Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on Wa

[chrisb]

You can sugar coat it all you want. I like your veiled neo-con swipe at any who disagree with you though.

I am just stating their view, not sugar coating anything. The entire notion of a foreign policy where we go from battlefield to ballot box, is a neo-conservative interventionist world view.

So what happened after WW2 was neo-conservative interventionist?

[forrestkc]

You can sugar coat it all you want. I like your veiled neo-con swipe at any who disagree with you though.

I am just stating their view, not sugar coating anything. The entire notion of a foreign policy where we go from battlefield to ballot box, is a neo-conservative interventionist world view.

So what happened after WW2 was neo-conservative interventionist?

You are making an apples to oranges comparison. After World War II, we set out trying to rebuild and democratize largely homogeneous nations that we had been at war with or that had been occupied by Germany. Many of those nations had at least some historical experience with democracy with the exception of Japan. In Japan's case, it was an ethnically homogenous nation, and the emperor publicly supported our efforts there.

What we are attempting in Iraq is much more comparable to Woodrow Wilson's attempts at democratizing Central American and Eastern Europe following World War I. This "Wilsonianism" as it has been referred to since, basically was a foreign policy that involved using American forces to overthrow tyrannical regimes and institute democracies. By 1930, virtually every nation we tried this in failed, and virtually every single one of them reverted to authoritarian dictatorships (usually with disastrous consequences). In fact, by 1930, our only two successes were in Austria and Germany, and we all know who the Germans chose to elect, none other than Adolph Hitler himself.

The fact is, from a historical perspective, the only times we have been successful in forcefully democratizing nations was in nations that were largely ethnically homogenous, and even then, there have been more failures than successes. There has never been a single case in all of history where an ethnically diverse nation under totalitarian rule was successfully forcefully democratized. Every time this has been attempted, the ethnic minorities rebel against what they see as a tyranny of the ethnic majorities, and no group identifies itself with the nation, but rather only with their individual ethnic groups. Which is exactly what we are seeing in Iraq.

[chrisb]

Yeah so break it up into three countries then.

Drawing lines on a map and inserting dictators inside the lines sure hasn't worked out very well.

What about Afghanistan? It doesn't get much more racially diverse than that country. Sure there are problems there, but they could be much worse.

Iraq would be in much better shape if it wasn't for the meddling of Iran and AQ's constant destruction. So was it better when the minority dominated and destroyed the majority in Iraq?

Edited August 1, 2007 by chrisb

[forrestkc]

Yeah so break it up into three countries then.

Drawing lines on a map and inserting dictators inside the lines sure hasn't worked out very well.

I agree with you there, but the problem in breaking it up into 3 countries is that Turkey would never go for the Kurds having their own nation, and the Sunni areas have no oil.

[chrisb]

Yeah so break it up into three countries then.

Drawing lines on a map and inserting dictators inside the lines sure hasn't worked out very well.

I agree with you there, but the problem in breaking it up into 3 countries is that Turkey would never go for the Kurds having their own nation, and the Sunni areas have no oil.

They will just have to learn to get along then. Honestly the people doing all the killing are a small minority of the population. The biggest problem I see is Malaki's refusal to govern.

[forrestkc]

They will just have to learn to get along then. Honestly the people doing all the killing are a small minority of the population. The biggest problem I see is Malaki's refusal to govern.

Well, yes, the people killing are small part of the population, but they are supported by large swaths of population.

[chrisb]

I am eager to see how that is going come September.

[ted]

Y'all do realize that it just doesn't matter what kind news comes from this war, right? No matter the victory or good report, it just isn't going to matter to some folks.

Pray for the troops and for our leadership. Pray for the citizens of Iraq, and of conflict wherever it rises.

No news is going to change people's minds at this point. Things could turn around completely tomorrow forever over there, and it still wouldn't matter. Some people will still feel like it wasn't worth the trouble.

t.

[senerhu]

here's an example of how some dems want us to fail...

United We Fall?

It seems to us that there is something to be said for the idea that when America is at war, citizens, and especially political leaders, have a patriotic duty to put differences aside in the cause of victory. We oppose government censorship but wish for more self-restraint on the part of war opponents.

We realize, of course, that this idea died for at least a generation with Vietnam, and it may not return, at least until the baby boomers have passed from the scene. But one baby-boomer in Congress wants to bring it back--in reverse. The Associated Press reports:

Kansas Rep. Nancy Boyda is defending her decision to step out of a hearing room last week while a retired Army general testified about U.S. progress in Iraq. . . .

Boyda, a freshman Democrat from Topeka, said she left the House Armed Services Committee hearing on Friday for about 10 minutes during the testimony of retired Gen. Jack Keane. . . .

Keane had testified that since the troop surge began, U.S. forces "are on the offensive and we have the momentum." He also said that security has improved in every neighborhood and district in and around Baghdad, and that "caf

[Jedi4Yahweh]

It never ceases to amaze me how that we continue to have our own version of Tokeo Rose, preaching defeat of America, and encouraging our enemies. Nobody knows what Petraeus's report will say at this point, and I don't have any inside information, but I utterly reject The Balance and Forrest's take on the situation in Iraq. I still believe America can win, and am more encouraged than ever that we will prevail, in spite of the best efforts of liberals to fight for our defeat.

Amen if only Liberls had faith in their in their own country. Democracy in Iraq will not happen over night and most times things get worse before democracy gets established. Look at America's own civil war, america did not become a democracy over night but took years before it was offically established.

Civil War sometimes is a part of establishing democracy. Its a matter of each opposing group setting down and working out compromises. Some groups dont want to compromise and that leads to conflit, but after they are tired of fighting they sit down and make the compromise.