|
|
#31
02-16-2007, 10:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
John you should pick up a copy of deterring democracy by Noam Chomsky. It will help disabuse you of your beliefs about the good intentions of US foreign policy.
|
|
#32
02-16-2007, 10:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
[ QUOTE ]
John you should pick up a copy of deterring democracy by Noam Chomsky. It will help disabuse you of your beliefs about the good intentions of US foreign policy. [/ QUOTE ] I'll look into it if iI can get it cheap [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] or maybe I'll see if the local library has it - I like to go to the library about once a month and browse and read a bit. I'm not saying that American policy is based on altruism, but rather that I think this particular administration genuinely thought they could bring "democracy" to Iraq and from there to the Middle East, and that that would be a good thing as well as a good long-term strategic move (of course they miscalculated). I also think that it was somewhat down the list as far as their priorities went.
|
|
#33
02-16-2007, 10:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
[ QUOTE ]
I'll look into it if iI can get it cheap or maybe I'll see if the local library has it - I like to go to the library about once a month and browse and read a bit. [/ QUOTE ] $2.85
|
|
#34
02-16-2007, 10:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'll look into it if iI can get it cheap or maybe I'll see if the local library has it - I like to go to the library about once a month and browse and read a bit. [/ QUOTE ] $2.85 [/ QUOTE ] $0.00
|
|
#35
02-16-2007, 11:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
[ QUOTE ]
The goal of the US has never ever ever been to promote democracy anywhere. [/ QUOTE ] The US has a goal? Elaborate plz. What is it? What is it not? How do you now? For example: I'm pretty sure the goal of the US is to engage in foreign wars. How do I know? Well, it does it ALL THE TIME. So it has to be built/evolved in-to it's design and purpose. http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/american-wars.html
|
|
#36
02-16-2007, 11:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, America has screwed up in Iraq. But Gearge Bush was right when he said it wasn't going to be easy. Where he screwed up was that he tried to take the easier route anyways because of the upcoming re-election campaign. [/ QUOTE ] Probably close, but I think the biggest mistake was not acknowledging up-front that this could take 10+ years. The entire dynamic of that situation would be different if our attitude was; "we'll be there until it's fixed". The mentality of "we're not leaving until we win," has a tendency to resolve things, both there and at home in our decision to go in the first place. But it's that resolve going in that was a little weak or ill-defined. I think the real checkmate move at the end of WWII with Japan, wasn't so much dropping the two bombs. I think it had more to do with the U.S. telling them we wouldn't accept anything but unconditional surrender. They basically had a choice: surrender to the U.S. or we're going to support a Russian invasion, and then you can surrender to them. Pick your posion, but we're going to win. Period.
|
|
#37
02-16-2007, 11:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
[ QUOTE ]
But it's that resolve going in that was a little weak or ill-defined. [/ QUOTE ] dude you sound like Curtis Lemay fo rizzle
|
|
#38
02-16-2007, 11:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Please shutup about the US bringing democracy to other countries
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But it's that resolve going in that was a little weak or ill-defined. [/ QUOTE ] dude you sound like Curtis Lemay fo rizzle [/ QUOTE ] You don't see any difference between saying, "we're going to win no matter what" versus, "we'll try hard for awhile?"
|
|
#39
02-18-2007, 02:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Spare ribbing
[ QUOTE ]
I think the real checkmate move at the end of WWII with Japan, wasn't so much dropping the two bombs. I think it had more to do with the U.S. telling them we wouldn't accept anything but unconditional surrender. They basically had a choice: surrender to the U.S. or we're going to support a Russian invasion, and then you can surrender to them. Pick your posion, but we're going to win. Period. [/ QUOTE ]The Japanese, in World War II, were NOT more afraid of the Soviets than they were of the Americans. The Japanese had little to contest with against the Soviets, while they were engaged in an imperial fight with the United States to the death (death for one imperium out of the two) for the Pacific and East Asia. And FWIW the Japanese had already, and soundly, defeated the Russians, in a relatively recent war. What convinced the Japanese to surrender was the atomic bomb; it was NOT the Allied demand for unconditional surrender. This demand, almost always, strengthens the resolve of the enemy. The side that receives such "terms" will fight harder because its alternative is to "depend on the kindness of strangers". Mickey Brausch
|
|
#40
02-18-2007, 04:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Spare ribbing
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think the real checkmate move at the end of WWII with Japan, wasn't so much dropping the two bombs. I think it had more to do with the U.S. telling them we wouldn't accept anything but unconditional surrender. They basically had a choice: surrender to the U.S. or we're going to support a Russian invasion, and then you can surrender to them. Pick your posion, but we're going to win. Period. [/ QUOTE ]The Japanese, in World War II, were NOT more afraid of the Soviets than they were of the Americans. The Japanese had little to contest with against the Soviets, while they were engaged in an imperial fight with the United States to the death (death for one imperium out of the two) for the Pacific and East Asia. And FWIW the Japanese had already, and soundly, defeated the Russians, in a relatively recent war. What convinced the Japanese to surrender was the atomic bomb; it was NOT the Allied demand for unconditional surrender. This demand, almost always, strengthens the resolve of the enemy. The side that receives such "terms" will fight harder because its alternative is to "depend on the kindness of strangers". Mickey Brausch [/ QUOTE ] I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. <font color="brown">Operation August Storm , along with the two atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined to break the Japanese political deadlock and force Japan's surrender; they made it clear that Japan had no hope of holding out, even in the Home Islands. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Stalin's August 8 declaration of war that forced the Japanese message of surrender on August 15, 1945.</font> Then we can't forget about the China.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
