Watching History Channel on the last days of the NAZIs...

TIDE-HSV · May 19, 2015

dvldog said:
Which is one reason the whole Japan/Germany thing worked well. Their populace had a mindset of getting on w/becoming a part of the modern world again; not so much w/ISIS. Plus, apparently they are not starving or lacking for infrastructure.

Theyare indeed lacking for infrastructure. All the people who can run a country have fled. Their lack of trained engineers, administrators, etc. will eventually tell...

92tide · May 19, 2015

TIDE-HSV said:
OTOH, Stalin himself was not an ethnic Russian. He was Georgian...

i have a stalin refrigerator magnet that i picked up in tbilisi on my visit in 2013. they are pretty proud of him there and there are a lot of stalin tchotchkes

Tidewater · May 19, 2015

TIDE-HSV said:
OTOH, Stalin himself was not an ethnic Russian. He was Georgian...

And a particularly nasty one at that.

mittman · May 19, 2015

NationalTitles15 said:
We also provided (and still provide 70 years later) protection to both Germany and Japan. We have not done this for Iraq or Afghanistan. The Iraqi people would be better off under Saddam Hussein than what much of the country has now. Invasion may have been a mistake, but an even bigger mistake was leaving a power vacuum.

A lot of people tend to overlook that fact when bloviating about whether or not we SHOULD have. Yes the same could be said about Vietnam.

So as I see it we have three choices when we feel threatened:

1. Spend the time and money needed to do what we have done in Gernamy and Japan.
2. Blow them to smithereens. If they build back up and become a threat again, blow them to back to smithereens.
3. Make a big long wall like we did in Korea and spend the time and money to guard it from then on.

None of them good. I am grateful my Grandparent's generation had more patience than we have. It was needed.

mittman · May 19, 2015

Tidewater said:
And a particularly nasty one at that.

I remember having a discussion about that with a friend of my Grandfather. He said that a lot of people in the know were relieved when Stalin came to power after what they saw with Lenin, and that there was a lot of wishful thinking without trying to determine who he really was. I think history bears that out.

TIDE-HSV · May 19, 2015

mittman said:
A lot of people tend to overlook that fact when bloviating about whether or not we SHOULD have. Yes the same could be said about Vietnam.

So as I see it we have three choices when we feel threatened:

1. Spend the time and money needed to do what we have done in Gernamy and Japan.
2. Blow them to smithereens. If they build back up and become a threat again, blow them to back to smithereens.
3. Make a big long wall like we did in Korea and spend the time and money to guard it from then on.

None of them good. I am grateful my Grandparent's generation had more patience than we have. It was needed.

None of them would work now in this situation. 1) We had stable governments of our fostering which could use the money. Which government in the Middle East would you give money to now? 2) It doesn't work. It wouldn't have even worked in WWII, unless you're seriously proposing nukes. 3) Walls don't work in the desert the way they will on rocky peninsulas.

dvldog · May 19, 2015

TIDE-HSV said:
Theyare indeed lacking for infrastructure. All the people who can run a country have fled. Their lack of trained engineers, administrators, etc. will eventually tell...

Eventually being the key. Maybe they just hold out until they reach a deal with Iran? We need to pick up the pace re killing these guys. Nice to take down a leader. Now and then but really it's just next guy up.

NationalTitles18 · May 19, 2015

Tidewater said:
I think one could argue that German economic recovery was due in no small measure to the American-led debt restructuring under the Dawes Plan (1924) and the Young Plan (1930) which reduced and shortened the Versailles reparations payments, whatever regime was in charge in the early 1930s was going to ride a wave of German economic recovery.

As for nationalism, the Soviets talked a good game about downplaying nationality (because Marx had said they should emphasize class instead of nationality), but in actuality Stalin in particular, who had been the People's Commissar for Nationalities, was adept and ruthless in exploiting nationality by moving undesirables out of desirable land (e.g. Tatars from Crimea, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians from the Baltic States), moving the right kind of people in (i.e. Russians into the Baltic States and Moldavia) and especially, making sure nobody ever, under any circumstances exercised the Soviet constitutional power of secession. Like most things related to the communists, nationality policy was a lie.

I don't disagree at all. I think that actually strengthens my argument. Even the staunch world communists weren't true to their ideals in implementing rule. Marx even anticipated such actions as "necessary" to the cause. Germany handled the transition to socialist rule differently than the soviets, but they were 2 sides of the same coin nonetheless, or at least very similar coins.

TIDE-HSV · May 20, 2015

dvldog said:
Eventually being the key. Maybe they just hold out until they reach a deal with Iran? We need to pick up the pace re killing these guys. Nice to take down a leader. Now and then but really it's just next guy up.

As a tenet of their faith, they are sworn to kill all Shia, who are the same status as infidels and dogs, in their view. No deal, ever, with Iran for them...

mittman · May 20, 2015

TIDE-HSV said:
None of them would work now in this situation. 1) We had stable governments of our fostering which could use the money. Which government in the Middle East would you give money to now? 2) It doesn't work. It wouldn't have even worked in WWII, unless you're seriously proposing nukes. 3) Walls don't work in the desert the way they will on rocky peninsulas.

1) No one is willing to keep it up, and the dilemma you posed as to who is a real one. IMO those that want to be our friends get our help. Sometimes those are difficult to find and choices between the better of two evils.
2) I agree, and no I am not in support of going nuclear. The fact that we had a WWII in Europe and we had a Marshall plan proved that lesson was learned back then.
3) That is why I still hold to the opinion (an increasingly very lonely one) that it was the right thing to go on in. Drawing the line at Kuwait was not going to cut it. Sanctions (as they usually do) were breaking down, and the "no fly zones" over the north and south were not effective, and pretty expensive themselves. Trying to isolating someone is even more difficult now than it was 50 years ago.

I still can't think of a 4th option.

Tidewater · May 20, 2015

mittman said:
1) No one is willing to keep it up, and the dilemma you posed as to who is a real one. IMO those that want to be our friends get our help. Sometimes those are difficult to find and choices between the better of two evils.
2) I agree, and no I am not in support of going nuclear. The fact that we had a WWII in Europe and we had a Marshall plan proved that lesson was learned back then.
3) That is why I still hold to the opinion (an increasingly very lonely one) that it was the right thing to go on in. Drawing the line at Kuwait was not going to cut it. Sanctions (as they usually do) were breaking down, and the "no fly zones" over the north and south were not effective, and pretty expensive themselves. Trying to isolating someone is even more difficult now than it was 50 years ago.

I still can't think of a 4th option.

I do not always agree with Ralph Peters (I believe he thinks rather too much of himself and is the president of the Ralph Peters Fan Club). Sometime he is correct and he is frequently skeptical of party lines in DC. I thought his piece, "Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States" was spot on.
In this piece, "The Shah Always Falls," Peters finds fault with the American tradition of supporting some people in power who are, shall we say, less than nice to the people they rule. He advocates not supporting regime change in most circumstances. Enough time has passed to evaluate Peters policy recommendation. Withdrawing support from (or actively supporting the overthrow of) dictators in Iraq has not turned out so well for the people of that country (or the US). Ditto Libya. Ditto Syria.
This leads to question whether Saddam, Qaddafi and Assad are a cause or an effect. I would argue that some cultures are simply not ready for a western liberal democracy and in many of those societies, a strong man is what works to maintain order. Saddam did not cause Iraq to be a society wracked with internecine violence. He was an effect of such a society. He brought order (after a fashion) to the chaos.
Maybe US policy should not be to support the overthrow of bad strongmen, but to try to have little to do with them, or, when we must, to encourage them to be less oppressive. Uncritically “overthrowing the shah” may not be in the best interests of the US or the people of his country.

mittman · May 20, 2015

Tidewater said:
I do not always agree with Ralph Peters (I believe he thinks rather too much of himself and is the president of the Ralph Peters Fan Club). Sometime he is correct and he is frequently skeptical of party lines in DC. I thought his piece, "Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States" was spot on.
In this piece, "The Shah Always Falls," Peters finds fault with the American tradition of supporting some people in power who are, shall we say, less than nice to the people they rule. He advocates not supporting regime change in most circumstances. Enough time has passed to evaluate Peters policy recommendation. Withdrawing support from (or actively supporting the overthrow of) dictators in Iraq has not turned out so well for the people of that country (or the US). Ditto Libya. Ditto Syria.
This leads to question whether Saddam, Qaddafi and Assad are a cause or an effect. I would argue that some cultures are simply not ready for a western liberal democracy and in many of those societies, a strong man is what works to maintain order. Saddam did not cause Iraq to be a society wracked with internecine violence. He was an effect of such a society. He brought order (after a fashion) to the chaos.
Maybe US policy should not be to support the overthrow of bad strongmen, but to try to have little to do with them, or, when we must, to encourage them to be less oppressive. Uncritically “overthrowing the shah” may not be in the best interests of the US or the people of his country.

I will have to read that when I can concentrate. He is not one I can quick read or skim and get anything out of it.

From first blush though he is arguing from a different set of "parameters". Failed state or bad guy leader is not always the same as a threatening one. I think he is approaching from a humanitarian, or "world police" perspective. What I was trying to address was when we feel threatened and feel we have no choice but to do something. We tried to not go into both Germany in WWII and Iraq after Kuwait, but the threat continued. (Whether one believes they were mislead about that threat is another argument, but most everyone agreed at the time that Sadaam Hussein was threatening.)

I guess I am just disappointed in my generation's lack of perseverance, and grateful from the past one and their determination.

Tidewater · May 20, 2015

mittman said:
I will have to read that when I can concentrate. He is not one I can quick read or skim and get anything out of it.

From first blush though he is arguing from a different set of "parameters". Failed state or bad guy leader is not always the same as a threatening one. I think he is approaching from a humanitarian, or "world police" perspective. What I was trying to address was when we feel threatened and feel we have no choice but to do something. We tried to not go into both Germany in WWII and Iraq after Kuwait, but the threat continued. (Whether one believes they were mislead about that threat is another argument, but most everyone agreed at the time that Sadaam Hussein was threatening.)

I guess I am just disappointed in my generation's lack of perseverance, and grateful from the past one and their determination.

Both Peters articles are worth a read.
In "The Shah Always Falls," he was arguing that the knee-jerk American foreign policy preference for supporting the guy in power serves us poorly once that guy falls (which, according to Peters he always does eventually). If he was a bad guy that we supported, we get blamed for his misdeeds. I counter with the argument above. Supporting toppling bad guy would not necessarily be good for the US (or the people in the country in question)

You are correct that the people of this country possess not as much patience as our grandparents.

TIDE-HSV · May 20, 2015

Tidewater said:
I do not always agree with Ralph Peters (I believe he thinks rather too much of himself and is the president of the Ralph Peters Fan Club). Sometime he is correct and he is frequently skeptical of party lines in DC. I thought his piece, "Spotting the Losers: Seven Signs of Non-Competitive States" was spot on.
In this piece, "The Shah Always Falls," Peters finds fault with the American tradition of supporting some people in power who are, shall we say, less than nice to the people they rule. He advocates not supporting regime change in most circumstances. Enough time has passed to evaluate Peters policy recommendation. Withdrawing support from (or actively supporting the overthrow of) dictators in Iraq has not turned out so well for the people of that country (or the US). Ditto Libya. Ditto Syria.
This leads to question whether Saddam, Qaddafi and Assad are a cause or an effect. I would argue that some cultures are simply not ready for a western liberal democracy and in many of those societies, a strong man is what works to maintain order. Saddam did not cause Iraq to be a society wracked with internecine violence. He was an effect of such a society. He brought order (after a fashion) to the chaos.
Maybe US policy should not be to support the overthrow of bad strongmen, but to try to have little to do with them, or, when we must, to encourage them to be less oppressive. Uncritically “overthrowing the shah” may not be in the best interests of the US or the people of his country.

I agree in the main. However, we've been rather schizoid, except maybe for Jimmy Carter, about how we treat strong men, supporting some and undercutting others. Your "hands-off" approach may be the most pragmatic course. I also agree that some countries are not ready and may never be ready for democracy. Probably only the most secular of Islamic countries could make it work...

crimsonaudio · May 20, 2015

Our grandparents were adept at staying out of other people's business - that was the key difference. Well, until they were attacked and won WWII, then they couldn't NOT be involved - they had this superb military, so why not use it?

That set the ball rolling on a foreign policy we've used for decades, and it's the very definition of insanity.

Tide1986 · May 20, 2015

Tidewater said:
The Russians allowed communists to abuse them for seventy years.

Serfdom is in their blood.

mittman · May 20, 2015

Tidewater said:
Both Peters articles are worth a read.
In "The Shah Always Falls," he was arguing that the knee-jerk American foreign policy preference for supporting the guy in power serves us poorly once that guy falls (which, according to Peters he always does eventually). If he was a bad guy that we supported, we get blamed for his misdeeds. I counter with the argument above. Supporting toppling bad guy would not necessarily be good for the US (or the people in the country in question)

You are correct that the people of this country possess not as much patience as our grandparents.

I guess that is the 4th option. Trying to support the guy in power to make either make friends or keep a void from being formed does not have a history of success either. Those who are now arguing the point from the power vacuum and what is happening in Iraq are forgetting what happened when we tried the opposite in Iran.

I've said this before. I tend to give a lot more leeway to my leaders in these matters knowing that there are no easy (or even correct) choices. The only thing that sticks right in my craw is when we say we are going to do something and do not, whether it is a commitment or drawing a line.

Tidewater · May 20, 2015

Tide1986 said:
Serfdom is in their blood.

Not sure about the blood, but it is certainly in their culture to accept a strong man in power (the Russian word is vozhd or "boss" in the Mafia sense of the word.)

TIDE-HSV · May 20, 2015

Tidewater said:
Not sure about the blood, but it is certainly in their culture to accept a strong man in power (the Russian word is vozhd or "boss" in the Mafia sense of the word.)

That terminology is interesting. The other day, I heard a Russian author being interviewed on radio and the gang analogy was exactly what he used. He said the entire country was run as if the Mafia were in control...

Watching History Channel on the last days of the NAZIs...

Senior Administrator

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

All-American

All-American

Senior Administrator

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Senior Administrator

All-American

Hall of Fame

All-American

Hall of Fame

Senior Administrator

Administrator

Suspended

All-American

Hall of Fame

Senior Administrator

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!