Korean Job Discussion Forums

[zai]

...things wouldn't be so complicated?

Ok first of all I'm not that well versed in foreign affairs. I have read articles and essays and whatnot but am not near as knowledgeable as others on this forum. So, if any of you would like to point out articles and such for me in regards to my post I would appreciate it.

Anyways, I was just wondering why this whole Iraq and middle east issue is so messy. I think the main problem with our war right now is (as how others have said) is that it's on terrorism. Fighting a concept is kind of like fighting love (which is another concept, and frankly, no one has been even able to define love yet). I think things were much easier when we had definable enemies (as in countries). I mean wasn't it easier to see who and what we were fighting in WWII?

If you look at wars we fought when we were fighting concepts, the results aren't usually that sunny. For example, when we were fighting communism. The two I can think about was Vietnam and Korea. Vietnam was just a disaster and Korea is at a stalemate. The thing with the USSR is that we never even fought them, we just had all these spy games and stuff. And look what happened to them, they're just R now, they dismantled the USS part themselves. The thing with Russia, even though they were communists too, was that we had a definable enemy that had borders. We were in a cold war with the USSR, not communism (though that makes for good propaganda). When we went beyond borders (fighting communism in not yet communist countries), things went south (no pun intended).

So now our war is with terrorism. I mean talk about picking a tough battle. Terrorism fights its battles from within the population, it's whole survival depends on secrecy. If you fight terrorists, you will always end up hurting the general population. Unless you can read minds, there is no way around it. Now you have moral issues to tango with. Who's a terrorist who's not. "I suspect you're a terrorist, so I'm going to arrest you. What you're not? Well, you seemed suspicious to be one. Better to be safe than sorry. Run along now, pretend this never happened. We don't want to hurt public moral."

Ok, so that didn't work, so now we shift our enemy to radical Islamic fundamentalists. This is just as messy. There are no borders with that either. It's easier when you have a definable enemy with borders. In WWII we had a cause. Countries were being taken over by Germany and Japan and they said "this is not cool, hey you other guys, can you help us?" First we said no, "none of our beeswax". Then what did Japan do? I can imagine the generals getting drunk off of some sake saying, "dude, we should totally bomb Pearl Harbor!" Many lives were lost, but we won that one. And look at where Japan and Germany are now.

What I'm saying is that let these radical Islamic groups take over these countries in the middle east. Have them represent the country and declare "Kiss me arse USA!!!" Then, we can bomb the hell out of them. I think Bush's "Shock and Awe" campaign was born at the wrong time. Though it did technically work, the US worked the Iraqi army like no other. So imagine how easy it would be to wipe out any of these other countries, no more running around looking for terrorists amongst the population. We should just bomb then leave, if the terrorists want more, they'll take over the country again. Then we can just bomb, then leave.

Imagine what the soldiers over there must be going through. Every time they see an Iraqi or Afghanistan , they have to think "this he/she a terrorist?". Imagine WWII, "oh, Japanese, enemy uniform, shoot." Soldiers aren't supposed to ask questions!!

The longer we stay there, the more messier things are just going to be. Leave, let the people over there handle it. Who knows, maybe they'll even kill the terrorists. Think about it, after civil war in those regions, a good amount of the population will already be dead. Then we spend less on bombs because we have less people to bomb.

But then you say, "wait! what about Iran and nukes?" Cold war, duh! They're not going to nuke us. By then time they send 1 nuke, we've would of already been sending enough nukes to feed every single person there. And look what happened with the USSR. Let them have their nukes, Israel has them, they're not nuking anyone. Nukes are like teddy bears, they're to keep you safe at night. Who would in their right mind would let a country not sleep with their teddy bear?

Seriously, I think if we approached it this way, Iraq and Afghanistan could of been producing luxury cars and tiny 16 mexapixel camera phones by now.....well ok not now, but after a good amount of years rebuilding. But still, we wouldn't have all these stupid debates on Iraq, and can instead focus on things like the economy and health care. Things that effect me immediately. I don't want to fight terror. Terror, is a word best used to do describe the effect of something or as a verb (He terrorized me. He instilled terror in me - "He" is the issue.) And I dont want to fight a religion , religion is there to give hope to people who otherwise wouldn't have hope. Don't fight hope.

In design they teach the principle of K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Stupid. If you make things messy, well look at a Jackson Pollock painting and look where he ended up.

Ok, I'm done. This is not a troll, but it does have instances of humor weaved in there...I think.

[mindmetoo]

Living with the knowledge we could die in a nuclear holocaust because of a computer glitch did not make living in the '80s conducive to happiness.

[zai]

But we have Windows Vista now. Problem solved

[pesawattahi]

You are right, you are not well versed in forign affairs. You also seem to be able to quickly and nonchalantly condemn faceless masses to death. The first time we sat things out we eventually had to join "The War to End all Wars". We then tried it again but eventually got pulled into "Part II". With modern weaponry I would really hate to see what a real "Part III" would look like instead of the low intensity conflict we are in right now.

[thepeel]

[pesawattahi]

Yeah I hate vista to its so slow and stupid. Its like they gave XP a lobodomy and then made it have to ask permission everytime it had to take a whiz.

[Ya-ta Boy]

Wasn't the War on Terrorism the neocons' attempt to recreate the Cold War, but in a new and improved version? This one would never have to end and any time the GOP was starting to lose its hold on power, they could release information about some plot or other to scare the bejeezus out of everyone? Why limit yourself to only one geographical enemy that can up and collapse and spoil the game when you can get more mileage out of NGOs?

[pesawattahi]

No, its real. Go out and read some news (not blogs) instead of the selected garbage you are fed every day on T.V. "News". If you skim a few stories from a few different papers originating in different nations you might start to get the picture. Oh also a grasp on history wouldn't hurt either.

[Ya-ta Boy]

pes,

You seem to be an expert. Please take us to school.

[Czarjorge]

Ya-ta's right about the "War on Terrorism" being an attempt to re-establish some sort of cold war-esque situation to promote American hegemony. Feel free to read, and read between the lines, of the following website if you don't think that is true.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[pesawattahi]

So basically you are saying instead of using our strength to help our allies and prevent widescale regional conflicts we should sit idly by and let events unfold on their own without our participation. That worked great in Rawanda, Somolia, Darfur among other places. While we can't be everywhere at once we can still go to many places.

Should we go? Yes, if you value others lives then yes we should and we should stick by our friends to the bitter end.

Do you know how many countries are suffering from armed insurgencies where the true victims are the lower classes and productivity?(Negative productivity which condemns the poor to be perpetually poor.)

I know it is easy and comfortable to blame things on which you may have little understanding on some faceless evil conspiratorial group or even the devil himself Bush rather than actually studying the various situations, their histories, causes, effects, and possible solutions. But you have to face the piper sometime and actually deal with these situations.

[mindmetoo]

[Czarjorge]

Pes, who are you even responding to? What are you talking about?

The OP has no idea what they're talking about, and he/she admitted it. Why even bother discussing it? I noted the PNAC because you refuted Ya-ta's valid point. They were talking about precipitating a war with Iraq in the late 90's and Bush's cabal made it happen. These aren't conspiracy groups, they're established think tanks that are currently influencing policy, though thankfully the PNAC has fallen somewhat into disfavor.

Why throw around nonsense like "read history" when it seems like you haven't?

The historical view of the Middle East is that left to their own devices the wealthy elites who control their individual governments would have to fight the Islamists that want to eliminate nationality from Islam altogether and reestablish a Caliphate. The dispersion of Sunni and Shiite throughout the Middle East would complicate this, and in all likelihood lead to a civil war within Islam itself as the extremists sit on both sides of that divide and that conflict has been part of Islam since the beginning. Before any of that could happen Israel would nuke them all. None of that will happen as we won't pull out of the Middle East because of Israel and oil. It's never as simple as anyone of any discussion board would like it to be.

[pesawattahi]

No, there is a real war on terrorism, PNAC is merely a think tank influencing policy but they are ulitmatly powerless to implement it.

Hasen't anyone noticed that where Muslim societies border other societies there is all to frequently armed conflict, and if there isn't there is armed conflict in that nation that is refusing to conquer its neighbors is usually suffering from some sort of internal conflict?

Some can be chalked up to legitimate uprising against unjust governments, but in recent times have allied themselves with orginazations such as al queda or its affiliates. They do this in order to receive training and weapons for their cause and quite frequently it gets taken over by those same trainers from the inside and either no longer is the same movement or gains additional aims.

Most of the time the person at the heart of these movements that have become anti western are either an Arab or an indiginious person that has recived indoctrination in the anti western jihad school of thought of which there are a couple. (Muslim Brotherhood, Al Queda, Wahabism/Salfism)

These folk are connected by money, ideals, goals, and sometimes even by relation.

Does anyone remember how President Clinton used to condemn the Russians for the autrocities in Chechnya? I do. I used to feel sorry for them until we started catching and killing those same freedom fighters in Afghanistan. This is when I truly began to thing things were amiss and not truthfully reported. These guys were not merely caught in the crossfire they were leaders.

We still occasianlly catch a few still today.

[Czarjorge]

Does thepeel have a new sock?