Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Has Iraq surpassed 9/11 in terms of US fatalities?

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

Has Iraq surpassed 9/11 in terms of US fatalities?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Yu_Bum_suk

Joined: 25 Dec 2004

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject:

Bulsajo wrote:

If Canada, Germany and France were smart they'd send reconstruction support right now (obile hospitals, disaster assistance teams, engineers, police firemen teachers and other professionals to provide training for Iraqis) and yes- troops: to protect reconstruction personnel.

If Canada, Germany, and France were smart they'd use their resources to help fix some problem that isn't directly tied to US imperialistic interests. Oh wait, they are smart.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject:

But Germany and Canada are in Afghanistan- you see no connection to Iraq? What's the point of Canadian and German soldiers fighting terrorism in Afghanistan if Iraq is left to become a giant terrorist incubator? Some Canadians want the world to fall apart just so they can say "I told you so" to the US.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject:

[deleted] Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:31 pm; edited 7 times in total

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

However misguided and futile it may be, and however the Iraqis may screw it up, the mission for democracy in Iraq is not crass and imperialistic. Despite the costs it may do some good, but it doesn't help that insurgents are killing doctors and other elites (this is partly why Iraqis on the ground have turned against the insurgents in the past year).

Anyway, sympathy is not what our troops need. Neither a flag on the lawn. They need more comrades-in-arms.

While I appreciate the "more comrades in arms" comment on a purely strategic basis, pragmatically it is an impossibility. One, the political state in the US would not allow it. Two, there are strong arguments in place that the US presence there fuels the insurgency. Three, why sacrifice more for something that is, indeed, crass and imperialistic. Unless one subcribes to the idea that Bush acted insanely but altruistically in the best interests of the Iraqi people, how can this war be anything but? I simply do not believe Bush acted for any sort of honorable reason. His actions are not those of someone acting in that way.

He twisted reality to get what he wanted. He lied to get what he wanted. Even as he saw it was folly, he continued in the same vein. Etc., etc.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:10 pm Post subject:

Yu_Bum_suk wrote:

If Canada, Germany, and France were smart they'd use their resources to help fix some problem that isn't directly tied to US imperialistic interests.

If you had said Darfur, I would have agreed.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:13 pm Post subject:

Yu_Bum_suk wrote:

Bulsajo wrote:

If Canada, Germany, and France were smart they'd use their resources to help fix some problem that isn't directly tied to US imperialistic interests. Oh wait, they are smart.

All the Bathists , Khomeni lovers and Bin Laden followers have to do is give up their war. Not imperialistic.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:23 am Post subject: ...

Quote:

No. Saddam was killing Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war (as Iranians were also killing Iraqis.)

Quote:

Also, there never were any "good old days."

RE: The good old days
I believe the poster was referring to your description of WWII.

While I believe the decision to liberate Kuwait was right, I offer this quote from the time:

"If Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn't give a damn."
-Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary under Reagan

Quote:

No. Saddam was killing Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war (as Iranians were also killing Iraqis.)

And he was doing a particularly good job with chemicals (not WMD, as Joo will remind me) provided by US chemical companies.

Quote:

We have been spoiled by rare, atypical moments of moral clarity -- see, e.g., the Peloponnesian War, the Second World War, or the Gulf War.

"Spoiled" is not the word I'd use. That suggests they are plentiful. And you're citing the Peloponnesian War. That was a bit back...

Quote:

International affairs and wars are usually way more morally ambiguous and complicated than this, with no shortage of bitterly divisive and partisan local-oriented dissent, protest, and other movements that govts must reckon with or, in some cases, being unwilling or unable to do so, simply fall.

And I'd ask whether there are also morally ambiguous, bitterly divisive, etc. etc. etc. that governments don't really have to reckon with, but choose to do so to suit their interests?

My answer is yes, but hey, I'm a whacko. On the other hand, your above statement might also be construed as a very loose, wily justification for just about anything. Just my perspective.

Quote:

The Iran-Iraq War and the current Anglo-U.S. occupation of Iraq are more typical than atypical in global patterns of warfare -- think of the Boer War, the Ruso-Japanese War, the First World War, Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the U.S. and British in Iraq today,

I absolutely agree. These are the more typical wars we have. Collectively, they are all wars with dubious causes.

Of course, the causes in the lot you mentioned are "very varied".

Rather, it's best to look at the atypical wars: They were wars of self-defense and/or helping an ally that was incapable of its own self defense (not sure abut the Peloponnesian War, Goph)

and how they were compounded and exacerbated by local phenomena such as the Dreyfus Affair, the Mme. Caillaux incident, Britain's Curragh Mutiny, Rasputin's influence at Nicholas's court, and later phenomena including Watergate and the Plame Affair.

Rasputin? Is that in any way connected to your previous examples?

How did Watergate affect the Vietnem withdrawal?

Quote:

Remember when Clinton was on the brink of moving against Saddam in 1998 and his opponents bitterly charged that it was just a cynical tactic to distract peoples' attn away from the real issue: Monica?

I remember him tossing those missiles around in '99. I tought that was a bit out of hand.

As for being "on the brink of moving against Saddam", I think he did move against Saddam with the No-Fly Zones.

I don't however, see any evidence that he was going to invade Iraq. Likewise for his policy on regime change. And, I certainly don't think he had any plans to act without finding broad international support for whatever further actions we're speculating he was considering.

Quote:

This is how international affairs and wars usually work: messy and confusing, at home, on the front lines, and elsewhere in the world. It takes a certain will and resolve to see them through to the end.

So, the point is what?

Don't get me wrong, but I see the above statement as suggesting that the invasion of Iraq, among other actions, are to be accepted.

Saying that they're messy and confusing doesn't justify them.

Quote:

Also, I agree with Kuros that Iraq is neither meaningless nor imperialistic. The U.S. wants stability in the Middle East, not control over the region or its oil.

"If Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn't give a damn."
-Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary under Reagan

I don't want to twist your words, but to follow your logic, I think it's safe to assume that the US gives about half-a-flip about stability in Africa.

Clearly, we are not terribly concerned about control/oil on the African continent. Of course, there's not much oil there. It's arguable as to whether more people get shot by Ak's or macheted to death, but the death toll is far above that in the Middle East.

Quote:

U.S. involvement in this region's affairs is not about W. Bush, but rather has been going on since the Eisenhower Administration -- and British involvement, incidentally, goes back much farther than that.

Yes, with the help of the Brits, the CIA overthrew a democratic Iran in 1953 because they wanted to nationalize their oil.

To say that it isn't about oil is just plain wrong.

It's also wrong to say that it's only about oil.

Imperialism? That's tricky. Clearly, the US wants to protects its interests. However, imperialism has moved on from playing Risk to playng Diplomacy. I won't claim hindsight, but I think we can all admit that "spreading democracy" has a hitch when people use their right to choose non-democratic governments.

("Why Can't Asians Think?" is a great book written by a Singaporean that addresses this issue.

And, honestly, I bought it in a smug state of mind, which was quickly dealt with by the author)

Quote:

Also, I agree with Kuros

Between the two of you, you cover both WWI and WWII as a reason to attack Iran.

I just thought I'd point that out.

Before you start, spare me the psychoanalysis about my anti-US bitterness.

These are all fair comments.

You could simply address them.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:52 am Post subject:

Quote:

If Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn't give a damn."
-Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary under Reagan

True. Adding Kuwait's oil to Iraq's oil woud put have allowed Saddam to have just about as much oil as Saudi Arabia.

But one reason for that is that if Saddam had Kuwait's oil not only would he had power over the US economy but also he would have been able to had a lot more money to purchase weapons.

With Kuwaiti oil you would have probably seen an even more assertive , and aggressive Iraq.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:09 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

It takes a certain will and resolve to see them through to the end.

Or is it stupidity and arrogance preventing one from seeing the writing on the wall?

Gopher wrote:

Also, I agree with Kuros that Iraq is neither meaningless nor imperialistic. The U.S. wants stability in the Middle East, not control over the region or its oil. U.S. involvement in this region's affairs is not about W. Bush, but rather has been going on since the Eisenhower Administration -- and British involvement, incidentally, goes back much farther than that.

You do not believe this. I refuse to believe you are that obtuse. If you had used an "and" in there somewhere, maybe. But even the least cynical is not so blinded as to claim what you do above and not snicker up their sleeve the next moment.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:43 am Post subject:

[deleted] Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:32 pm; edited 1 time in total

Yu_Bum_suk

Joined: 25 Dec 2004

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 3:04 pm Post subject:

Bulsajo wrote:

But Germany and Canada are in Afghanistan- you see no connection to Iraq? What's the point of Canadian and German soldiers fighting terrorism in Afghanistan if Iraq is left to become a giant terrorist incubator?
Some Canadians want the world to fall apart just so they can say "I told you so" to the US.

I don't think they should be in Afghanistan either, as this is also a defacto US-led mission.

Yu_Bum_suk

Joined: 25 Dec 2004

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 3:08 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Yu_Bum_suk wrote:

Bulsajo wrote:

If Canada, Germany, and France were smart they'd use their resources to help fix some problem that isn't directly tied to US imperialistic interests. Oh wait, they are smart.

All the Bathists , Khomeni lovers and Bin Laden followers have to do is give up their war. Not imperialistic.

...and give up control of their oil to an adequate extent and a few give up their homes and land to Israel. Rather imperialistic.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject:

Yu_Bum_suk wrote:

I don't think they should be in Afghanistan either, as this is also a defacto US-led mission.

Well then, more fool you, and I can't say I'm surprised.
The mission is simply a continuation of what began in late 2001- were you against it at that time as well? If so, on what grounds?
And on what grounds are you against the current mission in Afghanistan?
"American Imperialism"?
Do those two simple words explain everything for you, mon petit niaiseux?
Are you against Canada's participation in NATO and NATO sponsored missions as well?

Yu_Bum_suk

Joined: 25 Dec 2004

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject:

Bulsajo wrote:

Yu_Bum_suk wrote:

I don't think they should be in Afghanistan either, as this is also a defacto US-led mission.

I had mixed feelings about Afghanistan in 2001 and protested it for a variety of reasons. I'm against the current mission because I don't think the US would do a proper job of improving the place even if this were its intention. There are some good reasons to remain in NATO but I think that all in all Canada's resources would be better used in missions that have little or nothing to do with the US, and there are enough serious problems in Africa to consume whatever resources Canada can offer.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:59 pm Post subject:

[deleted] Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:32 pm; edited 2 times in total

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 Next
Page 4 of 6

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