|
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 |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:34 am Post subject: Re: But what about the Sunnis and Shi'a hatin' on each other |
 |
|
Right. Not to mention there is practically no sustainable infrastructure in place.
As bad as Saddam was, there was a police force of some sort, there were municipal services, ambulance service, fire service...people had food and jobs for the most part... the Iraqi govt hasn't reached a point where it can fill in the gap left by Americans leaving, not just from a military/security standpoint but from an infrastructure/essential services one as well. Leaving now is a huge defeat in the battle against Terrorism, it's also a showcase of- despite US military technology- American weakness. There will be immense long-term repercussions. A divided Iraq, parts of which are run by Taliban-esque Jahidists, an Iranian client state, and Kurds fostering irredentist movements in Turkey, Syria and Iran is just one of those repercussions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
| The Economist knows big business and oil money is at stake in Iraq. It's all about $$$. |
Mmm.. The Economist doesn't represent oil interests and big business. It discusses the economy of the U.S. and the world. They are different.
The mass majority of fiscal conservatives and particularly Wall Street are strongly against the War in Iraq.. its costing the US taxpayers billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars (and for that matter, US corporations) - creating an unhealthy and unstable economy and an otherwise strong nation into a dependent and in debt one. In addition, America's name goes down the drain with it. Most businesses (outside of the oil industry and Cheney's friends) don't benefit from the War in Iraq at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
in terms of helping to shoulder the burden you're not going to find any support for that amongst countries who were ostracized for not participating in the first place, such as Germany and France (who could make a difference) as well as Canada (who really couldn't do more than a symbolic gesture even if they wanted to).
It really does appear to be case of cleaning up one's own mess. |
I think what you are saying is that the editors at the Economist can go fly a kite when they talk about getting over the past. "You hurt our feelings, so phooey on you!"
The situation may be somewhat analagous to July 1940. The French have fallen and the Empire is fighting on alone. The Americans didn't create the situation and don't want to be involved but the prospects look grim.
| Quote: |
| Leaving now is a huge defeat in the battle against Terrorism, it's also a showcase of- despite US military technology- American weakness. There will be immense long-term repercussions. A divided Iraq, parts of which are run by Taliban-esque Jahidists, an Iranian client state, and Kurds fostering irredentist movements in Turkey, Syria and Iran is just one of those repercussions. |
If those are real possibilities, and they are, then other countries besides the US have a stake in shaping the outcome into a more favorable result. To do nothing is to cut off your nose to spite your face.
I said somewhere that it's time to bring the troops home, get the deficit under control and raise and train a bigger army to deal with the bigger mess down the road. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riley
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: where creditors can find me
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EFL Trainer says that we are what the insurgents are aiming at. That is true but it is also not true. Like many simple arguments, it misses the details. In this case, the insurgents are not just fighting us, they are fighting for control of the government and for a particular system of belief. This is much closer to being a guerrilla war than anything else right now (in Iraq). As such, the opponents are aiming at infrastructure and military.
Do you really believe that Al-Zarqawi is fighting for just the liberation of Iraq or fighting to shape Iraq into his image of a country? Are Sunnis simply fighting to get rid of the Americans or fighting to keep/regain power? Some Shias are linked to Iranian supported groups. Don't you think the Iranians would like to be able to have influence in Iraq?
Of course, this wouldn't have happened if the U.S. hadn't invaded Iraq, but that is no longer the argument. Right now, we need to think about the future and what future actions could have on events in the future.
Simple arguments are for high school debates and U.S. political ads, so try to create a better argument that answers these points. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just received the "Why America must stay" copy in the mail today, I look forward to tucking into that tonight.
It's great having it delivered for a change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 10:47 pm Post subject: Re: But what about the Sunnis and Shi'a hatin' on each other |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| EFLTrainer wrote: |
| If they continued their campaign after we left, you'd see much the same reaction as we recently saw in Jordan. If you accept this argument, then it bcomes obvious that the readiness of the Iraqi military is irrelevant. |
That's not a bad point, EFLTrainer. However, it doesn't address another problem that might accompany American withdrawal: a civil war between the Sunni and the Shi'a as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad fears.
| Quote: |
| Why not just leave, as so many Americans want? Khalilzad, in an interview, spoke in the most specific terms yet heard from a senior U.S. official about what a panicky pullout could bring. "People need to be clear what the stakes are here," says Khalilzad. "If we were to do a premature withdrawal, there could be a Shia-Sunni war here that could spread beyond Iraq. And you could have Iran backing the Shias and Sunni Arab states backing the Sunnis. You could have a regional war that could go on for a very long time, and affect the security of oil supplies. Terrorists could take over part of this country and expand from here. And given the resources of Iraq, given the technical expertise of its people, it will make Afghanistan look like child's play." An Army War College study published last month put matters more succinctly: "The long-term dilemma of the U.S. position in Iraq can perhaps best be summarized as, 'We can't stay, we can't leave, and we can't fail'." |
|
Which is why I had earlier proposed a peacekeeping force be brought in in conjunction, preferably one made up of Arabs, but other possibilities exist... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Name one multi-national Peacekeeping force which has successfully countered an internal insurgency. Or prevented a civil war.
Take your pick.
It's not what they're meant to do and it's not what they're capable of doing.
What you propose is layering stupidity on top of idiocy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
in terms of helping to shoulder the burden you're not going to find any support for that amongst countries who were ostracized for not participating in the first place, such as Germany and France (who could make a difference) as well as Canada (who really couldn't do more than a symbolic gesture even if they wanted to).
It really does appear to be case of cleaning up one's own mess. |
I think what you are saying is that the editors at the Economist can go fly a kite when they talk about getting over the past. "You hurt our feelings, so phooey on you!" |
Perhaps, but for better or worse that's simply the reality of the situation. The US acted on its perceived interest when going into Iraq. It must now act again in its own interest, and again regardless of some its allies.
"What is in the best interests of the US?" is the key question we are now arguing over, IMO.
And to that question I strongly agree with The Economist's analysis- BTW, has anyone else managed to read the full article yet? There is no way I'm typing the whole damned thing out for the sake of this thread- which concludes that the US' best interest lies in not executing a premature and hasty withdrawal from Iraq.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| The situation may be somewhat analagous to July 1940. The French have fallen and the Empire is fighting on alone. The Americans didn't create the situation and don't want to be involved but the prospects look grim. |
No I don't think it's analagous at all. But I really don't care to debate the point right now and will agree to disagree.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| bulsajo wrote: |
| Leaving now is a huge defeat in the battle against Terrorism, it's also a showcase of- despite US military technology- American weakness. There will be immense long-term repercussions. A divided Iraq, parts of which are run by Taliban-esque Jahidists, an Iranian client state, and Kurds fostering irredentist movements in Turkey, Syria and Iran is just one of those repercussions. |
If those are real possibilities, and they are, then other countries besides the US have a stake in shaping the outcome into a more favorable result. To do nothing is to cut off your nose to spite your face. |
Most definitely agree with you. But again, it's the reality of the situation. The US leaving in a hurry is also a 'cut off your nose to spite your face' move.
Check out Bucheon Bum's signature (if he hasn't changed it), it's so incredibly appropriate to the situation.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I said somewhere that it's time to bring the troops home, get the deficit under control and raise and train a bigger army to deal with the bigger mess down the road. |
Well, I suppose that would be an option, given that everyone would be aware of, and willing to face, a bigger mess down the road.
I don't realistically see that happening.
What I do see happening, unfortunately, is the base for Islamic fundamental terrorism shifting from backwater Afghanistan to oil-rich and strategically important Iraq, and emboldened Islamic extremists crowing about defeating 2 superpowers (because- regardless of how accurate it is- you can be sure al Qaeda will be taking the lion's share of the credit).
I also see an increasingly isolated and isolationist US where in the not too distant future 9/11 part II happens and people scratch their heads in disbelief, wondering how it came to that. The US cannot protect itself domestically, its borders and its international relations are too porous for that. This is a known fact and was a major factor in the (faulty) decision to invade Iraq.
Is a bigger, bolder, "9/11 part II" fear-mongering on my part?
I don't know, perhaps- but it's certainly a plausible scenario nevertheless.
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq didn't revent Madrid and London attacks. Al Qaeda having a base of operations in the heart of the Middle East should be on the top of everyone's 'don't let it happen' list, and since The Economist has already pointed out the irony of the US appearing to help create what it fears, I don't need to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
in terms of helping to shoulder the burden you're not going to find any support for that amongst countries who were ostracized for not participating in the first place, such as Germany and France (who could make a difference) as well as Canada (who really couldn't do more than a symbolic gesture even if they wanted to).
It really does appear to be case of cleaning up one's own mess. |
I think what you are saying is that the editors at the Economist can go fly a kite when they talk about getting over the past. "You hurt our feelings, so phooey on you!" |
Perhaps, but for better or worse that's simply the reality of the situation. The US acted on its perceived interest when going into Iraq. It must now act again in its own interest, and again regardless of some its allies.
"What is in the best interests of the US?" is the key question we are now arguing over, IMO.
And to that question I strongly agree with The Economist's analysis- BTW, has anyone else managed to read the full article yet? There is no way I'm typing the whole damned thing out for the sake of this thread- which concludes that the US' best interest lies in not executing a premature and hasty withdrawal from Iraq. |
I haven't read the full article, yet, but if it were more available I certainly would.
The first point I want to make is that there's no way in hell Germany, or France, or Canada are going to send troops to Iraq. The United States doesn't want to surrender ultimate control over operational command and even the British are severely sore about US policy in Iraq. Again, this presupposes Germany or France or Canada has the capability to send a sizeable force. They don't have a lick of domestic political support nor do they have the fiscal power to do so. And in the case of Germany and France, the war front wouldn't be in just Iraq. As the recent French intifada demonstrated, even an anti-war France can't avoid violent resistance from immigrant forces. I bet the estimated tens of thousands of dug-in Al Qaeda agents would have a field day under the conditions of French/German deployment to Iraq. That's all on top of the good point Bulsajo made.
However, the one thing Bulsajo has neglected to mention regarding the interests of the US is the capacity for the United States to maintain current troop levels in Iraq. The clock is ticking, and the United States will simply have to draw down forces soon. The US armed forces is getting exhausted by the insurgency.
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I said somewhere that it's time to bring the troops home, get the deficit under control and raise and train a bigger army to deal with the bigger mess down the road. |
Well, I suppose that would be an option, given that everyone would be aware of, and willing to face, a bigger mess down the road.
I don't realistically see that happening.
What I do see happening, unfortunately, is the base for Islamic fundamental terrorism shifting from backwater Afghanistan to oil-rich and strategically important Iraq, and emboldened Islamic extremists crowing about defeating 2 superpowers (because- regardless of how accurate it is- you can be sure al Qaeda will be taking the lion's share of the credit).
I also see an increasingly isolated and isolationist US where in the not too distant future 9/11 part II happens and people scratch their heads in disbelief, wondering how it came to that. The US cannot protect itself domestically, its borders and its international relations are too porous for that. This is a known fact and was a major factor in the (faulty) decision to invade Iraq.
Is a bigger, bolder, "9/11 part II" fear-mongering on my part?
I don't know, perhaps- but it's certainly a plausible scenario nevertheless.
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq didn't revent Madrid and London attacks. Al Qaeda having a base of operations in the heart of the Middle East should be on the top of everyone's 'don't let it happen' list, and since The Economist has already pointed out the irony of the US appearing to help create what it fears, I don't need to. |
I take it as more likely than not that the US will see one of their major cities engulfed in a mushroom cloud or a massive chemical attack by 2050. That is, unless radical technological and political developments both are made to contain the proliferation of WMD. There is no fear-mongering on Bulsajo's part.
Lastly, Ya-Ta Boy, I don't understand how the bigger army will come about even should troops leave Iraq tomorrow. The Iraq War is a showcase of why you shouldn't enlist. Not only will you face grave challenges and not improbably death or severe injury, but the motives behind conflict may sometimes be impure and the world looks less and less likely to thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Al Qaeda having a base of operations in the heart of the Middle East should be on the top of everyone's 'don't let it happen' list |
I can agree with this. My question is, what should other countries (besides the US) be doing to prevent this outcome?
| Quote: |
| The US acted on its perceived interest when going into Iraq. |
Aside from being in power through stealing an election and then doctoring the evidence to gain support, the guys behind the Iraq policy are an anomoly in US political philosophy.
| Quote: |
| The clock is ticking, and the United States will simply have to draw down forces soon. The US armed forces is getting exhausted by the insurgency. |
Thank you. I forgot to mention that important reason for getting them out soon.
| Quote: |
| The Iraq War is a showcase of why you shouldn't enlist. |
That's one reason why I support the reinstitution of the draft, modified to get the recruits suitable for today's needs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Al Qaeda having a base of operations in the heart of the Middle East should be on the top of everyone's 'don't let it happen' list |
I can agree with this. My question is, what should other countries (besides the US) be doing to prevent this outcome? |
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.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The US acted on its perceived interest when going into Iraq. |
Aside from being in power through stealing an election and then doctoring the evidence to gain support, the guys behind the Iraq policy are an anomoly in US political philosophy. |
No problem, then change "US" to "bush Admin". It's a semantic distinction as far I'm concerned.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The clock is ticking, and the United States will simply have to draw down forces soon. The US armed forces is getting exhausted by the insurgency. |
Thank you. I forgot to mention that important reason for getting them out soon. |
Then let's be perfectly clear: if the insurgents are exhausting the US beyond its manpower capacities, then the insurgents are winning and a hasty withdrawal is a de facto recognition of that.
At the present time I personally don't agree with that (that the War and US objectives are lost).
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The Iraq War is a showcase of why you shouldn't enlist. |
That's one reason why I support the reinstitution of the draft, modified to get the recruits suitable for today's needs. |
Not being an American that's a hot-button topic I won't comment on, but it certainly would be one way of redressing the situation.
Would redeployment of US forces from other regions (say, Korea, for example) be another option?
I don't know.
I've read a lot about what the US can't and/or shouldn't do, but I haven't come across any good plans of action and that includes Bush's latest pronouncements on the situation.
Maybe holding tight and continuing on the present course is the way ahead, but I don't really believe that either- that's a war of attrition that the US will probably lose, and probably due to domestic public opinion more than anything else.
Financially, can the US step-up spending on training and infrastructure in Iraq?
How much to the wall is the US economy already because of the war?
Every way you turn it looks like a rock and a hard place... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
No problem, then change "US" to "bush Admin". It's a semantic distinction as far I'm concerned.
|
I thought what I wrote would seem to be a quibble when I wrote it, but having voted against Bush twice and objected to his policies all along, I may be overly sensitive to being blamed for his actions. But I don't think so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
No problem, then change "US" to "bush Admin". It's a semantic distinction as far I'm concerned.
|
I thought what I wrote would seem to be a quibble when I wrote it, but having voted against Bush twice and objected to his policies all along, I may be overly sensitive to being blamed for his actions. But I don't think so. |
I don't blame you a bit but I don't think it's a distinction that matters much outside of the US.
Again, it's another one of those simple (and bitter) realities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
a sign i'm getting overworked these days:
I re-read the economist piece, picked up on something, and had a new comment to contribute about it but 24 hours later it has totally escaped me.
I guess my issue is this:
If we pull out, it makes us look weak. If we stay, more troops die. It is unwinnable. I think that had we actually had a post-war plan and done a lot more than we did, we wouldn't be in this situation. Fact of the matter is we didn't, so we're stuck. Things have gotten out of hand, and we cannot gain control.
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok guys and gals I have a solution and I will throw it out there and you can say yeah or nay. Please excuse the spelling.
I think that Bush should march down to the UN and give a speech to the General Assemby and have it televised across America and around the world. In his speech he should say:
1. I'm sorry. I lied and members of my administration lied. This war had nothing to do with weapons or dictators. It was a combination of power play and democracy building. I have failed.
2. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and Wolfowitz are all fired.
3. We will recognize that the world needs the ICC and general agreement on human rights and we will abide by international decisions. We will also stop the missile shield and sign the landmine treaty and reinstate the SALT treaties. We will activily work with all countries to eliminate all WMD. We will start by destroying all of our stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. We will no longer research or produce these materials.
4. We recognize that we and we alone are responsible for the mess in Iraq and that we must bear the financial and political burden of this mess. We request that a UN peace force be created using the current contingeant of American and British troops and adding an additional 200,000 troops from around the globe to bolster security and train the future army, government, etc of Iraq. We alon will pay the entire cost of this UN force and the UN will pick the commanders from outside the US to run the show. US forces will work as part of the UN force and take orders from the UN commanders.
This is the only way that Iraq will be solved. The US has to admmit it was wrong and then apologize for it. Then and only then will you see Pakistan, Banglidesh, Canada, Germany, France and other countries send troops. |
|
| 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
