|
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 |
lastat06513
Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Location: Sensus amo Caesar , etiamnunc victus amo uni plebian
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| before i even address that, you need some evidence on that |
Thats the beauty of working for telecommunications in the army before; I got to see alot of intel as it is sent through the wire, not to mention alot of intel that the national guard literally throws away as thash- I saw that as a memo sent down from my state SIGO when I helped clean out my units S2/ Ops room.
| Quote: |
| but if someone wants to fly a plane into a building, security isnt going to stop them if they have any brains |
Two F-16s would do the trick. Unfortunately, the local wing commander has a decision to make these days; either to wait and see where the "wayward bird" goes or to take it out before it does any significant damage (new special orders sent to AF/ANG fighter wings)- You get the message- Blowing a plane out of the sky with 240 people onboard or waiting for it to hit a building where there could be 2000 or more there- you decide....
As for leaving without a solution- honestly, why not carpet bomb every city in Iraq, nuke both Damascus and Tehran and the Baluch mountains in Pakistan (possibly leveling several mountains [yes, nuclear weapons have the capacity to do that now]) after we pull out every last soldier from the country.
I had the unfortunate opportunity of living in a muslim country for a certain amount of time, instead of "enlightening" me, the impression I walked away with is, why are we there?
If we want oil? go to Russia
If we want to protect our interests in Israel? station troops there instead
If we want to go after the terrorists? F^ck that, just do what the mobsters do, and go after their families instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| antoniothegreat wrote: |
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
| bjonothan wrote: |
| Are you out of your mind? The whole reason 9/11 happened is because the muslims need a good kicking from the US of A. To leave now would make the insurgents look like they won. That is something we don't want. I am from Australia and even though I don't particularly like bush, I support him all the way killing muslim extremists over there. I hope that Iran keeps pushing the Americans and they attack Iran as well. Every time they get away with things, it helps their propaganda spreaders make more suicide bombers and beleivers in what I would call a cult at best. Wake up people! Muslims hate you because of what you stand in and one day you will regret not having supported the US in curbing that problem now. Does it take another 9/11 for people to realise that the Muslim issue needs to be addressed? |
The war in Iraq will create countless future 9/11s. With the history of warfare in plain writing on bookshelves across the world, I cannot wrap my mind around the belief that current war will somehow magically reduce future wars. That just does not seem to be the story history tells.
Peace |
I support the war in Iraq, and I love it when people say things like this. Why? In 2001 The USA was attacked. The USA invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and two factions were created, those that believed the invasions would reduce the future terrorist threat, and those that believed the invasions would increase the terrorist threat.
The attack on the WTC occurred in 2001, Afghanistan was invaded shortly after, and Iraq invaded in 2003. It is now 2007, how many terrorist attacks have occurred on the U.S. since then?
zero.
Obviously, I can't say that this number will always stay zero, but six years after 9/11, and the fourth year into the Iraq War, the U.S has not been attacked again, so it really looks like the people that believe the invasions will REDUCE future terrorist attacks are right. |
If your vision is reduced to US soil, and you think 6 years is a long time as far as terrosrist preperations go, then you're correct. Technically, every US death in Iraq after Bush declared the war to be over has been by the hands of a terrorist though. So we're actually at 3000 terrorist casualties + and counting post 9/11. You're point of view seems to be typical for the myopic neo-cons.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| antoniothegreat wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| antoniothegreat wrote: |
Obviously, I can't say that this number will always stay zero, but six years after 9/11, and the fourth year into the Iraq War, the U.S has not been attacked again, so it really looks like the people that believe the invasions will REDUCE future terrorist attacks are right. |
Well, no. First, to consider it a reduction, you have to have something to compare it to. Unless you know of an alternative universe that I don't, that's not possible.
Secondly, you also have to take into account that correlation is not causality. Is the reason there hasn't been an attack in the US because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or something else. Remember that other countries have suffered attacks. Under the "fight them on their home turf" theory, other countries should be equally safe. Which doesn't seem to be the case.
IMO, the lack of terrorist attacks in the US is the result of two things. One, only a very small number of extremists have both the desire and ability to pull off an attack. And two, the administration is actually half aware of the problem, and pays attention when they get reports that say "terrorists are planning to fly planes into buildings."
In short, the use of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan to stop terrorist attacks just doesn't make sound policy. |
then by what you are saying, if i cant say the war has prevented terrorists because i have no comparison, then no one can say the war is creating terrorists? right?
next, i do have something to compare to. pre-invastion, and post-invasion. two different times. getting away from that though, remember, Osama bin Laden did openly declare war against the USA and the west, several times he threatened to destroy us, so either he did not have the will or means to launch another attack and lied, or we are preventing him from his next attack.
about the attacks on other countries, i cant comment much there because, i have never been to spain, i dont know about their security, i dont know if the same organization is responsible for attacking them as well.
i understand the mentality of being against the war in iraq, but why not afghanistan, where everyone, even the afghan government, knew bin laden was hanging out there? are you not allowed to strike back after a declaratation of war? |
It seems that, according to your position, the US would have to remain in war indefinitely in order to prevent future terrorist attacks.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lastat06513
Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Location: Sensus amo Caesar , etiamnunc victus amo uni plebian
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The islamic terrorists (and I'll call them as I see them) want to use the same tactic they used to bring down the Soviet Union~ The war in Afghanistan (1979-1989) was so unpopular in the USSR that it challenged the credibility of the Communist party to the point that it couldn't withstand market reform and other capitalist ideas from influencing it and it simply collapsed.
The problem is that there WON'T be a victory in this war; as long as hatred is taught in the mosques, military training is conducted in the madrases in places like Pakistan, Yemen and Sudan.
This is a holy war; remember there were how many crusades before the holy land was taken in 1918?
Also, ask any Brit about their governments experience in Iraq during the League of Nations mandate (1918 to 1936), they faces almost the same amount of resistance (if not more) as what the US is facing now.
The only true people that were able to rule Iraq (babylon before that) were the Ottoman Turks (until the 19th century) and Saddam Hussein (I feel insane for even using that name in this thread) and maybe Alaxander the Great, the Romans and Nebuchadrezzar and Saladin.
Why?
Because they were men and governments that ruled with brute and unquestionable force.
The problem with the middle east is that it is a region of absolutarianism- one word is rule, to question it is death, end of story.
I asked this in another thread; How does the US hope to change a system of government, a way of life that had held the region together for over 1400 years?
I think attempting to introduce democracy into the region is one of the US' biggest mistakes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| antoniothegreat wrote: |
then by what you are saying, if i cant say the war has prevented terrorists because i have no comparison, then no one can say the war is creating terrorists? right? |
To some degree, yes. Let's take a more indepth look at the situation from a statistical point of view.
Saying that the war has prevented attacks in the US is faulty in several regards. One is, as I mentioned, the lack of comparison. A situation which, as you correctly pointed out, also applies to any other attempt to show increases or decreases in terrorist activity.
A second problem is that the data does not support the argument that terrorist attacks in the US have decreased. If you take the two available data points, '93 and '01, attacks seem to occur every 8 years (I realize that you can't draw valid conclusions from two data points, but that's all we have). So we still have until 2009 before we can begin to consider that post-9/11 policies have been as successful at preventing attacks as the pre-9/11 policies were.
Third, even if we go another 100 years without an attack on the US, I don't see how you can credit the war as the influencing factor. Not when so many other policies have changed, intelligence has become much more aware, and security much more alert to potential problems. These preventive measures, which I agree are working, are totally unrelated to the war in Iraq.
Meanwhile, we have thousands of annual incidents to conclude that worldwide attacks have been escalating. Especialy when many of those attacks are taking place in the war zone itself. While we lack knowledge of what would have happened without the war, I believe the trend of increasing worldwide attacks is a lot more significant than the lack of US attacks.
| Quote: |
| next, i do have something to compare to. pre-invastion, and post-invasion. two different times. |
See ceteris paribus.
| Quote: |
| getting away from that though, remember, Osama bin Laden did openly declare war against the USA and the west, several times he threatened to destroy us, so either he did not have the will or means to launch another attack and lied, or we are preventing him from his next attack. |
Going after bin Laden is a good thing, IMO. I'd say the lack of attacks is based a little on all three of the reasons you listed. It's not his MO to engage in constant battles. Also, he's been isolated, and left without the ability to recruit and train in Afghanistan. Mainly due to the US presence there.
| Quote: |
| about the attacks on other countries, i cant comment much there because, i have never been to spain, i dont know about their security, i dont know if the same organization is responsible for attacking them as well. |
But then the war is not doing its job of keeping the terrorists in Iraq then. Right? Or is it okay if a few spill into Spain and England?
| Quote: |
| i understand the mentality of being against the war in iraq, but why not afghanistan, where everyone, even the afghan government, knew bin laden was hanging out there? are you not allowed to strike back after a declaratation of war? |
What do you mean "why not afghanistan"? It sounds like you are asking why people are not opposed to the war in Afghanistan. I think being in Afghanistan is a good thing. But it should be done right. The 100,000 troops should be there sweeping across the country and looking for bin Laden and his gang. How can the US have trillions of dollars of technology at their feet, and they can't find a 6'6" guy in Afghanistan? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lastat06513
Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Location: Sensus amo Caesar , etiamnunc victus amo uni plebian
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| How can the US have trillions of dollars of technology at their feet, and they can't find a 6'6" guy in Afghanistan? |
Funny you may ask that question.....
The US knows where he is and so does the governments in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India for that matter (India has as much interest in capturing him as the rest of the world and believe me, they are also involved [not saying how though]
But the problem is; if we go and capture him or even kill him, he becomes a martyr and more fanatical people would take his place, thats the rationale right now.
Also, to catch him, the US would have to get permission from Pakistan, who won't even dare let them in as it would risk civil war in Pakistan between the secular military and islamic majority, not to mention the throngs of muslims who would get involved and turn it into a worldwide religious conflict.
Talk about being in a Catch .22 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poet13
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Location: Just over there....throwing lemons.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Funny you may ask that question.....
The US knows where he is and so does the governments in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India for that matter (India has as much interest in capturing him as the rest of the world and believe me, they are also involved [not saying how though] "
Enough now. You're playing at "I was a senior intel officer" or "I'm a mr super secret spy guy", and I don't believe either one.
If you have an opinion or a belief or facts to share, them share them, but talking silly stuff about how you know stuff we don't know is....well, silly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lastat06513
Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Location: Sensus amo Caesar , etiamnunc victus amo uni plebian
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Enough now. You're playing at "I was a senior intel officer" or "I'm a mr super secret spy guy", and I don't believe either one.
If you have an opinion or a belief or facts to share, them share them, but talking silly stuff about how you know stuff we don't know is....well, silly.
|
So I am a silly goose now...
Now that is just plain "silly"
I am not saying I am a "super-spy" or "a super intel officer" (I am not even an officer), but I networked around long enough and researched enough and am observant enough to piece things together.
Thats the problem with people, they are very narrow about their views and their opinions that when something comes along that seems outlandish, unless it is stated on the evening news, people tend not to believe it.
So be it.
I have said before many times, if you don't like what I right nor do you believe what I write, that is up to you to what you want to believe or not to believe- I am not going to pursuade you to change your mind, you are obviously an educated adult (like the rest of us, I hope)
That's why the site comes with a scroll option, you can scroll past threads you don't like until you find one that interests you.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lastat06513
Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Location: Sensus amo Caesar , etiamnunc victus amo uni plebian
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anyway, back on track.......
I DID support the war, but not without questions;
1. Why was the invasion done with an inadequate number of troops?
2. Why were they sent there without even having desert uniforms and without having equipment suitable for the type of conflict?
3. Why didn't they have an exit strategy?
4. Why did they fire the old regime's military officers and disband the army before reconstruction was started?
5. Why did they even decide to attack Iraq at this stage of the war on terror when Iraq was not involved?
These were just a few of the questions going through my mind as this war started or was going on.
As for Afghanistan? I know why we are there, there is absolutely no question about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poet13
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Location: Just over there....throwing lemons.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough. I worked as an army contractor until a few years ago. I live in the Philippines now. (Yes, I work in Korea.) We have a saying there. "There's 24 retired group guys there, and I know all 48 of them." Alternatively, "There's five retired SEALs, and I know all 12 of them."
Dropping bits of information you picked up on intel wires is a gross violation of OPSEC, assuming, as you say, "I AM not an officer..." as opposed to "WAS not", an active duty guy. There are also legal provisions for people who leak secrets after they get out or resign too.
Back on track as you say....
"I DID support the war, but not without questions;
1. Why was the invasion done with an inadequate number of troops?
2. Why were they sent there without even having desert uniforms and without having equipment suitable for the type of conflict?
3. Why didn't they have an exit strategy?
4. Why did they fire the old regime's military officers and disband the army before reconstruction was started?
5. Why did they even decide to attack Iraq at this stage of the war on terror when Iraq was not involved?"
Here, we agree.
I also supported the war, but a few years ago started to doubt the original reason we went there. Now, I just plain disagree with it. My opinion, as I stated before, is that Bush Jr needed a war just like his daddy so he wouldn't be just a footnote in the history books or an interesting trivia question on Jeopardy (father-son presidents). He may be the president, but he is also human. Yes, I ultimately think there is more to it than that, but that is one thing that goes through my mind a lot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
You didn't answer my question at the beginning of page 2, Lastat, so I assume the answer to that question is "yes, I did support the ridiculous, unfounded, unethical invasion in 2003 and now I'm calling for those troops' premature withdrawal".
Poet's inclusion of "A lot of people have changed their support of the war precisely because they feel that the administration fabricated the evidence they needed to create support for it" is fair but insufficient. The fact remains....we've invaded a country without sufficient ethical, evidential grounds and we've turned a reasonably successful and safe dictatorship with schools, running water, hospitals, into a civil war zone that has wiped out 500 people per day. What we've created is clearly, irrefutably inferior to Saddam's regime and the ethical thing to do is attempt to clean up the mess we've made as opposed to leave an even worse humanitarian disaster.
(1) We were correct to invade and now we should pull out. 
(2) We were correct to invade and it is correct to continue.
(3) We were wrong to invade, but now that we have invaded, we should continue, intensify the war effort, until what we leave behind is better than what we replaced.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Merlyn
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The war in Iraq will create countless future 9/11s. With the history of warfare in plain writing on bookshelves across the world, I cannot wrap my mind around the belief that current war will somehow magically reduce future wars. That just does not seem to be the story history tells. |
You, who preach "'beyond belief" religious ideas about your mental communication with aliens now say you "cannot wrap [your] mind around the belief that current war will somehow magically reduce future wars". You're a frakking joke Unitarian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:40 am Post subject: re: |
|
|
| Merlyn wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The war in Iraq will create countless future 9/11s. With the history of warfare in plain writing on bookshelves across the world, I cannot wrap my mind around the belief that current war will somehow magically reduce future wars. That just does not seem to be the story history tells. |
You, who preach "'beyond belief" religious ideas about your mental communication with aliens now say you "cannot wrap [your] mind around the belief that current war will somehow magically reduce future wars". You're a frakking joke Unitarian. |
Feel free to start a new thread on my religious beliefs (which I will certainly be a part of), but please do not interrupt the flow of this thread by bringing in irrelevant information.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Merlyn
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Feel free to start a new thread on my religious beliefs (which I will certainly be a part of), but please do not interrupt the flow of this thread by bringing in irrelevant information. |
It is relevant to point out that you're a hyprocrite when I see it, and to remind everyone else to ignore everything you say on these threads. That is till you admit you're a liar and publically apologize on these boards for that. Sorry for everyone on this thread to have you posting on it and my interrupting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:11 am Post subject: re: |
|
|
| Merlyn wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Feel free to start a new thread on my religious beliefs (which I will certainly be a part of), but please do not interrupt the flow of this thread by bringing in irrelevant information. |
It is relevant to point out that you're a hyprocrite when I see it, and to remind everyone else to ignore everything you say on these threads. That is till you admit you're a liar and publically apologize on these boards for that. Sorry for everyone on this thread to have you posting on it and my interrupting. |
I am not sure how you equate my peculiar religious beliefs with being hypocritical. You may not like them, and you surely disagree with them, but are they truly any stranger than Christian beliefs?
Peace |
|
| 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
