" An interesting point. Care to explain why Japan is our friend, whereas Iraq is not?"
Because we bombed the population into submission, which is not the case in Iraq.
>> " An interesting point. Care to explain why Japan is our friend, whereas Iraq is not?"
> Because we bombed the population into submission, which is not the case in Iraq.
Another reason: Japan was one culture, one people-- and we got the head on the one neck (the Emperor) to surrender. Iraq is a deeply divided nation with at least 3 major warring factions, and the head was (however brutally) keeping those factions suppressed and balanced. We had NO plan for completely subduing the whole country and getting control of the factions after successfully deposing the ruler. But that ship has sailed.
I agree the author is a snotty brat, but mistakes were made, and instead of dwelling on mistakes we should take the lesson from those mistakes and move on.
Because we bombed the population into submission, which is not the case in Iraq.
Basically, yes.
Japan launched what they understood to be an imperial bid for power in the Pacific rim. It failed, and they found themselves at the mercy of invaders who were every inch as willing as they were to kill and destroy in order to win.
Facing annihilation as a result of their actions, the Japanese found a merciful conquerer who permitted them to surrender, helped them back on their feet and pledged to defend them.
That's a significant social event. Japan, as a nation, people, and culture, was transformed, with the very clear understanding that their old methods had lead them to the edge of extinction.
The Iraqis (or any Muslim nation) have not had to face this kind of transforming social event. The kind of trial that our ancestors went through all the time, when facing hostile tribes or kingdoms. Human nature hasn't changed since those times.
Peoples not beaten into sumbission will resist before long, and those not willing to beat others into submission to win should stay out of the business.