Dangerous historical mistakes repeating themselves?
- Thread starter Mrs. Edge
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
I'm fine!
But you should start listening to the liberals every now and again! Many times we can give the rest of you a heads up, so you won't be surprised so often!
But you should start listening to the liberals every now and again! Many times we can give the rest of you a heads up, so you won't be surprised so often!
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Dreadsox said:
It is not a carbon copy of the 1930s
Full occupation is no longer required.
Here is the article for the context
WAR WITH IRAQ / THE POLICY ARCHITECHT
An Architect of War Draws Blueprint for Peace
Paul Wolfowitz says Hussein's fall can have a 'demonstration effect' on other gulf nations.
By John Hendren
Times Staff Writer
April 13, 2003
WASHINGTON -- When Baghdad fell, Paul D. Wolfowitz was looking ahead, already well into executing a plan for postwar Iraq.
Credited as one of the chief intellectual architects -- a term he dislikes -- of removing the Iraqi regime, Wolfowitz had much at stake in the war, but more in peace.
By toppling Saddam Hussein, the Pentagon's No. 2 official said in a series of interviews with The Times before and during the war, the United States was not seeking to create a "domino effect" that would topple the kings of the Arab nations on the Persian Gulf, but a "demonstration effect" -- even an "inspirational effect" -- that would be felt by citizens as far away as Morocco.
Wolfowitz sees the military conquest of Iraq as a lesson to regimes that threaten U.S. interests and envisions democratizing Iraq as a model for an undemocratic Arab world.
Although he insists that the U.S. is not interested in a long-term occupation of Iraq, Wolfowitz sees the possibility of putting U.S. bases in what he is convinced will be a newly friendly Persian Gulf nation. He argues that would allow the number of troops to shrink to fewer than before the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
"The real point is that removing this regime will be so liberating for the United States in the Persian Gulf," he said. "Our whole footprint can be much lighter without an Iraqi threat."
The audacity of the vision has provoked criticism at home and abroad, and debate even within the administration.
"Iraq is an underdeveloped country with severe ethnic tensions and contested borders," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va., public policy group. "So Wolfowitz's aspiration for Iraq is much to be desired, but far from assured."
Administration officials are looking north for a model for postwar Iraq, to an autonomous Kurdish territory that Wolfowitz describes as the best example of a transition from a military occupation in 15 years. The establishment of Kurdistan was overseen by U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, the man now in charge of creating an interim government in post-Hussein Iraq. Garner and his team established the Kurdish enclave in six months after the Gulf War, backed by less than one division of U.S. Army light infantry.
Wolfowitz insists that his vision of a postwar Iraq, a postwar Middle East and his world view have been widely misunderstood by critics who cast him as one of the administration's leading hawks.
"The problems in Iraq are huge, and I'm sometimes perceived as being this wild-eyed optimist. It's only in comparison to people who say it's a hopeless basket case and nothing good could ever happen," Wolfowitz, 59, said over coffee at the Georgetown Four Seasons before the war.
*
Romania Cited
Outside, sign-toting protesters passed by the window after an antiwar rally that drew 10,000 to the National Mall. "I don't see why the Iraqis can't do as well as the Romanians have done. That's not wild-eyed optimism," Wolfowitz said.
Wolfowitz often cites Romania because it was a home-grown dictatorship under Nicolae Ceausescu. Unlike in Iraq, the Romanian dictator was overthrown by his own people. With its oil wealth and a comparatively well-educated citizenry, Iraq may offer more promise than Romania, he added.
Wolfowitz has consulted with the Czech foreign minister and others in "New Europe" on destroying the organs of party dictatorship -- what would be "de-Baathification" -- in Iraq.
Those nations, he said, know how to turn a Stalinist economy into a free-market system, how to destroy the apparatus of the state secret police, and how to decide what level of complicity in the preceding repressive regime should disqualify officials from serving in the new government. Americans with no experience in such matters, by contrast, "can get played for suckers sometimes," Wolfowitz said.
There is a symmetry to Wolfowitz looking to Eastern Europe for a model. His father, statistician Jacob Wolfowitz, fled Poland in 1920 at the age of 10 to escape anti-Semitism and repression, an experience that instilled in his son an abhorrence for "how horrible repressive regimes can be," said a close relative, who asked not to be named.
The makeup of the interim government remains an open question. A planeload of Iraqi exiles -- "free Iraqis" in Pentagon parlance -- has landed in Iraq, a group dominated by Shiite Muslims opposed to Hussein's Sunni regime. Leading the group is Ahmad Chalabi, head of the London-based Iraqi National Congress. Wolfowitz, who disputes the widely held view that he is one of Chalabi's staunchest supporters in the administration, said the controversial businessman will not be given the same presumptive leadership status U.S. officials accorded to Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan.
"Personally, I think that Chalabi is a talented guy who seems to share our objectives about Iraq, which is an important thing. But our objectives are democracy, which means you don't go around anointing the next leader of Iraq," Wolfowitz said. "The Afghan model does not apply in Iraq."
Critics note that rebuilding Iraq, with its ethnic, religious and tribal divisions, will be far more dangerous and complex than rebuilding the homogenous, industrialized German and Japanese nations that the U.S. defeated in World War II. Wolfowitz and his fellow postwar government planners agree that Iraq is not like Germany or Japan, but neither is it like Kosovo, a non-state; Afghanistan, a failed state; or East Timor, a new state.
"There's nothing that's happening now that wasn't known to us, because we had worked over these papers, and we killed a lot of trees discussing these," Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of State who has been both Wolfowitz's political ally and bureaucratic rival, said in an interview.
Administration officials describe Wolfowitz as an unusually influential deputy secretary. At a Camp David summit immediately after Sept. 11, Wolfowitz, in an informal conversation, was making the case for taking the war on terrorism to Iraq when President Bush overheard and chided Wolfowitz to speak up.
The president emerged from that Camp David retreat ordering up military options for Iraq, as suggested by Wolfowitz and others. Despite reports that Wolfowitz was isolated in his view, he and another official at the summit insist that the only disagreement was whether to strike Afghanistan or Iraq first.
"He gets a very good hearing because he speaks in such reasonable and informed tones," Armitage said.
As the war unfolded, Wolfowitz became a highly visible spokesman for the administration, assessing allied war gains. He generally joins Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in daily visits to Bush's Oval Office, and is in frequent phone contact with Garner. When Rumsfeld cannot preside over meetings of Pentagon brass in the conference room that bridges their offices, Wolfowitz takes his seat.
Colleagues and Pentagon officials describe Wolfowitz as an intellectual who offers the philosophical underpinnings for administration policy. A senior White House official described Wolfowitz's partnership with Rumsfeld as unprecedented in its division of power.
Rebutting critics of the war who have warned that it may trigger a new wave of terrorist attacks on Americans and destabilize the region, Wolfowitz has focused on what he calls the costs of not acting.
He argues that there is a direct line between the decade-long effort to contain Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon by Al Qaeda.
The effort to contain Hussein after the Gulf War left thousands of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Their presence, Wolfowitz said, is "one of Osama bin Laden's principal recruiting devices." Bin Laden's 1998 fatwa, or religious decree, calling for the killing of Americans, Wolfowitz notes, cites the presence of "crusader forces" -- U.S. troops -- in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia, and U.S. bombing runs on Iraq, as reasons for jihad -- or holy war -- against the United States.
"I don't think it's an extreme argument .... We're bombing an Arab country on a weekly basis. We're accused of killing Iraqi children with the sanctions. And we have troops occupying the holiest land of the Muslim world," Wolfowitz said. Without Hussein, "none of that would be necessary."
If Iraq cannot stand as a beacon for a new wave of Arab democracies, it can pose a lesson to other nations, such as neighboring Syria, which Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have accused of smuggling military equipment to Iraq, as well as Iran and North Korea.
"I would like Iraq to be a model of success," he said. Hussein "can also be a wonderful model of failure. If Saddam pays the price he deserves to for his behavior, believe me, it will have an effect throughout the world. The fall of the Taliban had an effect you could almost measure" in other countries.
*
Nuance on Israel
Although he is seen as a pro-Israel hawk, Wolfowitz insists that his position is more nuanced because he has supported Israel relinquishing some Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In his youth, he stood in the crowd on the National Mall when the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "I have a dream" speech. Later, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's historic overture to Israel inspired Wolfowitz to spend three years studying Arabic language tapes during his daily commute to the Pentagon. He wanted to understand Sadat's speech in its original language.
Iraq, Wolfowitz said, , was not redeemable by peaceful means. As with Hitler in World War II, Hussein could not be contained for long, he said, and the options were running out.
In North Korea, by contrast, Wolfowitz envisions economic pressure to choke the regime's ability to cash in on its missiles and other weaponry. In Iran, where a newly elected reformist government has not been seated, he sees the United States exerting political pressure.
"I think with Iraq, we have clear military options," he said a few days before the war began. "We don't have economic ones because the country floats on a sea of oil. And we don't have real political ones because the repression is so absolute."
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
melon said:
I dunno. That's kind of turning me on.
martha said:
I dunno. That's kind of turning me on.
LOL...I guess the problem is that the union people are just fat and lazy looking. And the hippies? They don't seem to make any sense to me anymore.
But a few years back, I probably would not be bothered by such things. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that I feel like I cannot identify with these people anymore. I have a hard time feeling sorry for lazy people and people whining about not having enough opportunities, particularly as someone who grew up just as poor and I have the student loan debt to prove it.
But perhaps this is also me moving on to my post-ideological phase. Republicans still irritate me to death, mostly because I think their promises are empty. Fiscal responsibility is not giving away all your money in tax cuts while spending lots of money on military toys...all during a recession.
I guess I'm just tired of the same old fanaticism.
Melon
BAW
The Flower
melon said:
I hear you on that melon...I spent all day Friday in Berkeley. Enough said.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Mebbe I misread swarthy for slothy. 
And Char, Berkeley used to have great record stores. Does it still?
And Char, Berkeley used to have great record stores. Does it still?
BAW
The Flower
martha said:Mebbe I misread swarthy for slothy.
And Char, Berkeley used to have great record stores. Does it still?
The only good one I know of is the original Amoeba Records but I don't know if any of the other ones are still there. I always use public transportation when I go so I only explore as far as I can walk...usually to the art supply stores and the philly cheese steak place
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
ok i read it.
bush =hitler and blah blah.
no sale.
db9
bush =hitler and blah blah.
no sale.
db9
Firstly, thanks for posting the article. I plan on emailing it to several people.
Secondly, I'm happy to see this topic is being discussed outside of liberal university history classes. I say "liberal", because when I took a course in 20th Century European History at my local university last summer our professor refused to draw any comparisons between Hitler's Germany and the current state of the U.S.A. That isn't to say I'm surprised that a public university would have the gaul to approach a subject in such terms, but to blatantly ignore the connections is deceptive and a shame.
Would you believe that when I ask the professor, in front of over 70 other students, if she believed the theory that Hitler used the U.S. genocide of the Native Americans as a blueprint for his much more publicized extermination of the Jews, she literally laughed at me and quickly moved on to other matters?
What kind of education system I'm I paying for?
At least acknowledge the idea....which happens to be proven true in Hitler's published diaries, "The Secret Hitler Diaries" is what I believe it's called. Turns out I was right, hahahahaha. Perhaps, sharing history with others via the internet is the better and CHEAPER option for learning.
Secondly, I'm happy to see this topic is being discussed outside of liberal university history classes. I say "liberal", because when I took a course in 20th Century European History at my local university last summer our professor refused to draw any comparisons between Hitler's Germany and the current state of the U.S.A. That isn't to say I'm surprised that a public university would have the gaul to approach a subject in such terms, but to blatantly ignore the connections is deceptive and a shame.
Would you believe that when I ask the professor, in front of over 70 other students, if she believed the theory that Hitler used the U.S. genocide of the Native Americans as a blueprint for his much more publicized extermination of the Jews, she literally laughed at me and quickly moved on to other matters?
What kind of education system I'm I paying for?
At least acknowledge the idea....which happens to be proven true in Hitler's published diaries, "The Secret Hitler Diaries" is what I believe it's called. Turns out I was right, hahahahaha. Perhaps, sharing history with others via the internet is the better and CHEAPER option for learning.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Danospano said:
Wait a minute. You took a class where you had a problem, and you feel free to include all "university history classes" in your indictment? Slow down. And why would a "liberal" be pissed about you bringing up Native American issues? We love to bring up the screwing Indians have gotten at the hands of the European Americans!
I look forward to hearing your explanation when I get back from Arizona.
Martha, I don't know what the hell I was thinking when I wrote "liberal". I meant to say...."spineless", but the word liberal just kinda....came out. LOL
In all seriousness, it was a bad choice of a word. I also realize that not all professors are as dumb and condesending as that woman who "taught" me about their history, but I know there are more like her in the system and they are doing a disservice to us all.
Cheers, have fun in Arizona.
In all seriousness, it was a bad choice of a word. I also realize that not all professors are as dumb and condesending as that woman who "taught" me about their history, but I know there are more like her in the system and they are doing a disservice to us all.
Cheers, have fun in Arizona.
freeyourmind
The Fly
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2003
- Messages
- 114
most of you might know that the Austrian people voted before they were annexed to Germany. I just wanted to show you the ballot paper I think it says a lot...
OP
OP
Mrs. Edge
Bono's Belly Dancing Friend
diamond said:ok i read it.
bush =hitler and blah blah.
no sale.
db9
You call THIS an eloquent response??
First of all, the article is not saying that Bush is a carbon copy of Hitler. It's about way more than that....but whatever....
Rono
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
melon said:I've become far less liberal since I've lived in Massachusetts. I think the sight of slothy union workers and radical neo-hippie Cambridge people has kind of turned me off...
Melon
Ehmmmm, i am a Union member and i want to know what slothy is.
Btw, Unions where forbidden in Nazi Germany.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
freeyourmind said:
most of you might know that the Austrian people voted before they were annexed to Germany. I just wanted to show you the ballot paper I think it says a lot...
early version of the Florida butterfly ballot
Electric Blue
Babyface
Hitler also took the 1915 (forgotten) genocide of 1 million Armenians by the Turks - when they thought Armenia was going to side with Russia, one of the Allies in WWI - as an example to justify his own holocaust: "Who now remembers the extermination of the Armenians...?" Turkey still denies the Armenian genocide, and that's one of the reasons why its entry into the EU has been postponed indefinitely.Danospano said:
Great article, Mrs Edge. That thing about German celebs being denounced because of their anti-Hitler stance is sadly very recognizable. Reminds me of another "incident" last week, when an event to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the baseball film Bull Durham was cancelled because of Tim Robbin's anti-war stance. Further explanation: (quote) "As an institution, we stand behind our President and our troops in this conflict. We believe your very public criticism of President Bush at this important -- and sensitive -- time in our nation's history helps undermine the U.S. position, which ultimately could put our troops in more danger" (end quote)
But I got to say, the organizer of the event was a former aide to Ronald Reagan. 'Nuff said.
Giant Lemon
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Thanks for posting that article, Mrs. Edge! I'm definitely going to pass it on to others. It was extremely thought provoking and almost scary. I know a lot of people who complain about having to learn history, but it's in situations like these that I think it's very important.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
he doesnt look like a monster to me..
73% approval rating..
61% among Democrats, are the Democrats being fooled here
? DB9
Last edited:
diamond, please stop it. That 61% of Democrats refers to war support. When it comes to economy support, it jumps down substantially, and, when polled as to whether these Democrats would vote for Bush in 2004, it also drops substantially.
Ormus
Ormus
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Ormus said:
No Mr Ormus, you are mistaken.
80% approve of the Liberation of Iraq.
73%= Job Approval rating as President all Americans
61%= Job approval rating among Democrats
Sour Grapes?
Please Read-
MULTIMEDIA
Interactive Feature: New York Times/CBS News Poll
Americans See Clear Victory in Iraq, Poll Finds
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER
Americans overwhelmingly consider the war in Iraq a success, and a majority say the victory will stand even if Saddam Hussein remains at large or if the United States fails to unearth chemical or nuclear weapons, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
But a majority remains opposed to a policy of pre-emptive attack like the one President Bush invoked in invading Iraq, and see the White House, emboldened by its success, as now likely to turn the nation's military might on North Korea, Syria or Iran.
At home, the fall of Baghdad has fortified President Bush's political standing. The poll found that 73 percent of Americans approve of his job performance ? up from 59 percent the week before the war ? and that his approval rating among Democrats was 61 percent. .
The poll, taken over the weekend, found that for the first time since 2001, a majority of Americans, 62 percent, believe that the nation is winning the war on terrorism. And there has been a sharp drop in the number of people who fear terrorist reprisal attacks in the United States because of the invasion in Iraq. The poll found that 79 percent of respondents approve of Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq, the most support Mr. Bush has received on his Iraq policy.
From a political perspective, the Times/CBS News poll pointed to a number of signs, on both the domestic and foreign policy front, of the difficulties the Democratic Party faces as it tries to win the White House and Congress next year.
The nation has rallied around its president and is confident about the state of the country, a not-uncommon occurrence at a time of war. But beyond Mr. Bush's approval rating, a figure that typically gyrates with changing times, the number of Americans who believe the country is heading in the right direction has jumped nearly 20 percentage points since February, to 56 percent. That measure is closely watched by pollsters as a reliable indicator of the re-election prospects of an incumbent.
The Times/CBS News poll found evidence that the Democrats are not in as strong a position as they presumably would like on the issue that they believe could return them to power ? the economy. Americans are exactly divided, 42 percent to 42 percent, on which party would do a better job in managing the economy.
And there has been a jump of 7 percentage points since January, to 54 percent, in the number of Americans who said they had confidence in Mr. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the economy. That sentiment was voiced even as respondents expressed concern about the decline of the economy under Mr. Bush, and even though just 46 percent said they approved of his handling of the economy.
The improving view of Mr. Bush on the economy appears to be a dividend of the overall jump in Americans' perception of Mr. Bush during the war. Mr. Bush's political advisers have argued that any voter concerns about the economy would ultimately be outweighed by a perception that Mr. Bush is a strong and grounded president, created by his handling of the war in Iraq.
Mr. Bush's father, at a similar point after the previous war in Iraq, also enjoyed relatively favorable marks for his management of the economy. That perception, along with his own approval rating ? which was even higher than the figure enjoyed today by his son ? swiftly deteriorated as images of the war were supplanted by concerns about a troubled economy.
The Times/CBS News telephone poll was conducted Friday through Sunday, and involved 898 adults. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Several Democrats have suggested that Mr. Bush's standing would begin to erode if American troops were stranded in Iraq, or if the United States failed to find or kill Mr. Hussein, or find the weapons of mass destruction that Mr. Bush said was the rationale for his invasion.
thank you
diamond
let me reiterate-
-At home, the fall of Baghdad has fortified President Bush's political standing. The poll found that 73 percent of Americans approve of his job performance ? up from 59 percent the week before the war ? and that his approval rating among Democrats was 61 percent. .
Last edited:
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
I dont see GW making the same mistake as his Pappy
OP
OP
Mrs. Edge
Bono's Belly Dancing Friend
Correct me if I'm wrong....but this thread is NOT about GW's approval ratings and the war!
The war is only a tiny aspect of this topic.
I'm glad that some of you thought it was interesting and thought provoking.
GW's approval ratings and the war! The war is only a tiny aspect of this topic.
I'm glad that some of you thought it was interesting and thought provoking.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
First of all polls don't mean shit to me. Polls can be created to say whatever you want them to say. Second, we live in a society of immediate gratification, and we just saw the regime removed. Of course the majority of the people are in approval. Seeing the collapse of the regime is a great thing, this is no brainer, this is something both sides of the issue can agree on. The economy makes a little spike when news like this hits, it's a good thing for a lot of people.
But the question is how is it going to affect the future? Things look somewhat rosy right now. But where will our personal rights be in 5 years? Who will we attack next? How many relationships with foreign countries have we severed and how will our relationship to foreign countries be in the next decade? There are so many questions. Bush has fooled a lot of people to give him powers and make moves that he shouldn't have any right to do. This is where the parallels get scary. And I can guarantee you that when disscusions came up like this back then the ones that didn't really look at the situation with an unbiased and sightful way, called it "poppycock" as well.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
nonsense
Klaus
Refugee
Back to the original Subject:
I guess History is dammed to repeat itself as long as we are not willing to learn from previous mistakes.
Klaus
I guess History is dammed to repeat itself as long as we are not willing to learn from previous mistakes.
Klaus
Similar threads
