Japan...? And Iraq?

[Bullypulpit]

I really don't know where Chimpy McCokespoon...er...George Bush is getting the inspiration for his analogies, but they are reeeeeally bad.

His comparison between post WWII Japan and Iraq is almost nonsensical. Let's look at a few facts..Shall we?

Firstly, there was a <b>PLAN</b> for the occupation of Japan some three years before the representatives of of the Emperor signed the articles of surrender aboard the USS Missouri on August 28th, 1945. Contrast that with the Bush administration in its run up to the war with Iraq in which the Bush administration had no realistic plan and ignored the plans laid out by the State Department for a post invasion Iraq, which is detailed <a href=http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/fallows><b>HERE</b></a>

Secondly, Japan was, and is, essentially a monoculture with centuries of social cohesion behind it. This social cohesion was, and is, entirely lacking in Iraq given its ethnic, religious and tribal fault lines. And we are now paying the price in blood and treasure for this bit of gross ignorance on the part of Bush and his administration.

Thirdly, the civil government of Japan after its surrender was left intact...from the Emperor all the way down to the village headman. The Iraqi civil government was effectively dismantled after Saddam was toppled...de-Baathification and all that...and the Iraqi army was disbanded, throwing thousands of pissed off, armed men out onto the streets and left to their own devices.

Finally, a charismatic and capable leader in the form of General Douglas MacArthur. He set the plans in motion and had the the democratic political structure that still functions today in place within three years. Contrast that with the more than four years of the US occupation of Iraq which has resulted in little more than a dysfunctional government more closely tied to Iran than the US and is lousy with members of Shi'ite militias more eager to settle scores with the former Sunni leaders than in establishing a stable democracy.

So, does post-invasion Iraq bear <b>ANY</b> resemblance to post-WWII Japan? No. Bush, his cabinet and his speech writers need to start using history for the lessons it provides, not the propaganda nor the agenda they wish to further by the misrepresentation of that history.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I'm not terribly familiar with Japan, but I know in Germany Ludwig Erhard basically defied the american occupiers, and abolished a lot of shitty laws like price controls and so forth. The Marshall plan gets credit for their recovery, but it never more than like...3% of the total GDP. Unfortunately Iraq doesn't have any classical liberal figure like Erhard, and the Bush administration pays only lip service to free markets. Plus Iraq wasn't a settled industrialized country in the same sort of way that Germany was. It's a lot easier to keep the peace when people actually have something to lose.

But my main fear is that the war advocates will take all this into consideration, and then want another invasion. Why, this time we'll do it right! Even if you can pull it off, it doesn't mean you should.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ya, next time I suggest we save American lives. Nuke them, we can always drill through glass.

I mean to hear tell we are an EVIL Empire, bent on world domination, terrorist to our core. Hey lets go with that.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Ya, next time I suggest we save American lives. Nuke them, we can always drill through glass.

I mean to hear tell we are an EVIL Empire, bent on world domination, terrorist to our core. Hey lets go with that.

How did we save American lives with the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Please, enlighten me...And provide links to support your claim.

America IS NOT an "EVIL Empire". America is simply in the grips of an administration which CHOSE to invade Iraq for reasons which are, at best, questionable. At worst, these rationales were outright lies. The invasion of Iraq distracted American forces from the real enemy...Al Qaeda and the Taliban which are even now reconstituting their forces in Pakistan where it borders Afghanistan.

Now, even though I've addressed your points, I'm at a complete loss as to how you arrived at them given that I merely presented the historical perspective for Bush's false analogy and BVM presented some additional context regarding post-WWII Germany. It seems that you have adopted RSR's rules of engagement...When you can't dispute the facts, follow with a non sequitur in order to try and change the subject.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Ya, next time I suggest we save American lives. Nuke them, we can always drill through glass.

I mean to hear tell we are an EVIL Empire, bent on world domination, terrorist to our core. Hey lets go with that.

Ya, next time I suggest we save American lives. Nuke them, we can always drill through glass.

Amazingly, five years later, you're still conflating the attacks of 9/11, and the groups that attacked us (Al Qaeda) with Iraq.

Iraq didn't attack us, Iraq was not a threat to the United States homeland, and Iraq was not even supporting international anti-american jihadists. The socialist Baath Party in fact considered international jihadists a threat to their own regime.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I'm not terribly familiar with Japan, but I know in Germany Ludwig Erhard basically defied the american occupiers, and abolished a lot of shitty laws like price controls and so forth. The Marshall plan gets credit for their recovery, but it never more than like...3&#37; of the total GDP. Unfortunately Iraq doesn't have any classical liberal figure like Erhard, and the Bush administration pays only lip service to free markets. Plus Iraq wasn't a settled industrialized country in the same sort of way that Germany was. It's a lot easier to keep the peace when people actually have something to lose.

But my main fear is that the war advocates will take all this into consideration, and then want another invasion. Why, this time we'll do it right! Even if you can pull it off, it doesn't mean you should.

Germany and Japan were and are homogeneous societies, with no major sectarian, ethnic, or religious fault lines dividing the countries.

German and Japan had profound and deep historical experience with Democratic institutions prior to WWII.

Germany and Japan attacked us, were roundly defeated, and Formally surrendered to us -- unconditionally.


None of these historical parallels apply to iraq.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ya, next time I suggest we save American lives. Nuke them, we can always drill through glass.

Amazingly, five years later, you're still conflating the attacks of 9/11, and the groups that attacked us (Al Qaeda) with Iraq.

Iraq didn't attack us, Iraq was not a threat to the United States homeland, and Iraq was not even supporting international anti-american jihadists. The socialist Baath Party in fact considered international jihadists a threat to their own regime.

Ahh yes that tired old saw. You think if you say it enough it becomes true. No one ever said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I didn't say it, the US Government didn't say it. In fact the only people saying it are liberals trying to confuse the issue with lies and misdirection.

Now as to Iraq being a threat, that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. No one in the Government ever claimed it did. Bush was quite clear as to what threat Iraq was and could be. And NO he never used the word imminent, except to say he wasn't going to wait until an attack WAS imminent.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

No one ever said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

No one? Why is it that every time someone talks of packing up and leaving Iraq, a conservative will chime in with "What? Have you forgotten 9/11 already?!?"

 

[Bullypulpit]

Ahh yes that tired old saw. You think if you say it enough it becomes true. No one ever said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I didn't say it, the US Government didn't say it. In fact the only people saying it are liberals trying to confuse the issue with lies and misdirection.

Now as to Iraq being a threat, that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. No one in the Government ever claimed it did. Bush was quite clear as to what threat Iraq was and could be. And NO he never used the word imminent, except to say he wasn't going to wait until an attack WAS imminent.

<a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html>Bush</a> and <a href=http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/18/cheney.iraq.al.qaeda/>Cheney</a> repeatedly conflated Iraq and Al Qaeda in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, and immediately afterwards. Also, in recent months and weeks, Bush has sought to link Iraq with "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th...". This in order to bolster plummeting support, particularly amongst Republicans, for the continued occupation of Iraq.

Really, old son...You're going to have to do better than repeating the long discredited talking points of the Bush administration and their propaganda arm, FOX Noise.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Ahh yes that tired old saw. You think if you say it enough it becomes true. No one ever said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I didn't say it, the US Government didn't say it. In fact the only people saying it are liberals trying to confuse the issue with lies and misdirection.

Now as to Iraq being a threat, that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. No one in the Government ever claimed it did. Bush was quite clear as to what threat Iraq was and could be. And NO he never used the word imminent, except to say he wasn't going to wait until an attack WAS imminent.

I'm sure y'all have noticed that RetiredGySgt has completely abandoned the subject of the thread, that being Bush's failed analogies, in favor of attempted distraction and misdirection. Are you attempting to fill RSR's shoes old son?

 

[DeadCanDance]

Ahh yes that tired old saw. You think if you say it enough it becomes true. No one ever said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I didn't say it, the US Government didn't say it. In fact the only people saying it are liberals trying to confuse the issue with lies and misdirection.

By continually trying to conflate Iraq and Al Qaeda together, the Bu$hCo. clearly was trying to leave an impression that Iraq was an ally of al qaeda, and was involved in 9/11. Which were bold faced lies. Saddam considered Al Qaeda an enemy of his own Regime:


-GEORGE BUSH: "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror!"

-DICK CHENEY: "It's been pretty well confirmed that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague!"

-DICK CHENEY: "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

-GEORGE BUSH: "By invading Iraq, we've removed an ally of al qaeda!"

Now as to Iraq being a threat, that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. No one in the Government ever claimed it did. Bush was quite clear as to what threat Iraq was and could be. And NO he never used the word imminent, except to say he wasn't going to wait until an attack WAS imminent.

Do you ever get tired of lying, for a failed President?

The word imminent, urgent, immediate, and grave were all used by BushCo. to describe the non-existant threat from Saddam:


1) George Bush: &#8220;The world is also uniting to answer the unique and <b>URGENT THREAT</b> posed by Iraq&#8221;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021123.html


2) Dick Cheney: &#8220;What we must not do in the face of a <b>MORTAL THREAT</b> is to give in to wishful thinking&#8230;"

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/iraq_08-27-02.html


3) White House communications director <b>Dan Bartlett</b> on the January 26, 2003, edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:

-Wolf Blitzer: &#8220;IS HE AN <b>IMMINENT THREAT</b> to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?&#8221;

-Dan Bartlett: &#8220;Well, <b>OF COURSE HE IS</b>.&#8221;

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/26/le.00.html


4) White House press briefing on October 16, 2002, press secretary <b>Ari Fleischer</b> unequivocally agreed with a reporter who interpreted Bush's recent public statements as depicting an imminent threat:

-Press Question: Ari, <b>&#8221;the president has been saying that the threat from Iraq is IMMINENT</b>, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction&#8230; so forth>&#8221;

-Ari Fleisher: <b>"YES."</b>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/excerpts_oct16.html


5) George Bush: "Iraq could decide <b>ON ANY GIVEN DAY</b> to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group&#8230;&#8221;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19822-2003Jun21?language=printer


6) Presidential Spokesperson, <b>Scott McClellan</b>: &#8220;This is about an <b>IMMINENT THREAT</b>.&#8221; (regarding the US/Turkish request for NATO help against Iraq)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-7.html


7) Donald Rumsfeld: &#8220;no terrorist state poses a greater or more <b>IMMEDIATE THREAT</b> to the security of our people&#8221; (Sept. 19, 2002 testimony Senate Armed Services Committee)

http://www.boston.com/news/politics...3/17/ap_analysis_truth_first_campaign_victim/

8) George Bush October 2002: &#8220;Delay, indecision and inaction could lead to a massive and <b>SUDDEN</b> horror&#8221;

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/WorldNewsTonight/bush_saddam030318.html

9) Condi Rice &#8211; &#8220;it simply makes no sense to wait any longer to do something about the threat that is posed here&#8221;.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/02090801.htm

10) Donald Rumsfeld.: &#8220;Take action, before it's too late&#8221;

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/radio/Sep2002/