Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - America should withdraw from Iraq..

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

America should withdraw from Iraq..
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject:

SPINOZA wrote:

Bush and Blair have created a war between the Sunnis and Shiites, thereby dividing and containing the previously united front that declared war on us in 2001.

Critics of Bush and the War seem to seriously believe that Bush, Blair and the hundreds of other highly educated people involved in the war's execution neglected the possibility of civil war. Absurd. It's totally calculated and so long as Muslim extremists continue to kill each other and not difficult military targets in Western cities (like people going to work on the subway, or a mother and young son at the mall buying a soccer jersey) it's all rather going to plan.

You seem to be saying that this dreadful mess was cunningly anticipated. I think you give the Bush administration far too much credit. They did have a lot of clever people around them that they refused to listen to. Put their fingers in their ears and took no notice when they were warned of the various problems. Secondly, this war was sought long before 911. The neo-cons were advocating military intervention in the nineties, and the reasons they gave were largely economic with an eye on Iraq's resources. I don't think a civil war in Iraq was likely to reduce terrorists targetting the West. If anything it has probably increased the likelyhood of jihadist targetting us, and given their angry young men a new training ground. I have spent a lot of time in the company of muslims, and since the invasion of Iraq, I've seen a tangible change in attitude, with muslims becoming more resentful.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject:

SPINOZA wrote:

Mosley wrote:

Fook me to tears. Care to sing praises of Stalin & Mao too?

The region has a centuries-long tradition of tribalism and honor killings. Saddam held the various ethnic and religious groups in the country together, not merely in national unity, but actually a strong national unity capable of launching two wars against Iraq's neighbors (of course, Iran and Kuwait). Saddam brought economic security for all inhabitants of Iraq (admittedly with a bias towards the Sunni minority), relative freedom in the economic sector, cultural life (theater, arts and music) freedom for women, free education, stability and security in most parts of the country.

An over-glorification of Saddam's Iraq.

Saddam's Iraq was run by terror and state-sanctioned thuggery. The economy collapsed soon after Saddam took power, and pre-Saddam Iraq had industries besides oil.

The war against Iran you mention was catastrophic for both countries. Which is the reason you always see that infamous picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam.

There was not national unity at that time. SCIRI conducted guerilla actions within southern Iraq, and the Sunnis campaigned against the Kurds in the North.

Not one bit of your description is accurate.

Mix1

Joined: 08 May 2007

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:31 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

SPINOZA wrote:

Mosley wrote:

Fook me to tears. Care to sing praises of Stalin & Mao too?

Sooo...invade and cause TOTAL chaos for 4 years and counting is the better option? Saddam won't be missed of course, but it's also difficult to support a war/occupation with no end in sight. Or is it all part of some grand plan with success "just around the corner" for the next 20 years or so...?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:53 am Post subject:

catman wrote:

The war has been a failure but none of the Democratic front runners for President have said they will pull troops out of Iraq. So the US will be in Iraq for years to come. I hope Ralph Nader runs again.

Republicans hope so to.

cbclark4

Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan

Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject:

Yes the Nader could run in the "Angry Old Man" party.

Mix1

Joined: 08 May 2007

Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject:

cbclark4 wrote:

Yes the Nader could run in the "Angry Old Man" party.

I thought that WAS the Republican party for the most part.

"You know how you get out? You get out." ...Donald Trump

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject:

Mix1 wrote:

Kuros wrote:

SPINOZA wrote:

Mosley wrote:

Fook me to tears. Care to sing praises of Stalin & Mao too?

I noticed you don't *actually* disagree with me.

Have fun beating down your strawman.

Mix1

Joined: 08 May 2007

Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Mix1 wrote:

Kuros wrote:

SPINOZA wrote:

Mosley wrote:

Fook me to tears. Care to sing praises of Stalin & Mao too?

I noticed you don't *actually* disagree with me.

Have fun beating down your strawman.

You are right... I probably don't disagree with you (if your main point was Saddam was a bad guy, etc.). As for the "strawman", it was more just an assessment of where the US seems to be right now, not necesarily a projection of your viewpoint on anything in particular. Because it seems to me, the onus of responsibility is on those who continue to support the war/occupation to explain just what exactly are we still doing there 4 years on...

for example, if it was such a good idea to invade and occupy indefinetly, please explain why it is so necessary to stay. Seems like it would put us in a situation rather like Israel, where we have to constantly and indefinetly endure terrorist attacks and uprisings against our presence there. This is not a "stawman" arguement, I'm expressing confusion at the predicament the US is currently in.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:37 pm Post subject:

Mix1 wrote:

Kuros wrote:

Mix1 wrote:

Kuros wrote:

SPINOZA wrote:

Mosley wrote:

Fook me to tears. Care to sing praises of Stalin & Mao too?

I noticed you don't *actually* disagree with me.

Have fun beating down your strawman.

You're preaching to the choir.

The problem I have is with people who want to attack the Iraq war by sanitizing Saddam. Its so stupid partly because it is so unnecessary and partly because it is just wrong.

I'm voting Richardson, so I want the troops out.

Mix1

Joined: 08 May 2007

Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:51 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Mix1 wrote:

Kuros wrote:

Mix1 wrote:

Kuros wrote:

SPINOZA wrote:

Mosley wrote:

Fook me to tears. Care to sing praises of Stalin & Mao too?

I noticed you don't *actually* disagree with me.

Have fun beating down your strawman.

Yeah, I generally agree. Ok, I'm done "preaching" now... Rolling Eyes

SPINOZA

Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul

Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:45 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

SPINOZA wrote:

Mosley wrote:

Fook me to tears. Care to sing praises of Stalin & Mao too?

An over-glorification of Saddam's Iraq.

In the post of mine you quoted, I made essentially 7 claims:

1. national unity
2. economic security
3. relative freedom in the economic sector
4. cultural life
5. freedom for women
6. free education
7. stability and security in most parts of the country

If you�re to successfully claim this an over-glorification of Saddam�s Iraq, you need to counterclaim these 7 claims.

Quote:

Saddam's Iraq was run by terror and state-sanctioned thuggery.

I acknowledged that SH used brute force and it�s an established fact that SH and the Baathists killed and oppressed (by repressive security forces) anyone who posed a threat to the stability of Iraq.

Quote:

The economy collapsed soon after Saddam took power

Why?

Quote:

and pre-Saddam Iraq had industries besides oil.

Saddam was an instrumental figure throughout the 70s when the Iraq economy grew rapidly.

Wiki: �diversify the largely oil-based Iraqi economy, Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign revolutionized Iraq's energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas.�

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

Quote:

The war against Iran you mention was catastrophic for both countries.

Yes, but the only reason I mentioned Saddam's wars was to argue that national unity was strong and, in any case, even at the invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi army was the largest in the Middle East. Mobilizing a large Iraqi army to start two wars is, surely, excellent evidence that Saddam brought some national unity to Iraq.

Quote:

There was not national unity at that time. SCIRI conducted guerilla actions within southern Iraq, and the Sunnis campaigned against the Kurds in the North.

Saddam constantly crushing opposition and rebellions is something I've already acknowledged. There was otherwise a great deal of national unity, partly enforced and partly because SH did some genuinely good things for the Iraqis.

Quote:

Not one bit of your description is accurate.

Convince me. Wikipedia is sympathetic to all my 7 claims.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:45 am Post subject:

SPINOZA one could probably make the same claims for Lenin , Hitler, Stalin , Mao and Kim Il Sung.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:03 am Post subject:

SPINOZA wrote:

Kuros wrote:

SPINOZA wrote:

Mosley wrote:

Fook me to tears. Care to sing praises of Stalin & Mao too?

An over-glorification of Saddam's Iraq.

Quote:

Saddam's Iraq was run by terror and state-sanctioned thuggery.

Saddam also used to have thugs and state-sanctioned militias carry out his bidding. It wasn't just repressive security forces. Iraq is a big country with a lot of cities. Baghdad was controlled by state security, but Saddam ran the Shi'a south by terror and harassment.

Quote:

The economy collapsed soon after Saddam took power

Why?

He nationalized oil and created an authoritarian-market program. Also, those wars you mentioned helped drive the economy into the ground.

Quote:

and pre-Saddam Iraq had industries besides oil.

Yeah, wiki mentions the early years. When you're nationalizing industry and setting up farm collectives, the first five years can be profitable. Long-term, such an authoritarian construct leads to disaster. Its taken about that long for Chavez's policies to end up in hyperinflation.

Saddam's Ba'athists administered all of this

[Bold is mine]

Quote:

The early 1970s was a time of important development for the Iraqi economy and the government�s role in it. In 1972 the government nationalized the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), which had been owned by foreign oil companies. The nationalization, together with the steep rise in the price of crude oil that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) engineered in 1973, had the effect of raising Iraq�s oil revenues more than eightfold�from $1 billion in 1972 to $8.2 billion in 1975. This sharp increase in revenue solidified the government�s role in the economy, making the government the primary agent for transferring wealth from the petroleum industry to the rest of the economy. In this way the government acquired the unprecedented power to allocate economic resources to various sectors of the economy and among different social classes and groups. Beginning in the 1970s, the Iraqi government came to be the primary determiner of employment, income distribution, and development, both of economic sectors and of geographical regions. It carried out extensive economic planning and exercised heavy control over agriculture, foreign trade, communication networks, banking services, public utilities, and industrial production, leaving only small-scale industry, shops, farms, and some services to the private sector.

But...

Quote:

Falling oil prices and the war with Iran severely hampered the petroleum industry during the 1980s.

So I concede economic unity, but not economic security, since such a collectivist and authoritarian approach has always led to a bad end. So does structuring your economy around a single, fluctuating commodity. I will not seek to rediagram that triangle here.

Education was no doubt supported by the oil revenue, like everything else in the Iraqi economy. You can also be assured that all the best jobs went to Sunni non-Kurdish Arabs, especially those of Saddam's clan. To be fair, these were probably also the best educated. I guess you can call this 'national unity,' when a religious sect/ethnicity comprising 20% gets all the best jobs and the rest are excluded.

Quote:

The war against Iran you mention was catastrophic for both countries.

I mean, if you define national unity by having an authoritarian regime, then yes. But thats kind of like saying, "Saddam should be congratulated for having an authoritarian regime and uniting his entire state enough to go to war with a neighbor, thereby grinding down his economy and his nation's fortunes for eight years, and making it dependant upon loans from a small neighbor that it would later invade in desperation."

Other countries with national unity by your definition: Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and China.

Burma had one of the best economies in Asia in the 1950s. North Korea had a better economy than South Korea in the 70s.

Most of China is stable and secure. I mean, we don't hear anything to the contrary right? Surely, the Chinese media would broadcast uprisings in the countryside. Correction: China appears stable and secure, particularly because all the foreigners live in the rich parts of the country.

Quote:

There was not national unity at that time. SCIRI conducted guerilla actions within southern Iraq, and the Sunnis campaigned against the Kurds in the North.

That 'national unity' was supplied by giving all the jobs, all the oil money, and orienting everything for the favor of 20% of the population, whose women were liberated (for the ME, which means OH SO MUCH). SH did some genuinely GREAT things for the SUNNI NON-KURDISH ARAB minority. For the rest? Not so much.

----------------------

Here's my assessment of Saddam. The man did exert complete control over Iraq. That's a feat in itself. He nationalized oil, and founded his dictatorship by allowing his base to prosper at the expense of the rest of the country.

By consolidating the market, he enslaved Iraqis as much as he did by consolidating political power for himself. Iraqis became slavish and servile, particularly the Iraqis who benefitted most, the Sunni non-Kurdish Arabs. Those who had to fight the most against his regime, the Kurds, were the most free, as they took no share in any of Saddam's handouts and had to live on their own.

Also, a lot of the lawlessness in Iraq today can be traced to Saddam. Saddam encouraged thugs and sponsored illicit gangs, particularly in the Shi'a south. Before the invasion, he released prisoners in a Castro-style gambit. But most of all, he enslaved Iraq. National unity? That's a glorified description.

And because this is Dave's: No, I'm not saying the Americans haven't FUBARed things royally.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:06 am Post subject:

Mix1 wrote:

Yeah, I generally agree. Ok, I'm done "preaching" now... Rolling Eyes

Where I'm from, the phrase 'you're preaching to the choir' doesn't have any perjorative connotations. Nor did I mean any by typing it.

Mix1

Joined: 08 May 2007

Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Mix1 wrote:

Yeah, I generally agree. Ok, I'm done "preaching" now... Rolling Eyes

Where I'm from, the phrase 'you're preaching to the choir' doesn't have any perjorative connotations. Nor did I mean any by typing it.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 3 of 8

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