|
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 |
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| And even assuming that terrorism on American soil NEVER came from Iraq...does not rule out the possibility that it MAY occur in the future. |
Personally, I'd LOVE to see you explain the morality of murder and torture and collateral damage (i.e., dead women and chioldren) for the mere possibility that something "MAY occur in the future"...
Iraq had no connection to Al-Queda, no connection to the WTC and 9/11. At the time of the invasion, there were no WMDs anywhere in that country, and Iraq posed no danger to America.
These are the lies Casey Sheehan was told, and these lies are why he died. He believed them and now he is dead. He died for nothing. This is what Cindy was saying, and she was correct : "No more needless gravestones. No more wasted lives."
If you can't feel sad about that ... well, I don't know what to say.
She's left public life for the moment, because she was being asked to play ball and compromise her message, and start talking about "timetables" and "benchmarks, when this is what is true, and this is what we need to look at :
This thing is whack. It's bad for America. End it. End it now.
There's a Democratic majority in Congress right now, and that wasn't true when Cindy first stood up and opened her mouth - anyone REALLY want to say the Uglicans wouldn't still be running things if people like Cindy hadn't stood up and started the talk they started?
REALLY? |
If another 9/11 happened in America, I'd love you to explain the morality of that. But while we are on the subject, in another thread did you not say you didn't "especially" care about Iraqis being killed. Now suddenly it's 'think of the children and women'? Did you not say that the reason you were concerned because it was bad for your country? Why this sudden switch?
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=55850&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=Babylon&start=28
On the one hand I can agree that women and children should NOT be targets...on the other hand I'm confused by your sudden regard for Iraqi lives.
So you are saying that Iraq NEVER had any contacts with AQ members at any time anywhere?
I feel sad that a young man is dead and even sadder that a mother would use his death to score political points. I feel sad that a culture would find that acceptable as well.
Who asked her (Cindy) to "play ball"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Iraq had no connection to Al-Queda, no connection to the WTC and 9/11. At the time of the invasion, there were no WMDs anywhere in that country, and Iraq posed no danger to America. |
| Quote: |
Commission confirms links
By Stephen J. Hadley
A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In fact, just the opposite is true. The staff report documents such links.
The staff report concludes that:
� Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan."
� "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994."
� "Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan."
Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there."
Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did not understand the media flap over this issue and that the commission does not disagree with the administration's assertion that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government.
President Bush and members of his administration have said all along that there were contacts and that those contacts raised troubling questions.
For instance, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the leader of a terrorist group that is responsible for a number of deadly attacks throughout Iraq. He and his men trained and fought with al-Qaeda for years. Zarqawi's network helped establish and operate an explosives and poisons facility in northeast Iraq. Zarqawi and nearly two-dozen al-Qaeda associates were in Baghdad before the fall of Saddam's regime. In 2002, one al-Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was "good" and that Baghdad could be transited quickly.
It may be that all of the contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda never resulted in joint terrorist attacks. But considering all that we knew, no responsible leader could take for granted that such a collaboration would never happen.
Saddam had threatened American interests for more than a decade, harbored and assisted other terrorists, and possessed and used weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaeda had declared war on America, and bin Laden had called the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction to attack Americans a "religious duty."
The president did not order the liberation of Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. He sent American troops to Iraq to remove a grave and gathering threat to America's security. Because he acted, Iraq is free, and America and the world are safer.
Stephen J. Hadley is deputy national security adviser to President Bush.
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-17-hadley_x.htm
|
The middle east the way it was was a danger to the US.
| Quote: |
The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.
Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.
The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there ?a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.
The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government ?and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen ?got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about. |
and let the record show that Saddam never gave up his war.
| Quote: |
| That this�his pro-American moment�was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled�Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more�the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported�and the David Kay report had established�that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
Whose confused?
|
I don't know if there's something in the water, but this kind of ironic post has been happening a lot lately. |
|
| 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
