Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - ECONOMIST: WHY AMERICA MUST STAY

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

ECONOMIST: WHY AMERICA MUST STAY
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Tiger Beer

Joined: 07 Feb 2003

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:44 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

I understand the Economist's POV, but as it readily admits, the Bush administration has been incompetant. There is no way things can improve, or at least improve to the degree where we can claim success.

That is basically what it comes down to.

As long as an incompetent President is in office.. I have little hope for improvement in Iraq.

This is pretty much what it looked like from Day 1.. however that surge on Baghdad in the vehicles was impressive and everyone thought we'd find WMD and be out of there within a couple weeks was a temporarily nice thought.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:32 pm Post subject:

Quote:

admmit it was wrong and then apologize for it

Have you suddenly turned into a Korean?

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:41 am Post subject:

Quote:

What should they be doing? I thought we already went over that: Everything they can to support US' attempt to build up domestic Iraqi forces, services, and infrastructure. But as already noted, that won't happen.

Maybe this was on another thread that I missed?

I am confused or befuddled. (It wouldn't be the first time.)

It seems that you are saying:

a) Yes, other countries should be doing some stuff, but...
b) they aren't going to.
c) (My conclusion): It's all up to the US to spend $2 billion a day and god-knows-how-much-blood because the rest of us aren't going to do a damn thing but sit on our thumbs, spin around and b***h about what a lousy world it is.

I realize there isn't any support for German/French/Canadian involvement right now. There wasn't much support for US involvement in European affairs in the summer of '40 either, but Roosevelt demonstrated some leadership and started a preparedness (odd word, isn't it?) campaign. You guys have an election coming up. Are you supporting the candidate who supports something other than whining as a foreign policy?

I take your point that pulling out now is an example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. I also see it as a strategic withdrawal to gain time for getting prepared for a bigger crisis down the road. With enough fingers crossed, the crisis won't be as serious as it appears now. At least we could be prepared for it if the worse comes to the worst.

I'm not convinced by Kuros' argument that the 'intifada' in France demonstrates that they are checkmated. Most Moslems are not the radical kind. Many of them would be willing to support a policy of installing a moderate, human-rights protecting Iraqi government--and see that as something they would send their sons to help achieve.

I understand why, in the aftermath of the Second World War, the western nations accepted the leadership of the US in anti-communist policies. The They had no choice because of the devastation of the War. I understand why the support declined. Mass starvation of peasants and mass executions of capitalist running dogs is not a big deal. Police state control by guys with an archipeligo of concentration camps is the moral equivalent of two party elections. I understand that hi-jacking planes and ships and the blowing up of restaurants full of civilians over a 30 year period is not a serious problem that anyone needs to pay any attention to.

What I don't understand are the calls for a multi-lateral world while at the same time doing absolutely nothing to achieve that end. I'm sure the Chinese will protect and defend the Western values.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:57 am Post subject:

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

Quote:

Sorry, inaccurate and confusing words on my part-
change "I thought we already went over that" to "As I said before, I agree with you".
It seemed to me you were asking the same question again, thus my "already" comment.
And it still seems to me that you asked the same question twice, and my answer remains the same both times-
yes, other countries should be doing everything they can to help stabilize Iraq and prevent any further inroads for terrorists, and this includes supporting (in both words and action) the present US/UK occupation of Iraq.
(And as I said, it won't happen. Call it the "Tuchman effect" if you like, referrencing Bucheon Bum's signature line one more time)

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:30 am Post subject:

Quote:

Sorry, inaccurate and confusing words on my part-
change "I thought we already went over that" to "As I said before, I agree with you".

Thank you for clearing that up. I was perplexed all day.

Can we expect to see over the weekend a news clip on CBC of Mr. Bulsajo with his little candle sitting (or marching around) outside the Parliament building in Ottawa (or is the capital in Ottumwa, proud home of Radar O'Reilly) with a sign saying, "P-tooey on Bush but On to Baghdad"? Or possibly, "Here's a billion, postage to Beijing paid in full"?

(I know I need to be pithier. Protest signs were not my strongest point.)

PS: I have a question about 'isolationism'.

Can the majority of the world's population be isolationist, without twisting the word out of all meaning? It seems to me that, given the current situation, Germany, France and Canada are being isolationist. "Hey! We didn't start it. It ain't our fault. Let someone else fix it".

If the bad guys nuke NYC in the winter, it won't directly affect Canada. The winds will blow all the fall-out out to sea. Unfortunately, they seem to strike in the summer. Would most of the fall-out hit Toronto or Montreal? Maybe you guys can convince them to hit Fargo, North Dakota and take out Winnipeg instead.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:14 am Post subject:

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

Can we expect to see over the weekend a news clip on CBC of Mr. Bulsajo with his little candle sitting (or marching around) outside the Parliament building in Ottawa (or is the capital in Ottumwa, proud home of Radar O'Reilly) with a sign saying, "P-tooey on Bush but On to Baghdad"? Or possibly, "Here's a billion, postage to Beijing paid in full"?

(I know I need to be pithier. Protest signs were not my strongest point.)

Would you be surprised if I said "probably not?"
I think we can all agree on one thing:
there are no good, clear answers to the world's problems and this includes the current situation in the Middle East.
What we are doing is sitting around and pointing out the flaws in each other's perspectives. And that's fine, it needs to be done, and it's (hopefully) a step on the road towards the light, towards finding a resolution that doesn't end up destroying everything.

Quote:

PS: I have a question about 'isolationism'.

Can the majority of the world's population be isolationist, without twisting the word out of all meaning? It seems to me that, given the current situation, Germany, France and Canada are being isolationist. "Hey! We didn't start it. It ain't our fault. Let someone else fix it".

Perhaps. Perhaps 'isolationist' is now an outmoded word to some extent, unless you are Myanmar or North Korea.

Quote:

If the bad guys nuke NYC in the winter, it won't directly affect Canada. The winds will blow all the fall-out out to sea. Unfortunately, they seem to strike in the summer. Would most of the fall-out hit Toronto or Montreal? Maybe you guys can convince them to hit Fargo, North Dakota and take out Winnipeg instead.

Whatever form it takes, wherever and whenever it occurs, a major terrorist attack on the continental US will have a serious impact on Canada in a multitude of ways, and I don't think there are many Canadians at all who aren't aware of this fact.

I think that you think that, as a Canadian I'm simply commenting on Iraq as an impartial third party observer, not really affected nor concerned about the outcome either way. I can assure you this is not the case, and I am very aware that Canada's future is irrevocably tied to the US's future. What happens in the US, and to the US, will always affect Canadians. This is an indisputable fact, and it's probably the subconscious root of much Canadian resentment towards Americans- in many ways we are the mice sleeping next to the elephant, happy that he's keeping the lions away but hoping he doesn't accidentally roll the wrong way.

And this is why Iraq concerns me- the fight on Terror concerns me just as it concerns (or should concern) everycitizen of a Western democracy/Nato/G-11 nation; The elephant has rolled the wrong way (i.e. the US was mistaken to invade Iraq) and now we all have to live with the consequences.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:56 am Post subject:

Quote:

I think that you think that, as a Canadian I'm simply commenting on Iraq as an impartial third party observer, not really affected nor concerned about the outcome either way.

I have read, enjoyed/learned from and chuckled at your posts for the last several years. The thing I'm aware of doing, since you mentioned it, is reacting to the Octavius Hites/Pyongshin Sangjas (or however the hell he spells that) of the world, rather than purely your words. Their nastiness speaks louder than what you say. I have to be more careful about that.

In trying to figure out how to respond to your posts on this thread, I have had to confront a nasty attitude of my own. I find I am increasingly contemptuous of countries that are not actively involved in the big mess.

I have been profoundly ambivalent toward Bush's policies all along, which is why I react with such horror when anyone says, "The US acted on its perceived interest when going into Iraq." We've been hammered with Vietnam since I was a freshman in college. Now we'll be smacked with Bush's Iraq policy the rest of my life. It's uncomfortable being blamed for something I objected to at the time. More than that: it's aggravating. I'm not sure how old you are, but maybe you can imagine what it's like to have done the anti-war protests and worried that you wouldn't be able to get a job teaching, and then have some 20-something bozo who was wearing diapers at the time throw the whole thing in your face. And now they have a second one to work with.

At some point in the last three years I posted something saying that the whole thing could have been avoided if the countries who objected to the invasion had taken a principled stand and said they would side with Iraq. I am sure if that had happened, there would have been no invasion. If the the French, Germans and Canadians had really believed that Iraq and Saddam were in the right, they would have sent troops to defend Iraq. Defense of sovereignty and the inviolability of international boundaries are widely recognized things in the US, as well as the rest of the world. It would have stymied Bush. It is hard not to be contemptuous of people and governments who will only complain and not act. As I have mentioned, whining is not a valid foreign policy.

The inaction of the majority of governments and peoples of this world are as much to blame as the abberant behavior of Bush's little group. The lack of real conviction, maybe cowardice, is an important factor in what is going to happen in the future. That will not be remembered. It's too inconvenient. What will be remembered is the abberant behavior of Bush.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:31 am Post subject:

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

"The US acted on its perceived interest when going into Iraq."

I can see why that might rub you the wrong way, but I'm a poli-sci/His major and that's the standard lingo used, and that's partly where I'm coming from in my posts- not so much impassioned opinion as attempting to look at things rationally (I'm not perfect and there are some obvious exceptions- the more idiotic of Rapier & Igothisguitar's posts, for example).

Quote:

We've been hammered with Vietnam since I was a freshman in college. Now we'll be smacked with Bush's Iraq policy the rest of my life. It's uncomfortable being blamed for something I objected to at the time. More than that: it's aggravating.

I can imagine how frustrated you and half of America must be (more than half now). But to most countries in the world- America is a demorcracy (perhaps THE democracy) and claims that Bush stole the election and he doesn't have the backing of the people just don't matter that much. That's different from saying whether or not they're true accusations, the simple fact is they have been driving US policy and actions for the past 5 years and will continue to do so for a few more.

Quote:

I'm not sure how old you are, but maybe you can imagine what it's like to have done the anti-war protests and worried that you wouldn't be able to get a job teaching, and then have some 20-something bozo who was wearing diapers at the time throw the whole thing in your face. And now they have a second one to work with.

Not really, but I'm sure it must suck. I'm soon to be 38, if it matters (I don't think it does).

Quote:

No good answer there either I'm afraid. That would have made Bush's "If you're not for us you're against us" statement true, and I don't think it was. And as much as it has been a debacle (invading Iraq), what national leader in their right mind would stand with Saddam?

Quote:

I am sure if that had happened, there would have been no invasion.

Who knows? If Bush and co. hadn't massaged their intelligence analysis beyond all comprehension and if they had listened to the advice they were getting from the military they might have grabbed a clue that invading Iraq was not going to be a slamdunk but a pretty dicey endeavour. Sort of goes back to the Economist article in that respect...

Quote:

The inaction of the majority of governments and peoples of this world are as much to blame as the abberant behavior of Bush's little group. The lack of real conviction, maybe cowardice, is an important factor in what is going to happen in the future. That will not be remembered. It's too inconvenient. What will be remembered is the abberant behavior of Bush.

Yep. Plus ca change...

hypnotist

Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:51 am Post subject:

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

At some point in the last three years I posted something saying that the whole thing could have been avoided if the countries who objected to the invasion had taken a principled stand and said they would side with Iraq. I am sure if that had happened, there would have been no invasion. If the the French, Germans and Canadians had really believed that Iraq and Saddam were in the right, they would have sent troops to defend Iraq. Defense of sovereignty and the inviolability of international boundaries are widely recognized things in the US, as well as the rest of the world. It would have stymied Bush. It is hard not to be contemptuous of people and governments who will only complain and not act. As I have mentioned, whining is not a valid foreign policy.

What about waiting?

Yes, France and Russia were dealing with the Iraqi government under the table (along with several Americans, Brits and so forth). But their international stance was quite clear - let the weapons inspectors do their job and give them the time they were asking for. The American right didn't hold their views back about this - "[Appointing Hans Blix was a mistake] even though he was clearly opposed to war and determined to buy time and find excuses for Saddam Hussein", said ol' Newt. Nevertheless, the way forward as presented by these nations amounted to rather more than whining - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/16/60minutes/main544161.shtml , http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N7/strengthen_weapons_7.7w.html in case your memory has been jaded.

I still believe a second resolution would have been possible - the problem is, it would likely have come at a difficult time (politically and meteorologically) for America to launch an attack.

Quote:

Is wanting to wait for a team you've put in place to contain Saddam militarily to either do its job or finally report back that it can't, really a lack of conviction? :-/

... but we had these arguments two and a half years ago. Bush and his team were determined that Saddam must fall, at a time of their choosing. Somehow the most sketchy and unreliable of intelligence became enough to launch a major war. Those in the American administration concerned about post-invasion Iraq were told to shut up. Cheney was convinced the troops would be "greeted as liberators".

The French, the Germans and many people in Britain and Spain didn't believe a word. I was against the war as it was, because of the damage I thought it would do to our international bodies and to Iraq in the medium term if there wasn't far more thought given to the science of nationbuilding. I was no supporter of Saddam, and I was glad to see the back of him, but... well. I'll let one of my favourite musicians, Ilham al Madfai, say it:

Quote:

So had he welcomed Saddam's overthrow? "Of course. We were delighted to see the troops going in, but now it's a big mess. Iraqis see no change and no improvement in their lives. There's no discipline, no law and security, and they don't know how to live."

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:14 am Post subject:

According to George Friedman at Stratfor the reason for not waiting was that the time table for deployment was set well in advance, as they must. There was no real intent to wait on building a political consensus of allies. And France had her own domestic reasons for not supporting Iraq, and those would not have changed if more time had been given. But of course this is all woulda, coulda, shoulda... anyway, that's what he says.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:28 am Post subject:

Quote:

What about waiting?

I agreed with that at the time. I saw no reason we couldn't wait until summer was over. A few million bucks is nothing, compared to the lives lost in war and the billions spent since then.

But I'm not talking about that. We saw how ineffective 'waiting' was.

I don't see why the French, Russians and Germans couldn't have said something like: Ten years ago the world gathered its armed forces and invaded Iraq because Iraq had violated the borders of Kuwait and occupied that sovereign state. This was unacceptable then and it is unacceptable now. We will defend any legitimate government of a sovereign state because it is the right thing to do. It was right in 1914, it was right in 1939, it was right in Kuwait and it is right now.

I said I was 'sure' no invasion would have happened in that case. Obviously I was overstating. I can't be sure. But the support for the war was not overwhelming. Bush was struggling to make the case for war against Iraq alone based on suspected WMD. If any significant country had announced a policy of actively supporting them on the basis stated above, the argument in the US would have had to change. Even a trade embargo would have altered the terms of the debate.

But I don't really want to re-visit that debate. I agree with the Economist's point about thinking about the future. The situation is what the situation is.

What little foreign support there was is drying up fast. It makes sense to me to withdraw with reasonable speed (6 months or so) and re-group. Maybe things will turn out OK in Iraq. If not, we will some extra time to be better prepared for a nasty future. The status quo is untenable for much longer.

(I'm a history/social studies major, so I know the jargon is technically correct. My complaint is that it hides my views. I felt pretty much that way when Bush 'won' in '00. The electoral votes did what they are supposed to do.)

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:57 am Post subject:

Ya-Ta Boy wrote:

I'm not convinced by Kuros' argument that the 'intifada' in France demonstrates that they are checkmated. Most Moslems are not the radical kind. Many of them would be willing to support a policy of installing a moderate, human-rights protecting Iraqi government--and see that as something they would send their sons to help achieve.

Firstly, I believe you are underestimating the power of European-grown radical Islamism. Even if you do not underestimate their numbers, French intelligence estimates 35k trained operatives of Al Qaeda trained as an armed militia, 20-25k in Germany, and 10k in the UK (I'll provide a link for this later), you need to understand that the presence of many more moderate Muslims won't help against attacks or movements by radical elements. I won't rehash this much done discussion, except I have to implore that you make a distinction even between European radical Islam and traditional but still extreme Wahhibism.

Secondly, even if you reject my point about the intifada, you still have yet to deal with the general ressentiment, to use a French word, of modern Europe. I suspect from the below quote you'll be more sympathetic to this point than the first:

Ya-Ta Boy wrote:

What I don't understand are the calls for a multi-lateral world while at the same time doing absolutely nothing to achieve that end.

Now, Europe isn't insane. They joined America in the Afghanistan endeavour and even submitted to American operational control. They still realize strong support of America is integral to their own interests as members of the West, even though their politicians have gotten elected declaring things logically contrary to this (does this political characterization of Europe seem familiar to another government?).

The problem is Europe is weak. They have other problems. Their demographics are screwed up. The birthrate in Spain is under 1.5 children per household. In 30 years Germany will have 50% of their population as elderly. Meanwhile, the economy is still bleak (although European defense manufacturers are getting a huge boost from pentagon investments). Europe can't even elect strong parties into power, Chirac is regarded as much weaker for the 'non' vote France defiantly made, and how many challenges does Merkel have to face while having a coaltion government. Much less can Europe decide on an appropriate constitution for a united Europe.

Personally, I think demanding France and Germany's participation in this fiasco is too much. Frankly, in some ways Mongolia is in a better position to send 100 of its troops rather than these two sending 1000 of theirs. But Europe is exhausted, not just politically and financially, but also existentially, as evidenced by their demographic problems above as well as some of the things their academics are saying (I'm thinking particularly of post-modernism).

Only Great Britain was ever healthy enough to lend a hand. And as an aside, let me note that by practicing different tactics than the US they made a great difference, but France and Germany never would have had great influence in Iraq anyway due to neo-con overconfidence in solo American power.

However, the Big 3 are now trying to continue their multilateralism in dealing with Iran, and they are finding that the non-aligned movement thinks even now of France and Germany as biased towards the US. Indeed, the only kind of persuasion that has worked in convincing anyone of Iran's non-compliance has come via the US's private deals with India. Sorry, Europe, but ideals of fairness and due process mean little on an international stage like this one, you actually have to speak softly and carry a big stick. And it's a shame that the US is only carrying a big stick nowadays, while Europe knows only how to speak softly.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:07 am Post subject:

Quote:

Please do provide that link. I'd be very curious to know what definitions of "trained" and "armed militia" are being used here. Like, 35 000 people in France have all been to AQ training camps and are armed and ready to fight as a single unit? Or 35 000 people in France have said nice things about AQ and know how to use a weapon?

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:36 am Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

Quote:

I don't have a link but I've read in a number of places that what the general public has been calling 'terrrorist camps' around the world for the last year should more accurately be called 'militia camps' or perhaps 'insurgency camps'.

The argument goes like this:
(Ah crap, I don't have time right now but I'll get back to it as soon as I can in this thread).

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:12 pm Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

Quote:

Look here for a full previous post or go straight here for the original link

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 Next
Page 3 of 4

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