Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Germans refuse to fight "Islamic State"

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

Germans refuse to fight "Islamic State"
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 4:46 am Post subject:

KimchiNinja wrote:

mithridates wrote:

KimchiNinja wrote:

mithridates wrote:

Even just the last week or two they mistakenly 1) bombed the Kurds once, and 2) dropped weapons and supplies to a very happy group of Daesh fighters.

Was it a mistake?

Are you KimchiNinja? Am I me? Is what is is, and not not?

Well like I said, since the US has not stated their actual motives (it's not "fighting terrorists", what profit is there in that?) we don't have enough information to judge if they are succeeding or not.

Hence my post above. Why say anything then? Why cite a website, a paper, a scholar in the field? Why believe that I am who I say I am, why believe anything? Why did you even bother to use Google to find this paper and cite it?

https://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&rlz=1C1QJDB_enCA595CA595&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=us%20middle%20east%20oil

Is the author, who has not stated his actual motives (it's not "fighting the oil lobby", what profit is there in that?) the person he says he is, and is his paper enough information to judge if what he says is true or not?

KimchiNinja

Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 5:28 am Post subject:

I reason from the known, to the unknown. If you start from "the news", which is an unknown (propaganda is partially true and partially false), yet falsely believe it is a known, then you end up lost. Historical events (all verifiable) summarized by a professor of Middle East history (not on the payroll) represent knowns.

mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 5:38 am Post subject:

KimchiNinja wrote:

I reason from the known, to the unknown. If you start from "the news", which is an unknown (propaganda is partially true and partially false), yet falsely believe it is a known, then you end up lost.

Sounds good. But your problem is your belief that the US government can do no wrong. You'll need to get rid of that first if you want to distinguish between the known and the unknown.

aq8knyus

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 5:44 am Post subject:

bigverne wrote:

Quote:

In what way did the West, in particular the US and UK, benefit from the demise of a dictator who had enthusiastically moved towards the West since 2003?

Who knows exactly what is behind the foreign policy adventures of our governing class? However, the idea that they were driven by "the prospect of a democratic Libya" is laughable.

I pretty much agree with what voyeur said.

Whilst it would be naive in the extreme to believe they were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, at the same time it would be extemely cynical to believe that UK and US decision makers are just interested in creating death and destruction.

I also do not say that they intervened for humanitarian reasons because I want to defend their actions. They destroyed a perfectly good relationship with a recently converted pro-western dictator for no practical reason.

It was a bad decision based on a romantic idea.

aq8knyus

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:13 am Post subject:

Quote:

I reason from the known, to the unknown.

I'm Kimchininja. Truthseeker. Dreamweaver. Visionary. Plus musician. You're about to enter the world of my imagination. You are entering my Darkplace.

Quote:

If you start from "the news", which is an unknown (propaganda is partially true and partially false), yet falsely believe it is a known, then you end up lost.

No much better to start with random journal articles from 2012 that you googled and that have little to do with what was being discussed.

If Germany has sent trainers and aid to Iraq and publicly supported the aims of the coalition, how does that support your argument that Germany was taking a principled stand against the US?

Quote:

Historical events (all verifiable) summarized by a professor of Middle East history (not on the payroll) represent knowns.

Actually the weight of expert opinion seems to be arguing for a reclassification of the PKK. By calling the PKK terrorists the activities of allies like the PYD have also been negatively affected. This has made it harder for them to fight IS.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:08 pm Post subject:

KimchiNinja wrote:

I reason from the known, to the unknown. If you start from "the news", which is an unknown (propaganda is partially true and partially false), yet falsely believe it is a known, then you end up lost.

Historical events (all verifiable) summarized by a professor of Middle East history (not on the payroll) represent knowns.

That's an interesting way to put it. I'd take the opposite approach: trying to go from the unknown to the (colloquially) knowable. For example, in this case we have a question: is it malice, incompetence, or some mix of the two which motivates the military-intervention policy of the West in the Middle East?

-If it's malice, then any compassionate, humane person is justified in opposing further Western military intervention in the region.
-If it's incompetence, then any compassionate, humane person is likewise justified in opposing further Western military intervention in the region.
-If it's a mix of the two, then likewise.

So we can accept that those are unknowns, be maximally generous to ultra-optimists like Voyeur, and yet reach a (again, colloquially) knowable conclusion: that these people can't be trusted with military intervention in the Middle East. It doesn't matter if they're going around ruining lives and destabilizing regions out of malice or incompetence, in neither case is there any reason for it to be tolerated again and again and again. Did Bush have only the best of intentions? I don't know, and within the context of figuring out what is best going forward, I don't care; it's clear that American Presidents are 100% beyond accountability at this point, so it's the people who are or will be suffering which should be our first concern. The distinction between a bumbling manslaughterer and a conscious, willful murderer might mean something in court, but it means nothing to the people who die in the bargain, and neither would be qualified to act as an adequate steward of the world's greatest military.

KimchiNinja

Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:36 pm Post subject:

mithridates wrote:

KimchiNinja wrote:

I reason from the known, to the unknown. If you start from "the news", which is an unknown (propaganda is partially true and partially false), yet falsely believe it is a known, then you end up lost.

Sounds good. But your problem is your belief that the US government can do no wrong.

You've misunderstood my beliefs then, I more believe they can "do no right". Wink

Yes I have experience with corporate/government inefficiency, you are totally correct, blunders have absolutely played a huge role. I conclude that both things exist; self-interested scheming and incompetence at executing those schemes.

KimchiNinja

Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:56 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

KimchiNinja wrote:

I reason from the known, to the unknown.

Brilliant.

Yes we can choose various starting points, and reach the same answer.

Thus it comes down to -- malice or incompetence or both, the US is not very efficient in their dealings in the Middle East. I calculated it below as $8T cost over the last 30 years, which is 3/4 of a billion USD per day! That has contributed to their insolvency problem; they now need to keep rates low (so the interest on the debt doesn't eat them alive), and they need to print when nobody else will loan them money to keep this never ending war going. And the costs just keep adding up, and increasing the debt. It's been a colossal debacle, for decades.

http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=234331

GENO123

Joined: 28 Jan 2010

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 1:27 am Post subject:

The US is bankrupt but their financial situation is (way) better than that of Europe or Japan. By the way don't believe the numbers that the Chinese government reports either. Also one child policy lets see how that works out. Many old people and a few young people = big time debt.

Speaking of "money printing"

Quote:

European Central Bank Considering Buying Corporate Bonds as an Option
Move Possible If Bank Decides More Expansive Measures Are Needed to Bolster Economy

By BRIAN BLACKSTONE
FRANKFURT—The European Central Bank is considering purchasing corporate bonds as an option if it concludes that more aggressive measures are needed to pump additional money into the eurozone’s fragile economy and raise inflation from its superlow levels, according to people familiar with the matter.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/european-central-bank-considering-buying-corporate-bonds-as-an-option-1413890866

Anyone want to answer who prints much more money the US or Japan?

aq8knyus

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:13 am Post subject:

Quote:

So there are only two possible explanations for US and western policy towards the MENA region, malice and incompetence? These issues are incredibly complex and cannot be reduced to a simplistic binary, no matter how much it helps your understanding.

Western military intervention in the Middle East is but a tiny not often used policy in a region where western diplomatic and economic power are used to maintain stability.

Of the western military interventions since 1945, which ones do you think have been malicious or incompetent?

The small scale intervention in Lebanon in 1958 was relatively successful although the multilateral effort in 1983 was less so. The US military intervention in the Iran-Iraq War brought both sides to the negotiating table. The action in Kuwait was very successful if marred by the inaction after the victory and the subsequent atrocities against the Kurds and Shia. Drone strikes in Yemen are effective up to a point, but western involvement has been limited.

Iraq was by no means a success, but al-Qaeda had been defeated a dictator toppled and the country was starting to find its feet after the withdrawal of the vast majority of US troops in 2010. Of course we shall never know what real long term effect it had because the unchecked chaos in Syria spilled over this year and has radically changed the country.

Quote:

So we can accept that those are unknowns, be maximally generous to ultra-optimists like Voyeur, and yet reach a (again, colloquially) knowable conclusion: that these people can't be trusted with military intervention in the Middle East. It doesn't matter if they're going around ruining lives and destabilizing regions out of malice or incompetence, in neither case is there any reason for it to be tolerated again and again and again.

Military intervention is but one facet of western intervention in the Middle East and the wider MENA region. It is western power that is keeping the peace between Israel and its neighbours, ensuring that the Gulf is not destabilized and keeping Iran contained.

You think things are bad now? A few decades ago Israeli wars with its huge neighbours were a regular event and had a very detrimental impact on the global economy, now the chance of another conflict is tiny. That is in large part due to the role of western money and western security guarantees.

To only view western involvement in the region as purely military in nature or to suggest that every single intervention has been a failure runs contrary to the available evidence.

It also says nothing as to why we should not answer the call of the current unity government of Iraq and work with a large multinational coalition to help destroy the scourge of IS and re-establish the territorial integrity of the Iraqi state. If we could also work more pro-actively to get rid of Assad and find an equitable resolution to the Syrian Civil War, even better.

Those outcomes would be a win-win for western global hegemony and the stability of the MENA region.

aq8knyus

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:18 am Post subject:

KimchiNinja wrote:

Fox wrote:

KimchiNinja wrote:

I reason from the known, to the unknown.

The bloated US military budget is indeed a big problem, but to suggest that US dealings with the MENA are 'contributing to their insolvency problems' is pure rubbish.

Also remember that a large part of that money goes towards keeping the peace between Israel and her neighbours and maintaining stability in the Arabian peninsular. Both aims are not only very important to US prosperity, they have also been relatively successul.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:20 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Whilst it would be naive in the extreme to believe they were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, at the same time it would be extemely cynical to believe that UK and US decision makers are just interested in creating death and destruction

Who said that their plan was 'death and destruction'? I don't know exactly why they decided to topple Gaddafi. Who knows what was happening behind the scenes? Some have speculated that Gaddafi was proposing to trade oil for a new gold-backed currency, which would have had very serious implications for the dollar and the global financial system. Or perhaps, the chance to unseat Gaddafi and replace him with a more compliant, pro-corporate regime was too tempting to resist. These are both far more likely than the idea that Western policymakers were driven by 'romantic ideas' of democracy. Could they really have believed that ousting a long-term leader and replacing him with a bunch of ragtag 'rebels' would result in a flowering of democracy? And the fact that after the bombing had finished they (and indeed the media) showed absolutely no interest in the aftermath should be all the evidence anyone one needs that ideas of 'democracy' played no part in yet another foreign policy disaster.

mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:54 pm Post subject:

bigverne wrote:

Quote:

You seem to be under the impression that democracy can't be pro-corporate. This whole website is for people living in a country that is very strongly both democratic and corporate. Why do you treat democracy and pro-corporate governments as if they were the antithesis of each other when there are so many examples to the contrary? Add Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, many others to the list.

To add to that, the number of democracies in the world to the west (and the US in particular) are bragging points. You can want a democracy to flourish and be geopolitically selfish and cynical at the same time. And you can say that the US was swayed by the idea of a democratic Libya without implying that they went in out of the goodness of their caring hearts.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:24 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Why do you treat democracy and pro-corporate governments as if they were the antithesis of each other

I never said they were. I was merely disputing the point that the Libyan invasion was done out of some 'romantic idea' of promoting democracy. Perhaps, after the chaos in Libya dies down, they will have 'democracy,' with regular sham elections and corrupt political parties who sell off their national assets to private interests, while the standard of living worsens. And people will look back to the Gaddafi era with a certain nostalgia.

mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:45 am Post subject:

bigverne wrote:

Quote:

Why do you treat democracy and pro-corporate governments as if they were the antithesis of each other

I never said they were. I was merely disputing the point that the Libyan invasion was done out of some 'romantic idea' of promoting democracy.

The original quote you responded to (with the word romance) was the romance of toppling a dictatorship.

Quote:

The problem was that when the revolution happened western leaders got swept up in the romance of toppling a dictatorship.

Then you wrote:

Quote:

Or perhaps, the chance to unseat Gaddafi...was too tempting to resist.

So you two are basically saying the same thing.

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, 9, 10 Next
Page 9 of 10

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