Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

So does anyone still support the invasion of Iraq?
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Yu_Bum_suk



Joined: 25 Dec 2004

PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:26 pm    Post subject: So does anyone still support the invasion of Iraq? Reply with quote

February - March, 2003, is a time I'll remember very well. I was living in the Midwestern US at the time and never in my life have I said out loud so many times 'what the hell are these people thinking'? At one point I think up to 80% of Americans and 50% of Brits and Australians and a majority of Israelis supported it. That was it - two nations in the world, America and Israel, where a clear majority were in favour of invading Iraq?

Now, of all these people who were so gung-ho, does anyone still support the invasion, and what would it possibly take for them to admit that it was a mistake? It's almost like it's become a non-issue now, isn't it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a non-issue. I'm interested what the results of this kind of question would be for something like global climate change.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
mindmetoo



Joined: 02 Feb 2004

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I keep wanting to ask that question. I remember a couple years ago you had Derrek and some other guy arguing rather vigerously for the war (could never figure out why Derrek, who was so certain of the just cause, didn't stop teaching and went to fight along side his brothers... surely would have never let someone do the heavy lifting for him).

At least now, after 5 years, Bush is beginning to admit things aren't going 100% the way he wants them to go. Gosh, they're even floating the C word (civil war).

Sunnis and Shiites... enemies for centuries... they could even barely get along to fight the Crusades... they'd all just lock arms in brotherly love to rebuild Iraq under an American imposed constitution and peace.

The mission was so clear.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nowhere Man



Joined: 08 Feb 2004

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:16 am    Post subject: ... Reply with quote

I know I don't, but I'm glad the British went to Iraq. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
postfundie



Joined: 28 May 2004

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

in hindsight...I'd say it was NOT the best of choices....I don't think many people see this as all that much worse than Saddam and his raping and murdering sons...Not to many people want Israel back in Gaza despite the palestinian violence....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Adventurer



Joined: 28 Jan 2006

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

postfundie wrote:
in hindsight...I'd say it was NOT the best of choices....I don't think many people see this as all that much worse than Saddam and his raping and murdering sons...Not to many people want Israel back in Gaza despite the palestinian violence....


Well, the thing is there were people familiar with the region who were kind of warning the planners of the war and people in the State Department and many military men were ignored. Arrogance took over when there was a need for precaution and not taking crazy risks with the lives of soldiers. It may work out the best for the Iraqis in the long-run. We don't know. Regardless of what happens to Iraq, this war will have cost the U.S. tax payers about a trillion dollars when the dust finally settles. Imagine what could have been done for America domestically.
It makes me sad to think about that. Anyway, the invasion has separated Shiites from Sunnis to a large extent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hollywoodaction



Joined: 02 Jul 2004

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What if the main purpose of the war in Iraq was to distract us from the fact that the world is going to hell because of climate change (which is a result dependancy on oil)?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevemcgarrett



Joined: 24 Mar 2006

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In his last interview with a prominent Western journalist, Saddam Hussein said to Dan Rather of CBS News that if the American military went to war against Iraq they would encounter a form of resistance unlike any before. Many interpreted it at the time as bellicose hot air from the pompous dictator but I recall having this uneasy feeling that he was referring to a new form of guerrilla warfare.

I really believe he never intended to offer stiff resistance to the American forces, and although some field commanders sensed early on that we would need a huge occupying force to silence a Sunni insurgency, their concerns went ignored by Rumsfeld, who believe light, tactical and mobile forces could do the job just as well. This gross miscalculation enabled the insurgency of former Baathists, disbanded Sunni army elements, and other Saddam loyalists to generate an insurgency of broad scale.

And we saw the result. The terror networks infiltrated only later.

Saddam I believe learned from the first Gulf War that his regular forces in the standing army could not indeed hold off massively superior American firepower. He went into a rat hole hoping the insurgency would succeed quickly. Although he overestimated the pace of its deteriorating effect on the transitional government, he did not calculate incorrectly in terms of what has since transpired.

Whether there was sufficient war planning is a secondary concern in my view; what mattered most, as retired general Eric Shizeki insisted, was more boots on the ground in the immediate aftermath of the invasion.

Anyhow, that's my take and I think Powell declined a second Bush appointment not because of the fiasco with the nuclear weapons issue but because he knew Rumsfeld wasn't going to abide by the Powell Doctrine, learned from hard lessons when he was a rising officer in Vietnam, namely, that you don't go in unless you are there to assault with overwhelming force and also support at home.

This all said, now that we're there we can't just pull out. As Jefferson once aptly said metaphorically about the issue of slavery: we have the wolf by the ears.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemcgarrett wrote:

This all said, now that we're there we can't just pull out. As Jefferson once aptly said metaphorically about the issue of slavery: we have the wolf by the ears.


Why not?

The tragedy of America is that it does not act irresponsibly enough often enough. Clinton pulling out of Somalia; good idea. The Gipper renouncing Lebanon less than a year after he had declared it an important theatre; solid thinking. George H.W. Bush letting down the Kurds and Shi'a against Saddam; what was he thinking???

Kissinger and Nixon extending the Vietnam War into Cambodia; okay, maybe irresponsibility is not what I want to advocate here.

How about a sense of proportion. Except for oil, this wasteland called the Middle East has a dead-end economy that threatens nothing. Except, well, it has excess population. Let's just let go of the reigns and let another 30 years of war pass and let the Tigris and Euphrates flow with the blood of Shi'a and Sunni.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemcgarrett wrote:
In his last interview with a prominent Western journalist, Saddam Hussein said to Dan Rather of CBS News that if the American military went to war against Iraq they would encounter a form of resistance unlike any before. Many interpreted it at the time as bellicose hot air from the pompous dictator but I recall having this uneasy feeling that he was referring to a new form of guerrilla warfare.

I really believe he never intended to offer stiff resistance to the American forces, and although some field commanders sensed early on that we would need a huge occupying force to silence a Sunni insurgency, their concerns went ignored by Rumsfeld, who believe light, tactical and mobile forces could do the job just as well. This gross miscalculation enabled the insurgency of former Baathists, disbanded Sunni army elements, and other Saddam loyalists to generate an insurgency of broad scale.

And we saw the result. The terror networks infiltrated only later.

Saddam I believe learned from the first Gulf War that his regular forces in the standing army could not indeed hold off massively superior American firepower. He went into a rat hole hoping the insurgency would succeed quickly. Although he overestimated the pace of its deteriorating effect on the transitional government, he did not calculate incorrectly in terms of what has since transpired.

Whether there was sufficient war planning is a secondary concern in my view; what mattered most, as retired general Eric Shizeki insisted, was more boots on the ground in the immediate aftermath of the invasion.

Anyhow, that's my take and I think Powell declined a second Bush appointment not because of the fiasco with the nuclear weapons issue but because he knew Rumsfeld wasn't going to abide by the Powell Doctrine, learned from hard lessons when he was a rising officer in Vietnam, namely, that you don't go in unless you are there to assault with overwhelming force and also support at home.

This all said, now that we're there we can't just pull out. As Jefferson once aptly said metaphorically about the issue of slavery: we have the wolf by the ears.


One of the few times I agree with you, except the last bit. I now think we should pull out.

And it is Shinseki I believe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ddeubel



Joined: 20 Jul 2005

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
How about a sense of proportion. Except for oil, this wasteland called the Middle East has a dead-end economy that threatens nothing. Except, well, it has excess population.


Kuros, you show your true colours here.

MCGARRETT

You provide a good overview of the possible thinking of various actors in this drama.

Yet, you don't address the truer point. Which is == none of them were correct because there was NEVER any way of winning this war, avoiding casualties, avoiding creating internal mayhem, destruction, devastation. They all worked under the presumption that there could be a way to set up a tin pot government where peace and good will could reign in the Tigris/Euphrates valley. They were/are wrong. Even more boots could never make that possible.

Your overview should have mentioned that minor detail.

DD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mindmetoo



Joined: 02 Feb 2004

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
stevemcgarrett wrote:

This all said, now that we're there we can't just pull out. As Jefferson once aptly said metaphorically about the issue of slavery: we have the wolf by the ears.


Why not?

The tragedy of America is that it does not act irresponsibly enough often enough. Clinton pulling out of Somalia; good idea. The Gipper renouncing Lebanon less than a year after he had declared it an important theatre; solid thinking. George H.W. Bush letting down the Kurds and Shi'a against Saddam; what was he thinking???


In the first two cases, that was America acting as peace keeper. That's a bad role for the USA. No one is happy to have GIs telling them what to do. I'm sure they're not fully happy Canadians and Pakistanis are telling them what to do but it's much harder to mobilize a nation against Pakistanis or Dutch or Canadians (unless they publish cartoons of the prophet). I think the presidents were right to pull out, when the mission changes from the defined goal to "get the guy who is worse than Hitler".

The problem with Iraq is Bush assumed the UN would be happy to clean up his mess and the 1000 years of bad blood between Shiite and Sunnis would some how take a back seat to building a nation that was never their idea to begin with and was only kept together by a brutal dictator. I mean look at Yugoslavia. Once the strongman died, the country fell apart.

Bush a covered his ears to the clarion evidence and fired people who dared not agree that the people of Iraq would be so thankful to be free of Saddam they'd love to have infidel Americans hanging around towns for half a decade...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wannago



Joined: 16 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ddeubel wrote:
Quote:
How about a sense of proportion. Except for oil, this wasteland called the Middle East has a dead-end economy that threatens nothing. Except, well, it has excess population.


Kuros, you show your true colours here. What an ASSinine statement. Belies intelligence.



I think Kuros is spot on. The Middle East has NOTHING to contribute to the world stage except oil. What else? And, God willing, we are able to beat our addiction to their only commodity, they will have nothing. And, you know what? THEY KNOW IT. They know oil is their only bargaining chip. What else is there for the rest of the world to be interested in? Culture? A hard-working, industrious populace? Vast natural resources? Intelligent, thinking people? We may wish they had some or all of these things but, sadly, they don't. The intelligent, thinking people in the region are drowned out by the radical, hate-spewing immams.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucheon bum



Joined: 16 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well i personally like the red sea. some of the old architecture is cool. lots of hot women if you're into brunettes (but untouchable for the most part). but yeah, economically speaking, all it has is oil.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevemcgarrett



Joined: 24 Mar 2006

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bum:

Quote:
lots of hot women if you're into brunettes (but untouchable for the most part).


Uh, so what good are they, or why bother to mention it?

ddeubel:

Quote:
You provide a good overview of the possible thinking of various actors in this drama


Gee, thanks. I can rest easier knowing I have your approval. Rolling Eyes

I suppose I need to spell out why we should suddenly extricate ourself from Iraq for the strategically challenged on this thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
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


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International