Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How America botched the occupation
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Well - the polls that the US have been conducting have pointed to the fact that support for the resistance is growing.
Thats a concern alright, but it could be interpreted simply as people seeing the Americans unable to crush the resistance or restore normal daily life and thus throwing their hat in with whoever is able to restore peace/security - they hope anyway. Thats understandable, and should serve as a spur to increase efforts to get vital services back online and secured.Er, they've been trying to influence Iraq via their secret services and covert actions for decades.
But why would they need to do it now when they run the country? Surely the clearest similarities now are with Gemany/Japan - not with, say the support of Irans shah?Ha what?
East and West Germany, Berlin Blockade, Berlin Wall.
If say the US and UK were to fall out and the US was to suddenly blockade Baghdad and the UK had to mount an incredible effort to keep the city supplied with food and other supplies, if they divided the country into British and US Iraq, set up two different political systems and governments with two different currencies and then built a wall to stop people migrating from one zone to the other - even though they might have family only a mile down the road......
Youd be calling that international co-operation?
Come on, Sand. Are you really suggesting that the situation in Iraq is anything like Northern Ireland? I don't recall there being dozens of attacks a day in the North, at any stage, nor were car bombs ever going off with quite the regularity we're witnessing at the moment. Did the Brits ever resort to dropping bombs on West Belfast?
Obviously the situation is relative - Northern Ireland has a population of 1.5 million, Iraq 40 million. Relatively, even if there were 50000 activists and sympathisers in Iraq then its not much more than was in Northern Ireland when you accounted for all the activists and sympathisers there. And on the other hand you have 39,950,000 Iraqis give or take a few hundred thousand who arent activists of sympathisers.
And there were days of the multiple bombs in Belfast by the IRA ....Bloody Friday back in the 70s they set off something like 20 bombs all around the clock trying to push the emergency services to their limits. We had British Army deployed in towns and cities across Northern Ireland trying to keep a lid on the killing, we had British Army massacring protestors, we had the British Army unable to move by road in areas of the north for fear of landmines ( something well see in Iraq too I believe except the iraqis have a reliable means to take down US choppers) we had the British Army becoming deeply unpopular with the locals from a position where they welcomed when they helped prevent roving mobs of people burning people out of homes and ethnically cleansing streets. We had Loyalist death squads apparrently recieving assitance from the British government in targeting republicans and republican sympathisers. Hell we had hatred rising to such levels that people justified throwing a hand grenade at a bunch of school children going to school.
Yeah, I find the situation comparable to Northern Ireland - except Northern Ireland was much worse. But again, like the recovery of Germany and Japan it was a cakewalk wasnt it? Nothing to do with the violence in Iraq today.I don't recall every saying "we're doomed", but I do think the US has lost control of the situation in Iraq.
Just another way of saying "Dooooooooooomed!!!!"?It's no fun seeing Iraq get worse and worse, and I just want the US and their cheerleaders to wake up to the fact that if they don't do the mature thing and try to genuinely internationalise the reconstruction the trend is likely to continue.
Hmmm. Well looking at Germany I dont see internationalising the problem when its an obvious political football as being a great help -a problem shared in this case could be a problem doubled. Also Im curious as to why you feel the Iraqi resistance will respond better to non-US forces when the brave guerilla fighters bombed the headquarters of the oppressive UN in Iraq, killing the UNs chief representitive in the country in the process?Hilarious. Just as you seem unable to get through a post without mentioning your new hero George Orwell, you can't resist taking a pop at the UN. Didn't you just remark on how the US was favouring US corporations in spending its billions in Iraq? But it's still the UN that's corrupt? Sheer hypocrisy.
Hey I didnt raise the matter of my sig. Its just a nice articulation of a general theme throughout history. If it disturbs you then great imo.
As for the UN - http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm
You wouldnt know whether to laugh or cry would you?
Yeah - lets get those lads in on the decision making, see what insights they can bring.Comparing Germany to Iraq is odd. The Germans had the "good sense" to surrender and violence after that time appears to be limited to some specific reprisals (i.e. assassination) against Nazis and the internment of others (one million of whom died due of "other causes" after the war).
They had the good sense after the death of the regime in the personage of Hitler. Up until then the Germans fought on depite the fact the war was quite clearly lost - in taking Aachen the US lost 5000 dead and so did the Germans, indeed the Allied soldiers developed quite a hatred of the German soldiers because they would not surrender even though it was futile - thus leading to soldiers on both sides having to die when the conclusion was already known. The Iraqi situation is similarly futile for the resistance.
As for Japan they were forced to surrender by being nuked, twice with a third bomb on the way - and even as the bombs fell a coup by elements of the Japanese army was planning to take control of the Imperial Palace and force the emperor to continue the fight - thankfully it failed.
The point is that the Allies overcame similarly tough resistance and cultural mindsets before and Ive no reason to doubt theyll do it again.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Originally posted by Sand
Oh I think theyre good comparisons - Im just making the point that Germany had its problems and so does Iraq.
No it's a terrible comparison that conveniently ignores the historical cultural and political links between the US and Germany. They both had the white anglo-saxon protestant thing going on for a start. America had its own ideas about racial purity and segregation at that time too.
A better comparison might be France's occupation of Algeria, except France was probably more successful there than the US might be in Iraq."In April 1944 Corp. Rupert Timmingham wrote Yank magazine. "Here is a question that each Negro soldier is asking," he began. "What is the Negro soldier fighting for? On whose team are we playing?" He recounted the difficulties he and eight other black soldiers had while traveling through the South -- "where Old Jim Crow rules" -- for a new assignment. "We could not purchase a cup of coffee," Timmingham noted. Finally the lunchroom manager at a Texas railroad depot said the black GIs could go on around back to the kitchen for a sandwich and coffee. As they did, "about two dozen German prisoners of war, with two American guards, came to the station. They entered the lunchroom, sat at the tables, had their meals served, talked, smoked, in fact had quite a swell time. I stood on the outside looking on, and I could not help but ask myself why are they treated better than we are? Why are we pushed around like cattle? If we are fighting for the same thing, if we are to die for our country, then why does the Government allow such things to go on? Some of the boys are saying that you will not print this letter. I'm saying that you will."
http://www.worldwar2history.info/Army/Jim-Crow.htmlOriginally posted by Sand
Change a few faction names and youve got Northern Ireland -
This is not a good comparison either. Who's who? Who's Iraq's Ian Paisley? Are the IRA the equivalent of saddam loyalists? Or do we go back to the 60's when the north was a not very democratic kind of place run by the protestants? That would make the IRA the freedom fighters and the loyalists paramilitaries/british army the evil ba'athists then would it? Or were the Shankill butchers and Brian Nelsons and the forces of the crown the good guys or what?
So if we were to exspress that relatively youre talking about 1.4 attacks per day throughout all of Iraq in comparison to Northern Ireland. Forgive me if Im not totally impressed.
I dunno how you're working this out but there weren't attacks (from the baddies the IRA?) every day in northern Ireland. Even if you combine attacks from both sides and include non-fatal attacks. So it's an entirely misleading comparison.
If you're such a big fan of George Orwell then you'll appreciate this quote from The Lion And The Unicorn which could be applied to both the US and Iraq:
"One cannot see the modern world as it is unless one recognizes the overwhelming strength of patriotism, national loyalty. In certain circumstances it can break down, at certain levels of civilization it does not exist, but as a positive force there is nothing to set beside it. Christianity and international Socialism are as weak as straw in comparison with it. Hitler and Mussolini rose to power in their own countries very largely because they could grasp this fact and their opponents could not."0 -
-
-
Originally posted by Sand
I dont think the weak links that existed had any real effect on the rebuilding of Germany when the US elite has been primarily Anglo-Saxon (i.e British descent, not German as you seem to believe with the WASP comment ) ) and the strongest immigrant identities are Irish and Italians and Africans, Germans dont even register despite their numbers.
And where did the Saxons come from? And where did protestantism originate? And how many non-protestant presidents of the USA have there been? I don't know which pub drunk told you that "germans don't even register" in America but you're a little bit out there according to the 1990 US census and this chronology of Germans in America.
The Top Fifteen Ancestry Groups
as reported in the 1990 census:
(numbers have been rounded)
German 23% 58 million
Irish 16% 39 million
English 13% 33 million
Afro-American 10% 24 million
Italian 6% 15 million
American 5% 12 million
Mexican 5% 12 million
French 4% 10 million
Polish 4% 9 million
American Indian 4% 9 million
Dutch 3% 6 million
Scotch-Irish 2% 6 million
Scottish 2% 5 million
Swedish 2% 5 million
Norwegian 2% 4 millionHell, Germany didnt even exist when the mass of emigration from its territory to the US occurred and the US didnt speak the same language,
Nope, Germany, or Germania as the Romans used to call it, has been around for quite a while. As for language, it's merely one aspect of culture, religion is another. In the west there's been a tradition of enmity between jews, catholics and protestants even when they do share a common language.Its a real stretch to describe the US and 1940s Germany as going way back.....
While Germans have been in America since 1608, the 'thousand year" reich lasted only 12 years, not really long enough to alter the relationship between the two countries. I've already pointed out that blacks had to suffer institutionalised racism, segregation and discrimination in the 1940's, which lasted until long after the 1940's of course. As bad as the Nuremberg Laws? You decide.
There were 1 million French citizens in Algeria because they successfully invaded the country. The invasion was successful because it was brutal. General Bugeaud, the commander of the invasion forces, wrote at the time, “we have burnt a great deal and destroyed a great deal. It may be that I shall be called a barbarian, but as I have the conviction that I have done something useful for my country, I consider myself as above the reproaches of the press.” Sounds sort of familiar, but unless the US and Britain go in for full scale massacres, displacement and large scale internment then personally I don't see them having even a chance of being successful. But then again even massacres in places like Vietnam couldn't eliminate nationalist opposition.No that would be a worse comparison because the French had 1 million french citizens living in algeria at the time, who werent prepared to leave - leading to a spate of assassination attempts by French-Algerian settlers/citizens against any French political leader who discussed simply pulling out of Algeria - see De Gaulle.This is not a factor in Iraq.
The pretext for the invasion of Algerian was not as pathetic as the one used by Bush and Blair to invade Iraq though. The local ruler of Algiers hit the French consul with his flyswatter, something to do with debts, and wouldn't apologise.The Americans do not wish to retain and garrison and rule Iraq as the 51st state and up the senate by two to represent the Iraqis.....their objectives seem to be to set up a friendly Iraqi government that is a ally in the region and will keep the oil flowing.
Yes that's what they want, but I'm afraid that they're deluding themselves and ignoring the existence of pan-arab nationalism.Thats where the IRA and the Loyalists got their support, and its where the Iraqi resistance are getting their support - for as long as the coalition are seen to be unable to defeat the resistance, there will be those willing to throw their hat in with the resistance - especially when its so easy, as in northern Ireland, to paint the IRA/Loyalists as the good guys fighting a desperate war to protect their people from the foreigners - be they Fenians or Brits. Substitute IRA/Loyalists for the regime/fundamentalist resistance and the coalition for the foreigners in this particular case.
The loyalists and the army and police were on the same side, I don't see the point in pretending that they weren't. The IRA/pan nationalist front were not "the regime" in northern Ireland as you're probably well aware. The regime, a protestant fundamentalist regime, was controlled by the unionist population, backed unfailingly by the British government until only recently.Relative..... seeing as Iraq has 17 times the population of N.I. its not surprising that the absolute number of resistance is greater than the absolute number of terrorists in N.I. - in fact it stands to reason. Now whilst the regime/fundamentalists are attacking the coalition forces up to 25 times a day in absolute terms if you were to convert that to N.I. terms, to see how relatively bad it is compared to N.I. youre talking about 1.4 terrorist attacks per day.
I'd prefer not to pursue this sort of reasoning if you don't mind. It makes absolutely no sense and is entirely irrelevant in any case.Comparisons in absolute terms is usually less helpful than comparisons in relative terms. Now if you were to simply say there are estimated to be 50000 resitiance sympathisers and fighters in Iraq and there were 800 IRA members hence the situation is miles worse or that the resistance enjoys popular support, and never stop to consider the fact that the populations of Northern Ireland and Iraq are wildly different, or that the membership of the IRA was merely one faction of many in the north, then you are painting a misleading picture.
So in other words the IRA were the Ba'athists and religious fundamentalist crackpots of northern Ireland who were trying to hold onto power (!?) and/or turn the place into a catholic fundamentalist state and the loyalist paramilitaries/RUC/British army were the good guys who were only trying to bring about democracy, civil rights and equal opportunity. That's that clarified then.Yes it could, but maybe not in the way you think - Orwell is describing the power of patriotic feeling, tribalism, us and them -
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Mr.Bush said. Sounds pretty tribal and fundamentalist to me.whilst he mentions Mussonlini and Hitler there, if you look at my sig then youll have to ask yourself what helped give the British the determination to continue the fight against the Nazis when they were on their own against a seemingly unbeatable foe?
Possibly some of the same nationalism stuff that's making some Iraqis fight against their occupiers. I don't like seeing them dismissed as fanatics and remnants of the old regime and whatnot until we know what their makeup is and what sections of the population are supporting them.Their educated classes? Pffft - they were no doubt brushing up on German lessons, it was that base tribalism again - the British against the huns.
There's a difference between being defeatist and being proactively pro nazi as quite a bunch of british royals and well-to-do were at the time. By the way the british royal family are huns for crissakes, since 1714. They changed their name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor in 1917.
But we're told that Iraqi resistance can only be a bunch of Saddam's thugs or crazies.What motivated the Russians to fight so hard against the Germans - love for Stalin or the communist system which murdered millions of them and kept millions more in gulags? Or that ugly patriotic tribalism again?
I don't imply that patriotism is a vile thing at all. I'm merely pointing out that Iraqi resistance may be being drawn from the idea that nobody likes having their country invaded. Your hero Orwell said, 'Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By "patriotism" I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseperable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.'Whilst patriotism has been exploited for as many evil ends as good, it is nothing more than fact of life that can be manipulated by any and all politicians to accomplish their goals. It doesnt make patriotism a vile thing as you imply. I could argue that because Bush and Blair might call up upon patriotic fervour they can be compared to the efforts the British and the Russians made against another fundamental evil.0 -
-
-
Originally posted by Sand
Your argument is with www.dictionary.com , not me.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=W.A.S.P.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Anglo-Saxon
"A member of one of the Germanic peoples, the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes, who settled in Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries."
White protestant Americans and English are basically Germanic peoples. Is that clear enough for you? A cursory look at Iraqis reveals that they are muslim and dark therefore there's no cultural similarity or valid comparison. None. But go ahead and knock yourself out, delude yourself that Iraqis and muslims in general are basically dark skinned Germans.Im not your English teacher. Read what I said again.
I did. I had to read it twice in fact because it doesn't make any sense. The dominant ethnic group in America, a quarter of the country's population, "doesn't even register", according to your research. You're saying that John Jacob Astor, J.D Rockefeller, Kurt Vonnegut, Dwicght d Eisenhower, Babe Ruth, Thomas Nast and Albert Einstein amongst others "didn't register". Is that right? I must have imagined seeing the Rockefeller centre when I was in New York. A few of the signatories of PNAC's statement of principles seem to have German sounding names, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Gary Bauer, Midge Decter, Aaron Friedberg, Paul Wolfowitz and there's a few I'm not sure about. And how did words like kindergarten, frankfurter, hamburger, wiener (hur hur), bratwurst, and my favourite, pretzel, manage to find their way into common usage in America if it hadn't been for Germans? I trust you had a look at that chronology.
So everyone lied on the census form then. Ok.Im not your history teacher either - Look up Bismark, the various German confederations throughout the mid 19th century and the Franco-Prussian War.
I'm not claiming it's a perfect comparison, merely better than the ridiculous ones you're citing. Just about everythng in Iraq is being privatised so no matter what The Sun tells you to think,No, they successfully colonised Algeria. Invasion != Colonisation, no matter what angry arts students will have you believe.
it's colonialism dressed up as "liberation".
The feeling I get is that some elements in the US administration and military would like to really take the gloves off and shock the Iraqis into submission. Domestic public opinion probably wouldn't stand for it though.Im not surprised you view the above as being successful, if reprehensible, strategy despite their utter failure in the case you provided.
There's no credible comparison between northern Ireland and Iraq. Using some half-arsed method to compare the rate of attacks won't create one.Its okay, Im not your maths teacher either. When he feels youre ready hell introduce the concepts of absolute and relative.No in other words your missing the forest for the trees. But like I said Im not your english teacher, read what I said again.
You said "Change a few faction names and youve got Northern Ireland." Quit waffling and tell us how you came to this bizarre conclusion, and who's supposed to be who.The resistance is apparently staffed by foreign arab fighters and regime diehards, and thus probably even less representitive of Iraqi opinion than the IRA was or is of Irish.
It's certainly convenient to label them all as regime diehards or jihad tourists but nobody seems to have a clue how many groups there are or what their aims are. But I'm arguing that straightforward patriotism and the distrust of foreign invaders, especially those of different race and religion figures as part of the motivation amongst at least some fighters.It certainly fits with the impression being created by polls in Iraq that the Iraqis arent zealous Democrat voters as no doubt some hoped. It also fits with the fact that there is a so called Sunni Triangle, part of Iraq from between Baghdad and Tikrit in which 80% of the attacks against the coalition occur - makes you think the resistance is localised and limited mostly to Sunni regions doesnt it? That most of Iraq is relatively peaceful?
Cool. Sunni arse should be given an almighty booting then. Get the shiites and whatnot on board, and tool them up. Stir up ethnic rivalries and divide and conquer. Like what the Brits were excellent at. That's the ticket.It is however critical that the coalition ensure that the resistance do not gain widespread support - that the resistance suddenly become seen as fighting for Iraqis rather than fighting for Sunni dominance in Iraq or Wahabbi fundamentalism in Iraq. It is a battle for hearts and minds, and if Iraqis continue to be frustrated by failings on the part of the coalition forces and administration there is the danger they will increasingly turn to the resistance - much as Irish frustration against the political status quo in Ireland is leading to increasing support for the likes of Sinn Fein.
Hearts and minds is such a silly meaningless phrase. I can't believe people still use it. What's it mean?
You know as well as I do that neither the Taliban nor Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 and the destruction of their respective regimes has not made America or anywhere else any less vulnerable to attack. It did offer the neocons an opportunity to stir up some ugly nationalistic feelings amongst Americans though. I understand it though. When I was a teenager in the 80's I remember feeling fiercely nationalist and sectarian everytime there was something like the Gibraltar killings or Milltown cemetery attacks or whatever. Some people grow out of it, some don't and get sucked further in. But now, I despise the way Sinn Fein wave the tricolour about as if to claim a monopoly on Irishness just as many Americans despise the way their patriotism is called into question if they don't support their government's wars unconditionally.And what sparked the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and led to the US generally flexing its muscle across the globe? 9/11, an attack on the US mainland which it could be argued led to great shows of patriotism by the US, encouraged by the view that the U.S. was under attack and had to be defeneded.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement