|
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 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 4:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Every death in Afghanistan that came as a result of this war has been meaningless. Worse than meaningless: an objectively negative thing with no reciprocal benefit for anyone except certain contractors and politicians. Every second we stay in this war is a reaffirmation of a frankly evil policy. We need to get out, immediately. A slow withdrawl just means more time for innocents to die and more families to be radicalized by the fact that a foreign power is causing those needless deaths.
Islamic extremism is a problem the Afghanis need to solve for themselves. Terrorism is a triviality that could never hurt us as much as we are hurting ourselves by continuing to shackle ourselves to this war. There is no moderation here. There's no "balanced center" we can aspire to. There's either getting out, or continuing to waste resources, waste American lives, waste the lives of Afghani civilians, and fuel extremism. Those are our choices. There will be no change until the Afghanis themselves opt for it. Change isn't on the table. If anything, the longer we stay, the less likely real change becomes, because we ruin these people's lives.
"We have to leave strategically," is just another stall by a government that very much seems to want to keep us in perpetual war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Islamic extremism is a problem the Afghanis need to solve for themselves. Terrorism is a triviality that could never hurt us as much as we are hurting ourselves by continuing to shackle ourselves to this war. |
Triviality? We have very different definitions of that word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Islamic extremism is a problem the Afghanis need to solve for themselves. Terrorism is a triviality that could never hurt us as much as we are hurting ourselves by continuing to shackle ourselves to this war. |
Triviality? We have very different definitions of that word. |
From a national perspective -- which is the perspective military decisions should be made at -- terrorism is trivial. How many Americans are seriously put at risk by terrorism every year on average? It's simply not something that justifies going to war against other countries (at least at the level we've experienced it at; a genuinely systematic, constant, long-term, state-sponsored series of terrorist events might justify it).
Obviously from a personal perspective, terrorism is a tragedy. But so are most violent crimes, that doesn't mean we need to go to war over them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Islamic extremism is a problem the Afghanis need to solve for themselves. Terrorism is a triviality that could never hurt us as much as we are hurting ourselves by continuing to shackle ourselves to this war. |
Triviality? We have very different definitions of that word. |
From a national perspective -- which is the perspective military decisions should be made at -- terrorism is trivial. How many Americans are seriously put at risk by terrorism every year on average? It's simply not something that justifies going to war against other countries (at least at the level we've experienced it at; a genuinely systematic, constant, long-term, state-sponsored series of terrorist events might justify it).
Obviously from a personal perspective, terrorism is a tragedy. But so are most violent crimes, that doesn't mean we need to go to war over them. |
While I agree we shouldn't go to war over terrorism, and prefer to treat it as a police action. From a national perspective it is not trivial. 2995 deaths is not trivial. Countries have gone to war for far less. Honest question, what would you have done if you were president? Ignore the attack? There were several other terrorist attacks on American targets before hand as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| From a national perspective it is not trivial. 2995 deaths is not trivial. |
From an emotional perspective it's not trivial. Even from a law-enforcement perspective, it's not trivial. From a national perspective, it's simply not that big a deal. We need to prevent our emotions from raging out of control in response to such things and keep them in perspective.
| Leon wrote: |
| Countries have gone to war for far less. |
Countries do stupid, evil things all the time.
| Leon wrote: |
| Honest question, what would you have done if you were president? Ignore the attack? |
Our intelligence services had information about this attack before it occured. If I had been president, that would have been my focus: improving the way our intelligence agencies function in attempt to better respond to these matters. Going to war has solved nothing. Going to war has made our situation objectively worse by any reasonable standard.
I also would not have supported increased security measures at airport check-in, though I do support cockpit doors being reinforced and cockpits remaining locked during flight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You can't withdraw thousands of troops safely except by gradual withdrawal. If you try to withdraw everyone in one month, it will mean a chaotic retreat, fouled lines of supply, fortifications and arms left over for the Taliban, and all kinds of unforeseen consequences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| You can't withdraw thousands of troops safely except by gradual withdrawal. If you try to withdraw everyone in one month, it will mean a chaotic retreat, fouled lines of supply, fortifications and arms left over for the Taliban, and all kinds of unforeseen consequences. |
I'm fairly sure everyone advocating "immediate withdrawl" simply means withdrawl without needless delay, taking into account factors like that. I don't know the minimum time that would be logistically required, but I have no objections to taking however long that is to get out, so long as our focus is simply that: getting out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| You can't withdraw thousands of troops safely except by gradual withdrawal. If you try to withdraw everyone in one month, it will mean a chaotic retreat, fouled lines of supply, fortifications and arms left over for the Taliban, and all kinds of unforeseen consequences. |
I'm fairly sure everyone advocating "immediate withdrawl" simply means withdrawl without needless delay, taking into account factors like that. I don't know the minimum time that would be logistically required, but I have no objections to taking however long that is to get out, so long as our focus is simply that: getting out. |
I'm not so sure your caveat covers everyone.
I'm no expert, but it depends a lot on how much equipment is left. Also, there are issues with granting collaborators visas, the transfer of facilities to Afghan government control (with some provisions made so they can hold it), and thousands of other important details which put together warrant consideration.
I vaguely remember during the 2008 election primary that six months is how long it would have taken to just straight-up withdraw from Iraq. Afghanistan may take more or less time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| You can't withdraw thousands of troops safely except by gradual withdrawal. If you try to withdraw everyone in one month, it will mean a chaotic retreat, fouled lines of supply, fortifications and arms left over for the Taliban, and all kinds of unforeseen consequences. |
I'm fairly sure everyone advocating "immediate withdrawl" simply means withdrawl without needless delay, taking into account factors like that. I don't know the minimum time that would be logistically required, but I have no objections to taking however long that is to get out, so long as our focus is simply that: getting out. |
I'm not so sure your caveat covers everyone.
I'm no expert, but it depends a lot on how much equipment is left. Also, there are issues with granting collaborators visas, the transfer of facilities to Afghan government control (with some provisions made so they can hold it), and thousands of other important details which put together warrant consideration.
I vaguely remember during the 2008 election primary that six months is how long it would have taken to just straight-up withdraw from Iraq. Afghanistan may take more or less time. |
6 months at the least. It's a massive logistical operation. It would have to be done in waves, and the equipment is the hardest. The bases are like small cities that have to be taken apart and packed up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Yeah man, I agree with a lot of what you said. Question though, what do you think the worlds response should be to a nation that knowingly and willingly hosts terrorists that can and will cause catastrophic damage to western countries. |
OK, so you buy that whole thing about the 19 guys living in the stone age on the other side of the world being able to defeat the greatest military force ever assembled in the history of the planet that even the commissioners of the 9/11 Report don't buy.  I don't, either.
BTW, who created and financed those "terrorists"?
| Quote: |
| Clearly doing nothing isn't an option, |
I agree, but what we should do needs to be done in our own country.
| Quote: |
| minding our own G-D business isn't really an option. |
It's not? Didn't your mother or father ever say to you growing up, "Mind your own business"?
| Quote: |
| While I would have preferred a more focused police type option something had to be done. |
See above.
| Quote: |
| As to your story, that was one womans opinion. |
So we have the opinion of a woman from that culture actually having lived in two different countries there vs. a guy from a totally different culture opining about the situation of women there from halfway around the world; OR, since you have not posted any Muslim women's first-hand accounts to the contrary, I guess I lead on that score 1-0.
| Quote: |
| Sounds like she was probably from an upper class background, correct me if I am wrong. |
Yes, like all Saudis and Kuwaitis, she is from an upper class background.
| Quote: |
| Many people clearly don't like being oppressed and there are things that can be done to help them, not war, but to write off oppression because they "might" like it is a poor argument. |
She would not like it either. Trouble is she never felt that way. She was happy. Would you improve her life by going and convincing her that she is really miserable but she just doesn't know it? Otherwise, she may just go to her grave believing she was happy all her life without ever knowing how truly miserable she really was all that time. We couldn't have that situation now, could we?
| Quote: |
| Especially for one who posts and thinks like you do, is liberty only important to westerners? |
I am here alone and speak for myself. Those of us who "think like I do" think people should mind their own business just like our mommies told us all those years ago.
I am really perplexed. Just when did this stop being a cultural value?
Everyone should decide for themselves how important their liberty is and take the steps needed to insure it. That may include asking others for help. If Arabs asked for help, then I might carefully consider giving it. I would not impose it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brickabrack
Joined: 17 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"2995 deaths is not trivial. "
It is if it means the control of much of the western world in terms of liberties, privacy and other related rights. A very small price.
The Iraq and Af 'tours' are 10 year plans or more. The orchestrators and benefactors discussed this from the beginning. Don't believe the hype. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Terrorism is a triviality that could never hurt us as much as we are hurting ourselves by continuing to shackle ourselves to this war. . |
Osama is rolling around in glee reading your post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Yeah man, I agree with a lot of what you said. Question though, what do you think the worlds response should be to a nation that knowingly and willingly hosts terrorists that can and will cause catastrophic damage to western countries. |
OK, so you buy that whole thing about the 19 guys living in the stone age on the other side of the world being able to defeat the greatest military force ever assembled in the history of the planet that even the commissioners of the 9/11 Report don't buy. I don't, either.
BTW, who created and financed those "terrorists"? |
Are you saying that you don't believe Islamic terrorists are responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Osama Bin Laden, an extremely rich Saudi, as well as others sympathetic to the cause funded them. I'm not really interested in arguing your theories, just keep in mind Occam's Razor. Many times the simplest explanation is the correct one. Did the terrorists have the motive, yes. Did they have the means, yes. The tactical and strategic ability, yes.
| bacasper wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Clearly doing nothing isn't an option, |
I agree, but what we should do needs to be done in our own country.
| Quote: |
| minding our own G-D business isn't really an option. |
It's not? Didn't your mother or father ever say to you growing up, "Mind your own business"? |
If another boy at school beat me up badly, it would become her and the schools business. Afghanistan harbored terrorists knowingly and openly, that wasn't going to change on it's own. I don't agree with the strategy, and think that it couldn't have been done different. But to say that the situation should have completely been left alone shows no concern for security.
| bacasper wrote: |
| Quote: |
| While I would have preferred a more focused police type option something had to be done. |
See above.
| Quote: |
| As to your story, that was one womans opinion. |
So we have the opinion of a woman from that culture actually having lived in two different countries there vs. a guy from a totally different culture opining about the situation of women there from halfway around the world; OR, since you have not posted any Muslim women's first-hand accounts to the contrary, I guess I lead on that score 1-0. |
One woman's account is almost meaningless in an argument. I've meet people from the middle east who came to study at my university who felt the opposite way. Not to mention the number of protesters in Iran, or the other countries. I am a bit surprised at your hypocrisy, while I disagree with most of the things you post, I thought at least you were ideologically consistent. I suppose you think all those things you argue for are western values and not human ones. This also makes it clear that your arguments in the Israeli thread are not concerned with the benefit of the Palestinians, who culturally must love it, but with your hatred of Israel itself.
| bacasper wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sounds like she was probably from an upper class background, correct me if I am wrong. |
Yes, like all Saudis and Kuwaitis, she is from an upper class background. |
What class they are from would change their perception of the lifestyle. From the way you wrote about her that's the impression I got, again correct me if I'm wrong.
| bacasper wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Many people clearly don't like being oppressed and there are things that can be done to help them, not war, but to write off oppression because they "might" like it is a poor argument. |
She would not like it either. Trouble is she never felt that way. She was happy. Would you improve her life by going and convincing her that she is really miserable but she just doesn't know it? Otherwise, she may just go to her grave believing she was happy all her life without ever knowing how truly miserable she really was all that time. We couldn't have that situation now, could we? |
Again, that is just one woman. Maybe Americans are happy, and you and your articles telling them other wise. Your double standard is perverse.
| bacasper wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Especially for one who posts and thinks like you do, is liberty only important to westerners? |
I am here alone and speak for myself. Those of us who "think like I do" think people should mind their own business just like our mommies told us all those years ago.
I am really perplexed. Just when did this stop being a cultural value?
Everyone should decide for themselves how important their liberty is and take the steps needed to insure it. That may include asking others for help. If Arabs asked for help, then I might carefully consider giving it. I would not impose it. |
[/quote]
In Afghanistan we were minding our own business until we were attacked. I disagree completely about Iraq, but that is clearly a different circumstance. If you want to mind your own business when being attacked then go ahead. I say that since we are already in Afghanistan we might as well put the Taliban in a position where they won't come back to power before we leave, and hopefully don't come back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0507/David-Petraeus-for-president-He-keeps-speculation-alive
| Quote: |
General Petraeus did little to squelch that speculation Thursday night when he spoke at the annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), one of Washington�s premier conservative think tanks.
With former Vice President Dick Cheney and members of the Bush-era glitterati known as the neo-cons looking on, Petraeus accepted AEI�s annual Irving Kristol Award, named after the giant of neo-conservatism � a conservative ideology with roots in American liberal thinking that eschews realist foreign policy in favor of an activist and interventionist approach to the world. The highest goal of neo-conservatism is the spread of �American values� including freedom and democracy.
The late Mr. Kristol�s son, Bill Kristol, noted in a tribute to the award�s three decades of honorees that none has ever gone on to become president. He then added to applause and laughter, �Perhaps this curious and glaring omission will be rectified.�
Rather than simply letting that moment pass, Petraeus said upon taking the podium that in mulling over the theme for his speech, �It never crossed my mind, Bill, to talk about what you were suggesting.�
The line was delivered with a smile. |
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/letter-michael-steele
| Quote: |
A Letter to Michael Steele
BY William Kristol
Dear Michael,
You are, I know, a patriot. So I ask you to consider, over this July 4 weekend, doing an act of service for the country you love: Resign as chairman of the Republican party.
|
Withheld comment. |
|
| 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
