America misses benchmarks, partitioned by England, France

By rjd27 Posted in Comments (25) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

How long did it take the United States to form a government – one that worked and was lasting? 6 years, one rebellion (Shay’s). Even with a Constitution and a President, the American people still had to learn what it meant to be a Democracy. Hell, the rest of the world had to learn what it meant as well. Only two years after George Washington was sworn in, he led the militia to put down the “Whiskey Rebellion” in Pennsylvania. Would the U.S. be around now, if it had had to meet benchmarks set by France or England?
If one considers the “Burning of Washington D.C.” in 1814, or the violence leading up to 1860 and the Civil War, is it any wonder America remains today?
How long does it take to create, build and stabilize a government, one that is meant to function as a Democracy? How long does it take to build a nation that was so rotten from within, because its former leaders cared not for the people, but about power?
In September, General Petraeus will submit his status report on the counterinsurgency strategy, a.k.a. the Surge. Who in Congress will listen? I think most minds are made up, and this is unfortunate.
The war being fought in Iraq is not lost. The war for Iraq being fought in Washington D.C. is all but lost. This may finally be America’s ending.
R.J.

The United States was a collection of democracies already. Heck, England was a constitutional monarchy at the time of the revolution. The nation-building here related to working together, and I'd regard it as a fairly peaceful process, if not as orderly as an idealist might wish. (The Civil War was over fractures that developed later, IMO.)

Planting democracy in Iraq is likely to be a little more difficult. If you feel like nursemaiding it from the equivalent of pre-1776 through 1865, go right ahead - but do it yourself. Don't expect the Marines and taxpayers to do your charity work.

BTW, can we have a moratorium on hyperbole like, "This may finally be America's ending"? I assure you it isn't helping convince anyome who isn't already convinced. If you really believe it to be true, justifying that claim would be far more useful than any other essay you could write.

many years to adopt a proper constitution.

and those years should really be counted from the outbreak of the war in 1775.

so you have war from 1775 to 1781, and then 8 years of political weakness, and then, finally, in 1789, the adoption of the constitution.

and then we still might not have made it far without gen. washington as president for two terms.

given the time and trouble it took us, we might expect other nations without our felicitous beginnings to take a bit longer and suffer a bit more trouble.

Join the Win the War campaign, joshlevy@yahoo.com, www.win-the-war.com.
Our leaders waver, but we can give them the courage they need.

I'd want to defeat them. As our national anthem says:

"And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

In other words, we'd kill every foreign soldier to step on our soil and chase them back to their homeland and kill them there too. Is that blunt and blood thristy enough for you?

Now let's put this into a more realistic analogy. Let's suppose you lived in a country which had a tyranical dictator who ran the place and slaughtered millions. A foreign army invaded for reasons of their own national interest and defeated the armies of said tyrant, killed said tyrant, set up an interim government that appeared to be democratic, and had a plan to turn the government back to the people with a democracy and a constitution that your own people wrote. Unfortunately, there was a remnant of the previous tyrant's followers (with the help of others and some governments playing their own games) who were set on sabotage and terror tactics and doing everything they could to prevent a stable replacement government from becoming established. The invaders seem to be limiting themselves to policing and fighting the insurgents and are not setting up colonies. Further the invading country's press corps seemed to pressure them to get out instead of wasting even more soldier's lives to protect their enemies which gave hope to the insurgents. If the said army withdrew, it was likely that you would either be killed or have your freedoms restricted to the point of near slavery.

Would YOU want them to withdraw?

P.S. I'm talking about a REAL event, not a hypothetical and it's NOT Iraq. Can you guess who it is?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

want them out, then of course I'd want them out. I wouldn't even wait for their own internal poll before I'm shooting at the Chinese.
poll
If the Chinese did what we did in Rikers Island (code for Abu Ghraib)", I'd be even madder.

By the way, you say you would kill every foreign soldier in America. Does that include the Chinese?

into rebuilding your infrastructure and industry so that you could also become economically better off than you were before the tyrant started the war.

Again, I'm talking REAL events, not that stupid hypothetical you're making up.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Interesting.
And I am talking about real events as well.
We are both hypothesizing on what would happen if these events repeated themselves in case of an invasion from China to us.
The US Department poll is a real event. Do you agree? Or did I dream it?
..and please answer my question: You said you would kill all foreign soldiers. Did that include the Chinese?

The invading coalition was the Allied Armies. = US led coalition in Iraq
The Tyranical Dictator was Hitler = Saddam
The remnants of the ditators army were the Werewolves = the Ba'athist
The "others" were various communist and anarchist groups = al queda and varous other muslim extremists
The papers at home callingm for withdrawal were the New York Times and Washington Post (no change there).
The people were sick of war but wanted our troops home.
The Germans wanted us out "but not yet" = Same answer from Iraqis.
The rebuilding plan was the Marshal Plan = various infrastructure projects in Iraq.

You are calling for us to withdraw no matter the consequences of that withdrawal and leave the slaughter and enslavement of millions to the whims of terrorists.

We will withdraw, but not yet.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

That wouldn't exactly help the Chinese invasion in terms of popularity.
And you forgot to note that the extremists (Al Qaeda)started attacking America after China (Iraq) invaded, not before.
-Your mention of Chinese newspapers (WAPO and NY Times) has no relevance in this issue; unless you want me to talk about all the Chinese who believe invading America was a mistake.

remember Judith Miller and Michael Gordon?
The newspaper was instrumental in making Bush's case to go to war.

He's already made up his mind, BrianH

Join the Win the War campaign, joshlevy@yahoo.com, www.win-the-war.com.
Our leaders waver, but we can give them the courage they need.

I'm telling you, Sparky: soap. Water. Combine the two on your body. Lather. Rinse. Repeat until death from old age.

Trust me, girls are a much better hobby than this one. You'll have to avoid telling them how much you hate non-whites, but hey: maybe soap and water will clear up that unsightly blemish, too.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

tomgarrison is not Demophilus?

1. racist

2. tries to sound conservative

3. obsessed with RS

Just saying...

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

And I love Hillary. Has your theory been debunked?

The one with the long list of accounts that we've had to ban for trolling. The same one as the guy that you're trying - badly - to defend. The one that we've pretty much decided to ban on sight, seeing as we've ended up having to ban every account that uses it anyway.

Oh, I'm sorry: were you under the impression that you were being clever?

Hasta la bye-bye, retread. And remember: soap. Water. Maybe an actual shampoo.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

If we had been ruled by a brutal, murderous dictator, who was allied with a like-minded dictator in Canada (who was now supporting terrorism against us) before the Chinese took his government down, and since then terrorists who already lived there or were coming into the country were heavily supported by some Mexican theocracy, and the only people standing between us and the terrorists were the Chinese army, then I'd want them to stay put.

Run like Reagan!

It's all about context.

I'd make you write a paper on the current makeup of terrorist forces in Iraq - no, that doesn't mean the US, and get your hands out of your pants - except that doing so would imply that we actually want dregs like you around.

Shoo.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!\

*The Independent seems to have sent Yasmin Brown's article on the subject to the memory hole, but Free Republic kept a copy.

You do have a point.

Whitfox rightly points out the chief differences.

While I think some examples can be found in Germany and Japan (post wwII) those countries had advantages over Iraq. In Germany, they were semi-democratic already. In Japan, they at liked pretty much all of the Japanese.

The real question I struggle with is whether or not a three way partition might not still be the correct approach.

Romney or Fred.

You ask whether a partition-in-three is the way to go. If your underlying goal is permanent stability in Iraq, that's the piece that I would question.

I don't believe Iraq is stable on any basis other than permanent US military presence in the country (which I'm in favor of). If you accept that, then the question of partition is secondary.

The basic idea of my post was to illustrate the amount of time it takes to form and stabilize a functioning government. One that is recognized by the people it is in place to govern. By most accounts, the post-Revolution period was relatively peaceful. Yet, it took America two constitutions (Articles of Confederation 1781, U.S. Constitution 1789) to get it right, and even then, 60 years later (1850-65), the nation was moving toward war.
The War for Iraq, the Iraqi government – it’s only been four years. Now, I don’t know how long the American military should be in Iraq. I can’t give you an amount of time. But, if someone can make the argument that Iraq will stabilize faster (Rule of Law, no Civil War) once America has withdrawn, please, state your argument.
---
I made a critical error in my original post when I wrote “…the American people still had to learn what it meant to be a Democracy.” I should have written Republic, instead of Democracy.
R.J.

Join the Win the War campaign, joshlevy@yahoo.com, www.win-the-war.com.
Our leaders waver, but we can give them the courage they need.

Perhaps my history is defective, but I seem to recall near-continuous belligerence against the British (including a full-on hot war) from 1789 until nearly 1820, a quasi-war against the French in 1794, plenty of aggression against Spain and Spanish holdings in the New World, and Jefferson continually calling for a permanent Naval fleet in the Mediterranean.

The US was an aggressively expansionist power from nearly the moment of its founding. But (as you say) it remained more or less clear on its key differentiator (liberty) the whole time.

Iraq has nothing like the dynamism of the early American republic. (Heck, almost nothing in history, including today's American not-quite-republic, does.)

of history to grasp that Americans spent almost three centuries in conflict and often at war with someone or another over our borders and our security: The Indians from the beginning, the French nominally through 1763, but longer in the Northwest, the Spanish right up until the eve of WWI, and some would argue even still today, the British in a state of hot war from 1775 until 1815 and in various incidents for much longer in the West and North, and even the Russians in the far West and Alaska.

It wasn't until the second or third decade of the Twentieth Century that the average American on the frontiers stopped having a rifle at the ready at all times. Only from WWI can our conflicts really be said to be about interests rather than territory or border security.

Even the Civil War was as much about expansionism as anything else. Manifest Destiny was very much a Southern notion and the real rub came from whether slaveholding could be extended into conquered or acquired territories.

In Vino Veritas

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service