|
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 |
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:05 am Post subject: Buckley "the American objective in Iraq has failed" |
 |
|
Conservative guru William F Buckley Jr is now calling on US forces to cut and run in Iraq.
Man, I can't wait until Ann Coulter gets done with him!
| Quote: |
"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes � it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that �The bombing has completely demolished� what was being attempted � to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.
Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.
The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans.
The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elucidates on the complaint against Americans. It is not only that the invaders are American, it is that they are "Zionists." It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others' throats.
A problem for American policymakers � for President Bush, ultimately � is to cope with the postulates and decide how to proceed.
One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom.
The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.
This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail � in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism.
He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies. Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Buckley buckeled?
Oh my, his conservative friends are going to zap him with the death star! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some question, without even having read the Buckly article (stupid, yes, but I want to get these down before I forget):
I didn't think a consensus was ever reached on what exactly the 'American objective' was for Iraq...
but is this good news for the UK?
Was the "British objective" acheived?
If the objective in Iraq is unacheivable, where does this leave objectives in other countries, notably Israel and Afghanistan? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gypsyfish
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If you think about what real conservatism is (not this neoconservatism crap that Bush's administration pushes), conservatives would not have approved the idea to invade Iraq anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
conservatives would not have approved the idea to invade Iraq anyway.
|
I wonder if that makes me a conservative  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the old conservative idea has something to do with "we are rich and privileged so let's not unnecessarily rock the boat and disturb the status quo, but do whatever is necessary to stay on top..." (and, like the neo-cons, somehow market it to the masses of common folks as their patriotic and/or religious duty...)
Last edited by Rteacher on Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Was the "British objective" acheived?
|
To lick W's arse? Most certainly. Well done. Drool Britannia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Buckley Jr said that?
I'm shocked and awed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wrote: |
| The neo-conservative objective in America and the world has failed |
This is my answer as to why the administration won't try to cope with this failure in Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:33 am Post subject: Re: Buckley "the American objective in Iraq has failed& |
|
|
| Alias wrote: |
Conservative guru William F Buckley Jr is now calling on US forces to cut and run in Iraq.
Man, I can't wait until Ann Coulter gets done with him!
| Quote: |
"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes ?it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that 밫he bombing has completely demolished?what was being attempted ?to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.
Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.
The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans.
The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elucidates on the complaint against Americans. It is not only that the invaders are American, it is that they are "Zionists." It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others' throats.
A problem for American policymakers ?for President Bush, ultimately ?is to cope with the postulates and decide how to proceed.
One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom.
The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.
This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail ?in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism.
He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies. Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.
|
|
Buckley is doing nothing of the kind. He writes that the objective has failed, but that does not necessarily mean that U.S forces should cut and run. It could just as well mean establishing a new objective. Their original plans didn't work, time to admit defeat for those, and formulate new plans. If anybody, much less Buckley believes that the U.S. is going to leave Iraq anytime soon, I have a bridge to sell you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
True conservatives like Buckley never bought in to the cut taxes and spend philosophy the Reagan/Neocon wing of the GOP either, not to mention the all-government-is-an-evil-nefarious-left-wing-conspiracy-of-dirty-slimy-foreigners-to-take-over-the-world-but-especially-God's-gift-to-humanity-America.
Everyone notes the utter lack of innovative ideas and alternatives from the Democrats. Justifiably so. But no one pays much attention to the eclipse of the old, rock-ribbed Right who are the legitimate inheritors of the Jeffersonian skepticism of government without being off the deep end about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:56 am Post subject: Re: Buckley "the American objective in Iraq has failed& |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Buckley is doing nothing of the kind. He writes that the objective has failed, but that does not necessarily mean that U.S forces should cut and run. It could just as well mean establishing a new objective. Their original plans didn't work, time to admit defeat for those, and formulate new plans. If anybody, much less Buckley believes that the U.S. is going to leave Iraq anytime soon, I have a bridge to sell you. |
Always an excuse, never an answer. Yo, lump-o-led-for-brains: Before Bush *won* his FIRST election, I knew there would be war in Iraq if he DID win.
After his election, I knew there was nothing to be found in Iraq, but that EVEN IF THERE WERE, an invastion was a mistake.
Tell me, oh lump-o-lead, if *I* knew, why the HELL didn't he???? And why are YOU making excuse for him?
YOU are exactly why the world is going to hell in a handbasket. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
True conservatives like Buckley never bought in to the cut taxes and spend philosophy the Reagan/Neocon wing of the GOP either, not to mention the all-government-is-an-evil-nefarious-left-wing-conspiracy-of-dirty-slimy-foreigners-to-take-over-the-world-but-especially-God's-gift-to-humanity-America.
Everyone notes the utter lack of innovative ideas and alternatives from the Democrats. Justifiably so. But no one pays much attention to the eclipse of the old, rock-ribbed Right who are the legitimate inheritors of the Jeffersonian skepticism of government without being off the deep end about it. |
How very convenient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:11 am Post subject: Re: Buckley "the American objective in Iraq has failed& |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Buckley is doing nothing of the kind. He writes that the objective has failed, but that does not necessarily mean that U.S forces should cut and run. It could just as well mean establishing a new objective. Their original plans didn't work, time to admit defeat for those, and formulate new plans. If anybody, much less Buckley believes that the U.S. is going to leave Iraq anytime soon, I have a bridge to sell you. |
Always an excuse, never an answer. Yo, lump-o-led-for-brains: Before Bush *won* his FIRST election, I knew there would be war in Iraq if he DID win.
After his election, I knew there was nothing to be found in Iraq, but that EVEN IF THERE WERE, an invastion was a mistake.
Tell me, oh lump-o-lead, if *I* knew, why the HELL didn't he???? And why are YOU making excuse for him?
YOU are exactly why the world is going to hell in a handbasket. |
that is just false.
the US policy before 9-11 was smart sanctions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1207742.stm
The Bush adminstration's policy was regime change in Iraq but that policy was no different than that of the Clinton adminstration.
O'Neill: 'Frenzy' distorted war plans account
Rumsfeld: Idea of a bias toward war 'a total misunderstanding'
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (CNN) --Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Tuesday his account of the Bush administration's early discussions about a possible invasion of Iraq has been distorted by a "red meat frenzy."
The controversy began last week when excerpts were released from a book on the administration published Tuesday in which O'Neill suggests Iraq was the focus of President Bush's first National Security Council meeting.
That started what O'Neill described to NBC's "Today" show as a "red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets."
"People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said.
"Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq."
The idea that Bush "came into office with a predisposition to invade Iraq, I think, is a total misunderstanding of the situation," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon.
Bush administration officials have noted that U.S. policy dating from the Clinton administration was to seek "regime change" in Iraq, although it focused on funding and training Iraqi opposition groups rather than using military force. (Full story)
Retired Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he saw nothing to indicate the United States was close to attacking Iraq early in Bush's term.
Shelton, who retired shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said the brass reviewed "on the shelf" plans to respond to crises with the incoming Bush administration.
But in the administration's first six months, "I saw nothing that would lead me to believe that we were any closer to attacking Iraq than we had been during the previous administration," Shelton told CNN.
O'Neill, former CEO of aluminum producer Alcoa, sat on the National Security Council during his 23 months as treasury secretary.
He was pushed out of the administration in December 2002 during a dispute over tax cuts and growing budget deficits, and was the primary source for author Ron Suskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty: George Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill."
"From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country," O'Neill is quoted as saying in the book.
"And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it -- the president saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"
But Tuesday O'Neill said, "I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances."
Several Democratic presidential candidates seized on O'Neill's comments to argue that the Bush administration misled Americans about the drive to war with Iraq, where nearly 500 American troops have been killed since March.
Democratic front-runner Howard Dean used them as a jumping-off point to attack three rivals -- Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards -- who supported a congressional resolution authorizing Bush to act against Iraq.
"I would remind Iowans and others that a year ago, I stood up against this war and was the only one to do so of the individuals I have mentioned," said Dean, whose opposition to the war helped propel him to the top of the pack.
Bush repeated his position Monday that his administration turned to war with Iraq only after the September 11 attacks changed the way U.S. officials viewed Baghdad's suspected weapons programs.
That Iraq was a concern before that time was evident in July 2001, when national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN that Saddam "is on the radar screen for the administration," and senior officials met at the White House two days later to discuss Iraq.
During the same time, Iraq began dispersing aircraft and air defense capabilities in preparation for more aggressive U.S. airstrikes to enforce the "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq.
A senior administration official told CNN that early Bush administration discussions regarding Iraq reviewed existing policies and plans.
Officials were particularly concerned with enforcement of the "no-fly" zones, where Iraqi air defense forces had been taking potshots at U.S. and British warplanes since late 1998.
Rumsfeld said Tuesday that Iraq was the only place in the world where U.S. forces were being fired upon "with impunity," and "clearing it was something that needed to be addressed."
Richard Perle, a leading advocate of war with Iraq and a member of the independent Defense Advisory Board that advises Rumsfeld, told CNN the review was still under way when the September 11 attacks occurred.
|
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush
EFL trainer say it is not so. |
|
| 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
