Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Cerebroden]

::bow::

[madcap]

Steve-

So who even says that the Iraqi's want democracy? A society has to be ready for it and have certain elements in place. We could talk all day about what we should or shouldn't have done from the beginning, but at this point it's pretty irrelevant. It's far easier to change an existing government slowly rather than starting a new one from scratch. It will take some time, but we owe it to them. As far as isolationism is concerned, I'm with you on spending money at home. If you look at the top 15 spenders of money on national defense, our budget for it is more than all the other combined. And that doens't include the half a trillion dollars spent on the wars these last few years. Big brother will never spend that money here at home, though. That's just a pipe dream. There's no money in it for them. A defense contract means millions of dollars for some congressman's former business partner and campaign contributer while increased spending on education only improves the lives of the plebians that those big businesses are trying taking advantage of.

Hmm...I'm digressing from the post a bit, but i reiterate my initial point. We are responsible for this country now and have the duty to leave it in better shape than we found it. I don't know that a troop increase is the way to do it, but whatever we decide to do, we need to open up more dialogue with Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia and all work together to find what is best for the people of Iraq. The Bush administration is running the same playbook the KC chiefs did against Indianapolis (if you didn't see the game it won't make sense, but you get the idea).

[bucheon bum]

[EFLtrainer]

You should not be teaching college students: you haven't the mental skills to do so. To wit:

[EFLtrainer]

[stevemcgarrett]

EFLtrainer:

You're just a rock thrower at the end of the day. You have nothing substantive to add to the discussion. Your consumed with hurling insults tit for tat. I'm not going to allow myself to continue down that road. Let others judge intelligence; I know what I'm about.

Suffice it to say that sarcasm shouldn't be taken literally, as when I referred to my Korean students.

I think it takes more ego to assume you know my positions (as per the PC mindset) from a single thread. By the way, is it a gross generalization to ponder over an entire generations' mental capacity because of a PC mentality which has been imposed on them from a previous generation?

That you posit the need to be objective and then equate it with intelligence reveals your lack of education. Research is not objective and neither are people. We all have our biases. The question is whether we form our biases with an effort to be objective, or balanced in our views. But attaining objectivity is difficult to surmise. Had you even a basic knowledge of research methodology, you'd be more careful in using this word.

As for your assumptions, or rather accusations, I'm not in agreement with the Bush policy on Iraq and never have been. I was of the belief before the war began that when Saddam said he would wage it in a way the invaders wouldn't expect he was already planning the insurgency. Moreover, I agreed with retired Army general Eric Shinseki of my adopted home state that we should have occupied with a much larger force.

Something to consider: people who are petty usually make a point of saying they're not.

bum:

I'm aware that not all Arabs are Muslim. You neglected to mention Christians in Lebanon and small communities of Jews in Tunisia and Egypt too. Go ahead and nitpick.

You may wish to believe Syria "isn't that stupid" but you assume that Syria cares what the U.S. and its allies think. And they weren't exactly clever by arranging the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister, now were they?

Not so incidentally, I've lived in Libya, Iran, and Israel. Have you lived in the Middle East? No need to respond to that question; it's rhetorical.

As for Indonesia, well, tell that to the hundreds of thousands of Aussie tourists who now think twice about visiting Bali.

One last point: if you care less about the plight of the Iraqis under Saddam you lose your credibility in my view on this issue. Period.

madcap:

I concur with your assessment, for what it's worth to you.

[bucheon bum]

[alffy]

[bucheon bum]

[ChimpumCallao]

Seriously? If I was the president and had 100% power over the sitaution.

Let me start off by saying i was OPPOSED to this BS war from the get go, however, now that we are stuck in the shiitestorms to end all shiitestorms i would go about it like this.

1) terrorists and islamists have many young men and are willing to do everything and anything to get their point accross.

2) we have technology and artillery.

So we gotta use what will make us win. Another vietnam (which it looks like already) would be devastating.

I would basically level the place. I would have the whatever it takes mentality of WW2, even if it meant civilian casualties. I would bombard every place where there was even a HINT of insurgence in a way that would make dresden look like a paintball fight. Once it was clear we won, we would leave, put up a pro-market atheist benevolent dictator to push for a secular capitalist society. Iraq would have preferential treatment and no tariffs when exporting/importing to the US. Then I would make it national law that bars the US from invading or aiding in the wars of ANY country unless the US has been visibly attacked. Any region who wanted more autonomy would be granted so, with a timeline to be a free nation if they decided to do so. Same goes for Afghanistan.

If the US was attacked again it would be a one day war that would turn the other country into the world's biggest mirror (that's what happens when you overhead sand).

[EFLtrainer]

[On the other hand]

[madcap]

Chimp-

That is the very reason that you are not, nor will you ever be president.

[alffy]

[Ya-ta Boy]

I've stayed out of this debate because I can't decide which would be worse. It's a disaster that we are there and it will be a disaster if we leave. My gut says: Get the troops out now and then cross our fingers, but that is not a policy for success.

Iraq is an artificial construct of the British. The people have had about 80 years to develop a sense of nationhood but it doesn't look to me like enough of them have been able to overcome their ethnic and religious roots to do it. The present government doesn't seem capable of rousing the majority to a sense of indignation at the daily violence to the point where they demand it stop and enforce that demand by ratting out their neighbors who are plotting the next atrocity. Maybe only a dictatorship is strong enough in that part of the world to provide that level of security for the public. I don't know.

I do know that there are enough extremists in enough countries willing to slip into Iraq and set off roadside bombs or strap explosives to their chest to blow up crowds of shoppers that the present situation could continue till the sun burns out. The US cannot afford to continue borrowing the money from China to remain in Iraq. To remain will be a continuing disaster costing far too much in blood and money. Their blood; our money; and all of it with no end in sight.

To leave will also be disasterous. It's naive to think the neighboring countries will stop their involvement in Iraq just because we do. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have important national interests that will not cease. It's nice to say we should let the Iraqis work out their own destiny. It never happens anywhere. Outside powers always try to influence outcomes. Always. If we take our troops out we should focus on getting them ready to go back in in the near future.

Which is the lesser of two very real evils? I still don't know.