|
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 |
mcgeezer
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Iraq wan't a front on the war on terror until after the Americans went in...although i think Iraq is wrong, the Afghanistan campaign is theoretically justified, as long as the forces there do the job correctly and promptly |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Saddam ' regime did support terror - but it wasn't a main front on terror
but you say Afghanistan was a front on terror but itsn't it true that none of the 9-11 hijackers were from Afghanistan? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
but you say Afghanistan was a front on terror but itsn't it true that none of the 9-11 hijackers were from Afghanistan?
|
Thats not the point. The US took its eye off the ball. It should have finished Afghanistan first. It divided its troops and its direction of war.
The reason that they went into Iraq is that someone felt that it would be an easy target and give a warning to other nations as to what would happen if they attacked the US, plus it finished up a job that others felt should have been done before.
It was a mistake, is it a total and abject failure, thats hard to tell. Though America should have used large military forces, civil projects and special forces to contain and quieten Afghanistan first.
To deal with the rest of Al Quada, they should have used special forces, mercs and other nations intelligence services to run a counter terrorism program of assasination against Al Quada and its financial backers and Religious figures.
It would have been more cost effective and less problematic in the long run. What they should do now, well that would take longer to explain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Saxiif
Joined: 15 May 2003
Location: Seongnam
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sending American marines into an area to destroy a standing army = good idea
Sending American marines into an area to reduce the number of terrorists in the area = very bad idea
Bad analogy: Bush's anti-terrorism strategy is the equivalent of trying to get dandelions out of your lawn by hitting them with a weed-wacker when they're already gone to seed, the more you wack at the plants the farther the seeds get spread... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The reason that they went into Iraq is that someone felt that it would be an easy target and give a warning to other nations as to what would happen if they attacked the US, plus it finished up a job that others felt should have been done before. |
that is close to the reason.
| Quote: |
Arabia 'real reason for war'
NEWS.com.au ^ | April 3, 2004
Posted on 04/03/2004 1:55:34 AM PST by Piefloater
FORGET Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The real reason the United States invaded Iraq was Saudi Arabia, according to a US intelligence analyst.
Dr George Friedman, chairman of the United States private sector intelligence company Stratfor, said the US had settled on WMD as a simple justification for the war and one which it expected the public would readily accept.
Dr Friedman, in Australia on a business trip, said the US administration never wanted to explain the complex reasons for invading Iraq, keeping them from both the public and their closest supporters.
"That, primarily, was the fact that Saudi Arabia was facilitating the transfer of funds to al-Qaeda, was refusing to cooperate with the US and believed in its heart of hearts that the US would never take any action against them," he said.
Dr Friedman said the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US prompted the strategy to hunt down al-Qaeda wherever it was to be found. But that proved exceedingly difficult.
"The US was desperate. There were no good policy choices," he said.
"Then the US turned to the question - we can't find al-Qaeda so how can we stop the enablers of al-Qaeda."
He said those enablers, the financiers and recruiters, existed in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
But the Saudi government variously took the view that this wasn't true or that they lacked the ability and strength to act, he said.
Dr Friedman said in March last year, the Saudis responded to US pressure by asking the US to remove all its forces and bases from their territory. To their immense surprise, the US did just that, relocating to Qatar.
He said Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda shared a number of beliefs including that the US could not fight and win a war in the region and was casualty averse. There was a need to change that perception.
But close by was Iraq, the most strategically located nation in the Middle East, bordering Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and Iran.
"If we held Iraq we felt first there would be dramatic changes of behaviour from the Saudis," he said. "We could also manipulate the Iranians into a change of policy and finally also lean on the Syrians.
"It wasn't a great policy. It happened to be the only policy available."
Dr Friedman said US President George W Bush faced the difficulty of explaining this policy, particularly to the Saudis. Moves to link Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda failed completely.
"They then fell on WMD for two reasons," he said.
"Nobody could object to WMD and it was the one thing that every intelligence agency knew was true.
"We knew we were going to find them. And we would never have to reveal the real reasons.
"The massive intelligence failure was that everybody including Saddam thought he had WMD. He behaved as if he had WMD. He was conned by his own people." |
You make a strong case. But this is the point . 9-11 showed that the middle east needed to be taken care of . It still needs to be taken care off. Afghanistan would not have taken care of the middle east.
| Quote: |
o deal with the rest of Al Quada, they should have used special forces, mprogram of assasination against Al Quada and its financial backers and Religious figures |
.
Sounds great. By the way does anyone know of a single case of US special forces hunting down Al Qaeda anywhere recently?
| Quote: |
ercs and other nations intelligence services to run a counter terrorism |
What if they said no -we are not going to help? In fact that is exactly what Saudi Arabia reportedly said. And that is is why the US invaded Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| [. Haven't checked the latest body counts, but the most recent total of body bags coming back from Iraq is pretty close to the number killed in the WTC on November 11, 2001. If we haven't reached the same number yet, we will soon. Numbers are just numbers, though, I know that. |
See I've never understood this argument. This isn't a game of tit-for-tat.
This is war. When some guy attacks and kills say 3000 of your people you don't strike back and kill 3000 of his and then say "Okay let's call it even, all right?" You hit him so hard, that even though he may not be destroyed he'll think twice before doing that again. |
Fair point. I already said, numbers are just numbers, maybe you missed that ... how many are enough for you, though? Even if we only count all the women, children, old folks, definite noncombatants.
None of it's done any good so far. That's what I'm saying. It's still going on.
End it. End it now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgeezer
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo wrote:
| Quote: |
but you say Afghanistan was a front on terror but itsn't it true that none of the 9-11 hijackers were from Afghanistan?
|
That's true, i couldn't agree with you more....But, Joo, as I remember, none of the hijackers were from Iraq either....16/19 were from Saudi Arabia (numbers off the top of my head, but something like that)....
Afghanistan was their home, their training grounds, that's why they went in there.
So is your point then to fight the countries that support terrorists? If that's the case, then Saudi Arabia should be in the crosshairs....They seem to have the largest number of foreign fighters crossing into Iraq, as well as the aforementioned 911 responsibilities.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgeezer wrote: |
Joo wrote:
| Quote: |
but you say Afghanistan was a front on terror but itsn't it true that none of the 9-11 hijackers were from Afghanistan?
|
That's true, i couldn't agree with you more....But, Joo, as I remember, none of the hijackers were from Iraq either....16/19 were from Saudi Arabia (numbers off the top of my head, but something like that)....
Afghanistan was their home, their training grounds, that's why they went in there.
So is your point then to fight the countries that support terrorists? If that's the case, then Saudi Arabia should be in the crosshairs....They seem to have the largest number of foreign fighters crossing into Iraq, as well as the aforementioned 911 responsibilities.... |
Invading Saudi Arabia would have been more difficult than invading Iraq for a lot of reasons.
Invading Iraq was a way of threatening Saudi Arabia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Saxiif
Joined: 15 May 2003
Location: Seongnam
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Invading Iraq was a way of threatening Saudi Arabia.
|
I'm sure the Saudis are quaking in their boots as we speak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgeezer
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Invading Iraq was a way of threatening Saudi Arabia.
_________________
|
I agree with you (for once  ) to a certain extent....Although i do beleive the Bush administration is in bed with the Saudi Royal family...
And it's funny to imagine that the Americans would be trying to threaten the Saudi's when they just AGAIN signed an agreement between the two for the Saudi's to receive more American F-16's and other top-of-the-line military hardware!!! Funny isn't it??  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| [. Haven't checked the latest body counts, but the most recent total of body bags coming back from Iraq is pretty close to the number killed in the WTC on November 11, 2001. If we haven't reached the same number yet, we will soon. Numbers are just numbers, though, I know that. |
See I've never understood this argument. This isn't a game of tit-for-tat.
This is war. When some guy attacks and kills say 3000 of your people you don't strike back and kill 3000 of his and then say "Okay let's call it even, all right?" You hit him so hard, that even though he may not be destroyed he'll think twice before doing that again. |
Fair point. I already said, numbers are just numbers, maybe you missed that ... how many are enough for you, though? . |
When all the combatants on the other side are dead or have surrendered. Then it becomes enough. Like I said...it's war.
If a snake bites you in the heel, you kill it. You don't just cut off a piece of its tail and let it slither away to try again at a later date...and this time for your heart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| If a snake bites you in the heel, you kill it. You don't just cut off a piece of its tail and let it slither away to try again at a later date...and this time for your heart. |
You're suggesting we just nuke Mecca, then, right? You wouldn't be the first on these forums to advocate genocide - unless you're the same guy come back to us as a sock, of course, Then, you'd just be the same guy who said we don't don't have to kill ALL the muslims, just 10 or 15% would be enough to send the message ...
Please tell me, you're not that same guy?
Last edited by The Bobster on Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nicco61
Joined: 06 May 2007
Location: North Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Saxiif wrote: |
Sending American marines into an area to destroy a standing army = good idea
Sending American marines into an area to reduce the number of terrorists in the area = very bad idea
Bad analogy: Bush's anti-terrorism strategy is the equivalent of trying to get dandelions out of your lawn by hitting them with a weed-wacker when they're already gone to seed, the more you wack at the plants the farther the seeds get spread... |
And your suggestion then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| If a snake bites you in the heel, you kill it. You don't just cut off a piece of its tail and let it slither away to try again at a later date...and this time for your heart. |
You're suggesting we just nuke Mecca, then, right? You wouldn't be the first on these forums to advocate genociide - unless you're the same guy come back to us as a sock, of course, Then, you'd just be the same guy who said we don't don't have to kill ALL the muslims, just 10 or 15% would be enough to send the message ...
Please tell me, you're not that same guy? |
He doesn't say that the US ought to nuke Mecca.
He is saying whatever level of force is required to force the other side to give up their war.
The US doesn't have to tolerate a war against it,and is not obligated to pull its punches in war. Not when the other side is trying to inflict harm on you.
The answer is whatever level of force that causes the other side to quit. Hopefully not more force than that- but as I said the US doesn't have to accept a war against it. So the answer again is whatever it takes. I cant' tell anyone how much that is exactly - but I can say the US is justified in using whatever level of force is required. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| If a snake bites you in the heel, you kill it. You don't just cut off a piece of its tail and let it slither away to try again at a later date...and this time for your heart. |
You're suggesting we just nuke Mecca, then, right? You wouldn't be the first on these forums to advocate genociide - unless you're the same guy come back to us as a sock, of course, Then, you'd just be the same guy who said we don't don't have to kill ALL the muslims, just 10 or 15% would be enough to send the message ...
Please tell me, you're not that same guy? |
NUKE MECCA??? Are you mad? Seriously, no this is not a flame, but a serious question. That would cause the biggest shit storm this world has seen yet (with the possible exception of WW1 and WW2) . Heck that would very likely set off WW3. Nuke the holiest site in all of Islam...yeah that would be a good way to quiet things down.. 
As to your question, I have no clue who you are talking about. I've been a long time lurker, but only registered this year, as things seemed to be somewhat saner than they were before. Looks like I registered too soon... |
|
| 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
