|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Moore
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 730
Location: Madrid
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I�m sorry AgentMulderUK: am I to take it that you think somehow a war is an acceptable alternative to containment and negociation? To quote our famous wartime leader (who was by no means a p*ssy) "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war. "?
Of course Hussien needed to be forced out, but there are ways and means. His removal by milatry means comes at the cost of playing into the hands of Bin-Laden and creating more polarisation between the Muslim world and the Christian world and risking a new holy war, creating a hotbed for new terrorists (there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war, he ruthlessly stamped them out, now it�s full of foreign insurgents and Al-Quaida) , dividing the Western world and the US itself, and costing the lives of 1280 coalition troops and 30,000 Iraqi civilians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AgentMulderUK
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 360
Location: Concrete jungle (Tokyo)
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Moore wrote: |
I�m sorry AgentMulderUK: am I to take it that you think somehow a war is an acceptable alternative to containment and negociation? To quote our famous wartime leader (who was by no means a p*ssy) "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war. "?
Of course Hussien needed to be forced out, but there are ways and means. His removal by milatry means comes at the cost of playing into the hands of Bin-Laden and creating more polarisation between the Muslim world and the Christian world and risking a new holy war, creating a hotbed for new terrorists (there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war, he ruthlessly stamped them out, now it�s full of foreign insurgents and Al-Quaida) , dividing the Western world and the US itself, and costing the lives of 1280 coalition troops and 30,000 Iraqi civilians. |
I see your point of view Moore, but I can't agree with it.
Saddams removal by ANY means would have the same effects you described. The other methods were tried repeatedly over 10-15 years so in the end only one option remained. It's never nice, is always a last resort, but that is just something we have to live with. The greater good, etc,etc. It was interesting that the entire UN voted several years ago that something had to be done if Iraq didn't comply. Iraq showed utter contempt for the rest of the world. It was for Mr Hussein to show the records/evidence of what happened to the weapons they KNEW he had previously. He couldn't/wouldn't so war was justified.
The best means of defence, when faced with a dangerous & unpredictable enemy, is offence, as has been proved endlessly by military strategists & historians throughout history. If you just sit and wait, the enemy has the initiative. To give people like Hussein and terrorists the initiative is to invite disaster on an unimagineable scale that will make your 30,000 seem almost trivial.
Also, I don't see how you can say with such confidence that terrorists didn't exist in Iraq before the war. Did you think they went about their daily business with "I am a terrorist" T-shirts on? It is known that he has given Palestinian familes money if their kids blow themselves up in Israel. Hardly the actions of a man who has no links to terrorism.
Just exactly when do you think military action is justified?
After NY is destroyed totally, after millions in London are dying in the streets from Anthrax? Or perhaps you'd rather wait until all the western world is destroyed, because then you can sleep safe in the knowledge that you did the right thing........
Naive people fuel the terrorists cause. Because it won't happen to you, right? It can't, right?
Wrong.
Not quite sure what all this has got to do with ESL teaching in Japan.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moore
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 730
Location: Madrid
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Absolutely right AgentMulderUk: nothing to do with ESL teaching in Japan and so I�ll shut up, and leave you with one last quote...
"When war is declared, truth is the first casualty. " |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
taikibansei
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Posts: 811
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AgentMulderUK wrote: |
Also, I don't see how you can say with such confidence that terrorists didn't exist in Iraq before the war.
|
He can say with confidence that there were neither WMDs nor connections with terrorists before the war because Rumsfeld, the 9/11 Commission, Cheney, Rice, Powell and Bush have acknowledged this. Here are some links for substantiation:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1005-03.htm
http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/1718346p-9528473c.html
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=29894
http://www.truthout.com/docs_03/091903C.shtml
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
As an American, the only thing I can feel right now is shame for my country's ignorance. Two weeks ago, I surveyed my students and found that 100%--i.e., every single individual in all three classes--firmly believed we had found WMDs during and after the second Iraq invasion.
Why would they still think this? Low education levels. Many of even the university students in this country have difficulty with basic reading and writing skills. Nationwide, university students--ostensibly the cream of the crop for their age groups--lack the cognitive skills necessary to make educated decisions on any difficult topic. (Heck, most of them cannot even post to this forum without serious spelling and grammar errors in each sentence). Yet only about 50% of people in the United States graduate from a university--you can just imagine what the rest are like....
20+ years of cuts to the schools have resulted in a generation of Americans who are just begging to be conned. Heck, the people in the low and middle classes here still believe they actually received tax cuts under Bush (the payroll taxes--e.g., social security, medicare, etc.--that are taken out with each paycheck actually went up, and as these taxes apply only to the first $70,000 or so of yearly income, the poor and middle classes got hit the worst...).
Three articles on what's coming now:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1342513,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1343992,00.html
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
And all the while, bin Laden--the real external threat--is still running about, making videos....
Why is this EFL-related? Because demand overseas for your services is dependent on whether anybody wants/needs to deal with your country of origin, whether in their, or your, language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AgentMulderUK
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 360
Location: Concrete jungle (Tokyo)
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, intelligent post, taikibansei, as always. I totally agree with all your points on modern education.
But regarding the war, I don't feel you said that much that we don't already know or should know. I read your links in detail. Nothing really contradicts my previous posts.
Yes, I know various reports failed to find links to Al-Quaida. But as I said before, it would be practically impossible to prove this, especially by a bunch of suited guys wandering round Iraq with clipboards or the odd spyplane flying about. Such reports cannot hope in a million years to penetrate a closed society that is shrouded in secrecy and lies. The reports are just failed attempts at justifing the war. The reporters hoped they woud find something and this would have given the definite green light. So, of course, they looked for another reason. They didn't need a reason - Saddams utter contempt for the UN was good enough, as was his appalling treatment of his own people, but for political popularity reasons those at the top looked for further justification. I can't say I blame them really.
However, don't forget that Al-Quaida is only one group or network; there are many other groups and the Iraq link to the PLO is well known.
As for no WMD being in Iraq now, that would be almost impossible to prove with current technology. It make take decades to complete such a search. This isn't Star Trek. You can't just set your 'Scanners' at maximum range and expect barrels of chemicals weapons to show up.
We know he had them, several thousand Kurds died as a result. So the desire WAS there. Do you really think a psycho like that, and quite a clever one too, would pass up the chance for bigger and better ones. How can you stop this stuff being developed and passing on to dangerous hands? So, he had to be removed. This was never going to be easy.
We don't live in the world of Hollywood. You don't get instant results in the real world. Wars take time - people were actually complaining that the war took too long because it took 3 weeks to reach Baghdad!
Unbelievable! it took 5 years to defeat Hitla, and that was only 60 years ago.Too many people expect instant results and have goldfish memories. They think the war in Iraq was about 9/11. It had very little connection with that. The Towers were bombed years before that and Iraq wasn't invaded then. Desert Storm had nothing to do with 9/11 - the lastest war is just a continuation of that conflict. Huge bodies of troops were stationed next to Iraq before 9/11 happened. Stragetic plans have already been underway for years. Afghanistan was already in America's sights. And good job I say.
Yes, many leaders have embarrassed themselves by taking a gamble by trying to provide an extra dimension in justifying the war. This has backfired and caused resentment amongst the populace and a belief that the war was for no reason at all.
I will just leave these people to swim round in their glass bowls.
Happy Days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuck
Joined: 11 May 2003
Posts: 1921
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AgentMulderUK wrote: |
The reports are just failed attempts at justifing the war. The reporters hoped they woud find something and this would have given the definite green light. So, of course, they looked for another reason. They didn't need a reason.
As for no WMD being in Iraq now, that would be almost impossible to prove with current technology.
Yes, many leaders have embarrassed themselves by taking a gamble by trying to provide an extra dimension in justifying the war. This has backfired and caused resentment amongst the populace and a belief that the war was for no reason at all.
|
America (they) didn't need a reason? Give me a break. Going with the United Nations was a big mistake. It has been proven that it's been a big mistakes. Iraq didn't have WMD nor chemical weapons and were not in danger of using them. It's really egg on the face on the whole administration.
In addition, to the foul up, dismissing the Iraq military...smart move Warlovers. Choas, instability. Can't wait of the exit strategy. Just admit it was a mistake. Lust for oil. Fairly simple.
Unfortunately, what's done is done. Now it's clean up time and the soldiers are doing there best to make the best of an unjustified war. If it was justified, why wasn't in a group decision by the security council?
| AgentMulderUK wrote: |
Stragetic plans have already been underway for years.
|
Nice execution of those plans. Nice post war strategy, eh? America has always been good at starting wars, meddling in other people's politics and capitalization of securing resources: READ OIL, but not as efficient at cleaning up the mess. I guess it's forgotten by Agent Mulder who funded the Taliban, isn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AgentMulderUK
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 360
Location: Concrete jungle (Tokyo)
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well Canuck, please enjoy swimming around in your bowl.
The terrorists must love you. Bet you are even on their christmas list.....
I think I will end my contribution to this discussion as there seems very little informed debate, with Taikibansei & Moore being notable exceptions IMO.
It was interesting though, to listen to everyone's opinion. Even the goldfish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
olorin
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| canuck wrote: |
| If it was justified, why wasn't in a group decision by the security council? |
Because, the security council is virtually incapacitated by the divergent interests of its member states. Twelve years provided eighteen resolutions promising consequences that never materialized, or were too inconsequential to give Hussein reason to comply. They only proved that in the event of non-compliance, the council was resolved to make another resolution. There's also mounting evidence that at least two of the nations that held veto power were profiteering from the Oil-for-Food program (which Saddam himself profited greatly from). He used the sanctions as an excuse to withold humanitarian supplies from his people in order to bring in the international media and garner worldwide sympathy at the state-induced plight of the Iraqi people. Meanwhile he continued to reign in terror over his people, including burying groups of people up to their necks in the Iraqi desert, and running over them with tanks (much of this information about the interior state of Iraq comes from Iraqi sources).
In the same way that I don't care if the North engaged in the American Civil War for slavery or for industry, I don't care if the Iraq war was for WMD's, oil, or expansion of McDonald's: the Iraqi people are free of a horrendous dictator, and will soon have a chance to govern themselves as they see fit. I don't deny that it's been ugly, mistakes have been made, and there's a long way to go. However, a few years back, at the same time that I heard European nations grumble about how Americans perceived themselves to be the world police force, I was directly asked by a group of Iraqi refugees why the US (or the UN) didn't stop the nightmare they were fleeing from. I later asked why they didn't rise up against Saddam, (including the Republican Guard), and they said it was because everyone was too afraid. Saddam Hussein acquired power by intruding into the Iraqi legislative body, asking for an oath of loyalty under gunpoint, and then demanding proof by providing those who swore with weapons to kill those who didn't. This man was not in compliance with the terms of surrender in the previous war or with the expressed will and law of the international community. He had a proven history of supporting terrorism, attempted to assissinate a US president, used chemical weapons on the Kurds, oppressed Muslims, was more than indifferent to the impoverishment of his people, and has proven time and again he is not to be trusted and refused to be contained. While the 9/11 committee proved that he had no connection to the events on 9/11, they also proved that his administration had ties with Al Qaeda and other international terrorists.
Unlike Hussein's Iraq, in America and on this forum, all these matters are open to debate, and I could always be wrong. I hope I have kept this post relatively free of divisive vitriol, and wish to be treated in kind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
taikibansei
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Posts: 811
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AgentMulderUK wrote: |
| Yes, I know various reports failed to find links to Al-Quaida. |
Agent, thank you for the thoughtful response as well. Still, I think you are missing my main point. Despite what Bush and the Blairettes would have us believe, the United States and Britain are countries of limited resources. Both these countries--indeed, most of the West--have been targeted by Osama bin Laden, a rich, spoiled megalomaniac posing as an oppressed holy warrior. He and Al-Quaida are the real enemies, and frankly, even if we had nuked the mountains in Afghanistan where he was supposed to be hiding, I still wouldn't think it enough for the guy and his organization. And, again frankly, we had the guy surrounded--with full UN backing and world opinion completely on our side--and let it all go....
Equating Al-Quaida to the Palestinian struggle for independence is absurd--the latter is an extremely complicated situation, with a history going back, at the very least, to broken British promises in WWI. There is wrong, and right, on both sides in that struggle.
Regarding Hussein, yeah, he was a cruel and oppressive ruler--so what? Was he any worse than the lunatic in charge of North Korea? The religious nuts in charge of Iran? The leaders in Sierra Leone, Burma, etc. certainly won't be getting Christmas cards from me either; still, why is it suddenly our job to fix these governments? It is not our job, and even if it were, as our tanking economy and ballooning debt shows, we can't afford taking on the responsibility. Quite literally, we are going bankrupt...while bin Laden is still running about....
Bottom line: there was no direct connection between Iraq and Al-Quaida, which means our invasion was an unnecessary waste of precious time, resources, and international good will. Every single Iraqi poll I've seen says that they want us out....now. Worse, any freely elected government there will be run by religious extremists; can't see how that's a step up from Hussein.
This is my last public post on this topic; pm me if you want to continue the discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nismo
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 520
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| taikibansei wrote: |
As an American, the only thing I can feel right now is shame for my country's ignorance. Two weeks ago, I surveyed my students and found that 100%--i.e., every single individual in all three classes--firmly believed we had found WMDs during and after the second Iraq invasion.
Why would they still think this? Low education levels. Many of even the university students in this country have difficulty with basic reading and writing skills. Nationwide, university students--ostensibly the cream of the crop for their age groups--lack the cognitive skills necessary to make educated decisions on any difficult topic. (Heck, most of them cannot even post to this forum without serious spelling and grammar errors in each sentence). Yet only about 50% of people in the United States graduate from a university--you can just imagine what the rest are like.... |
What school do you teach at? I'm aware of 3 or 4 ignorant students per class of 50 to 60 who regurgitate information straight from a book without applying any critical thinking, but you've just described what can best be described as a university nightmare. I find what you've said hard to believe. I don't know anyone who buys into any of the propaganda the Bush administration has been feeding the public. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
taikibansei
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Posts: 811
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nismo wrote: |
What school do you teach at? |
I teach at a university in Idaho. Before that, I taught at a university in Missouri. About 15 years ago, I also taught at a university in California.
| Nismo wrote: |
| I'm aware of 3 or 4 ignorant students per class of 50 to 60 who regurgitate information straight from a book without applying any critical thinking.... |
I feel much better then. And here I thought grade inflation, the dumbing down of curriculum, and budget cuts were nationwide concerns....
http://gradeinflation.com/
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_teacher/dec03_jan04/NCLB.html
Just two sites out of many....
| Nismo wrote: |
I don't know anyone who buys into any of the propaganda the Bush administration has been feeding the public. |
Strange that Bush won then.....  Also, considering your statement, it's kind of weird that Bush took San Diego, don't you think?
http://www.sdvote.org/election/110204.xml
Look, I'm sure that the students at your university in California are fantastic, and there certainly are a number of other exceptions as well. Nationwide, however, these kinds of universities are exceptions, not the rule; indeed, overall educational standards have been decreasing for 20+ years. Believe me, or not, as you will....
And now, I really am done with this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris12
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 98
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is scary to think of how powerful the U.S. is and how ignorant and naive Americans are of the world. Many Americans believe Bush invaded Iraq to stop them from producing weapons of mass destruction yet North Korea admits to having weapons of mass destruction and admits to be developing more weapons but the U.S. doesn't invade! Why? No oil in North Korea just a bunch of starving people.
Americans believe that Bush has done a good job fighting terrorist yet Osama is still out there making threats!
Most of all I can't believe how stupid both Republicans and Democrats were to think that controlling Iraq would be easy after the invasion! Iraq has a long history of fighting wars with their neighbors like Iran, and amongst each other, and now they have a reason to unite.
Another sad thing is that no one even considers all those innocent Iraqis who have been killed because of this invasion for greed! The news just covers how many soldiers are killed or how many Iraqis have been killed in a single attack. But how many Iraqis have been killed in total since the invasion started? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
homersimpson
Joined: 14 Feb 2003
Posts: 569
Location: Kagoshima
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| America has always been good at starting wars, meddling in other people's politics and capitalization of securing resources: READ OIL, but not as efficient at cleaning up the mess. I guess it's forgotten by Agent Mulder who funded the Taliban, isn't it? |
America has always been good at "starting" wars? By my count, at best the U.S. has only started three wars (The Revolutionary War, the Mexican War of 1846-48, and the current conflict in Inraq). France and Italy have started far more wars throughout human history than the U.S. (ever hear of Napoleon or the Roman Empire?). And the *beep* Americans also had the audacity to save the South Koreans from the North, bail out Europe twice, kick Saddam out of Kuwait, etc. No, America is not perfect, it has made serious mistakes in its policies and practices, but it is not the blight of the planet. As for funding the Taliban, I don't know what evidence you have, but let's not forget who inevitably toppled the Taliban. Regarding the ridiculous implication that the current Iraq war is about oil, at the risk of being too arrogant, let me quote my earlier post:
Let me preface my comments by saying I neither support Bush or the war in Iraq, however, to contend that it is a war for oil is laughable. If so, then why were the oil fields not immediately seized and guarded by coalition forces? Why did production fall to zero? Why has production still not reached prewar levels?
Bush's reasons for invading Iraq were numerous: 1. He (perhaps naively) believed the faulty intelligence he was given. 2. There was a personal grudge he had against both Saddam and Iraq (the failure of the first Presdient Bush to remove Saddam cost him re-election; and evidence was later discovered that the Iraqi gov't had tried to assassinate the elder Bush). 3. The U.S. and the Bush administration needed a momentum-building victory to further the "global war on terrorism" and Iraq was an easy target. (Telling the American people you've toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan is akin to Shaquille O'Neal bragging he beat a toddler at a game of h.o.r.s.e.) 4. There were no other viable targets. (Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc.) all posed significant quagmires, unlike the much unforeseen ones in Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuck
Joined: 11 May 2003
Posts: 1921
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| homersimpson wrote: |
| Let me preface my comments by saying I neither support Bush or the war in Iraq, however, to contend that it is a war for oil is laughable. |
Homer, please read this:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2071981/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The G-stringed Avenger
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 746
Location: Lost in rhyme infinity
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="homersimpson"]
As for funding the Taliban, I don't know what evidence you have, but let's not forget who inevitably toppled the Taliban.[quote]
America created the Taliban and supplied them (and Osama Bin Laden) with truckloads of weapons and millions of dollars during the war with the USSR. America had dealings (surprise surprise - about oil) with the Taliban between 1996 and 2001.
The Northern Alliance did most of the dirty work against the Taliban. America helped with money, weapons, air power, a few special forces troops in the right places, but the credit belongs mostly to the NA
[quote] Why did production fall to zero? Why has production still not reached prewar levels?[quote]
Because there was and still is a war going on.
| Quote: |
| There was a personal grudge he had against both Saddam and Iraq (the failure of the first Presdient Bush to remove Saddam cost him re-election; and evidence was later discovered that the Iraqi gov't had tried to assassinate the elder Bush) |
Your personal feelings are no reason to be starting a war. If America had really tried (and they didn't) they could have assasinated Saddam and immediately offered the new leadership of Iraq concessions for rejoining the international community - lifting of sanctions, loans, removal of the no-fly zones, re-opening of diplomatic relations etc. |
|
| 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
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
