Korean Job Discussion Forums

[ChuckECheese]

[huffdaddy]

[ChuckECheese]

[Doutdes]

[Doutdes]

[Zoobot]

I think Clinton signed the declaration in 1998, and I think there were multiple motivations again... Human rights abuses probably played a part, but I also think that there was a lot of criticism in America of the first Bush administration for not getting rid of him after the kuwait debacle.

You're right, though: Al-Queda is definitely a stateless terrorist organization. Their actions always seem to strengthen States themselves and weaken the civil liberties of ordinary citizens though, or is strengthen the right word?

I think it is an utter mistake to call them "radicals."

[supernick]

In response to ChuckandCheese.

Some people don�t remember or know about the energy crisis in the 1970�s. That was the main reason for all the new small cars and for the success of cars like the Civic. OPEC started to pinch off the supply of oil to the west as the U.S. and other Western counties as these countries were in support of Israel. Oil supplies were totally cut off to Holland as Holland was allowing American flights to land there and re-fuel for supplies to Israel. This caused havoc and inflation for the U.S. and most of the nine nations of the EU. The U.S. was not doing that well as inflation was out of control and gas prices at the pump had almost doubled. You could also say that this was the beginning of the slow decline of market share of U.S. car producers, a major U.S. employer and income generator.

It�s not that the U.S. wants Iraqi oil; they just want control over it and more control over M/E oil. As far as I know, Iraq does not have control of its oil, nor will it does it have control over its revenue. For someone who says that America plans 50- to 100 ahead, don�t you think that it would be in America�s best interest to have longer, more secure supply of oil, not just for itself but for its buddies? The UK pretty much has dried up its supply. Sure it can get oil from Norway or even Russia, but Russia is not really a trusted partner for the long-term. Besides, the UK has always had its eye on Iraqi oil and that�s why the UK installed a puppet regime there in the 1920�s and gassed the Kurds as they were thought to be a threat to the new regime.

Can you show us that Iraq has control over its oil? Will Iraq be able to sell its oil to who it chooses?

What about U.S. military bases in Iraq that are being built? Are they going to be there just to protect Iraqis from themselves, or are they there to say to the M/E, �You play by our rules or else�? You might not think it�s about oil, but take oil out of the equation and I doubt that there would have ever been an invasion.

Colin Powel himself doubted the intelligence compiled by the CIA. He has even now admitted regret over his address to the UN. Other CIA reports also doubted the claim of WMD. What happened was that intelligence reports were manipulated by people in the Bush administration.

It was not just the CIA report. Hans Blitz and UN weapons inspectors had concluded that 90% of all WMD that Iraq had were destroyed in the early 1990�s. Also remember that there were UN weapon inspectors in Iraq days before the invasion doing their job. Why would the U.S. and the UK invade with so much hurriedness when their claim and justification was on the pretense of WMD, when much of the intelligence was in doubt and very questionable? Wouldn�t it have been wiser to wait a few months? It was pure recklessness.

Then there�s that good old question of the legality of the invasion. The U.S. and the UK said that they had a previous UN resolution, yet at the same time they tried to get a new one. If the old one gives them the permission then why seek a new one?

The claims were so over blown. Not a week went by without some doomsday proclamation coming out of the mouths of Bush and Blair that an invasion had to be done now. The reason for staying in Iraq is now to fight the terrorists (which should really be called insurgents) which wasn�t the problem at the beginning of the war. Remember, the problem was Saddam and his WMD.

The West is not safer by the Iraq war, and to think (from what Bush has said) that it�s the center of the war on terror. Just because there hasn�t been an attack in the U.S. doesn�t mean the war in Iraq has made the U.S safer, nor any other country for that matter. Brits now live in fear that their old school friend neighbor could now pose a serious threat and not just racial violence that has been seen in Birmingham and Bedford. Too many are angered and many more live in fear.

If you think that people or organizations should be spanked, then maybe you should look at your own leaders. Further, there are many who have been harmed, injured, falsely imprisoned, tortured and killed by your government�s policies, many of which circumvent or breach international and humanitarian laws, so in your rationale, then they too can give a spanking where it may be deserved?

Most of the funding and support for terrorists have come from individuals. Iran could be a source and I have heard that Saddam rewarded families of suicide bombers in Israel, but then again, no real proof. If the information came from the CIA, then we know how good its word is, right? Can you show a link where there terrorists of 9/11 might have received and funds from Saddam or from any other country? If not, please don�t bore me with any more of your propaganda fed notions.

Chuck, the other lunatics are in the White House and the people who voted for Bush.

[Manner of Speaking]

[Teufelswacht]

[ChuckECheese]

[supernick]

[Gopher]

[ChuckECheese]

[Adventurer]

I was dumfounded when the voters chose Bush, but I was not surprised for two reasons. There was a state of war. People felt threatened by sinister forces coming out of the Middle East, and the Bush Administration exuded a certain strength with its flag waving and so did the GOP members around him. The Democrats didn't seem to have a plan, not that the GOP did either. There was also the fact that public knew far less about events and facts in that area than they know which is because, in my opinion, the media executives dropped the ball. Their reporters were telling them about Al Qaeda for years. That isn't the American peoples' fault. It is very hard to come up with a solution for Iraq.
A solution is needed. I think if I had to propose something it would be focus more on building areas outside of Baghdad in the Shiite areas, Kurdish areas, and Sunni areas of Tikrit and Owja and to build the Iraqi forces and purge them of Shiite militants and integrate the Kurdish Peshmergas into it. I would have Turkoman, Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni generals, a decent mix. I would also make it clear that the United States does want to pull out and try to connect with the people through the Iraqi media. Right now, to some extent, the Kurds and Sunni Arabs are kind of nervous. All of them are suspicious of each other and the U.S. Bridges need to be built around and so nation building would really involve bringing communities together and in Iraq drawn up by the British, that will be very tough. I don't envy the generals' job.

[EFLtrainer]