Nation Building -


Read more about If anything, the war in Iraq has taught us something: building a democracy in a country with no money and no education is just a little less harder than getting the earth

Military Medals Store

  International Military Forums > >

User Name
Password

 
October 1st, 2007   #1
A Can of Man
 
 

Nation Building info


If anything, the war in Iraq has taught us something: building a democracy in a country with no money and no education is just a little less harder than getting the earth to spin the other way around.

Here is an idea:
First off, because there is no education, people won't know who to pick anyway. Second of all, since the people are so poor, they can be bought into casting votes too easily and although this can work for you, it can work for the other side as well.
So why not for the first thirty years at least, create a nation CEO? You get your best pick to run the country, most likely a less evil local general and slap him with the top advisors from your country (mostly from the business and financial field since this is their main weakness) and have them get the country back on its feet first?
Yes, the first leader will essentially be a puppet of the coalition (or just the US or whoever) but once the country has enough money and enough education, the people themselves will demand democracy, especially with the influence of America and the West that will flow in over the decades. This leader will be given a comfortable retirement package and if he has half a brain, he would go for that instead of having all his buildings smashed by cruise missiles and his money frozen for all eternity.

Discuss!
 
October 1st, 2007   #2
Gator
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
If anything, the war in Iraq has taught us something: building a democracy in a country with no money and no education is just a little less harder than getting the earth to spin the other way around.

Here is an idea:
First off, because there is no education, people won't know who to pick anyway. Second of all, since the people are so poor, they can be bought into casting votes too easily and although this can work for you, it can work for the other side as well.
So why not for the first thirty years at least, create a nation CEO? You get your best pick to run the country, most likely a less evil local general and slap him with the top advisors from your country (mostly from the business and financial field since this is their main weakness) and have them get the country back on its feet first?
Yes, the first leader will essentially be a puppet of the coalition (or just the US or whoever) but once the country has enough money and enough education, the people themselves will demand democracy, especially with the influence of America and the West that will flow in over the decades. This leader will be given a comfortable retirement package and if he has half a brain, he would go for that instead of having all his buildings smashed by cruise missiles and his money frozen for all eternity.

Discuss!
The lesson of Iraq was already taught, back then it was called the lesson of Vietnam.
Vietnam Veterans as well as those who came of age during the Vietnam War were charged to ensure that such an exercise never took place again, and yet, here we are, while those who came of age and fought in Vietnam are not only still alive, but are the ones in power, the ones who pushed for and launched the War in Iraq.

Such is part of the problem of having a Republican Military in the United States of America, as those who have fought, and those who are in line to fight seem to sway with the blowhards in the Republican Party, rank and file and elected.... all while the Republican President and Vice President both avoided Combat Duty, the Vice President avoiding Military Service altogether.


http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/image.php?u=5496&type=sigpic&dateline=1336693617
INITIAL SUCCESS✫orTOTAL FAILURE
 
October 1st, 2007   #3
senojekips
 
 
Vietnam was where our generation learned the true taste of humble pie, an experience that the wise among us will not forget in a hurry, unlike these over enthusiastic young pups who so eagerly push our new generation off to war whilst they sit in comfort far from the possibility of an IED or sniper's bullet.

These same people are those who show up at the Remembrance Day services, all pious faced and weeping crocodile tears for those who paid the ultimate sacrifice whilst doing their dirty work.


"I am totally responsible for what I write,... however I cannot be held responsible for your complete inability to understand"

 
October 1st, 2007   #4
DTop
 
 
I contend that blowhards are not confined to any one party, brother. That is part and parcel of the problem. The prevalent belief in the Army in Vietnam when I was there was "Why don't they just let the military do the job they are best at and this thing will be over in two weeks". Sound familiar?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gator
Such is part of the problem of having a Republican Military in the United States of America, as those who have fought, and those who are in line to fight seem to sway with the blowhards in the Republican Party, rank and file and elected.... all while the Republican President and Vice President both avoided Combat Duty, the Vice President avoiding Military Service altogether.


I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which in truth, they are.
Gen. W.T. Sherman
 
October 1st, 2007   #5
Gator
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTop
I contend that blowhards are not confined to any one party, brother. That is part and parcel of the problem. The prevalent belief in the Army in Vietnam when I was there was "Why don't they just let the military do the job they are best at and this thing will be over in two weeks". Sound familiar?
Too true Top, but Republicans have laid claim to the United States Military, both from within and Civilian.
If the Democrats laid claim to the Military I would be pointing the finger only at the Democrats in this case.

And I agree, the overall US losses in Vietnam (besides manpower) took place far away from the Battlefield, such is the case with Iraq as well, but as long as the Secretary of Defense is more than just a liaison between the Pentagon and White House I do not see this trend ending any time soon.

The Military may not pick the War, but the Military is the only entity that knows how to fight and win a war.

And senojekips, good point in that the people who pulled the trigger on Vietnam were World War II Veterans, while now days there has become a lesser class of individual, that individual being those who fight and die, while those who call for War are safe and sound, never knowing the true cost of War.
 
October 1st, 2007   #6
DTop
 
 
Time passes but not much changes. Politicians are always removed from the fray. But at least in this country and has been said many times before, the politicians set policy and the military executes it. As I see it, building a Democracy is a political endeavor and the problem is still persists when the military is is asked to do something other than fight.
Let's look at a few historical facts.

24 of our Presidents fought in a war.
6 served in the military but saw no combat.
12 Presidents had no military experience.
23 of our Presidents have held office during wartime.
15 Presidents never presided during time of war regardless of military service.

It's true that at the moment the Republicans control the White House. What do you suppose would happen if we had a Democrat in office?
Well, we have had 17 Democrats CICs and 18 Republicans all together.

After the Civil War (when the Republican Party was established):
7 Republicans and 6 Democrats have held the White House during a war.

I still contend that politicians are politicians regardless of party affiliation.



http://www.heptune.com/preslist.html#Military
 
October 1st, 2007   #7
Gator
 
 
Politicians are birds of a feather, true, but, I remember when President Clinton was in Office and the open contempt for the sitting President of the United States of America running rampant through the Military.

I remember when this Presidents Father was the sitting President and the illegal action of politicing by way of vote fishing conducted by Uniformed Military Personnel, how people who outranked others (even in the same Unit) asked who the lower ranking Service Member was planning to vote for, and if the answer was not to that persons liking a little talk of how the Republicans would be better for the Military enused.

I remember when I was still a bit new to the game in the Military, and of low rank, when I was all but given a direct verbal order to ensure that I cast my Vote for President Reagan.

I do not wish the Military to switch sides and join with the Democrats, I do not want the Military to be joined with the Republican Party, I want the United States Military to be Non-Political, and the easist way I see to getting there is point out how the Republican Military has conducted herself and fared, both currently and in the past.
 
October 2nd, 2007   #8
DTop
 
 
That's all very interesting Gator but in practical terms, I don't see how you can separate the two. Our military is obviously staffed by voting citizens for the most part.

I have never witnessed anything like the vote fishing you spoke of in the 22 years I was in the Army. In fact, civilian life is far more permeated with talk of who is voting for whom at least in my experience. Around the office there are people with whom I'd never raise the subject of politics, elections, or even current events. It's just not done. In the Army I never gave much thought to anyone's voting preferences.

I'm afraid we can't separate the Military from the politicians, it's the way our government functions. After all, our officers are commissioned by the President.
 
October 2nd, 2007   #9
Gator
 
 
Used to be a DoD Directive barring the asking of Active Duty Personnel who they planned to vote for, and, if memory serves, also who they did vote for after the fact.

Last I checked it was pulled for revision around 2004, although there was still a more general statute in the UCMJ.

I made it my business to help ensure the Military moved into the Non-Political as much as I could affect, which was very little in the grand scheme of things, but I slept better at night.
There was at one time a small movement to take the Vote off the Military, one which I was all for, but it never gained much ground.
 
October 2nd, 2007   #10
DTop
 
 
I see, a very interesting experience you had there. I guess we were in different types of units.
 



Tags
country, education, leader, money, people

Similar Topics
Personal accounts of Iraq war vets in The Nation
Sailors Building Trust, One Person At A Time
PM to recognize francophone Quebec as 'a nation'
Who will help me frist?
Most dangerous nation in the world