|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AbbeFaria
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
Would you rather fight them over there or in your backyard?
|
I assume then that you are completely unconcerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people. Because it's pretty hard to improve the quality-of-life and build a democracy in a country while simultaneously using that same country as a battleground to fight terrorists who would otherwise be operating elsewhere.
I should say, however, that I don't believe the "flypaper strategy"(as endorsed by Abbe) has anything to do with why the US and its allies invaded Iraq. Rather, I think it's a post-hoc rationale cooked up by Bush apologists, in order to claim that, contrary to the obvious facts, everything is unfolding according to plan. Sorta like: "We invaded Iraq to bring democracy and stability to the Iraqi people! Uhh, what? We've started a civil war? Holy crap! Uhh, gee, whadda we say now? Oh yeah, right. We've invaded Iraq in order to make it into a war zone. There. That fits the headlines a bit better".
Of course, these apolosists are hoping that no one will notice that the two rationales contradict one another in a pretty big way. |
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The attitude that American's brought all this suffering on the Iraqi people. Saddam has been grinding his people in to the sand for three decades. Even if our motives for going there were less than noble, the fact that he is no longer in power is something to celebrate. You would think that even the Iranians would be grateful since Saddam instigated a war with them on two different occasions that resulted in the death of over a million people. All that is forgotten in the rush to blame the US, however.
And reconstruction is hard enough as it is without the effort being hampered by bombers from other countries.
I'm concerned about the Iraqi's, but not as much as I'm concerned about me and my family. And if you say any different, you're a liar. As tragic as it is, I would rather an Iraqi get shot or blown up by terrorists, than my mother or sister or brother or any of my family, even the ones I don't like all that much. That is the brutal reality of this situation. Are you prepared to sacrifice your family to save Iraqi's or Afgani's? "Kill my brother instead of Abdul Mussharef, Mr. Terrorist, I give you his life in place of a complete stranger."
And you said it yourself:
| Quote: |
| ...using that same country as a battleground to fight terrorists who would otherwise be operating elsewhere. |
So I'll ask again. Where is a good place to have this battle?
-S- |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
And reconstruction is hard enough as it is without the effort being hampered by bombers from other countries.
|
Uhh, are you complaining about this? Because according to you, you're HAPPY that the bombers from other countries are in Iraq.
| Quote: |
So I'll ask again. Where is a good place to have this battle?
|
If you're an American, Iraq is the better country. If you're an Iraqi, you would probably disagree.
According to your logic, it would have been acceptable for Britian to invade Hell's Kitchen, using the excuse of cleaning up the Irish mob, in order to attract the IRA to New York for a big shootout and bombing spree. Sure, that would have worked well for Britain, having American bystanders blown up instead of British bysatnders, but I hardly think any American would have defended it as an accpetable policy. Such a policy could only be defended if one assumes that American lives are less valuable than British lives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How does America win the war on terrorism? There's always going to be a group of people with a beef and a talent for recruiting poor people with nothing left to lose. The only way to "win" is making sure that recruitment pool is as small as possible. That means spreading around prosperity, not bombing them into misery and deprivation.
There's a good reason why Canadians aren't solving French separatism in the manner of the IRA, the Basque, et al. It's not because Canadians are more peace loving. It's simply because everyone has a job to go to ever morning and a mortgage to pay off. It's hard to think about violent revolution when you're making money, putting enough food on the table, and chasing a decent dream with a reasonable expectation of success. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AbbeFaria wrote: |
| So I'll ask again. Where is a good place to have this battle? |
Whether you're Ghenghis Khan, Alexander the Great or the Bush neo-cons: taking any military campaign outside of one's own borders smacks of bloody imperialism.
Where was the national guard when Katrina unleashed its apocalyptic devastation?
Report: Cheney Cited as Source in CIA Leak
Why is this man smiling?
NEW YORK - Documents in the CIA leak investigation indicate the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney first heard of the covert CIA officer from Cheney himself, The New York Times reported in Tuesday editions.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051025/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation;_ylt=Aq_QGnG27LAK5_5p_JbW9vkDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AbbeFaria wrote: |
One thing I've noticed from the anti-war crowd is how quick they are to attack the U.S. for any little mistake or oversight, but they never seem to criticize the people actually causing the violence. They make excuses or ignore it all together. Why don't we have threads about how evil the Syrians or Iranians are instead of Cheney. Or of just how sadistic and evil Saddam really was. I don't like Cheney anymore than most of you do, but I think some perspective is needed here. He is not the reason 2000 US soldiers are dead, the insurgents are.
One way or another this problem has to be dealt with. Be it now or later, here or there, we are going to clash with muslim extremists just for the fact that they want us dead. Unless you're ready to bare your throat to them now, how else should the problem be handled? It's been said countless times, but it bears repeating; Would you rather fight them over there or in your backyard? |
Yeah, there are some people on this board who are anti-war and support the 'freedom-fighters,' although I think they distinguish between the people blowing themselves and others up from more traditional resistances. But I honestly think you have to understand just how badly the US has screwed up in Iraq to get a notion of why the insurgency (as opposed to the Jihadist opportunists) is so widespread.
We have an administration who fosters and condones an atmosphere of poor regulation and outright torture. So, my first answer to how I might handle the problem is to impeach George Bush, because his administration obviously neither has the competence nor the moral fiber necessary to run this war.
As for the 'Over there or right here' theory, it's not exactly very rigorous. If you are torturing innocents (or releasing terrorists, your choice) you're going to certainly increase the number of people who may become terrorists (particularly if you do not define your terms well, and call anyone who resists the American occupation a terrorist).
| mindmetoo wrote: |
How does America win the war on terrorism? There's always going to be a group of people with a beef and a talent for recruiting poor people with nothing left to lose. The only way to "win" is making sure that recruitment pool is as small as possible. That means spreading around prosperity, not bombing them into misery and deprivation.
There's a good reason why Canadians aren't solving French separatism in the manner of the IRA, the Basque, et al. It's not because Canadians are more peace loving. It's simply because everyone has a job to go to ever morning and a mortgage to pay off. It's hard to think about violent revolution when you're making money, putting enough food on the table, and chasing a decent dream with a reasonable expectation of success. |
The poor almost always have something to lose, they just need to be reminded of it. Take Palestinian suicide bombers, for example. Certain militant groups in Palestine, i.e. Hamas, used to award the families of suicide bombers with large amounts of cash. The IDF decided this was messed up, so they began reprising against families of suicide bombers to remind them that they do have something to lose.
The fact of the matter is poverty is not the root problem. The very best and most zealous of the Jihadists are not even poor! A great man once said, the poor will always be with us. He wasn't talking simply about people who lack material goods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AbbeFaria
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Where was the national guard when Katrina unleashed its apocalyptic devastation? |
Louisiana had 65% of it's National Guard when the hurricane struck. The president doesn't control them, the governors of the respective states do. So unfortunately the blame doesn't lay with Cheney or Bush on that one. The majority of the blame for the mess in LA. is local governments. They have known for nearly 30 years that their levee's could not handle a serious hurricane and they had no real evacuation plan in place. Are you telling me it's Bush's fault for three decades of congressmen and senators not getting the money their state needed to beef-up the levees? Or maybe they did get it, but pocketed the money instead. LA is one of the most corrupt states in the country. It's a bragging right for some legislators. Also, the National Gaurd was actually turning away relief volunteers and supplies at the border, basically saying "we got this".
And another thing about FEMA: there was an interview at a local radio station with a FEMA worker and he said that when he went in to training with them back in the mid-90's one of the first things they told him was that when a major disaster hits, a city is own it's own for 3 to 5 days. They have to rely on their local leaders to get them through the crisis until the Feds show up. Surely everyone saw the pictures of the parking lot full of school buses that are, in more prepared states like Florida, traditionally used in evacuations? Just sitting there and eventually flooded in. Scores of bus drivers waiting for a call that never came. It wasn't Bush's job to make that call, it was the Mayor.
So again, before we start painting Bush and/or Cheney with Devil horns and a forked tongue, let's have some perspective. I can't stand the man, either one of them. Cheney is especially slimey, I feel dirty everytime I look at him And Bush...well he's just sad. I didn't vote for him either time, nor would I ever. I also didn't vote for Kerry, because I saw him as a joke. If that's the best the Dems can do then they are in for a rough future. However, if you're going to hate BushCo. then atleast hate him for the right reasons, not because of left-wing propaganda.
And Katrina is not the worst natural disaster in US history. It's relatively mild compared to some others. Expensive yes, but in the cost of lives, not that big. The Galveston hurricane killed over 6000 people. Nor do I think it was because Bush pulled out of the Kyoto treaty which caused the storm. We live on a violent planet and occasionally there are really big-a$$ storms. I would say some of the blame for LA also goes to the city founders who built the city on a flood plain. That's like building your town at the base of an active volcano and then acting all surprised when it erupts.
-S- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AbbeFaria wrote: |
| However, if you're going to hate BushCo. then atleast hate him for the right reasons, not because of left-wing propaganda. |
Well said, and it can't be said enough; Ideological demogogues on both ends of the spectrum obscure the real issues that need to be dealt with.
It's the neo-con ideologues who have gotten the US into the mess it currently finds itself in with regard to international issues (Iraq, anti-terrorism, nuclear non-proliferation, Islamic fanatacism, etc.)- N.B. I'm not saying that these problems were created by the neo-cons or the Bush administration, but I am saying that ideology has blinded them into making disasterous policy decisions. But that's self-evident, isn't it?
Is there anyone here who still feels this is not the case? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
