|
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 |
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 12:59 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Really? I must have been imagining it when I heard Bush and his cronies spouting off about al Quaeda and WMDs way back when. Or is this simply the new revised reason brought out years after the event? Or perhaps I should simply have said, "Bollocks". |
that was the real reason . Too say the real reason for the war would have made it harder for mideast regimes to comply.
| Quote: |
S Arabia 'real reason for war'
NEWS.com.au ^ | April 3, 2004
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." |
| Quote: |
Because We Could
Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times Op-Ed Columnist
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. |
| Quote: |
| What about the morally superior U.S. soldiers who were convicted of rape and murder of a 14 year old Iraqi girl? And just who is the judge of moral equivalency? You? Or is it only Americans who can judge others?[/ |
quote]
Cause Al Qaeda the Bathists , the Khomeni lovers are all fascist bigots like Klansman and they fight and stand for a sinister cause.
The US behaves better than most in war.
The US raped an insurgent not good -but in Iran it is legal to rape someone cause they are someone of a different religion.
Islamic judges in Iran have set the precedent that the rape of a Mandaean woman can be regarded as an act of 'purification,' and as such, violators receive impunity. In Iran this defence has been used to acquit men of rapes on Mandaean girls as young as 8 years old (ibid.).
http://www.unhcr.org/home/RSDCOI/41501c2123.html
So what do you think now?
Oh Saddam he did gas the Kurds .
And Al Qaeda fights for the Caliphate.
Case closed
| Quote: |
| Well, yes, of course, but only because the U.S. is losing |
The US won the cold war the US will win the war on terror.
The US isn't withdrawing from Iraq anytime soon. They might move to the Kurdish areas but the US isn't leaving. Not until the other side gives up the war.
and the US has got some interesting weapons systems on the drawing board too what the other side will not be able to match. |
1. You're fighting for nothing.
2. You're going to lose.
3. You never had any hope of winning.
4. And it's all the liberals' fault.
Bhwa ha ha ha! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
1. You're fighting for nothing. |
No the US is fighting to make Bathists , Khomeni supporters and Al Qaedists give up their war
| Quote: |
2. You're going to lose. |
US won the cold war
| Quote: |
3. You never had any hope of winning. |
See above
| Quote: |
4. And it's all the liberals' fault.
Bhwa ha ha ha! |
sort of . Bathists , Khomeni followers and Al Qaedists have been at the US for a long time. It is too bad it took 9-11 to really figure what was going on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Actually no it is not illegal. Only a court which had jurisidiction over such matters can make that determination. Just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. |
You, goph, due, get a clue about what makes a thing illegal or not. If an action breaks a law, it is illegal whether a court has yet to say so or not. What kind of meds do you have to be taking not to get this?
Ex. 1: The sky is blue.
T-C: No, no court has said so.
Ex. 2: I am a male.
T-C: No, no court has said so.
Ex. 3: Oh, SSSSNAP! I just ran a red light!
T-C: Nope. No court has said so.
) |
Why are you lying about what I said? Now let's examine the topic.
Neither YOU..nor any of the other posters on this board are qualifed to judge whether the war is illegal or not. That is a matter for international courts. Until such a ruling is handed down from said court(s) then the war's illegality is an opinion. FYI simply because illegal ACTS may (or may not) have been committed in said war, does not qualify the war as being illegal. |
You just don't get it. How can you not? If it is declared illegal by a judge, then it was ALWAYS illegal. And, it matters not whether a judge ever does so. Jaywalking is illegal whether or not you are caught.
Chrissake... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
Oh and one more thing. The U.S is supporting the legitimately ELECTED government of Iraq. It can hardly be called illegal. If Canada were attacked and asked the U.S for help would that be an illegal war as well?
Saddam was never an legitimate ruler...ever. He represented the view of a minority and stayed in power through terrorist-like means and repression. |
A little historical amnesia? A government that didn't exist at the time of the invasion requested our invasion? You outta your freaking mind, son? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
Oh and one more thing. The U.S is supporting the legitimately ELECTED government of Iraq. It can hardly be called illegal. If Canada were attacked and asked the U.S for help would that be an illegal war as well?
Saddam was never an legitimate ruler...ever. He represented the view of a minority and stayed in power through terrorist-like means and repression. |
A little historical amnesia? A government that didn't exist at the time of the invasion requested our invasion? You outta your freaking mind, son? |
I was talking about the ELECTED government and you know that. Stop being dishonest. The government that was ELECTED requested the U.S stay and help them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Actually no it is not illegal. Only a court which had jurisidiction over such matters can make that determination. Just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. |
You, goph, due, get a clue about what makes a thing illegal or not. If an action breaks a law, it is illegal whether a court has yet to say so or not. What kind of meds do you have to be taking not to get this?
Ex. 1: The sky is blue.
T-C: No, no court has said so.
Ex. 2: I am a male.
T-C: No, no court has said so.
Ex. 3: Oh, SSSSNAP! I just ran a red light!
T-C: Nope. No court has said so.
) |
Why are you lying about what I said? Now let's examine the topic.
Neither YOU..nor any of the other posters on this board are qualifed to judge whether the war is illegal or not. That is a matter for international courts. Until such a ruling is handed down from said court(s) then the war's illegality is an opinion. FYI simply because illegal ACTS may (or may not) have been committed in said war, does not qualify the war as being illegal. |
You just don't get it. How can you not? If it is declared illegal by a judge, then it was ALWAYS illegal. And, it matters not whether a judge ever does so. Jaywalking is illegal whether or not you are caught.
Chrissake... |
WHEN did a judge (who was authorized to do so) declare it illegal? Name of judge and name of the organization who gave him the authority to do so. PERSONAL OPINIONS do not count.
Jaywalking has been ruled illegal for a long time. There IS established precedent for that. Are you trying to tell us that a judge has NEVER ruled that jaywalking is illegal?
So the iraq war= jaywalking. Nice comparision there.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow. Are you posting from elementary school? You truly don't understand that a thing is illegal before and after being declared so? How do you not understand this? TO REPEAT: If an action is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. Period. A court ruling so is not what makes it unconstitutional. It is either in line with the constitution or not. Truly bizarre you think an unconstitutional act is unconstitutional only AFTER a ruling.
This is just plain stupid.
The war is illegal because it was ALWAYS ILLEGAL. IT doesn't matter if a government later asks them to remain, the war was, and is STILL, illegal. The legality or illegality UNDER AMERICAN LAW is NOT determined by whether the current government has requested them to stay. Further, you are wrong. The "government" has requested nothing. The UN mandate was extended by the president/prime minister, NOT by the legislature. Many in the legislature felt it to be an illegal act on the part of the president/prime minister. Even further, are you ignoring the polls that show a vast majority want the US out? Are you ignoring the recent statement by a majority of lawmakers saying the same? Do these not matter to you?
The issue was, despite your BS, that the war was engaged in illegally. The president CANNOT take the country to war under false pretenses. EVER. It is unconstitutional. It is illegal. History will show this. Facts presently prove this. Read the authorization of force absent your partisan-colored glasses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Wow. Are you posting from elementary school? You truly don't understand that a thing is illegal before and after being declared so? How do you not understand this? TO REPEAT: If an action is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. Period. A court ruling so is not what makes it unconstitutional. It is either in line with the constitution or not. Truly bizarre you think an unconstitutional act is unconstitutional only AFTER a ruling.
This is just plain stupid.
The war is illegal because it was ALWAYS ILLEGAL. IT doesn't matter if a government later asks them to remain, the war was, and is STILL, illegal. The legality or illegality UNDER AMERICAN LAW is NOT determined by whether the current government has requested them to stay. Further, you are wrong. The "government" has requested nothing. The UN mandate was extended by the president/prime minister, NOT by the legislature. Many in the legislature felt it to be an illegal act on the part of the president/prime minister. Even further, are you ignoring the polls that show a vast majority want the US out? Are you ignoring the recent statement by a majority of lawmakers saying the same? Do these not matter to you?
The issue was, despite your BS, that the war was engaged in illegally. The president CANNOT take the country to war under false pretenses. EVER. It is unconstitutional. It is illegal. History will show this. Facts presently prove this. Read the authorization of force absent your partisan-colored glasses. |
However it was NOT unconstitutional. Even CONGRESS voted in favour. It was all done out in the open and done according to law. And Kurds and most Shi'ites want the U.S to stay. Are you ignoring THOSE polls?
The issue is that the war is legal. And despite what you say it will remain so until there is a ruling otherwise. If it WAS unconstitutional then why aren't the Demos screaming for Bush's head? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Wow. Are you posting from elementary school? You truly don't understand that a thing is illegal before and after being declared so? How do you not understand this? TO REPEAT: If an action is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. Period. A court ruling so is not what makes it unconstitutional. It is either in line with the constitution or not. Truly bizarre you think an unconstitutional act is unconstitutional only AFTER a ruling.
This is just plain stupid.
The war is illegal because it was ALWAYS ILLEGAL. IT doesn't matter if a government later asks them to remain, the war was, and is STILL, illegal. The legality or illegality UNDER AMERICAN LAW is NOT determined by whether the current government has requested them to stay. Further, you are wrong. The "government" has requested nothing. The UN mandate was extended by the president/prime minister, NOT by the legislature. Many in the legislature felt it to be an illegal act on the part of the president/prime minister. Even further, are you ignoring the polls that show a vast majority want the US out? Are you ignoring the recent statement by a majority of lawmakers saying the same? Do these not matter to you?
The issue was, despite your BS, that the war was engaged in illegally. The president CANNOT take the country to war under false pretenses. EVER. It is unconstitutional. It is illegal. History will show this. Facts presently prove this. Read the authorization of force absent your partisan-colored glasses. |
However it was NOT unconstitutional. Even CONGRESS voted in favour. It was all done out in the open and done according to law. And Kurds and most Shi'ites want the U.S to stay. Are you ignoring THOSE polls?
The issue is that the war is legal. And despite what you say it will remain so until there is a ruling otherwise. If it WAS unconstitutional then why aren't the Demos screaming for Bush's head? |
Congress did not. Congress authorized the use of force, not an occupation. The authorization was based on both conditions prior to war and specific aims. The conditions were not met and the specific aims were met long ago. Thus, the war was illegal, and given that all aims have been met, is now beyond its mandate, making it STILL illegal.]
As for who wants what, I'll give you the Kurds, the other you will have to provide a link for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Wow. Are you posting from elementary school? You truly don't understand that a thing is illegal before and after being declared so? How do you not understand this? TO REPEAT: If an action is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. Period. A court ruling so is not what makes it unconstitutional. It is either in line with the constitution or not. Truly bizarre you think an unconstitutional act is unconstitutional only AFTER a ruling.
This is just plain stupid.
The war is illegal because it was ALWAYS ILLEGAL. IT doesn't matter if a government later asks them to remain, the war was, and is STILL, illegal. The legality or illegality UNDER AMERICAN LAW is NOT determined by whether the current government has requested them to stay. Further, you are wrong. The "government" has requested nothing. The UN mandate was extended by the president/prime minister, NOT by the legislature. Many in the legislature felt it to be an illegal act on the part of the president/prime minister. Even further, are you ignoring the polls that show a vast majority want the US out? Are you ignoring the recent statement by a majority of lawmakers saying the same? Do these not matter to you?
The issue was, despite your BS, that the war was engaged in illegally. The president CANNOT take the country to war under false pretenses. EVER. It is unconstitutional. It is illegal. History will show this. Facts presently prove this. Read the authorization of force absent your partisan-colored glasses. |
However it was NOT unconstitutional. Even CONGRESS voted in favour. It was all done out in the open and done according to law. And Kurds and most Shi'ites want the U.S to stay. Are you ignoring THOSE polls?
The issue is that the war is legal. And despite what you say it will remain so until there is a ruling otherwise. If it WAS unconstitutional then why aren't the Demos screaming for Bush's head? |
Good Lord, don't you get it? BLTmaker IS the judge and jury on this whole matter. If he feels it is illegal then, by god, its illegal! There's no sense trying to argue with him. A saying that was given to me by my wrestling coach in high school: Arguing with some people (BLTmaker in this case) is like wrestling a pig in the mud. You get dirty and the pig enjoys it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| Good Lord, don't you get it? BLTmaker IS the judge and jury on this whole matter. If he feels it is illegal then, by god, its illegal! There's no sense trying to argue with him. A saying that was given to me by my wrestling coach in high school: Arguing with some people (BLTmaker in this case) is like wrestling a pig in the mud. You get dirty and the pig enjoys it. |
Wanny, when I saw your name before I clicked the link, I knew the correct response: You're an ______. Tell us, genius, what is the difference between you saying, "It's legal!" and me saying, "It's illegal!"??
Freaking genius....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
| Good Lord, don't you get it? BLTmaker IS the judge and jury on this whole matter. If he feels it is illegal then, by god, its illegal! There's no sense trying to argue with him. A saying that was given to me by my wrestling coach in high school: Arguing with some people (BLTmaker in this case) is like wrestling a pig in the mud. You get dirty and the pig enjoys it. |
Wanny, when I saw your name before I clicked the link, I knew the correct response: You're an ______. Tell us, genius, what is the difference between you saying, "It's legal!" and me saying, "It's illegal!"??
Freaking genius....
|
Hey einstein, I've never claimed it was legal. I've just said the original invasion was the correct decision (although the subsequent conduct of the war has been less than stellar). The legality of it all is not for me to decide since I have no access to all the information necessary to decide such a thing. AND NEITHER DO YOU. You have claimed that it is a FACT that said war is illegal. You spout like you have some sort of authority (moral or otherwise). I wonder why you keep getting opinion mixed up with fact, einstein. Go back to school and finish this time, huh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
| Good Lord, don't you get it? BLTmaker IS the judge and jury on this whole matter. If he feels it is illegal then, by god, its illegal! There's no sense trying to argue with him. A saying that was given to me by my wrestling coach in high school: Arguing with some people (BLTmaker in this case) is like wrestling a pig in the mud. You get dirty and the pig enjoys it. |
Wanny, when I saw your name before I clicked the link, I knew the correct response: You're an ______. Tell us, genius, what is the difference between you saying, "It's legal!" and me saying, "It's illegal!"??
: |
The difference is that the first is right and the second is wrong. That was free of charge. But any other questions you want answered will cost you... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why isn't EFL perma-banned by now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
| Good Lord, don't you get it? BLTmaker IS the judge and jury on this whole matter. If he feels it is illegal then, by god, its illegal! There's no sense trying to argue with him. A saying that was given to me by my wrestling coach in high school: Arguing with some people (BLTmaker in this case) is like wrestling a pig in the mud. You get dirty and the pig enjoys it. |
Wanny, when I saw your name before I clicked the link, I knew the correct response: You're an ______. Tell us, genius, what is the difference between you saying, "It's legal!" and me saying, "It's illegal!"??
: |
The difference is that the first is right and the second is wrong. That was free of charge. But any other questions you want answered will cost you... |
Ah, the conservative (gopher?) continues to astound us with his profundity! Given he was taking issue with me stating a position while forgetting his own figners pointing back at himself. From the time I was old enough for memory to stick I knew calling someone else "stubborn" always involved not changing your own mind. It is a stupid, self-defeating accusation to make. You cannot but implicate yourself every time you use.
Good to see your mental accumen is as sharp as a pebble, son. |
|
| 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
