- This topic has 6 voices and 24 replies.
-
Posts
-
a government has sprung into a full and effective existence during a time of war/internal conflict?If so, when and what were the circumstances and how long did it take?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Governments are already in full existence when they go to war. And are you talking about a nation attacking or defending itself?
How do I put this? I'm referring to what's going on in Iraq's government now. Has a (newly established) government ever come into full effectiveness during a conflict? Or is the situation in Iraq a first in history?
Or is the situation in Iraq a first in history?
Please tell me that the answer to this question is no.
I think that the term puppet state has a negative connotation to it, but it may be somewhat close to what you are thinking of here. Some have been set up throughout history and it appears that there has been both success and failure in this regard. Whether any of these situations parallels Iraq closely is another story.
Don't mind me, I'm just revising the question.I know there have been invading countries who removed a current government then setup their own government. But has there ever been a situation where an invading country removed the current government and let the country decide for and setup the government themselves?I guess another revision would go along the lines of: ... what have we done?!? 😮
Do you really think that the U.S. is letting Iraq set up whatever kind of government it wants? I don't think this his the case. I think that the U.S. is setting certain guidelines that Iraq will really have to follow if it wants to continue. Perhaps Iraq will have a certain amount of autonomy – this is probably pretty crucial to avoid appearance of a puppet state – but full control it will not have.The problem the U.S. sees is that if the seeds of a Western-friendly government are not set now, we're going to possibly be revisiting the same problem of the 1990s in another 30 years or so. Or even worse, it will fall to radicals and become a breeding ground for terrorists.It's a tricky overall situation and I think the Bush Administration is seeing just how difficult it is to "create" a government from the ashes. I think this was perhaps the biggest "failure" that can be attributed to the administration - it didn't adequately prepare for/foresee the necessary components in transforming a conquered nation into a new, autonomous, friendly, and strong nation. I think that some of this (maybe even most of this) can be due to the failure of the Iraqis to take control of their own destiny. No matter what the case we'll learn much from this situation and it will probably affect future conflict management.
Maybe a different scenerio but the Confederate States went from a portion of the USA to a complete government in a period of about 90 days. They had an elected government, postal service and army/navy. And that was definately a time of stress/conflict. Glad I did not live then.
a government has sprung into a full and effective existence during a time of war/internal conflict?If so, when and what were the circumstances and how long did it take?
Of this country, one is reminded. Our own civil war, specificallly
a government has sprung into a full and effective existence during a time of war/internal conflict?If so, when and what were the circumstances and how long did it take?
Of this country, one is reminded.
I'm not sure the machinations of the early attempts to herd 13 cats (colonies, later states) qualifies as effective 😉
Sorry to take so long to do this; I'd missed seeing your question.What I mean is that in the construction of our new nation the formation and execution of a governmental plan wasn't seamless or quick... we labored through the Articles of Confederation which left much to be desired. When we tried to fix them we ended up creating an entirely new document; the Constitution was far better but still didn't satisfy all the parties involved.Then we got the whole Federalist / Anti-federalist thing in motion (thankfully) which led to the Bill of Rights. To most this is hitting the ground running but in reality at every step we could have imploded... something the British, French, and Spanish all rather expected and hoped for. In the big picture we appea[r] effective but at the time we were (IMHO) something of a cluster *uc*. Thank goodness we had the best and the brightest of the time to get us through rather than the pols of today, eh?
I may have lost the thread of the thought. But, our revolution predated our civil war. So, it seems to me the Confederacy fits the parameters of this discussion; it came into being rather quickly. Fort Sumpter, was it not? Better historians than I may disagree. But it seems to me that the Rebel Yell came into being after trade differenes; slavery was a secondary issue. Trade conflicts, tariffs, taxes, and so on, levied differentially between Northern and Southern ports made the war. The Civil War utilized the first early submarine designs, which points to the importance of trade, and the ability to restrict it, via our coastal harbors.So, yes sir, I think the Conderate States of America were born out of Northern greed. And a need to set things straight. Just my humble opinion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
