|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
I don't think the problem with Bush was his hawkishness.
I think it was his incompetence. |
I don't know that I would be significantly happier with a competent hawk. I prefer avoiding war when possible. I see it as a last resort kind of thing. I guess to be honest, I really only think wars of self-defense are acceptable, although I know even that can get fuzzy around the edges in the real world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
I don't think the problem with Bush was his hawkishness.
I think it was his incompetence. |
I don't know that I would be significantly happier with a competent hawk. I prefer avoiding war when possible. I see it as a last resort kind of thing. I guess to be honest, I really only think wars of self-defense are acceptable, although I know even that can get fuzzy around the edges in the real world. |
It can get fuzzy around the edges in a lot of places. Look at the Sudan, look at Kenya, look at Rwanda in 1994. There are often excellent cases for limited intervention to be made.
Bush started only two wars. Afghanistan and Iraq. The Afghanistan war had more than a legitimate [i[casus belli[/i].
The Iraq war was surrounded by incompetence. The ease with which the execution of the war was envisioned was central to the problem. The administration thought it would be easy and refused to formulate a Phase IV reconstruction plan. And that's where the problems began. I think that John McCain has a better sense of the gravity of war and the commitment needed.
There's a sense in which invading Iraq is viewed as a bad decision. I'm afraid its not that easy, from where I sit. Invading Iraq could have turned out well. Indeed, we removed Saddam Hussein. The problem was the laziness, hubris, and incompetence. We had 3 months to win over most Iraqis, and we lost them because our armed forces were stretched thin, we disbanded the Ba'athist Army, we refused to govern under the doctrine of freedom, we did not repair utilities and electricity quickly enough, and the soldiers were not trained how to properly treat civilians.
I don't see ANY of that happening in a McCain presidency. Moreover, there's fundamentally no way that McCain will have the popular support to wage a war of choice. Not after Iraq, especially not while our troops are there.
What McCain WILL do is double-down on Iraq. We'll see more forces go in there, and more attention paid to reconstruction. Personally, I'd like to withdraw and declare failure, but McCain's plan is worth trying. I do not have a crystal ball, and if any President can succeed at pulling some successes out of such a military fiasco, its McCain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
What McCain WILL do is double-down on Iraq. We'll see more forces go in there, and more attention paid to reconstruction. Personally, I'd like to withdraw and declare failure, but McCain's plan is worth trying. I do not have a crystal ball, and if any President can succeed at pulling some successes out of such a military fiasco, its McCain. |
And this is why I would vote for McCain over Hillary. She is the most likely to bungle Iraq. My gut tells me that if she were to become President, she'd keep us involved in Iraq but not pour in the resources like McCain would. Maybe towards the end of her first term would she start pulling out troops.
Like I said, just my gut. I really don't have anything to base it on I'm afraid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And this is why I would vote for McCain over Hillary. She is the most likely to bungle Iraq. My gut tells me that if she were to become President, she'd keep us involved in Iraq but not pour in the resources like McCain would. |
My problem with McCain is that I think he would continue to pour resources into Iraq, irrespective of how the war was actually going. Remember, his stated optimism on the war predates the surge. Optimism just seems to be his default mode when it comes to the war. I think he'd be tempermentally incapable of admitting that things are going badly and that it's time to leave. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It can get fuzzy around the edges in a lot of places. Look at the Sudan, look at Kenya, look at Rwanda in 1994. There are often excellent cases for limited intervention to be made. |
That may be what is making me nervous about McCain. If he is more hawkish than Bush, we may get ourselves involved in one of those (or any number of other places) and I see those places as the responsibility of the neighboring countries under the UN.
Off-hand, I can't think of a war that hasn't involved killing a lot of people who didn't deserve it. On top of that, few wars go exactly as planned by the perpetrator, so I'm not much of a fan.
For argument's sake, let's say McCain were to make a success out of the invasion of Iraq. To what end? I don't see the purpose of having troops permanently stationed in Iraq (or a good many other places). And wouldn't success lend weight to the neo-con argument of going in to any number or other countries to do the same thing?
PS: I do agree with you about Afghanistan. In my opinion, that was our chance to get justice and act in a humanitarian capacity at the same time. If we'd spent half the effort and money there that we've spent in Iraq, and then left, both the Afghans and we would be in a much better position today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It can get fuzzy around the edges in a lot of places. Look at the Sudan, look at Kenya, look at Rwanda in 1994. There are often excellent cases for limited intervention to be made. |
That may be what is making me nervous about McCain. If he is more hawkish than Bush, we may get ourselves involved in one of those (or any number of other places) and I see those places as the responsibility of the neighboring countries under the UN.
Off-hand, I can't think of a war that hasn't involved killing a lot of people who didn't deserve it. On top of that, few wars go exactly as planned by the perpetrator, so I'm not much of a fan.
For argument's sake, let's say McCain were to make a success out of the invasion of Iraq. To what end? I don't see the purpose of having troops permanently stationed in Iraq (or a good many other places). And wouldn't success lend weight to the neo-con argument of going in to any number or other countries to do the same thing?
PS: I do agree with you about Afghanistan. In my opinion, that was our chance to get justice and act in a humanitarian capacity at the same time. If we'd spent half the effort and money there that we've spent in Iraq, and then left, both the Afghans and we would be in a much better position today. |
McCain might be able to turn Iraq into Korean war style "draw" . Everyone ought to remember the US still got the better of the of otherside during the cold war despite the fact that the US only got a draw out of the cold war. Iraq is just one battle in the war on terror
In any case the Iraq war taught the US how bad it is to have boots on the ground. The next time the US fights the US will have to impose its prefered method of war on the enemy..
That is the real lesson of the Iraq war. Boots on the ground is not a good way for the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| McCain WILL...double-down on Iraq. |
Anybody know where McCain stands on the Iraq Study Group's recs to talk with Tehran and Damascus? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| McCain WILL...double-down on Iraq. |
Anybody know where McCain stands on the Iraq Study Group's recs to talk with Tehran and Damascus? |
I know that Jim Baker has endorsed Mr. McCain's candidacy. In regards to Iran and Syria, this came off of McCain's website.
| Quote: |
Call for International Pressure on Syria and Iran
John McCain believes Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating from within its territory. Iran has aided the most extreme and violent Shia militias, providing them with training, weapons, and technology that they have used to kill American troops.
The answer is not to enter into unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces in Iraq and to deter Iranian intervention in that country. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| I know that Jim Baker has endorsed Mr. McCain's candidacy. |
| McCain's campaign position wrote: |
| Call for International Pressure on Syria and Iran...The answer is not to enter into unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness... |
Not surprised that Baker endorses McCain. I think McCain and the conservative branch of the foreign-policy establishment, just as Clinton and Obama and different factions within the liberal branch of the foreign-policy establishment, would all work very well together. And this is a difference that has yet to be acknowledged on this thread: no matter who wins the presidency from this point forward, that person will be far more rational in foreign affairs than W. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were. The "who is more hawkish?" question seems to suppress this nuance.
Still, I would like McCain to more closely follow the Iraq Study Group's recs once he wins the presidency and turns to the Iraqi War...
| Iraq Study Group's Recommendation No. 9 wrote: |
...the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues...
Engaging Iran is problematic, especially given the state of the U.S.-Iranian relationship. Yet the United States and Iran cooperated in Afghanistan, and both sides should explore whether this model can be replicated in the case of Iraq.
Although Iran sees it in its interest to have the United States bogged down in Iraq, Iran's interests would not be served by a failure of U.S. policy in Iraq that led to chaos and the territorial disintegration of the Iraqi state. Iran's population is slightly more than 50 percent Persian, but it has a large Azeri minority (24 percent of the population) as well as Kurdish and Arab minorities. Worst-case scenarios in Iraq could inflame sectarian tensions within Iran, with serious consequences for Iranian national security interests.
Our limited contacts with Iran's government lead us to believe that its leaders are likely to say they will not participate in diplomatic efforts to support stability in Iraq. They attribute this reluctance to their belief that the United States seeks regime change in Iran.
Nevertheless, as one of Iraq's neighbors Iran should be asked to assume its responsibility to participate in the Support Group. An Iranian refusal to do so would demonstrate to Iraq and the rest of the world Iran's rejectionist attitude and approach, which could lead to its isolation. Further, Iran's refusal to cooperate on this matter would diminish its prospects of engaging with the United States in the broader dialogue it seeks [with respect to its nuclear programs]. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
