|
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 |
Interested
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| W.T.Carl wrote: |
| Yes, I guess if you were a SUNNI you would rather live under Saddam. If you were a KURD and had seen your family NERVE GASSED, I think not. |
Right, at least let's not pretend that the Kurds are worse off. It's the non-Kurd Sunnis and Shi'a who are making their part of Iraq into a hell-hole. |
The Kurds were already living under UN protection in Northern Iraq before this occupation kicked off. Remember that Iraq was partitioned after the first Gulf war. Let's not pretend that this war was to benefit them. They were already out of the equation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hans Blix is right that there has been in many cases more suffering in Iraq after the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. than when Saddam was in power. Frankly, I did think the war was unwise because I knew we were being deceived by the administration and I read the reports of some economics who predicted close to a trillion dollars in expenditures.
If we look at things in the short-run, we would arrive at Hans Blix's conclusion. However, we are still in a chapter of the book rather than at the end of it. The Iraqis did suffer immensely under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein who held his people in bondage. They were under a rule that was definitely savage. Perhaps, they will, in the long-run, after this rein of terror, their barings. This may be a cavalry they may have to bare in order to reach their political salvation.
Of course, those in parts of the South are doing quite well and people of the North, in many cases, are doing well. The areas with large swaths of Sunni areas are plagued by insurgents and sectarian strife. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Interested
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Yes, our troops removed a very nasty tyranny, to widespread initial rejoicing among the people of Iraq. For some Iraqis - especially Kurds and Shia - some things about their lives have got better. People who were in prison or in exile are now at home. Millions of Iraqis turned out to vote for political parties of their choice, despite intimidation. They have incomparably more free media than before and less reason to fear repression from the central state. A few have prospered. In places, the occupying powers have done major reconstruction work. But that's about all one can say on the plus side; the minus list is so much longer.
As Patrick Cockburn, a writer with rare in-depth knowledge of Iraq, chronicles in his new book The Occupation, the dimensions of our failure over more than 40 months of occupation are breathtaking. It starts with the most basic services. Despite the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars, US government witnesses told the Senate foreign relations committee earlier this year that the performance of the Iraqi electricity, water, sewage and oil sectors is still below pre-invasion levels. The economy is worse in many respects than it was before. Instead of going in fear of Saddam's secret police and torturers, people go in fear of gangs, militias, criminals and fanatics.
To exchange tyranny for anarchy is merely to move from one circle of hell to another. As one Iraqi recently commented: under Saddam we had a state, a bad state, but to have no state is even worse. |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1931625,00.html
I don't think it was morally right to interfere with their country, unless we could have guaranteed they would (even eventually) get something better in return. We've created an absolute mess and we do not know if things will get better. I really hope they will, but I am not overly optimistic. Adventurer is talking about the short term - but how long will his short term last? A generation or two perhaps? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I disagreed with invading Iraq because of the old theory that only a fool starts a war, only an idiot starts two at the same time and only a madman starts three.
Afghanistan was not finished and they wanted a war in Iraq. They were idiots who started it and I don't take fools lightly. Though you can't say Bush is a madman as he hasn't started a third, but I will argue that Osama is one as count the wars he has started. |
|
| 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
