The first thing I did was to look for your response to the question I asked as to which of these very complex issues you wished to discuss.
When the decision was made, was withdrawing the least bad thing to do?
America is composed of 300 million plus. It does not have a hive mind. I have not made any arguments about what any segment of the population thought about any aspect of the war.
Do you go out of your way to purposely misunderstand things or does pedantry come naturally?
If I say the Battle of Britain was fought between Germany and Britain, it doesn't mean all of Britain verses all of Germany. It doesn't mean there were no Nazi sympathisers in Britain, or Germans working for the allies. It doesn't mean everyone in Britain and Germany was behind the war effort or that there were no pacifists. It doesn't mean that everybody involved was even from Britain or Germany.
It just means that the major belligerents were Britain and Germany. This is a standard English language convention.
It's misleading. Anyone not previously informed would think you meant me. It also ascribes the view point of everyone to one person and it does not allow for the fact that view points are all over the place concerning the different aspects of the war on terror. I do not care what word you use as long as it is obvious.
The beauty of language is that meaning is dependent on context rather than any intrinsic value carried by the word used. The beauty of the human mind is that it is able to work out the meaning of words used in different contexts.
If my national team lost at football and my foreign friend said 'haha, we destroyed you yesterday' I can work out that we doesn't involve him; you doesn't involve me, and destroyed doesn't involve any actual destruction.
Yes, textbook. When you claim everyone in power conspired to do X when you cannot possibly know they did, then the rest of us call it a conspiracy theory.
When there is a mountain of information to support the point, including statements by the Iraqi Interior Minister and other significant figures in society then we might have reason to prefer 'generally accepted fact' over 'conspiracy theory', but each to their own.
The army was a hive of corruption which is why it crumbled against a tiny force of jihadis. Do you have any other explanation for why this happened other than systemic corruption?
Then you are not much of a linguist. English contains plenty of wards more accurate and less vulgar than you have used. Your views are on the progressive side of this issue.
Seeing as a critique of language seems important to you.
Your views on the issue are more progressive than mine. Sorry if that causes you discomfort.
My views on this issue are actually what would be considered traditionally conservative, given that they involve accept the limitations of humanity and how these prevent us from remaking the world however we see fit. (Neo-cons were 'neo' because they were progressives on international affairs, they just saw 'conservatives' as the best vehicle for achieving their goal)
The Iraq war was a progressive war, not a conservative war. This is why people like Blair supported it. It was ideological and to a degree utopian. It was tied to the idea of progress and a universal direction of man towards a common goal.
If you prefer historical examples, the European left was almost as equally in favour of colonial wars of conquest as was there right. Empire had a progressive goal as well as a nationalist one.
It's not my fault you're not much of a linguist and use language inaccurately
(I do actually know that isn't what you were trying to say, but hey what's good for the goose...)
how me how your rational above worked as applied to 1945 Japan. Fire bombing a hundred cities and melting two more is infinitely worse than Iraq had to endure. Or how about Carthage in the Punic war. Looks like the greater the flip you inflicted, the greater the ease of transition.
Was about local cooperation post-war, not the actual conquest.
The Japanese occupation would have been a very different story if the Japanese had withdrawn their cooperation and started working to undermine and attack you at every opportunity (not that I see the 2 situations as in any way analogous).
I have mentioned Churchill, Stalin, the defeat of Europe and Japan, Alexander the Great, the Punic wars, the fall of the Roman empire, Lincoln, the civil war, and perhaps the conquests. You have yet to attempt a single example of anything in history but you did manage to sum all of the views on the war on terror into the term "you". Good work.
Ok, if you really wish to discuss history. As I mentioned before it's just as easy to find examples where the kind of 'strong leadership' and refusal to accept the present situation has led to a worse outcome. You are just flinging about random historical events and claiming they are analogous.
It's pretty easy to do, although not always very useful. For example, the 7th C "Islamic" conquests were successful because they left the conquered territories to govern themselves as long as they paid their taxes. Day to day life was practically unchanged so they had little reason to rebel. Therefore America should have ensured stable power networks and protected physical infrastructure to ensure transition Iraq was as stable as possible.
To quote Abba Eban on the 'perils of analogy', "This apple is round, red, shiny, and good to eat. This rubber ball is round, red and shiny. Therefore, there is at least a strong probability that it will be good to eat. The basic truth is that circumstances in which situations differ from each other may precisely be those that define their essential nature."
The Japan example seems to me like a textbook example of the kind of flawed analogy Mr Eban was talking about. Using WW2 examples, Germany would have been by far the better choice, don't you think? It's still problematic of course, but at least a lot better.
Japan is a terrible analogy as 'The basic truth is that circumstances in which situations differ from each other may precisely be those that define their essential nature'.
If Obama chose to forcibly occupied Iraq after being asked to leave:
Iraq: government working against you, widespread uprising, divided, sectarian civil conflict, ethnically diverse, corrupt, nepotistic, tribal, lack of civil society structures, lack of respect for state and legal systems, undeveloped legal systems, little history of modern nationhood, no overriding loyalty to state above other identity markers, regional powers competing for internal influence, unstable patronage networks but access to boundless supplies of money with the right connections/position etc. etc.
Japan: pretty much the opposite
Chalk/cheese
As a keen student of history do you really think it is a good analogy?
If you want to learn from history, there's more to learn from the break up of Yugoslavia, or perhaps the sectarian conflict in Maluku in the years after the downfall of Suharto, or maybe 90s Rwanda. Japan, not so much. We could discuss why if you like.
If, instead of seeing it as experience to learn from, you are purposely trawling history to confirm your preexisting, ideologically based opinions then you'll find something you can use no problem. "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." Confirmation bias works wonders for the soul.
