Big Thread O' Iraq (with bonus Iran!)

[notasfatasmike]

Originally Posted by Tydeus

Well, again, I was using "break" in a specialized way, which I think I went to some trouble to define, but I will explain how that pertains to the colonial rape of Africa, and how such abuse was not in fact a true iteration of destruction/creation.

First of all, the goals of the Romans, and at least our (America's) publicly-stated goals in Iraq are very similar -- make them like us.

Firstly, what reason do we have to believe that the United States' stated goal is their true goal? I've never been one to jump on the "Blood for Oil" bandwagon (and actually, that phrase bugs the hell out of me, but it makes it clear what's being referred to in this case), you have to admit that it is...convenient that of all of the overly oppressive, non-democratic countries in the world we decide to "free", the one picked just happens to be in an area extremely rich in a resource that the United States desperately needs. I'm not going to make an absolute statements, but I am skeptical about the aforementioned stated goals.

Originally Posted by Tydeus

Don't rape their country for resources and slaves, or treat them like cattle, but rather enlighten them, bring them out of their religious and ethnic divisions, and replace their old value sets with new ones, specifically, ours.

What gives the United States the right to replace their value set with ours? While I, as someone from the United States, may view our culture as superior, who am I to say that someone else should adopt my culture under duress? I don't buy the "Might makes Right" justification, and if terrible things like genocide and genital mutilation (which you mentioned later in your post, just so you know why I reference them) are engrained in a culture, how is invading a country going to change the general opinion that it is OK? I'm not saying we should condone either of those things, but making them stop is not as simple as "Go over there and blow up a whole bunch of stuff, and they'll realize it's wrong."

Originally Posted by Tydeus

This is what the Romans did to Gaul. See, the Romans conquered only in part for plunder -- just as big a motivator, if not a far greater one (considering how the Gauls had previously sacked Rome, a couple centuries prior to Caesar) was safety. They were afraid of the Gauls, reasonably or not. They wanted safer borders, and they wanted to permanently eliminate a hostile nation.

This is a key difference between the two situations - Iraq posed no direct threat to the United States. The Bush Administration's claim of WMDs has, at this point, proven itself to be false. They certainly didn't have the capability to launch an offensive against the U.S. I understand a war of self-defense, but without major spin, I see no way to construe the war in Iraq through that lens, especially considering that there are many other countries who have declared deliberate intent to harm the United States who have a much greater likelihood of doing so (see North Korea).

Originally Posted by Tydeus

How do can you ever possibly do that? Make them your own. If you can beat them, make them join you. Rome invested a tremendous amount of blood and gold in Gaul, without any immediate net monetary return, and the people of Gaul benefited accordingly. They were given running water, sewers, roads, peace, stability, etc. (I already listed all this in my last post, I think). The Romans invested money and human life to improve the quality of life for the Gauls, and, by way of more Roman citizens (and therefore more soldiers), safer borders, and a greater tax pool, it improved the Roman quality of life as well, but only in the long run. Romans didn't see any benefits really for at least a good 30 years. It really took about 50 before Gaul became totally Romanized.

Yes, but the plan (stated or otherwise) has never been to make Iraq a direct part of the U.S. A puppet regime? Maybe. But that's not the same thing. Also, the improvements to the Iraqi infrastructure are not as great as those the Romans provided to Gaul, and they are also being made at a great cost to the U.S., with no possiblity of the return that the Romans saw (we will not gain Iraqi soldiers, safer borders, or an increased tax pool from it), and they are being made at a much higher cost, considering the frequency of no-bid contracts and the like.

Originally Posted by Tydeus

Also, whereas Romans were settling like crazy in Gaul, most African countries didn't get settled by Europeans. South Africa is pretty much the only exception, but even in that case, the emigrating whites were coming to South Africa to become a permanent oppressor class, whereas Romans who settled in Gaul were generally more salt-of-the-earth kind of people. Ex-soldiers, mostly, living off of their pensions on beautiful, fertile farmland in what today is Provence. Not a bad deal, actually. Anyway, the Romans brought their culture, their gods, their politics with them, and tried to bring Gauls into the fold, tried to make the Gauls equals. It was completely and utterly different from European colonialism. It would be more analagous to France or Britain going to Africa and conquering what little military resistance cropped up, and then saying: "OK, so, we're going to modernize the crap out of your ass-backwards country [I'm not saying they were ass-backwards, but I'm trying to replicate the somewhat arrogant attitude of the Romans], until you people are educated enough, and invested enough in our culture to be our fellow citizens, with all the rights and freedoms and priviliges and comforts that that status entails. You know, like, indoor plumbing, and no more microscopic worm larvae in your water that grow to three feet or longer in your body before popping out of festering sores."

I repeat my question from above: what right would France or Britain have had to do that?

Originally Posted by Tydeus

But, that's not what the Europeans did. If you'll remember, my definition of "breaking" required that something be created afterwards. The problem with the European atrocities of colonialism is that they never created anything. They just ignored all the rules of the societies they conquered. Ignored, because they never set up any new rules to take the place of those they ignored. Yes, they had laws, and yes, people got punished for ignoring laws and rules that the Europeans instituted, but I mean at a deeper, cultural level, Europeans did not create. They merely corrupted, cheated, starved, and left the cultures they conquered to twist in the wind. Rome conquered African nations, too. Only, when they did it, they made them Romans. The result was prosperity and stability. Do you see the distinction I'm trying to make here?

I see the distinction you're trying to make, but I'm not entirely sure I agree with it. Look at the example of the British in India: they did everything in their power to make their culture a part of Indian culture, and it didn't work. You're assuming because it worked in the case of Gaul and the Romans, it works in every case - but this is a distinct case where it didn't.

Originally Posted by Tydeus

It's not some quirk of the modern world that conquest must always turn out this way -- it's just a matter of the conquerors' goals. Do you want to rape a people and their land for plunder, and nothing else? Well, then it's not going to turn out well for either of you in the long run.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Tydeus

Do you want to change their very way of life, bring them a new, more enlightened, more powerful, more progessive culture that, say, doesn't endorse genocide or genital mutilation (well, the Romans didn't endorse genocide anyway. We're kind of more lax about it than they were. Honestly, the Romans were, in some ways (not all! obviously not all!), far more humane than modern nations today. They didn't stand for that kind of bullshit.)? Well, then things will turn out well for both of you, in the long run.

Reference (for the 3rd time...I sound like a damn broken record) my question posed early on: who are we to say all aspects of our culture is better, and how does going over there and conquering them discourage them from performing things that we as Westerners view as terrible?

Originally Posted by Tydeus

This I addressed above, also. Basically, yeah, that's the way it turned out, but that's becuase of the motives for conquest. Europe's were heinous, and self-serving. Rome's were self-serving, but served all of humanity at the same time; after all, Rome's goal was to become synonymous with "humanity." That, to me, is a great goal.

But the problem as I see it, again, is that you're assuming a unanimous view of what constitutes "humanity". For a practical example: I view the death penalty as inhumane. (Let's not debate that here; the actual issue is irrelevant to my point.) Others do not. Who's view of humanity is "correct"? I will obviously maintain that mine is, while others will maintain that theirs is correct.

To summarize:
I maintain that it is impossible to change people's worldview and beliefs by force, which is essentially what you are advocating, Tydeus. Is it unfortunate that there are places in the world that view violence as an acceptable solution for the smallest of problems? Absolutely. Can we change it through force? I highly doubt it. It seems antithetical to the goal: "Stop killing or we'll kill you!" True societal change, or true revolution, if you will, has to come from within a group itself; it cannot be forced on people.