Difference between revisions of "Talk:Nation building"
(New page: I like the editorial tone that this article takes - nation-building is an exercise in imperialism, and imperialism rarely turns out well. That being said, how to reconcile an anti-nation-b...) |
(to Alice) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I like the editorial tone that this article takes - nation-building is an exercise in imperialism, and imperialism rarely turns out well. That being said, how to reconcile an anti-nation-building POV with a POV that supports the necessity of the Iraq war in the first place. If the coalition was right to invade Iraq because of the threat posed by Saddam/WMDs, is there any way to have done that without committing to a nation-building exercise? Would it have been conceivable/practical/possible to tear down the infrastructures of governance and civil society and then just leave a vacuum in their place? After all, that's what happened when the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan - and look what happened there (civil war, neighbouring countries trying to shape the state to their own ends, Taliban rule). - So, long question short, is it possible to support the Iraq war without supporting a nation-building effort, and if so, how to build the nation? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 11:13, 3 March 2008 (EST) | I like the editorial tone that this article takes - nation-building is an exercise in imperialism, and imperialism rarely turns out well. That being said, how to reconcile an anti-nation-building POV with a POV that supports the necessity of the Iraq war in the first place. If the coalition was right to invade Iraq because of the threat posed by Saddam/WMDs, is there any way to have done that without committing to a nation-building exercise? Would it have been conceivable/practical/possible to tear down the infrastructures of governance and civil society and then just leave a vacuum in their place? After all, that's what happened when the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan - and look what happened there (civil war, neighbouring countries trying to shape the state to their own ends, Taliban rule). - So, long question short, is it possible to support the Iraq war without supporting a nation-building effort, and if so, how to build the nation? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 11:13, 3 March 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I'm unaware of a tone likening nation-building to [[Imperialism]]. Aren't [[democracy]] and Imperialism opposites? And not all conservatives supported the invasion - even though the Senate gave bipartisan support for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:04, 3 March 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 00:04, March 4, 2008
I like the editorial tone that this article takes - nation-building is an exercise in imperialism, and imperialism rarely turns out well. That being said, how to reconcile an anti-nation-building POV with a POV that supports the necessity of the Iraq war in the first place. If the coalition was right to invade Iraq because of the threat posed by Saddam/WMDs, is there any way to have done that without committing to a nation-building exercise? Would it have been conceivable/practical/possible to tear down the infrastructures of governance and civil society and then just leave a vacuum in their place? After all, that's what happened when the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan - and look what happened there (civil war, neighbouring countries trying to shape the state to their own ends, Taliban rule). - So, long question short, is it possible to support the Iraq war without supporting a nation-building effort, and if so, how to build the nation? AliceBG 11:13, 3 March 2008 (EST)
- I'm unaware of a tone likening nation-building to Imperialism. Aren't democracy and Imperialism opposites? And not all conservatives supported the invasion - even though the Senate gave bipartisan support for it. --Ed Poor Talk 19:04, 3 March 2008 (EST)