Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Bush: War skeptics 'proposing nothing'

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Bush: War skeptics 'proposing nothing'
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Wangja

Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan

Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:37 pm Post subject:

sundubuman wrote:

so all of you in favor of withdrawing troops.....

would you have advocated the same course of action on the Korean peninsula.....say in 1956?

There is no comparison between the two situations.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: ...

Quote:

would you have advocated the same course of action on the Korean peninsula.....say in 1956?

Would you have advocated a 20,000 troop surge in Vietnam, say in January of 1973?

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: Re: Bush: War skeptics 'proposing nothing'

Milwaukiedave wrote:

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Saturday challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad. "To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible," Bush said.

I love this. Invading Iraq without a plan for eventual stabilization and withdrawl...how responsible was that?

If I were Bush's successor I'd withdraw all the troops in Iraq in a week. To those who would complain, I'd quip, "Well, if my predecessor could invade Iraq and not take any responsibility for the consequences of his actions, why am I any more obligated to take into consideration the consequences of an immediate withdrawl?"

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

I respect your views, Manner. But I find you extremely bitter whenever W. Bush or this war comes up. This is unfortunate.

How about this as an answer to your second paragraph, which you seem to offer just to spite W. Bush: I would say America destabilized Iraq and, for better or for worse, is more morally obligated to responsibly withdraw -- if it is to withdraw -- and remain committed to Iraq's reconstruction than anything, anywhere else right now, save Afghanistan.

alffy

Joined: 25 Apr 2006

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:08 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

How about this as an answer to your second paragraph, which you seem to offer just to spite W. Bush: I would say America destabilized Iraq and, for better or for worse, is more morally obligated to responsibly withdraw -- if it is to withdraw -- and remain committed to Iraq's reconstruction than anything, anywhere else right now, save Afghanistan.

Uhmm, I disagree. The history of Iraq destabilized Iraq, much like the history of Yugoslavia had destabilized Yugoslavia. The only thing keeping artificial states such as these together has either been a powerful dictator or powerful external powers. We removed one in Iraq, are we to continuously supply the other? Or are we to stay long enough to install another powerful dictator?

Let the country disintegrate. Why must we strive to keep together a 'country' its own people don't want to keep togther (unless they can ethnically cleanse it, of course). Yes this appears terrible, but in the long run it will result in less trouble for the people of Iraq and the region (albeit after a brief, bitter civil war).

And if the counter argument is that the collapse of Iraq as an entity would endanger our interests in the region, should we have not thought about that before? And if we did, then we should have come to the same conclusions and either left Saddam in power as a buffer against Iran (he did that so nicely for us for so long), or gone into the war fully accepting that our concept of 'democracy' might not work well in Iraq, so the alternative is to set up a powerful dictator (I think Chalabi was many insiders fallback guy) or have to stick it out a LONG time.

I think we should pull out, throw our support behind the Kurds (screw you Turkey), let the Shi'ites do what they will (yes Iran will jump in with both feet) and leave the Sunnis to their luck, the Saudis, and the Syrians.

It will be destabilized for a while, but will eventually work itself out to a more stable long-term resolution than if we impose a 'democratic' government.

twg

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:41 am Post subject:

alffy wrote:

It will be destabilized for a while, but will eventually work itself out to a more stable long-term resolution than if we impose a 'democratic' government.

Self determination? An interesting concept.

ddeubel

Joined: 20 Jul 2005

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:53 am Post subject:

Quote:

Self determination? An interesting concept.

twg -- I usually get maddened by one liners but this one had me rolling in the aisles.....well said. Get a gig and hit the standup routine. You'd do good, even if this is just a rolling start....

Smile

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:23 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

I understand what you are saying, Gopher, and my comment was partly tongue-in-cheek. But there is a strange kind of disconnect that seems to be going on here. I think we can all agree that whomever made the decision at the top, the US-lead invasion of Iraq was poorly thought-out, done in complete disregard of all available advice provided by intelligence agencies, nearly split the western alliance, did irreparable harm to the US's prestige, security situation, financial situation, and killed hundreds of thousands of people needlessly.

But those who object to withdrawl claim that withdrawing all troops now would lead to the collapse of Iraq and a destabilization of the entire region. Iraq 'would be engulfed in chaos', is the current mindset. But why is an immediate withdrawl less morally acceptable than the original intervention? Why was it ok to screw Iraq over in 2003, but it's not ok to let it collapse in 2007?

Both are morally reprehensible, destabilizing, and damaging options - but they are equally morally reprehensible ones. Letting Iraq collapse now is just as bad as invading it in the first place - but why is one more acceptable than the other?

I think any time one approaches an analysis of any political or strategic issue, one - consciously or otherwise - brings a set of assumptions, perceptions, and psychological and ideological blinders to the issue, whether you want to or not. Just as there is no such thing as objective journalism, there isn't really any such thing as 'objective' political or strategic analysis. And I think the same thing may be happening here. Some may be approaching the issue with the subconscious assumption that "we can't withdraw now, we have a responsibility to 'stabilize' Iraq." There is an assumption that letting Iraq collapse in chaos is unacceptable and irresponsible. Perhaps...but not if there are no realistic prospects on the horizon that Iraq may stabilize. If the latter is true, continued involvement in Iraq may simply squander more resources and lives, without accomplishing anything.

I am old enough to remember Vietnam, and I remember that mess went on much longer than necessary because people at the top couldn't realistically assess the consequences of a speedy withdrawl. They also didn't have to pay the consequences of their decision, because they weren't the ones dying in Vietnam. So that mess went on and on and on, because according to the political calculus of the people at the top, getting deeper into an open-ended committment in Vietnam was psychologically more acceptable than the loss of prestige (an abstract concept, to say the least) of admitting defeat and withdrawing.

An endless ocean of misery overseas can always be rationalized by the people at the top when they don't have to suffer it. Send the Bush twins to Irbil to guard convoys, and see if policy at the top doesn't change.

All I can say is, I am left with the question: Why is immediate withdrawl so morally reprehensible and irresponsible, when the original invasion was as equally bad? Why is one acceptable and not the other?

Hater Depot

Joined: 29 Mar 2005

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:24 am Post subject:

Quote:

I would say America destabilized Iraq and, for better or for worse, is more morally obligated to responsibly withdraw -- if it is to withdraw -- and remain committed to Iraq's reconstruction

Whether we are morally obligated to stay depends in large part on whether Iraqis wants us to... why is that factor always missing from these arguments? Every IED is an invitation for us to leave. If polling data is reliable it seems that ordinary Iraqis agree.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/

67% supporting attacks on our troops... time to pack the bags.

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:39 am Post subject:

In international politics, as in everyday life, real friends don't always tell you what you want to hear: sometimes they tell you what you need to hear. Even when you don't like what they are saying. Real friends are willing to risk the loss of a friendship to keep you from making a serious mistake. Gopher, do you honestly think countries like Denmark, Poland or Australia were friends to the American people when they stood back and said, "Yes, the invasion of Iraq is ok. It's a good idea - go for it!"? Their sycophancy cost them nothing. They're not the ones dying in Iraq. They're not spending billions on wasted aid and munitions. They did it to curry favor with Bush and his horde of Cold War retreads.

twg

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:34 am Post subject:

ddeubel wrote:

Quote:

Self determination? An interesting concept.

twg -- I usually get maddened by one liners but this one had me rolling in the aisles.....well said.

My friend, sometimes one needs to step back and pass wind at the politics.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:08 am Post subject:

Manner: I read both posts. But I will respond to this question, which seems to provide the best opportunity to constructively exchange views...

Manner of Speaking wrote:

Why was it ok to screw Iraq over in 2003, but it's not ok to let it collapse in 2007?

I would like you to stop dwelling on the invasion and its problems, which is in the past and done, and start thinking about the present situation, which is something we might yet influence.

Regardless of who sits in the Oval Office or from which party she or he comes, we Americans must assist Iraq for a long time to come.

Saddam's regime, for better or for worse, functioned. For all intents and purposes I have not seen anything viable replace him. Before, something existed -- of whatever quality. Now, nothing of substance and much chaos and disorder.

We cannot leave them in this condition when we put them in this condition. Cutting and running is the wrong thing to do on multiple levels.

I have stressed our moral obligations and left out national interests, indeed global interests in a stable oil-producing Middle East. But those interests come into play, just as the geopolitical ones raised by regional friends like the Suadis and others who fear an ascendant, nuclear-armed Tehran.

We cannot just walk away from this. And I am confident that many policymakers and officials share at least most of my views as articulated here.

ddeubel

Joined: 20 Jul 2005

Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject:

Quote:

We cannot just walk away from this. And I am confident that many policymakers and officials share at least most of my views as articulated here.

And therein lies the problem... I just don't see why you would want to be part of the problem and not the solotion.....

And still, that old Swartzkoff or whoever, breakfast adage, rings true. "The chickens may be involved but the pigs are truly commited".

Forever the small guy picking up the crumbs while the policymakers and officials and gophers nibble their big pieces of cheese and say -- "Full steam ahead!!!!"

DD

PS. And I must add, how sick and how brazen of Bush to once again pull out the old, "I am with the family and parents of the fallen ones" on national TV the other night. He is a disgrace just for that public display of poor piety. He will have to use his sleeve, not many people offering him a hankerchief these days.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe