03-15-2004, 06:39 PM
Hi,
That's easy, Japan.
Sorry, no. From http://www.worldrover.com/history/japan_history.html "During the 1920s, Japan progressed toward a democratic system of government. However, parliamentary government was not rooted deeply enough to withstand the economic and political pressures of the 1930s, during which military leaders became increasingly influential."
Pre-existing home grown democracy. They were on the path, the US occupation did little to change that. As a matter of fact, the USA even kept the traditional Emperor in place because of pragmatic considerations. OK, so far no knowledge of history demonstrated.
I would have said Germany
And you would have been wrong again. This time from http://www.worldrover.com/history/germany_history.html we get "The postwar Weimar Republic (1919-33) was an attempt to establish a peaceful, liberal democratic regime in Germany." Again, a country well on its way to democracy. And the puppet post WW II governments became true democracies in Germany in spite of rather than because of the occupying forces.
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.
You bet both ponies and governments on the basis of track record. And on the card so far, invading a country with no history of democracy to impose any form of democracy has always failed unless the occupation spanned generations (India comes to mind). And both sides are *not* trying to justify anything. The side that invaded Iraq for reasons that were false is the one that is using arguments that are specious to try to justify their illegal action. The other side is just pointing out how asinine in view of the historical evidence the "freeing Iraq" argument is. But, as I've said before, I'm willing to wait five years to either eat crow or taunt you with your unfounded optimism.
Well, I'm listening, educate me
Not my job. If you are ignorant, it is your fault. There are libraries out there, there is an Internet filled with facts. You want an education, go for it. Be thankful that there are at least some who are willing to point out gaps in your knowledge, but remember they are under no constraint, unlike your parents, to do so nicely. Both Jester and I have made statements which could have been checked by you. But instead of researching them and determining where the truth or preponderance of evidence lies, you've just continued to reiterate your opinions. Repetition does not make right, nor does it alleviate ignorance.
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,
God! Logic! We're discussing the justification for the invasion of Iraq. Now you are saying that we should have invaded Iraq because after we did so and have been unable to control the country terrorist have moved in? Thus, since terrorists moved in *as a result of our invasion*, their future presence justified our invasion? And then you wonder at my frustration in trying to discuss this issue?
Go ahead. I've made my case. Onus is on you now.
There is no onus on me. I am not trying to justify an illegal act. The onus is on you and all who are trying to do so. And when the only argument you have is that you think (contrary to historical observation) that the future is rosy, then I can only doubt your sincerity or your intellect.
--Pete
That's easy, Japan.
Sorry, no. From http://www.worldrover.com/history/japan_history.html "During the 1920s, Japan progressed toward a democratic system of government. However, parliamentary government was not rooted deeply enough to withstand the economic and political pressures of the 1930s, during which military leaders became increasingly influential."
Pre-existing home grown democracy. They were on the path, the US occupation did little to change that. As a matter of fact, the USA even kept the traditional Emperor in place because of pragmatic considerations. OK, so far no knowledge of history demonstrated.
I would have said Germany
And you would have been wrong again. This time from http://www.worldrover.com/history/germany_history.html we get "The postwar Weimar Republic (1919-33) was an attempt to establish a peaceful, liberal democratic regime in Germany." Again, a country well on its way to democracy. And the puppet post WW II governments became true democracies in Germany in spite of rather than because of the occupying forces.
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.
You bet both ponies and governments on the basis of track record. And on the card so far, invading a country with no history of democracy to impose any form of democracy has always failed unless the occupation spanned generations (India comes to mind). And both sides are *not* trying to justify anything. The side that invaded Iraq for reasons that were false is the one that is using arguments that are specious to try to justify their illegal action. The other side is just pointing out how asinine in view of the historical evidence the "freeing Iraq" argument is. But, as I've said before, I'm willing to wait five years to either eat crow or taunt you with your unfounded optimism.
Well, I'm listening, educate me
Not my job. If you are ignorant, it is your fault. There are libraries out there, there is an Internet filled with facts. You want an education, go for it. Be thankful that there are at least some who are willing to point out gaps in your knowledge, but remember they are under no constraint, unlike your parents, to do so nicely. Both Jester and I have made statements which could have been checked by you. But instead of researching them and determining where the truth or preponderance of evidence lies, you've just continued to reiterate your opinions. Repetition does not make right, nor does it alleviate ignorance.
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,
God! Logic! We're discussing the justification for the invasion of Iraq. Now you are saying that we should have invaded Iraq because after we did so and have been unable to control the country terrorist have moved in? Thus, since terrorists moved in *as a result of our invasion*, their future presence justified our invasion? And then you wonder at my frustration in trying to discuss this issue?
Go ahead. I've made my case. Onus is on you now.
There is no onus on me. I am not trying to justify an illegal act. The onus is on you and all who are trying to do so. And when the only argument you have is that you think (contrary to historical observation) that the future is rosy, then I can only doubt your sincerity or your intellect.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?