Amerika

[SteveThaiBinh]

It never ceases to amaze me how the media managed to twist this incident with the flag draping, and the statue felling. I took the day off work so I could watch the unedited live feed on the BBC, and saw what actually happened.

I remember it pretty much as you describe - I was listening to the BBC World Service and Rageh Omar's commentary. No-one really disputes that it was an action taken by one soldier which was quickly reversed - either by his mates on the ground or by a call from his superiors. But it was a spectacular blunder, one that augured ill (and correctly so) for the whole occupation. No surprise that the media focused on it.

 

My recollection of the radio broadcast was that they did repeat the comments of the intelligent and respectful marines, as well as descriptions of the flag incident. If one sticks in the mind more than the other, that only highlights what a blunder it was.

[213374U]

I hate to say this, both of you, but you need to re-read your history.

OH NOES!!!1 Foiled again!

[thepixiesrock]

Did I ever tell you guys the Aristacrats joke?

[metadigital]

...

The true goal is to force the American public to balk at the loss of life and force a policy change.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another goal is to spark a sectarian conflict between the Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims in the south (Sunni being hostile now that there fewer numbers mean a power disenfranchisement, Shi'ites jostling for supremacy in their region) and Kurds in the North, which

[Walsingham]

It never ceases to amaze me how the media managed to twist this incident with the flag draping, and the statue felling. I took the day off work so I could watch the unedited live feed on the BBC, and saw what actually happened.

I remember it pretty much as you describe - I was listening to the BBC World Service and Rageh Omar's commentary. No-one really disputes that it was an action taken by one soldier which was quickly reversed - either by his mates on the ground or by a call from his superiors. But it was a spectacular blunder, one that augured ill (and correctly so) for the whole occupation. No surprise that the media focused on it.

 

My recollection of the radio broadcast was that they did repeat the comments of the intelligent and respectful marines, as well as descriptions of the flag incident. If one sticks in the mind more than the other, that only highlights what a blunder it was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Glad I remembered correctly. I'm ashamed to say I was a little teary-eyed. For me the moment ranked alongside seeing Mandela released.

 

I'm also glad the other comments got aired, but I'm afraid the impact of those was minimal on the general public. The sad fact was that the US flag hanging was more iconic, so it got played. Incidentally, the beeb interviewed the chap responsible, and I have tos ay I forgave him. he was clearly a numbskull of the first order, and wouldn't have thought there was anything wrong with puttting up the flag if you sat him down and made him think about it. I think he was just a happy moron. Bless him.

[Dark Moth]

You're doing it again!

 

I am not being rude or belligerent; you are just not happy to hear a (very minor) criticism!

 

Boy, you really ought to get some perspective: debate just isn't your forte. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Doing what again? Oh...correcting you on your mistake. You weren't being rude until you sunk to stereotypes. That is rude and belligerent, regardless of what you may think. I already admitted my mistake and apologized to Lucius for it, so there's nothing else that needs to be said. Debate may not be my "forte", but at least I actually have the guts to admit when I'm wrong. But if you consider stereotypes to be debate skills, I guess you're the better man... "

[SteveThaiBinh]

I hate to say this, both of you, but you need to re-read your history.

Quite possibly - you notice I made no claims to any knowledge of WW2 France.

 

We were discussing whether the level of control that the US has over Iraq could be considered 'de facto conquest'. I don't think it can - I agree that this is as much, probably more, to do with the US' reluctance to carry out heavy-handed assaults (except Fallujah, perhaps?) than with the military effectiveness of the insurgency. It may also be a matter of perceptions, and the media over-emphasising the strength of the insurgents, but in terms of effective control, perceptions do matter as well.

[Reveilled]

...

The true goal is to force the American public to balk at the loss of life and force a policy change.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another goal is to spark a sectarian conflict between the Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims in the south (Sunni being hostile now that there fewer numbers mean a power disenfranchisement, Shi'ites jostling for supremacy in their region) and Kurds in the North, which

[Cantousent]

That's the problem, isn't it? Taking more control will cause an upswell of hatred. Losing more control will cause the Iraqis to lose nerve. It's not enough to mourn our own people. Iraq was a mess, is a mess, and will remain a mess for a long, long time.

 

I will state now, and weather the unkind and hostile remarks I will undoubtedly get, that I'm glad Saddam Hussein is out of power in Iraq. I don't think we were too soon to take him out of power. I think we were 12 years to late. If there is a list of US failings, leaving Saddam in power at the end of the first gulf war must head the list.

[Walsingham]

Don't get me wrong. The level of attacks is certainly beyond anything remotely approximating livable. But my present understanding is that the level of activity is only being sustained because of

 

a) A limitless supply of munitions from old Saddam-era supply caches.

b) A healthy influx of foreign fighters from all over the Middle-east and central Asia. It is no coincidence that activity in Afghanistan and Israel has dropped off dramatically in the last year. Insurgency in Iraq is more pleasant than in the mountains of Afghanistan, and safer than going up against the Israelis.

 

The former is going to have to be dealt with by military intelligence and the infantry. The latter is going to have to be dealt with by public opinion. Or the Iraqis will just get sick of the foreigners tearing up their country and tell everyone (us and them) to pod off.

[Gorth]

I think some of this stems from the fact that we were one of the first countries (modern) to put democracy into use and actually make it work.  Granted the idea of it already existed, but at the time we were among the first to actually do it.

Standard disclaimer: This is no bashing, just ignorance speaking, but didn't it take quite a while before the one person one vote thing was actually implemented. IIRC black people didn't have a vote or parlamentary representatives pre. 1861 and it was even later before the equal opportunity thing was available to "everybody" ?

[SteveThaiBinh]

Glad I remembered correctly. I'm ashamed to say I was a little teary-eyed. For me the moment ranked alongside seeing Mandela released.

I remember being quite emotional as well. I was glad that it seemed to be over, without the strong resistance and bloodshed the pro-Saddamists had been predicting, and without the use of weapons of mass destruction that the 'coalition' had been predicting.

 

Unfortunately the predictions that the US couldn't really exercise control and Iraq would turn into a bloody mess turned out to be, at least partially, correct.

[Dark Moth]

I think some of this stems from the fact that we were one of the first countries (modern) to put democracy into use and actually make it work.  Granted the idea of it already existed, but at the time we were among the first to actually do it.

Standard disclaimer: This is no bashing, just ignorance speaking, but didn't it take quite a while before the one person one vote thing was actually implemented. IIRC black people didn't have a vote or parlamentary representatives pre. 1861 and it was even later before the equal opportunity thing was available to "everybody" ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think so. And women didn't even have the right to vote until the 20th century. While we did have a "democracy", it was only a half-baked democracy. At first, most of the rights were just for white men. It wasn't until much later that all Americans really were free and equal.

[Walsingham]

We're really getting off topic, but maybe not...

 

A big difference between Saddam and Hitler is that the SS/SD/etc etc died fighting us. Huge swathes of the guys who might have caused trouble later were dead. The only problem with Shock and Awe is that you win without killing many people. Once the dust settles some people start yelling 'Best out of three!'

[Reveilled]

I think some of this stems from the fact that we were one of the first countries (modern) to put democracy into use and actually make it work.  Granted the idea of it already existed, but at the time we were among the first to actually do it.

Standard disclaimer: This is no bashing, just ignorance speaking, but didn't it take quite a while before the one person one vote thing was actually implemented. IIRC black people didn't have a vote or parlamentary representatives pre. 1861 and it was even later before the equal opportunity thing was available to "everybody" ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True, but one must remember the political and social attitudes of the time. Everyone seems to have different definitions of democracy. The ancient Athenians invented the concept, yet they restricted the vote to free Athenian males, most "democratic" states pre-late 19th century had restrictions on weath and land ownership for voting, and allowing women to vote didn't happen until well into the 20th century. The definition of what is and isn't a democracy isn't really cut and dry, so whether you choose to accept that the USA was one of the first democratic states depends on how you subjectively choose to define what is and isn't a democracy.

 

Personally, I prefer something that changes with the times. Thus, I would count any otherwise democratic country that denied the vote to women a democracy in the 19th century and before, but wouldn't consider a country that did so in the late 20th to be one. It is best, I think, to judge a person or country by the standards of their time, rather than by the standards of today.

[SteveThaiBinh]

We're really getting off topic...

I think you're probably right. Never mind - I'm sure there'll be another Iraq thread along in a week or two. There always is.

 

There's no such thing as a fully-baked democracy. Some democracies are more - well - democratic than others. All democracies have their imperfections. Remember Florida and the dimpled chads? I saw a US congressman being interviewed on the TV and it was put to him that there were election observers coming to the US to look at the 2004 presidential election in Florida and he said "Yes, but they're coming to learn from us". I think he was serious! That just cracked me up.

 

Please don't take this as senseless America-bashing. Every democracy has its problems, without exceptions. People who live under tyranny or very flawed democracies like Tanzania or Russia may envy US democracy uncritically, and that's understandable. Those of us in more established democracies see the flaws as well. I won't list them - we all know what they are.

[Cantousent]

The Athenian democracy, and Perikles, get's a bum rap.

[Dark Moth]

We're really getting off topic...

I think you're probably right. Never mind - I'm sure there'll be another Iraq thread along in a week or two. There always is.

 

There's no such thing as a fully-baked democracy. Some democracies are more - well - democratic than others. All democracies have their imperfections. Remember Florida and the dimpled chads? I saw a US congressman being interviewed on the TV and it was put to him that there were election observers coming to the US to look at the 2004 presidential election in Florida and he said "Yes, but they're coming to learn from us". I think he was serious! That just cracked me up.

 

Please don't take this as senseless America-bashing. Every democracy has its problems, without exceptions. People who live under tyranny or very flawed democracies like Tanzania or Russia may envy US democracy uncritically, and that's understandable. Those of us in more established democracies see the flaws as well. I won't list them - we all know what they are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Right on.

 

Hehe...I remember the 2000 election. The electoral college is one thing we should get rid of. It was useful maybe at one time, but not today. I doubt we'll see that happen anytime soon, simply because the big states don't want to lose influence.

 

Wait...what was this thread about again?

[metadigital]

You're doing it again!

 

I am not being rude or belligerent; you are just not happy to hear a (very minor) criticism!

 

Boy, you really ought to get some perspective: debate just isn't your forte. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Doing what again?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Acting like a petulant child, after being reprimanded for poor manners. Sulking. Acting out the stereotype that you are denigrating so ferociously. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Hamlet (Act III, Scene ii, line 239)

... You weren't being rude until you sunk to stereotypes.  That is rude and belligerent, regardless of what you may think.  ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All I have done is call you out when you have continued to behave as you insist that you are not.

 

So sorry this is so traumatic for you (It's a giggle to watch).

[SteveThaiBinh]

The Athenian democracy, and Perikles, get's a bum rap.

Only if you (mistakenly) judge it by today's standards. I wouldn't want to live in a society which disenfranchised women and allowed slavery. But by the standards of the time it was one of the great progressive innovations of history, and we still feel its effects today.

 

Democracy is a good thing. Democracies get democracy wrong a lot, but the idea is sound, even if the implementation is lacking. Three cheers for Francis Fukuyama. :D

[Walsingham]

Just in case you think I'm not English I'd like to self-deprecate and point out that in our last general election the International observers were 'deeply troubled' by the levels of ballot fraud. God help us if we move to fully electronic.

 

Meta: "... I have a touch of your condition. That cannot bear the accent of reproof!"

 

Richard the Third.

[Cantousent]

Nominally, this thread is all about America. In reality, however, I think it's about democracy. I think it's about trying to keep your friends even when you have a striking difference of opinion regarding a variety of issues. It's about trying to solve your problems with dialogue rather than violence. ...And, because it's about all of these things, it's about Iraq.

[SteveThaiBinh]

God help us if we move to fully electronic.

Fully-electronic would probably be an improvement. Apparently India's recent transition to electronic voting machines was a big success, according to some Indians I know. With a functioning democracy in the context of widespread illiteracy and poverty, arguably India is the greatest democracy in the world.

 

I thought this thread was about America's image in the world, and that was why we were discussing Iraq and democracy.

[metadigital]

...

The true goal is to force the American public to balk at the loss of life and force a policy change.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another goal is to spark a sectarian conflict between the Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims in the south (Sunni being hostile now that there fewer numbers mean a power disenfranchisement, Shi'ites jostling for supremacy in their region) and Kurds in the North, which

[SteveThaiBinh]

As I understand it, the recent problem ove rthe constitution has been that the Shi'ites have been puching for a federal structure, while the Sunnis are pushing for a centralised state.  This baffles me.  Surely if the Sunnis are the minority, they'd be the ones pushing for a federal state (to have a regional government where they are the majority), while the majority Shi'ites would have overall control of a centralised state and would push for one!

The oil wealth is in the Kurdish and Shi-ite areas. In a federal system, it would be easier for the Kurds and Shi-ites to keep that wealth for themselves. In a centralised state, there's more chance that some of it will be transfered to the Sunni areas.