Edumacate yo' damn self

[Dark Vengeance]

So actually, we sort of agree. My point was that there was no way we could have achieved a UN sponsored 'International Mandate' thanks to France, and people kveching about said fact an in effect arguing that France should have veto power over our Foreign policy.

Of course, calling the UK, Australlia et al 'chumps' is a whole other can of worms and fundamentally disrespectful to those nations.

Hussein is no longer in power.  If being labeled a 'chump' is the price for preventing any futher events like Halabja in Iraq, then so be it.

For those of you scoring at home, that is game, set, match for Daeven.

I mean cmon....look back at history, and explain to me why FRANCE is qualified to make decisions about our foreign policy....especially as it pertains to NATIONAL SECURITY. Ahh yes, France....where the pacifist bullshit doesn't stop until the enemy tanks reach Paris.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[HaemishM]

Well, if you can explain France, then please explain to me how Syria got on the security council too.

Because frankly, I can't explain either of them, myself.

[Shockeye]

Well, if you can explain France, then please explain to me how Syria got on the security council too.

Because frankly, I can't explain either of them, myself.

I know I will upset Arcadian by posting since I'm supposed to be in "retirement", but...

Syria's term on the security council will only last 2 years according to this article.

For the first time in more than 30 years, Syria, a country listed by Washington as a state sponsor of terrorism, was elected on October 8 to the Security Council as a non-permanent member for a two-year term.

[daveNYC]

So actually, we sort of agree. My point was that there was no way we could have achieved a UN sponsored 'International Mandate' thanks to France, and people kveching about said fact an in effect arguing that France should have veto power over our Foreign policy.

Having France on the Security Council is about as funny as having Sudan and Zimbabwe on the UN Council for Human Rights.

Of course, calling the UK, Australlia et al 'chumps' is a whole other can of worms and fundamentally disrespectful to those nations.

True, and technically 'chump' is the wrong disrespectful insult to use.  Unfortunatly Dictionary.com isn't helping me find 'second/third tier power that is doing the bare minimum in order to extract cash/favors/military bases from the world's current superpower'.  At that point, we're the chumps for bringing them in on the invasion.

Hussein is no longer in power.  If being labeled a 'chump' is the price for preventing any futher events like Halabja in Iraq, then so be it.

I hope that that is the case, but I'd give it a few years to make sure we haven't just exchanged Saddam for Saddam-lite.

Edit: BBCode, and to add: The crazy thing, France is a permanent member of the council, Syria is on one of the rotating posts.  Don't know why we gave them a permanent seat and Vietnam back.

[Roac]

especially as it pertains to NATIONAL SECURITY

The UN is utterly irrelevant in matters of national security - whether it be France, Russia, UK, Canada, or whoever the fuck else.  There was little basis to invade Iraq on grounds of national security.  The WMD excuse was bullshit; the weapons inspectors who should know best called it bullshit.  The UN called Powell's presentation bullshit.  And they were right.

[Boogaleeboo]

second/third tier power

There's only one first tier power. It's the United States. Nobody else is in the same ballpark. South Korea, Japan, and Australia don't exactly have weak economies. I'm trying to think of any objective scale of worth where we got the short end of the stick. Demark, Poland, Turkey. Not exactly losing to the Germans and French to any large degree.

Shit, Russia and China are never more than ten bad days from being third world countries.

As for them doing it for bribes....why do you think anyone does anything for another nation? The "bare min" is being useful to us. And there's a certain amount of people you have to send to defend your OWN people. The aid we have isn't near as many people we have on the ground, but it's in a lot of key areas and helping in some peace keeping roles we aren't good at. We are good at killing things, we don't really have as much experience at what comes after. Thankfully the Brits and others do.

How this makes us "Chumps" I won't know. We pay the UN for the right to take part, is that less of a bribe? How do you figure any support would be free?

I really don't see any logical way to say we didn't get high quality support for this war other than "A lot of people are angry so it must not be strong".

[Daeven]

Well, if you can explain France, then please explain to me how Syria got on the security council too.

Because frankly, I can't explain either of them, myself.

Actually, that's because the non-permanent seats in the Security council is a roating membership position among members of the General Assembly. If you want to discuss Irony, explain how Sudan, of Darfur fame, got ELECTED to the Council on Human Rights, replacing the US.

And some people wonder why I don't think the opinion of the UN should carry significant weight.

...

[Sky]

Without 9/11, I doubt we would have made an effort to pre-emptively invade Iraq.

Yes. The terrorist attacks gave the wonderful folks at the Project for a New American Century the perfect excuse for furthering their manifesto.

[SirBruce]

It's just funny to hear Bush in 2000 talk about not sending our troops out to build nations, then in 2003, the rhetoric surrounding the occupation of Iraq is all about building Iraq into a peaceful democracy.

I think it's funny to hear Democrats claiming we need to be more sensitive to the foreign policy desires of other nations and then belittling the 30+ other members of the coalition as if they aren't "real" countries.

Anyway, Bush never sent our troops to build a nation. He sent our troops to win a war, to liberate a people, and then got international cooperation to rebuild TWO nations.

Bruce

[Tebonas]

And the international cooperation should have given the US the finger in all matters concerning Iraq. Yes, unfair to Iraq, but some of these days the USA should learn to clean up their messes, which they never were good at.

[AOFanboi]

to liberate a people

Liberate from what? In Afghanistan, poppy farmers have been "liberated" to grow opium almost unchecked (Taliban forbade it), rape gangs have been "liberated" to go around raping girls and women (Taliban used the death penalty against rapists). The "rebuilt" government has practically 0 influence outside of the capital, the country is about as split up among warlords as is/was Somalia.

And will Iraq fare any better?

[SirBruce]

Yes.  Because Liberty and Democracy > Oppression and Dicatorship, no matter what metrics you choose to measure the "good" of the state.  Perhaps you missed the past, oh, 1000 years of history during which Europeans figured this out.  From the Magna Carta to Cromwell to the United States to Napolean to Hitler and Mousslini to Communism, it's all been part of a long process of moral discovery.  What matters is what you believe and what you do to achieve those ideals, not the ultimate outcome of that pursuit.

Bruce

[Boogaleeboo]

And will Iraq fare any better?

Shows how little you know about Afghanistan. The military there is building, tribes are being convinced to side with the government, social programs are on the rise, and the poppy growers are beginning to get cracked down on.

I'm sorry the total rebuilding of a government came a little slowly for you, but boo hoo hoo.

Iraq is already faring better, but of course it had more to work with. Iraq was downright cosmopolitan for a Middle Eastern country, and the population is taking to rebuilding well. Some rabblerousers aside.

You can name countries in the past century that rebuild faster and better? Hell, we had troops in Germany some 60 years after setting foot on German soil.

Get over the fact that rebuilding is bloody, long, and tiresome.

[Merusk]

Sometimes it sucks to be a moderate.  You see both stupid and intelligent remarks being made by both sides and it makes you too apathetic to care.

One thing tho, Boog:

Asia?

Japan, South Korea, the Phillippines, Australia, New Zealand.

The auzzies and kiwis I've met take offense at being called Asian (even though the northern part of Australia has a large Asian population). I believe the term for this region is Pacific Rim countries.

There, that's about as productive as any political discussion on any incarnation of these forums has ever been.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

I know I will upset Arcadian by posting since I'm supposed to be in "retirement", but...

I think you're confusing retirement with retardedment.

PS: this thread is going to hell real fast. kisses and hugs, RKDN.

[Ironwood]

 
Get over the fact that rebuilding is bloody, long, and tiresome.

Which is, alas, the real truth.  In this modern age we expect it to go faster, but it just doesn't.

Would be nice though.

[Boogaleeboo]

I believe the term for this region is Pacific Rim countries.

Hey, you know what's on the Pacific?

Asia.

[Paelos]

Nevermind

[Daeven]

And the international cooperation should have given the US the finger in all matters concerning Iraq. Yes, unfair to Iraq, but some of these days the USA should learn to clean up their messes, which they never were good at.

'Cause, you know, the Marshall Plan was such a horrific failure and stuff...

[Teleku]

Bruce, it's simple, there is a standard for multinational coalitions and that standard is the United Nations.  It may be the only coalition worth anything because it is representative of almost all of the countries of the world.  And the truth is that the administration went to them first because they knew it too.  They couldn’t get the world to agree with them so they just did what they wanted to do anyway.  That shows not only is the Coalition of the Willing a second rate coalition but that the administration knows it and won’t admit it.

The UN only represents the US, UK, France, Russia, and China.  Every single other country in the UN has no power or representation in what the UN does (beyond a little power to the rotating members, which isn't much since they are not permanent and have no veto power).  It is not democratic or representative of the world in any way.  It only represents the 5 permanent council members, who solely decide what the UN does.  It amazes me that anybody would think the UN represents any sort of world opinion, and that something gets legitimized because the UN supports it.  Since, again, the UN in practice is only made up of 5 nations, and nobody else.

Which is good mind you.  Half the members of the UN are backwards ass cruel dictatorships, who should never have any say in what’s going on.  The day the UN starts representing all the nations of the world is the day it becomes significantly more fascist.

[Merusk]

I believe the term for this region is Pacific Rim countries.

Hey, you know what's on the Pacific?

Asia.

Yeah I thought that was implied when I said 'this region.' Asia is a continent. Australia is a contient.  My point was one isn't the other.

 Of course, that ignores the rule, "Boog is Always Right." So in keeping with that rule, your use of Asia must have been intentional. Obviously a clever way to get the thread derailed. You knew someone would point that out and send the thread into a far-off discussion of what to actually term this area.

Brilliant.

[Pineapple]

I think it's funny to hear Democrats claiming we need to be more sensitive to the foreign policy desires of other nations and then belittling the 30+ other members of the coalition as if they aren't "real" countries.

Kerry uses the word "sensitive", and Republicans freak and point. That goes against the macho US self image. We are pick-up truck driving, butt kicking good old boys and to hell with anything sensitive, right?

So as I understood the word to be used, it meant "diplomatic". Surely diplomacy is needed when dealing with other major countries. We dont have to be submissive cowards, but we dont have to be the world's bullies either. Other countries do have their own needs, and suprise - they might be more concerned about their own needs over our own.

Being diplomatic when dealing with other countries means having a dialogue, understanding that we are just one country on a planet of many countries, and that each side is going to have an opinion. It doesnt matter if we CAN totally pwn every country in Europe, we still need to not be "holier then thou" and dismiss them.

This doesnt mean there wont be disputes, or heated debates. Sometimes other countries do deserve a tongue lashing. But in the end, we should act diplomatic if possible. I can have a very heated debate with someone, and still at the end of the conversation we both know there is mutual respect.

The way Bush acts? Me and bubba and Cletus here...we dont care wut no yor-ow-pee-uns think o nuthin' *spit*

[SirBruce]

The thing is, Pineapple, we already do those "sensitive" things when we deal with nations.  Kerry doesn't feel that's sensitive enough and wants to go beyond that, but as usual he is pretty thin on specifics.  It seems he wanted us to not invade Iraq if France didn't want to.  It seems he doesn't want to go to war if France, Germany, and possibly other countries don't offer troops.  It seems like he wouldn't ever fight a war during Ramadan, or bomb anything anywhere near a mosque, because that might offend some muslim we aren't fighting.

Sorry, but I am not willing to support  a guy who puts those concerns above US security needs.  Especially during a time of war.

Bruce

[Pineapple]

It seems he wanted us to not invade Iraq if France didn't want to.

Well France wanted more solid proof of the WMDs. We are all still waiting on that proof.

It seems he doesn't want to go to war if France, Germany, and possibly other countries don't offer troops.

Nothing wrong with trying to get other countries to help out. Maybe they could even help pay the bill (and oh what a huge bill it is). I dont remember him stating that he would put the country's safety at risk if Europe said no to a battle.

I know he wouldnt jeopardize our safety just for diplomacy itself, and we are still waiting for the Al-Queda link to Iraq, the footage of the terrorist training camps in Iraq that we were supposed to find, and the WMD proof.

It seems like he wouldn't ever fight a war during Ramadan, or bomb anything anywhere near a mosque, because that might offend some muslim we aren't fighting.

Where did he say that? Not something that got interpreted as that by GOP radio, but specifically that. The US tried to not bomb hospitals and certain civilian targets in WW II (except certain instances, like the last push into Berlin). Does that mean we were weak? I dont think anyone would call our leaders during World War 2 weak just because they did this.

If Bush thinks that defeating Iraq will stop terrorists, he needs to think again. And no it wont really slow them down either, because they were already living in many other countries planning their next move. Our personal safety lies on another less tangible battle front, not on Iraq's defeat. If we are going to fight the fight, lets focus on the correct targets.

[SirBruce]

It seems he wanted us to not invade Iraq if France didn't want to.

Well France wanted more solid proof of the WMDs. We are all still waiting on that proof.

Irrelevant.  The issue is not whether or not France was correct.  The issue is whether or not we should not go to war when we THINK we are correct but France disagrees.  You're basically saying we should substitute France's judgement for our own.

It seems he doesn't want to go to war if France, Germany, and possibly other countries don't offer troops.

Nothing wrong with trying to get other countries to help out. Maybe they could even help pay the bill (and oh what a huge bill it is). I dont remember him stating that he would put the country's safety at risk if Europe said no to a battle.

Of course he wouldn't SAY it.  That doesn't mean it isn't true.  The fact is he doesn't think the US safety was "at risk" with respect to Iraq, so he would have felt fine with not invading Iraq without those other troops.  Whether or not that's a good thing depends on how you feel about Iraq, but the bottom line is you're still talking about, potentially, John Kerry applying the same principle in another war where the risk to the US is even greater.  I'm not prepared to take that risk.

I know he wouldnt jeopardize our safety just for diplomacy itself, and we are still waiting for the Al-Queda link to Iraq, the footage of the terrorist training camps in Iraq that we were supposed to find, and the WMD proof.

You need to check your news again.  The terrorist links are documented and some WMD was found.  You just don't think it is "enough".  But this is all a red herring.  I'm not arguing whether or not there was WMD or AQ in Iraq.  I'm arguing what Kerry would have done wrt Iraq and other potential wars.

It seems like he wouldn't ever fight a war during Ramadan, or bomb anything anywhere near a mosque, because that might offend some muslim we aren't fighting.

Where did he say that? Not something that got interpreted as that by GOP radio, but specifically that.

That's why I said "seems like".  Kerry, as you know, refuses to ever say much specifically; he just criticizes Bush's actions without providing his alternatives.  Nevertheless, both examples I gave are things Democrats have criticized Bush for doing and link directly to a more "sensitive" way of waging war.  If Kerry doesn't believe those things, then his "sensitive" war is even more hot air.

The US tried to not bomb hospitals and certain civilian targets in WW II (except certain instances, like the last push into Berlin). Does that mean we were weak? I dont think anyone would call our leaders during World War 2 weak just because they did this.

Nice bait and switch, but the readers here are not that dumb.  Not attacking a civillian target that's being used legitimately, like a hospital, is not the same as not attacking NEAR a mosque because it's NOT being used legitimately; i.e. to protect a tank.  BTW, I'm pretty sure there have been times when hospitals were indeed attacked when they were improperly being used as a base of combat operations for enemy troops (an incident in Afghanistan springs to mind), but I don't know if the enemy ever stooped that low during WW2.

If Bush thinks that defeating Iraq will stop terrorists, he needs to think again. And no it wont really slow them down either, because they were already living in many other countries planning their next move. Our personal safety lies on another less tangible battle front, not on Iraq's defeat. If we are going to fight the fight, lets focus on the correct targets.

Iraq was a correct target.  The fact you are too blind to see that only underscores how little you actually understand the situation.  The terrorists in those other countries are still on the list, and we'll get to them.  We can't fight everywhere at once.

Bruce

[daveNYC]

BTW, I'm pretty sure there have been times when hospitals were indeed attacked when they were improperly being used as a base of combat operations for enemy troops (an incident in Afghanistan springs to mind), but I don't know if the enemy ever stooped that low during WW2.

http://www.battlefieldsww2.50megs.com/monte_cassino.htm
I'm sure there were other instances, but this one I remember.

[Pineapple]

You need to check your news again.  The terrorist links are documented and some WMD was found.  You just don't think it is "enough".

Yes we found a few shells from the mid 80's buried in some hole, that had chemical weapon residue. Maybe a dozen shells or so, that had been buried there for many years.

I feel safer already. At least only a few thousand have died so we could get those rusting forgotten handful of shells. Damn right I dont feel that is enough.

[SirBruce]

Well, see, that's the problem without having a time machine.  We can't leap into the future and see the millions that might have been killed if Saddam had managed to acquire the nukes that he was seeking.  Nor can we see if somehow the sanctions magically worked and he became a nice guy before that happened.  So we can never know how many lives we saved by pre-emptive military action.  We cannot, therefor, use that as a metric for deciding whether or not such action was just.

We have to apply logic and reason.  Was Saddam a bad guy?  Was he killing people?  Was he threatening us?  Could we trust him not to assist terrorists?  Have we given him "enough" chances through diplomatic means to wise up?

I, for one, think we should have taken Saddam out in 1991.  So I was entirely happy to see him removed 12 years later.

Bruce

[Roac]

The issue is whether or not we should not go to war when we THINK we are correct

Except some people, even in the US, were doubtful that we were correct.  When you have WMD inspectors in the country, and our government saying "they have WMDs here *points to a satellite pic", and the inspectors can't find a damn thing...

[Roac]

Well, see, that's the problem without having a time machine. We can't leap into the future and see the millions that might have been killed if Saddam had managed to acquire the nukes that he was seeking.

He'd have killed lots of people if he could have gotten them.  That's the catch though - not a chance in hell he could've gotten them, because it requires massive, recognizable structures to refine the neccessary materials.  He had such a facility, once.  Israel bombed it.  The French sold it to him.

Could we trust him not to assist terrorists?

Yeah.  He really did not like fanatical Islam, and they didn't like him either.  Ossama offered to Saudi Arabia to lead an attack on Iraq during the invasion of Kuwait - the Saudis said no thanks, and then allowed the US to base there.  That got under his skin a bit.

[Daeven]

Yes we found a few shells from the mid 80's buried in some hole, that had chemical weapon residue. Maybe a dozen shells or so, that had been buried there for many years.

I feel safer already. At least only a few thousand have died so we could get those rusting forgotten handful of shells. Damn right I dont feel that is enough.

Look! See? It isn't a STOCKPILE of poscribed weapons, so the whole invasion was a bad idea!

Of course, this is really a big ol Red Herring. You see, several nations have divested themselves of nuclear weapons, verified by the IAEA, in the past. And it never involved this wierd cat and mouse game that went on for TWELVE YEARS with Iraq never mind the absurd number of resolutions, each one threatening to be even more not-happy than the last.

Some people seem to forget that once you sign a ceace fire with a nation that is blowing the hell out of you, said nation can resume blowing shit up at any point if you fail to adhere to the cease fire.

But no. It was far more reasonable to continue with the No-fly-zones, and attempted assassinations of former Presidents, and kicking out of inspectors and moving shit around as long as Hussein wanted. It's not like he was playing a waiting game - waiting for us to get bored with the whole damned inspections thing to resume his WMD production.

I'm certain none of that was even remotely reasonable to consider. After all, it was all about secret plots to rule the world with Giant Space Lasers!

[SirBruce]

The issue is whether or not we should not go to war when we THINK we are correct

Except some people, even in the US, were doubtful that we were correct.  When you have WMD inspectors in the country, and our government saying "they have WMDs here *points to a satellite pic", and the inspectors can't find a damn thing...

But most people, even OUTSIDE the US, were not doubtful.  That's why the UN passed a resolution, sent in inspectors, etc.  Not because they didn't think they were there and wanted to clear Iraq's good name.  But because they wanted to find them and make sure Iraq started to play fair.  And the Senate was not doubtful, either.  Even France's own intelligence was not doubtful... they just didn't want to go to war over it.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

Well, see, that's the problem without having a time machine. We can't leap into the future and see the millions that might have been killed if Saddam had managed to acquire the nukes that he was seeking.

He'd have killed lots of people if he could have gotten them.  That's the catch though - not a chance in hell he could've gotten them, because it requires massive, recognizable structures to refine the neccessary materials.  He had such a facility, once.  Israel bombed it.  The French sold it to him.

And here is where we part ways.  You're willing to risk having a guy who is threatening to kill you go free because you think he won't be able to get ahold of a gun or break through your security system.  Me, I'm not.  (Yes, it's an analogy. Iraq is not our neighbor, but then again the US is more than just my house, etc.)

Could we trust him not to assist terrorists?

Yeah.  He really did not like fanatical Islam, and they didn't like him either.

Wow, you must be out of the loop. Not only has Iraq been documented as supporting terrorists in the past (camps, funding, freeing terrorists in Kuwait, etc.) but documents also show that Hussein's own son was interested in trying to foster cooperation between Iraq and AQ:
http://scoop.agonist.org/story/2004/6/25/73149/9173

The Iraqi document itself states that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."

Even the 9/11 commission report, written before the above-mentioned document was disseminated, found enough to report the following:

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against Crusaders during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.
To protect his own ties with Iraq,Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as
assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.
[...]
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

Yes, yes, I know... no evidence of a collaborative operational relationship.  But your claim was that that Iraq would never have developed one, and the evidence indicates that it was a distinct possibility had to two sides continued talking.  It's quite possible they didn't and we don't know it yet.  But all I'm saying is you can't say you could have trusted Iraq to NOT develop such a relationship, based on the evidence.

Bruce

PS - Awww, Daeven, don't spoil it.  You're wasting all my spare ammunition which I was going to use on him later when he went there.

[Murgos]

The word for today (acronym really) is UNSCOM.  UNSCOM thrice damned Iraq for playing fuck-fuck games over its WMD capabilites.  The U.S. was understadably paranoid about Iraq having WMD ability due to thier having used them before and thier willingness to fund major terroist operations and, of course, due to a terrorist attack that killed more people than Pearl Harbor just a short period before and so the US asked for a UN mandate to make Iraq verify it had destroyed its WMD's.

The UN said, "Nah, we don't care really.  That our own inspection teams have damned Iraq doesn't matter.  We (France and Russia) stand to lose too much money if there is another invasion."  And so we invaded, the UN is really just a set of guidelines anyway and we had the backing of MANY countires.  Even with what turned out not to be a clear and present danger from WMD's it was still a good thing and well deserved, IMO.

Who knows what the future would bring, but me?  I'd rather be safe than sorry and I'm sure I am much safer now that Saddam is not reigning in Iraq waiting for his chance to duck UN observation and do something really nasty.

[Tebonas]

See, the Marshal Plan was a well and proper thing, it worked like a charm to rebuild countries that had economic hardships due to their war costs. But none of these countries were reeducated, non of these countries saw the allies as unholy enemies, the axis powers in Europe had the same cultural background.
They were former democracies toppled from within the democratic system in a period of economic stress. They thought the same way, cherished the same things, abhorred the same things. Before the rebuilds began.

Where the USA tends to fail in its nationbuilding is to wrap itself around a foreign ideology and work with it. You just don't understand people who don't want it your way, you think everybody who doesn't like everything just as you do just has to be made to understand that your way is the best. It may be for you, it certainly is close to what we Europeans prefer, but there are other people who don't like it that way. There you fail when you try to rebuild those nations in your likeness. As well-intended as it may be.