle East, containing, iraq, iran, palistine, egypt, saudi, lebanon, what else? Elect govenors, a house, a senate, and one president, vice president, and combine their armies into army, navy, aircorps.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by 135711
why don't all the middle eastern nations become like one big nation: United States of the Middle East, containing, iraq, iran, palistine, egypt, saudi, lebanon, what else? Elect govenors, a house, a senate, and one president, vice president, and combine their armies into army, navy, aircorps.

Except for the electing part, that's precisely the aim of the Baath Party of Iraq and Syria: restoration of a pan-Arabic state...

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by epeemike81
The United States IS an imperial power.

First, think of cultural imperialism. THAT alone is staggering.

Second, consider all of our covert actions in the last half century. As I pointed out in another thread, most of the dictators we displace were put into power or supported by us. We support totalitarian regimes (which Iraq clearly is. to claim it is a republic is beyond rediculous) because they are easier to control than democracies, and easier to demonize if they deviate from our positions. The entire cold war was nothing but two imperial powers playing a worldwide game of chess, and no part of the world was unaffected. We are imperial in a much more sinister way than the Romans Byzantines or Ottomans. at least they had the decency to admit and recognize the existence of their empire. Americans still cling to ideals which our nation obviously doesn't follow.

-m

Cultural imperialism? Oh, come ON. We're rich. We're influential, because we're rich. And at the risk of sounding conceited, I'd have to say that a lot of the world chooses to imitate the US. I deny that this is a conceited statement, as I do not state it for self-glorification, only as an observation. I personally don't know why they'd want to imitate the US, let alone the specific things they imitate. By this I refer to considering American short-hand terms 'cool', to the point of making them up (since when do we refer to cell-phones as 'handies'? It sounds profane).

As for being just as imperial as Romans, Byzantines, Ottomans, etc. - or anybody, for that matter - that is simply absurd. They openly and actively conquered and occupied territory. They put in loyal governments, specifically subjected to the central government, and unable to operate independently. Go ahead, make the argument that our covert actions really subjugate governments, and we put in puppets that are loyal to us. Then why do they turn, and do things of their own free will?

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Swordsman
Cultural imperialism? Oh, come ON. We're rich. We're influential, because we're rich. And at the risk of sounding conceited, I'd have to say that a lot of the world chooses to imitate the US. I deny that this is a conceited statement, as I do not state it for self-glorification, only as an observation. I personally don't know why they'd want to imitate the US, let alone the specific things they imitate. By this I refer to considering American short-hand terms 'cool', to the point of making them up (since when do we refer to cell-phones as 'handies'? It sounds profane).

yes. cultural imperialism. the romans, as well, were rich. one major problem which other peoples faced was an imitation of Roman culture, and thus a destruction of their own. It was cultural imperialism then, and its cultural imperialism now. What do you call Radio Free Europe?? The reason people attempt to immitate America is that there is a huge propaganda machine which we developed during the cold war specifically designed to promote westernization and American culture.

As for being just as imperial as Romans, Byzantines, Ottomans, etc. - or anybody, for that matter - that is simply absurd. They openly and actively conquered and occupied territory. They put in loyal governments, specifically subjected to the central government, and unable to operate independently. Go ahead, make the argument that our covert actions really subjugate governments, and we put in puppets that are loyal to us. Then why do they turn, and do things of their own free will?

note your own terminology: "they turn, and do things of their own free will". Your own terminology implies that they are wrong to dare to not follow the party line. And, btw, what happens when they turn??? oh, thats right. we displace them. so, lets see, so far we've established that we place friendly governments in power and then replace them when they get uppity. yeah, nothing imperial about that.

-m

[Inquartata]

Great. So we're damned if we "interfere" ( Imperialists! ) and damned if we don't ( Isolationists! ).

I suppose what is really wanted is a way for the rest of the world to have us use our resources as it wishes even if it's against our own interests. It wants, in other words, a big, strong slave that'll keep its mouth shut and wait quietly in a dark room when it's not wanted. ( cough cough! United Nations! cough! )

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Great. So we're damned if we "interfere" ( Imperialists! ) and damned if we don't ( Isolationists! ).

I suppose what is really wanted is a way for the rest of the world to have us use our resources as it wishes even if it's against our own interests. It wants, in other words, a big, strong slave that'll keep its mouth shut and wait quietly in a dark room when it's not wanted. ( cough cough! United Nations! cough! )

There can be interaction without interference, you know. Most of the worlds nations manage to interact without needing to control.

-m

[Inquartata]

Give an example. I can't think of many sorts of transactions wholly devoid of overtones of control, domination, or exploitation.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Give an example. I can't think of many sorts of transactions wholly devoid of overtones of control, domination, or exploitation.

I see you are resorting to your standard technique of looking at the world as black and white. no, there are probably no transactions which you can't accuse of having "overtones" of interferrence. however, there IS a reason that much of the world thinks that we are imperialistic, and does NOT think that of other major powers. The overtones are much stronger, almost to the point of being overt at times, in our foreign policy than those other powers.

-m

[Philistine]

Originally posted by epeemike81
yes. cultural imperialism. the romans, as well, were rich. one major problem which other peoples faced was an imitation of Roman culture, and thus a destruction of their own. It was cultural imperialism then, and its cultural imperialism now. What do you call Radio Free Europe?? The reason people attempt to immitate America is that there is a huge propaganda machine which we developed during the cold war specifically designed to promote westernization and American culture.
{snip}

With regard to cultural imperialism, how (other than shutting down government sponsored things like Radio Free Europe) would the U.S. not become culturally imperialistic?

Stop making movies? Stop allowing companies to export goods or services? Not allow tourism (either from or to the U.S.)?

While I can agree that some cultures face the destruction of their culture through an imitation of U.S. culture, at what point is that a natural change brought about by internal factors and at what point can it be blamed on U.S. cultural imperialism?

--Philistine

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Philistine
With regard to cultural imperialism, how (other than shutting down government sponsored things like Radio Free Europe) would the U.S. not become culturally imperialistic?

Stop making movies? Stop allowing companies to export goods or services? Not allow tourism (either from or to the U.S.)?

While I can agree that some cultures face the destruction of their culture through an imitation of U.S. culture, at what point is that a natural change brought about by internal factors and at what point can it be blamed on U.S. cultural imperialism?

--Philistine

You're right that other than ending the official propaganda machines (which are, themselves, extensive), the government cannot, and should not, do much to end cultural imperialism. However, to not recognize its existence, as swordsman wasn't, isn't very bright.

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
however, there IS a reason that much of the world thinks that we are imperialistic, and does NOT think that of other major powers

Yes. And the reason is ( drumroll, please! )....envy.

The only reason needed to sour the opinions of "much of the world" is that the US is the current hegemonic power of the world, and the other countries which are so wont to complain about it are not. It was true of the British before us, and of every hegemon before them, and it will be true of whatever nation succeeds us. No one likes to think of themself as less than another. Pride, whether personal or national, is offended by the superiority, or perceived superiority, or fancied superiority, of another. It's exacerbated by cultural differences ( "Our ways are obviously the best, how DARE those people do things differently! How they ever managed to become bigger, stronger and richer with their inferior customs is beyond comprehension!" )

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by epeemike81
...However, to not recognize its existence, as swordsman wasn't, isn't very bright.

-m

We differ on semantics, then. I believe we're in agreement that much of the world imitates the US, sometimes to the detriment - you say destruction - of their own culture. However, I don't call it 'imperialism' if they have a choice.