Quote:Tell you what, give me one example where a democracy invaded a non-democratic country, imposed democracy, moved out, and the imposed democracy survived one decade after the invader left.
That's easy, Japan. I don't here them screaming occupation. Now that said, yes, I know we still have some troops protecting Japan because we limited them to a small army after WWII but that's purely for protection from military invasion from countries like China. It has absolutely zero to do with putting down revolutionary unrest and you and I both know that if a single American never stepped foot on the island, that Japanese society would not crumble tomorrow. That risk ended decades ago unless you want to point to the subway terrorist attack in Japan.
I would have said Germany but we had to keep a large amount of troops in West Germany due to the Soviet Union and I suppose you could call that "oppressive".
It doesn't have to be the democratic republic of the US. Given the Kurd/Shi/Sunni situation in Iraq, and the warlord situation of Afghanistan, they're probably going to have to come up with something quite unique. If Bush had handed either country a copy of the US Constitution, I would have suggested an amendment to our constitution that the president of the US needs to beaten with a whip daily by the next lottery winner.
Quote:Yeah, but to do so you need to understand how things evolve on the world scale. And to do *that* you need to know some history.
Well, I'm listening, educate me because I have not the slightest clue what you're talking about until you say it.
Quote:But that is *exactly* what the "at least we brought democracy to Iraq" fools are claiming.
Agreed, it's way to early too beat our chests and declare success. But you're expressing defeat. Too early to call both and both sides are trying to justify emotional investment that haven't been verified yet. That includes Bush declaring all but "Morning in Iraq". He's got a whole mess of jabs coming for his PR debacle. Dump this whole "pro Bush/anti Bush" standoff because you're the only one swinging in that fight. I could care less about the presidential horserace unless it has something to do with either guy's articulation of how they're going to fight the war on terrorism. I'm not going to apologize for thinking it's the most important issue right now.
Quote:Ignorance? Yeah, it is ignorant to bring up terrorism in a discussion on the invasion of Iraq.
As I said, Iraq's connection to terrorism was weak, especially compared to all the other players in the world. But it is true that terrorism is central to the rebuilding, both by the flocking of terrorists to Iraq, and the hope, whether delusional or not, that a peaceful Iraq won't have citizens willing to go into the business of terrorism when they can go into the business of building, I don't know, houses. That's the argument in any case. Whether it works, I don't know. But I refuse to let a bunch of nay-sayers tell me it's doomed before any evidence of such can be pointed to. And I refuse to let a bunch of yay-sayers say it's already succeeded. But I admit I can see more evidence coming from the pro side right now than the nay side right now. Pardon me for expecting a position based on ARGUMENT!
Quote:At least my bile has some substance.
Where? Maybe you guys rehashed this argument way back and I missed it. I've lurked here only for a couple months so maybe I missed what you said. So link me to some thread where this brilliance of history is contained in. Put me in my place. If you have a point, I'll be glad to acknowledge it.
Go ahead. I've made my case. Onus is on you now.