|
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 |
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
80% of Iraq's people are glad the US took down Saddam.
Iraq
60% Shia
15% Kurd
15% Sunni |
Considering that the U.S. has a problem with the Shia population next door, one wonders why they wanted to create a democracy in Iraq......
Or did they just not think this one through?
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Beeyee wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
It takes time to organize a steady retreat in the face of an active insurgency. I support a pull-out on a timetable consistant with Iraqi wishes, but there has to be time for U.S. forces to evacuate everything necessary in an orderly fashion. If we started doing that tomorrow, even December 31st, 2009 would be risky from the perspective of retreat (although possible).
|
Kuros:
You raise a valid point. Still, the difference between 12/31/09, and 12/31/14, strikes me as a a fairly substantial one, five extra years to be precise. That's considerably more than what I would think can be rationalized away as "wiggle room". |
As an American I don't mind intruding a bit on Iraqi soveriegnty to deal with strategic goals in the region. |
Yes the US has only intruded 'a bit' on Iraqi sovereignty. This has to be the understatement of the year!
 |
No. Come out and say it. America invaded Iraqi sovereignty.
Bullshit. America broke a dictator's hold over slaves. Staying until 2009, 2011, hell, even 2015, is not that much of a difference in the scheme of what Iraq has been through. |
The US did both. I don't think those things are mutually exclusive. |
Explain. |
That dictator was the leader of that nation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Beeyee wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
It takes time to organize a steady retreat in the face of an active insurgency. I support a pull-out on a timetable consistant with Iraqi wishes, but there has to be time for U.S. forces to evacuate everything necessary in an orderly fashion. If we started doing that tomorrow, even December 31st, 2009 would be risky from the perspective of retreat (although possible).
|
Kuros:
You raise a valid point. Still, the difference between 12/31/09, and 12/31/14, strikes me as a a fairly substantial one, five extra years to be precise. That's considerably more than what I would think can be rationalized away as "wiggle room". |
As an American I don't mind intruding a bit on Iraqi soveriegnty to deal with strategic goals in the region. |
Yes the US has only intruded 'a bit' on Iraqi sovereignty. This has to be the understatement of the year!
|
No. Come out and say it. America invaded Iraqi sovereignty.
Bullshit. America broke a dictator's hold over slaves. Staying until 2009, 2011, hell, even 2015, is not that much of a difference in the scheme of what Iraq has been through. |
The US did both. I don't think those things are mutually exclusive. |
Explain. |
That dictator was the leader of that nation. |
Saddam was the leader of millions of Kurds and a dozen million Shi'a?
Perhaps, but even calling him a leader cannot impute proper sovereignty.
| Dictionary.com wrote: |
| 4. rightful status, independence, or prerogative. |
I think you can make a good argument that my two sentences above are not mutually exclusive. But I don't think you've yet done so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Beeyee wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
It takes time to organize a steady retreat in the face of an active insurgency. I support a pull-out on a timetable consistant with Iraqi wishes, but there has to be time for U.S. forces to evacuate everything necessary in an orderly fashion. If we started doing that tomorrow, even December 31st, 2009 would be risky from the perspective of retreat (although possible).
|
Kuros:
You raise a valid point. Still, the difference between 12/31/09, and 12/31/14, strikes me as a a fairly substantial one, five extra years to be precise. That's considerably more than what I would think can be rationalized away as "wiggle room". |
As an American I don't mind intruding a bit on Iraqi soveriegnty to deal with strategic goals in the region. |
Yes the US has only intruded 'a bit' on Iraqi sovereignty. This has to be the understatement of the year!
|
No. Come out and say it. America invaded Iraqi sovereignty.
Bullshit. America broke a dictator's hold over slaves. Staying until 2009, 2011, hell, even 2015, is not that much of a difference in the scheme of what Iraq has been through. |
The US did both. I don't think those things are mutually exclusive. |
Explain. |
That dictator was the leader of that nation. |
Saddam was the leader of millions of Kurds and a dozen million Shi'a?
Perhaps, but even calling him a leader cannot impute proper sovereignty.
| Dictionary.com wrote: |
| 4. rightful status, independence, or prerogative. |
I think you can make a good argument that my two sentences above are not mutually exclusive. But I don't think you've yet done so. |
I think if you already know what the argument is, why bother asking me to explain? If you know they are not mutually exclusive, why even start an argument?
| Quote: |
The key element of sovereignty in the legalistic sense is that of exclusivity of jurisdiction.
Specifically, when a decision is made by a sovereign entity, it cannot generally be overruled by a higher authority. Further, it is generally held that another legal element of sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. ("No de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty.") In other words, neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign, nor merely exercising the power of a Sovereign is sufficient; sovereignty requires both elements. |
I think Saddam satisfied the above requirements. He was the ruler of the kurds and shi'a.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Quote: |
The key element of sovereignty in the legalistic sense is that of exclusivity of jurisdiction.
Specifically, when a decision is made by a sovereign entity, it cannot generally be overruled by a higher authority. Further, it is generally held that another legal element of sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. ("No de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty.") In other words, neither claiming/being proclaimed Sovereign, nor merely exercising the power of a Sovereign is sufficient; sovereignty requires both elements. |
I think Saddam satisfied the above requirements. He was the ruler of the kurds and shi'a.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty |
I do not think we can go to wikipedia for this one, and admittedly neither will my dictionary.com definition do well enough either. This is a philosophical question. And I do not think that men like Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, or Than Shwe are Sovereigns simply because they keep their chaos within their internationally recognized borders. I do not wish to advocate American adventurism, but it would be a terrible thing if the result of the Iraq debacle would be that we recognize such men as protectors of sovereignty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sargx
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| My guess is the US withdrawal will follow a tapering procedure. This will be a gradual reduction over a set period allowing the Iraqi army to gradually take on more responsibilities. It also has the benefit of more training for the military and police forces. I don't really see many problems other than the cost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Beeyee wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
It takes time to organize a steady retreat in the face of an active insurgency. I support a pull-out on a timetable consistant with Iraqi wishes, but there has to be time for U.S. forces to evacuate everything necessary in an orderly fashion. If we started doing that tomorrow, even December 31st, 2009 would be risky from the perspective of retreat (although possible).
|
Kuros:
You raise a valid point. Still, the difference between 12/31/09, and 12/31/14, strikes me as a a fairly substantial one, five extra years to be precise. That's considerably more than what I would think can be rationalized away as "wiggle room". |
As an American I don't mind intruding a bit on Iraqi soveriegnty to deal with strategic goals in the region. |
Yes the US has only intruded 'a bit' on Iraqi sovereignty. This has to be the understatement of the year!
|
No. Come out and say it. America invaded Iraqi sovereignty.
Bullshit. America broke a dictator's hold over slaves. Staying until 2009, 2011, hell, even 2015, is not that much of a difference in the scheme of what Iraq has been through. |
The US did both. I don't think those things are mutually exclusive. |
Explain. |
That dictator was the leader of that nation. |
Saddam was the leader of millions of Kurds and a dozen million Shi'a?
Perhaps, but even calling him a leader cannot impute proper sovereignty.
| Dictionary.com wrote: |
| 4. rightful status, independence, or prerogative. |
I think you can make a good argument that my two sentences above are not mutually exclusive. But I don't think you've yet done so. |
So, must a 'rightful leader' be elected by a majority of the populace?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How could a leader like Saddam be legitimate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
As an American I don't mind intruding a bit on Iraqi soveriegnty to deal with strategic goals in the region. |
Even if the democratically elected government doesn't want you there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Kuros,
Please reread your replies and study them well. They are an example of an extremely confused persona.
All your "explanations" and statements are to the effect -- Yes, this is true but I don't mind this..... You are full of pragmatic horse shyte.
Fact is 1) There is no democracy in Iraq. Period. Not even debatable. (please, I don't have to explain do I?)
2) Hundreds of thousands of innocents were killed on the beck and call, on the button push of American leaders. (this has nothing to do with Saddam - it stands as a crime on its own) Millions exiled. The country ruined and trashed with American bulldozers, hummers and hubris. AND NOW WE WANT TO STAY AND REBUILD? lol.
Please clear your muddled head. There are lives in the balance, lives that actually live there and have a stake in that future. The U.S. of A has NONE.
When I make a mistake, I clean it up, apologize and GET THE HELL AWAY. That's earning respect. All the rest is B.S. , profit and bravado.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
Dear Kuros,
Please reread your replies and study them well. They are an example of an extremely confused persona.
All your "explanations" and statements are to the effect -- Yes, this is true but I don't mind this..... You are full of pragmatic horse shyte.
Fact is 1) There is no democracy in Iraq. Period. Not even debatable. (please, I don't have to explain do I?)
2) Hundreds of thousands of innocents were killed on the beck and call, on the button push of American leaders. (this has nothing to do with Saddam - it stands as a crime on its own) Millions exiled. The country ruined and trashed with American bulldozers, hummers and hubris. AND NOW WE WANT TO STAY AND REBUILD? lol.
Please clear your muddled head. There are lives in the balance, lives that actually live there and have a stake in that future. The U.S. of A has NONE.
When I make a mistake, I clean it up, apologize and GET THE HELL AWAY. That's earning respect. All the rest is B.S. , profit and bravado.
DD |
Ddeubel,
What I, and most of this forum's posters, dislike most about you is your tiresome ad hominems. You bookend your substantive sections with them. Also, during your substantive sections, you make assumptions about what I am thinking.
1) Yes, I agree. There is not a true democracy in Iraq. When did I ever say there was? Please go back to the record and show me where I did. In fact, what I said was:
| Quote: |
| America broke a dictator's hold over slaves |
2) The exiles and killings take place in the context of an insurgency. I do not count the lives taken by Al Qaeda, civilian lives killed when insurgents detonated themselves on buses, to be an American crime. I just do not. You could argue proximate causation, and that America failed to protect them, but your sentence seems to suggest that Americans have just been running around killing people randomly. That is not the case.
But all of this is rather irrelevant, like DDeubel's entire post, to my initial challenge: what about Saddam gave him sovereignty?
I think JMO was pretty honest and upfront, but I find his answer unsatisfactory. Let's put it another way. Do Robert Mugabe or Than Shwe have sovereignty over Zimbabwe and Burma respectively? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I think JMO was pretty honest and upfront, but I find his answer unsatisfactory. Let's put it another way. Do Robert Mugabe or Than Shwe have sovereignty over Zimbabwe and Burma respectively? |
Governments are supposed to govern with the consent of the people. I would go further to say that this must be informed consent.
Uneducated, uninformed, disenfranchised, bullied peoples are not capable of giving proper consent.
So I would say no, obviously they are not. This isn't the dark ages; we don't believe in the 'divine right of kings anymore.'
And many Western countries have a long way to go on that whole informed consent thing as well. America won't fully qualify in my opinion until that whole electoral college mess is cleaned up and there's true proportional representation in Senate and Congress. |
|
| 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
