| Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages! |
| Porthos |
Iraq - Final Recourse: Do or DieIt's simple people. Double the forces on ground. More troops are needed. Iraq hasn't been this bad since the fall of Baghdad. We simply need a higher concentration of troops on the ground, so that we can effectively police the country. If we can't maintain order with the current number of troops, common sense dictates that we add more troops, until the crisis is resolved. We need more troops per square foot. 500,000 troops sounds like a good number, considering the current situation. This half-ass material won't cut it.Does anybody know the exact figure for U.S. troops in Iraq? I would like to see Americans come home (or ship out to one of the far flung outposts of our informal empire), but if we were to cut and run now, the loss of thousands of American lives would have been for nothing. As long as we're in this mess, we should finish it, and win. But this is what happens when you go on an imperial adventure in a religiously fanatic country. Bush = :twisted: |
||||||||||||
| KSa |
I can understand your rationale about the Iraqi capmpaign but on the other hand I'm happy that Hussein is no longer in power in Iraq. I mean, I support the use of military power to overthrown the regimes of crazy men. It's the lesser of two evils. | ||||||||||||
| Sander |
Re: Iraq - Final Recourse: Do or Die
Well what are you waiting for?  Go join the US army 
|
||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Not old enough. Besides, they wouldn't take me, due to health reasons. | ||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
The lesser of two evils ? Depends upon whose evil you're referring to... For instance the Iraqis who lived under Saddam and died under Bush would perhaps disagree (if they could come back to have their say). |
||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Why do you support the use of military power (force) for regime change in foreign countries? What business does the U.S. have there, if they are not a threat to American national security? Who gives us the right to invade countries as we please, for the purpose of forceably imposing "democracy" on them? How would you like it if say China said that we were too foolish to adopt the precious blessings of authoritarian psuedo-communism, and that they would have to export it to us by force? If they had a terrible regime, then that was their problem, not ours. It's just sad that America ever got into this messy business in the first place. Besides, do you sincerely believe that this was on of the main purposes of invading Iraq? Do you seriously buy that garbage?
Real reasons for invading Iraq: Sadam was about to convert his oil reserves to the Euro, which if allowed, would lead to the adoption of such a practice by other OPEC nations. This would destroy the fragile U.S. dollar-oil system, and lead to the collapse of the U.S. monetary and financial system. Then, there is the oil, which is now controlled by mulit-national U.S. and British oil firms. And then there is the fact that the U.S. now has a huge military presence in the heart of the middle east, from which to launch future military operations in the region. Look at a map. You will notice that the "axis of evil", Syria, Iraq, and Iran form a straight line accross the middle east. If the U.S. controls Iraq, they have an easy base of operations from which to launch attacks and reinforcements in either direction to the other two parties of the "axis of evil". Afghanistan has also already been conquered, and this is an extension of the line accross the middle east. It is a perfect line, stretching from east to west, with Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. In ten years' time, the U.S. will have made all of these countries protectorates. Iran is next, and then Syria will follow. That is why Iran is so anxious to get their hands on a nuclear weapon. They fear for their national independence! |
||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I can see KSa's point. On the one hand, I cannot support any violence and I can see (from outside my pacifistic viewpoint) why the war in hindsight may have been a mistake. But on the other hand, I'm happy that Saddam Hussein is no-longer in power (regardless of whether he posed any international threat or not). | ||||||||||||
| Porthos |
I think nearly everyone agrees that it is a good thing that Hussein is out of power, but that still does not justify a pre-emptive invasion of a country which was not a threat to the national security of the U.S. This is what so many people fail to understand. We don't have the right to tell other nations what kind of government they should have. Again, how would you like it if say Putin decided that Britain should should submit control of her industries to Russia, and accept a radical regime change, imposed upon her by Russia, just because the Russians felt that morally, it was the right thing to do? From the Iraqis' perspective, the idea is absoultely insane! I bet a majority of Iraqis, today, would rather opt for a continuation of the status quo as per pre-2003, with all of the tyranny and lack of representative government, to the present alternative, which has wrought constant domestic violence, sectarian division, religious extremeism, and the occupation of a foreign power. Not to mention hundreds of thousands of deaths, including mass migrations of civilian refugees who were forced to flee from their homes in the midst of a rampant insurgency. |
||||||||||||
| Loic |
Not old enough, Porthos? Over here, one can become a soldier as long as he's 16.5 years old.
Anyway, there is no use whining over the legality of the war. Greg said that the people who were killed in the course of the liberation movement would emphatically beg to disagree with the idea that removing Sadaam Hussein was better for them. But compare the number of people killed in the course of the war to the total number killed by Sadaam Hussein's bloodthirsty regime as well as the expected number of people who would be killed if the tyrant was allowed to continue ruling from his throne. I am sure the losers of such an exercise would far outnumber the winners. |
||||||||||||
| KSa |
I don’t doubt that those who are pacifist are decent people. But pacifism is just plain utopia and extremely idealistic approach in our world – sad but true. 'Si vis pacem, para bellum': 'If you wish for peace, prepare for war' |
||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Certainly. However, to bellum parare you need to be competent about things military, which is clearly not the case of the US in Iraq where the former lost the asymmetrical war as early as 2003. Bush and Blair's late pathetic gesticulations on TV show how cruel reality is. They tell us that "redimensioning", "redeployment", "reorganisation" of their forces to "hand over" power to the Iraqis is part of their strategy etc. Who is going to buy that nonsense ? North Korea ? Iran ? Cuba ? Pakistan ? Russia ? China ? India ? Japan ? Germany ? France ? Now the sad news : Bush is even less competent in diplomacy.
Yep, let's ! The body count (so far) is 600.000 (in 40 months) vs 300.000 (in 20 years). The US wins ! The extrapolation you hinted loic suggests than an additional 50.000 murdered by Saddam between 2003 and 2006. That could have been more, or less. We will never know. However, 600.000 is for sure higher than 50.000. New Lancet study : US war against Iraq has killed more civilians than Saddam details here
I would bet so too. That's unfortunately the saddest thing this illegal, useless war brought to Iraq. |
||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Loic,
Do you honestly believe that Saddam would have killed close to a million people in a matter of three years if his reign had continued? Besides, why didn't the U.S. invade other countries with rouge regimes, who butcher their own people, or who starve their own people, or who support Islamic fundamentalist terror organizations? Iran does all of these things, and North Korea has been trying to develop nukes, "OPENLY", for years now! They even starve their own people! Why didn't we go on a humanitarian relief operation and nation building mission in places like N. Korea or Iran? They are both swearn enemies of the U.S., and on of them supports Islamic terrorists, while the other one has been developing nuclear weapons! The fact is, the boys from the Project for the New American Century have wanted to invade Iraq since the early days of the Clinton administration. |
||||||||||||
| Loic |
Greg: I am sceptical about the estimated casualty rates you showed, but I'd take you at your word and assume that the Allied forces have taken more lives than Saddam Hussein's thuggery alone.
I am not qualified to speak on behalf of those wretched Iraqis, but I'd like to quote Patrick Henry here for his sentiments echoed mine down to the last letter, despite a gulf of more than 2 centuries separating us. "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!" Porthos: My, your new name is rather long. Anyway, I sincerely believe that the international community must act in tandem to police rogue states such as North Korea, Iran, inter alia. It is our humanitarian duty to apply force, if need be, to deliver a better life to the millions of people leading blighted lives in these sorry countries. |
||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Would you rather I change it back to "Porthos"? It's just that I thought it was kind of a queer name, and I only registered under that name at the time because I couldn't think of anything else at the moment. | ||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Josh, perhaps? | ||||||||||||
| Porthos |
No, I never do my actual name. | ||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Add to that the USA, Israel and the UK. |
||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
'You forgot Poland!'
— George W. Bush (and also Australia — if we're counting the governments whose armies participated in the initial invasion of Iraq) |
||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Although I would exclude Greg's choices, I would say that Saudi Arabia should be on the "rouge" list. They support terrorists and Islamic extremism, and they have a horrible human rights record, nearly as bad as Saddam's was. But, the U.S. is buddy-buddy with them, because they give U.S. corporations access to their oil. |
||||||||||||
| KSa |
Greg: I support preventive wars as a last resort and I think if anyone of world-powers in the 30-ties had listened to Polish marshal Jozef Pilsudski, who strongly promoted the idea of a preventive war against Hitler (still weak in 1933-34), this terrible hecatomb of the 20 century might have been prevented. Although I always thought that the removal of Saddam was a good idea, in this case the situation got out of control. I’m not naïve to believe in the world without wars as I don’t believe that any war can go on without casualties in civilians but what happened in Iraq made me very sad and angry. Anyway, there is one more thing I don’t believe, I mean that our beloved world can go without world leaders. |
||||||||||||
| Loic |
Greg:
Actually, are you cognisant of the fact that the mounting number of Iraqi casualties nowadays is due to fratricidal fighting between the Kurds, Sunni and Shia communities? I can assure you that for every 1 Iraqi mistakenly killed by an Allied soldier, 10 Iraqis are being butchered by their own countrymen. On hindsight, I'd wholeheartedly agree that the rationale for unseating the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein has been foolish and ill-planned. President Bush has over promised and under delivered; american voters might deliver a severe punishment to his party come the November elections. His legacy would always be tainted by the Iraqi war and he can hardly complain about that as he made a conscious decision to style himself as a war president right from the start. But since we are already in Iraq, it would be a badly conceived idea to cut and run. Iran and Saudi Arabia, the leading Shia and Sunni countries in the region, are already looking on nervously at the situation in Iraq. To leave now would plunge the wretched country into a full-blown civil war that would further destabilise the region. Exeunt Uncle Sam, John Bull and Co; Welcome Chaos. |
||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Saudi credentials relative to human rights are as deplorable as those of the US. Both countries financed terrorism, both countries have a deleterious love affair with death penalty and thus deny human beings the most basic human right — the right to live no matter what you have done. I have to say the US outsmarts Saudi Arabia by far : it is repeatedly violating the Geneva convention (in Guantanamo, Iraq and wherever it can hold captive and torture abducted people in all impunity), it did not comply with UN decision not to attack Iraq before inspections were over, just to mention topicality.
If you meant Bush, I'm afraid he's not even a leader in his own country. He certainly doesn't "lead" the world : he'll be remembered as the first president of decadence. He's lost everywhere he thought it apt to intervene. Do you remember the slogan "Mission accomplished" ? A perfect illustration of Bush's titanic failure.
Do you realise that the US triggered that civil war and that it was *WARNED* beforehand in every way conceivable and *THREATENED* to be vetoed at the UN and *DETERRED* to bribe its opponents ?
What's at stake now is not what US citizens think of their president — who cares in the world ? They haven't been able to listen to what the world told them in due time, in 2003. In 2004 (this time only) they elected Bush. Now it's too late to punish : early doomsayers' predictions proved right, hate is unleashed and nothing will put it back in its little box. Bush knows nothing about war. Even less about strategy. The US army had a same-scale precedent, a case study to ponder over : the War in Algeria — but they did not draw lessons from the past.
Why "we" ?
loic : this *IS* a civil war. All precursory signs were apparent as soon as early 2005. |
||||||||||||
| Loic |
Mon vieux, il n’y pas encore une guerre civile pour l’instant. En effet, j’ose dire que tu n’es pas au courant de la vraie situation en Iraq et que tous que tu viens d’écrire sont exagérés et faux. Mais si les américains et ses alliées partaient tout de suite, il y aurait bien une altération de la situation.
C’est inévitable que les soldats étrangers devraient quitter l’Irak à une date ultérieure. Mais ce n’est pas le bon moment et tu le sais très bien. |
||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Had there been no U.S. intervention in Iraq, there would be no sectarian strife, and no civil war. I don't know why people refrain from using that word, because that is what it is, plain and simple. | ||||||||||||
| KSa |
Greg: the advantage of G.Bush is that he was elected democratically and not for ever, as opposed to the leaders of regimes he has overthrown or wants to overthrow. | ||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Certainly. Except perhaps the "election" in 2000... 
|
||||||||||||
| Loic |
The bugger is dead. Impaled by his very own sword. However, as TV images are beamed around the world showing us of an apparently placid Saddam Hussein being led to the gallows, I could not help but admire his non-chalance towards his demise. This was a man who clearly understood the consequences of losing power and who was fully prepared for his date of expiry.
And so ends the extraordinary life of a man who never got to see the first sunshine of 2007. 
Few'd mourn for him; nobody'd forget him in a hurry. |
||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
loic, allow me this odd question : any particular reason for writing non-chalance with a dash ? | ||||||||||||
| Porthos |
We do that a lot in English. IDK why. |
||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
Never seen it like that in SA English, nor in Afrikaans (nonchalant). |
||||||||||||
| Deborah |
I've never seen it with a hyphen in American English. | ||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Thank you all for your answers. I asked because En <nonchalance> is a loan from Fr <nonchalance>, which in turn is derived from Fr <nonchalant>, an adjectival present participle originally derived from the verb Fr <nonchaloir> (now extinct) — even if nonchaloir can still be used as a nominalised infinitive in a literary, formal register.
Basically Fr (verb) <nonchaloir> is a mere concatenation of <non> and <chaloir> (from La <calere>), the latter meaning {to matter ; to be important ; to be of interest}. Today Fr <chaloir> can be used with the 3rd person singular only (negative voice almost invariably) : <peu m'en chaut> ~ {I don't care}. So loic's non-chalance seemed to be an interesting vestige of the rich history of an Old-French verb. |
||||||||||||
| Loic |
I am sorry here. A more prosaic reason for the hypen is actually a misspelling on my part! | ||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Peu importe le flacon pourvu qu'on ait l'ivresse ! 
|
||||||||||||