Why occupying Iraq is not the same as our continued occupation of Japan, Germany, Italy, etc.

[NNN0LHI]

Japan, Germany and Italy needed us after our wars with them. They were flat broke. They needed the income our military bases created. They weren't sitting on top of trillions of dollars worth of oil like the Iraqis are. The Iraqis would do just fine without our presence. Actually better.

That is why the Japan, Germany and Italy comparison is completely bogus.

The Iraqis already know this.

They have no intentions of becoming the next Japan, Germany or Italy.

Take my word on this one.

Don

[Lasher]

1. Another important difference:

Japan attacked us. Germany and Italy, as Axis allies with Japan, declared war on us.

Iraq didn't attack us.

[frogcycle]

2. add to that the fact that we had actually defeated them in a real war

not to overdo the hegemony, but there had been an actual declared war, they had lost, actually surrendered. We were the "victors" and pretty much could call the shots.

We never declared war on Iraq; we supposedly "liberated" it from SH. We were not asked to do so, and our complete fuck-up of the aftermath, as contrasted with, say, the Marshall Plan, leaves us with no credibility and little appreciation for our supposed heroic "liberation."

[bullwinkle428]

3. Another difference : We totally rebuilt their infrastructure after the war!!!!!

"Marshall Plan", anyone?

Iraq has been the total laissez-faire free-market capitalism-on-steroids experiment that the Neocons have had wet dreams about for years, and we all see how well that's working out!!

[madokie]

4. Yes you are right

In Iraq bushco is there because it could supply them with the energy they need with the rest of their scheme, which is world dominance.