Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

It's not about the oil...
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:01 am Post subject:

I believe you are dissembling, friend. You posted this:

[quote]

Quote:

Hizb ut-Tahrir promises that a revived Caliphate will end corruption and bring prosperity - though the group doesn't say how. It will let Muslims challenge, and ultimately conquer, the West, its followers say.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0510/p01s04-wome.html

No that article was why Al Qaeda fights. Which is that they don't fight to protect muslims from the US but to force the US to leave the mideast so Al Qaeda can conquer it . I don't think they will be able to do it anytime soon but I do think they are very dangerous. And I do think that 9-11 style attacks are a threat to the US way of life and its economy.

And Al Qaeda and those who support them will not stop attacking the US until they US stops having any ties to nations they have targeted or until they are wiped out.

The other article is why the US invaded Iraq.

Quote:

But I will not discuss AQ nor the caliphate with you further. The issue is oil

Ok but that is why Al Qaeda fights.

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:10 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

No that article was why Al Qaeda fights.

You posted it. You don't believe the "caliphate" hopes to conquer the West, then?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:15 am Post subject:

keane wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

No that article was why Al Qaeda fights.

You posted it. You don't believe the "caliphate" hopes to conquer the West, then?

I think they hope to do so- but only after conquering the mideast , South Asia, Africa , South East Asia and Spain first for them.

I would say they hope to do that first.

And would also say that they think they can do it. They envision a long war.

stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:31 am Post subject:

keane wrote:

Quote:

McGarrett: Are regicide and I in a race? Why would I pass him? Or are you suggesting I pass him a note so as to join you in middle school-style banter?

Who are you? My response was directed at the OP, EFLT. Are you schizophrenic or just frenetic?

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:56 am Post subject:

stevemcgarrett wrote:

keane wrote:

Quote:

McGarrett: Are regicide and I in a race? Why would I pass him? Or are you suggesting I pass him a note so as to join you in middle school-style banter?

Who are you? My response was directed at the OP, EFLT. Are you schizophrenic or just frenetic?

Bizarre response. This is what you posted:

Quote:

EFL Trainee wrote:

Quote:

Shut up. ya bore me. If it's critical of Bush or the US, you froth at the mouth, lie and obfuscate. Disgusting

Uh, sure, yeah. Well, we all can't be as measured in tone as you are. Rolling Eyes

You might want to run your oil conspiracy scheme pass regicide. Could be you'd find a soulmate.

Two posts thus far, and nothing on topic. Two personal attacks and no content. Then, you are a troll?

Surely you must have something to say on the content of the thread? No?

Dome Vans
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:34 am Post subject:

Taken from Hans Blix official UN report: 28 February 2003

Quote:

12. Since the arrival of the first inspectors in Iraq on 27 November 2002, UNMOVIC has conducted more than 550 inspections covering approximately 350 sites. Of these 44 sites were new sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was in virtually all cases provided promptly. In no case have the inspectors seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance of their impending arrival.

The inspections were done, access was allowed and at a moments notice. I would have much more trust in a UN report about what Saddam was up to than a country itching to prove a point in the middle east

Quote:

15. UNMOVIC has identified and started the destruction of approximately 50 litres of mustard declared by Iraq that had been placed under UNSCOM supervision and seal at the Muthanna site in 1998. This process will continue. A laboratory quantity (1 litre) of thiodiglycol, a mustard precursor, which had been found at another site, has also been destroyed.

'Weapons' were found and destroyed, were hardly WMDs which were 'definately' in the country and could be launched at a moments notice, both cited by America and Britain in their 'dodgy dossiers'. Again Saddam cooperating with the weapons inspections.

Quote:

One person who could not leave this major event (kurdish genocide) uncommented was of course Edward Said. Several aspects of the event could encourage him to get involved, such as the question of imperialism, Arab nationalism, and human rights violation, to name but a few. On 7 March 1991, Said wrote

The claim that Iraq gassed its own citizens has often been repeated. At
best, this is uncertain. There is at least one War College report,
done while Iraq was a US ally claims that the gassing of the Kurds in
Halabja was done by Iran. Few people mention such reports in the
media today.

Why did the US change their stance from saying Iran to the fact that he did do it when he stopped being an ally? When it suited their purposes.

Quote:

At certain sites, ground-penetrating radar was used to look for underground structures or buried equipment. Similar activities were performed at new sites. Inspections are effectively helping to bridge the gap in knowledge that arose due to the absence of inspections between December 1998 and November 2002.

(UN report)

Obseletes the argument about the Iraqis storing the WMD's (if they had them) underground in concrete bunkers.

My stance is that, as much of the mess that has been created in the middle east, the war was fought and is still being fought on lies and false pretenses. Western soldiers are fighting and dying for a war based on lies. The UN would have given their backing if Saddam really posed a threat, the inspections prove this. Bush had a timetable to keep and nothing came up to back 'his' war, so he pushed on ahead without a plan or backing.

The Attorney General Lord Goldsmith originally didn't give his backing to war saying it was illegal, then after a 2 day meeting with Blair, 'changed his mind'. This part of politics stinks. What new material was made available to Goldsmith that made him change his mind? The government had already tried to plam off the 'dodgy dossier' to the british public and was rubbished. If there was proof that Saddam had these weapons then I'd have had no problem with a legal war, but this was based on construction contracts, Oil and ego.

Backfired didn't it, really missing that legal and public backing, i think.

Dome Vans
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:53 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote

Quote:

The Bush administration certainly thought Saddam had WMDs otherwise they would have come up w/ another justification for the war.

The problem was that they used all the justifications up, WMD's, no it was genocide, no he's a real danger to us, no let's see, regime change, he's a bad man we'll leave it at that. Sure there's plenty of worse leaders to pick on. Mugabe, nope, he's bankrupt his country no reason to intervene. Kim Jong-Il, still working on this one.

Oil related: Chavez in venezuala, let's organise an illegal american coop and oust him.

By the end of it got sad with some of the reasons that were coming out, show that it wasn't truthful in the first place. If it was, there would be concrete proof on the first justification for war.

It lost credibility long ago, so they just bombed them anyway, did a good job though eh?

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:02 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

keane wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

No that article was why Al Qaeda fights.

You posted it. You don't believe the "caliphate" hopes to conquer the West, then?

Thus, your vision is exactly that stated in the quoted material I first posted. Wouldn't it have been much, much simpler to say, "Yes," my friend?

Alias

Joined: 24 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject:

Quote:

My stance is that, as much of the mess that has been created in the middle east, the war was fought and is still being fought on lies and false pretenses. Western soldiers are fighting and dying for a war based on lies. The UN would have given their backing if Saddam really posed a threat, the inspections prove this. Bush had a timetable to keep and nothing came up to back 'his' war, so he pushed on ahead without a plan or backing.

Yep. The Downing Street Memo proved this.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:53 pm Post subject:

keane wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

keane wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

No that article was why Al Qaeda fights.

You posted it. You don't believe the "caliphate" hopes to conquer the West, then?

Thus, your vision is exactly that stated in the quoted material I first posted. Wouldn't it have been much, much simpler to say, "Yes," my friend?

No my view is different that theirs. I don't think that Al Qaeda can conquer the mideast anytime soon but I believe they think I can.

That is why Al Qaeda fights.

But why AQ fights is different from the reasons the US went to war.

This is why the US went to war

Quote:

he "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.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:00 am Post subject:

[quote="Dome Vans"]

Quote:

The mideast as it was was a danger to the US. 9-11 showed that.

Saddam was worse than Mugabe. In fact he was one of the great killers in the history of the war

Quote:

Oil related: Chavez in venezuala, let's organise an illegal american coop and oust him.

Chavez will turn out to be Mugabe with oil but anyway
The US organized a Coup against Chavez? Uh where did you get that info?

The US did't organize any coup against Chavez.

Quote:

By the end of it got sad with some of the reasons that were coming out, show that it wasn't truthful in the first place. If it was, there would be concrete proof on the first justification for war.

It lost credibility long ago, so they just bombed them anyway, did a good job though eh?

Saddam never gave up his war so he had it coming anyway.

Anyway this is the real reason for the war.

S Arabia 'real reason for war'
NEWS.com.au ^ | April 3, 2004

Quote:

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."

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:06 am Post subject:

[quote="Dome Vans"][b

Quote:

Obseletes the argument about the Iraqis storing the WMD's (if they had them) underground in concrete bunkers.

The record will show that Saddam wasn't in compliance.

Quote:

The UN would have never given the US backing for a war even if Saddam had WMDs. Countires like France and Germany at the time had governments in power who view the US as a rival and not an ally.
And Russia and China already viewed the US that way.

They did not want the US to take down Saddam cause if they US was sucessful in Iraq then the US would have been far better off strategically and that is something that much of the world would not like to see. That is why many around the world will support any enemy of the US. Because the less enemies the US has the better off the US is. And that is something that much of the world would not like to see.

Dome Vans
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:32 am Post subject:

Quote:

The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people, and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.

But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason: the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued that Mr. Bush should fight this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with this W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.

Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent of Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Mr. Bush did not need to find any W.M.D.'s to justify the war for me. I still feel that way. But I have to admit that I've always been fighting my own war in Iraq. Mr. Bush took the country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the evidence for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage America and be a very serious matter.

But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary to preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair and the C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt he would use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail to put Iraq onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the terrorism bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr. Bush's credibility rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and the future of the Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We must not forget that.

If you're going to get all of your info from pro-america CNN then you'll need to try a bit harder to do some further reading. I you read it enough then you might actually think that the war was fought on the correct terms.

I'm saying that Bush lied about the real reasons for the war, Blair did the same after being bullied into it. Because Blair is gone we are glad to have got rid of the slimey idiot. Good riddance. He went because he had no credibility. And now he's off to reap more damage on the one area he had skrewed up on worst, the middle east. Good appointment Bush, only you could get him there.

I always thought that the one thing that americans hated more than anything was to be lied to. Bush used the biggest lie and is still in power, kind of ruins that assumption that americans hate lying.

Quote:

They did not want the US to take down Saddam cause if they US was sucessful in Iraq then the US would have been far better off strategically and that is something that much of the world would not like to see. That is why many around the world will support any enemy of the US. Because the less enemies the US has the better off the US is. And that is something that much of the world would not like to see

Strategically for what? unbalancing the whole region, creating a menace that is now threatening world relations, not just in the middle east but transatlantic relations. France and Germany were against the illegal war because it was illegal and there was no post-war plan. I really can't see the problem here. This is the mess that has been created and even admitted by some american politicians. If they'd waited and got backing and consensus then maybe there wouldn't be this mess. That's just logic.

Mugabe 's still knocking about and nobody doing anything about it. Kim Jong-Il is still knocking about. Saddam would still be knocking about if America hadn't found him in his little bunker. WHy be so selective? Saddam lies to the other middle eastern countries about his WMD's was to maintain his position in the area. He didn't have any. BUt they didn't know that. It was all talk, blokes do it all the time. WHat's new?

Quote:

Ed Vulliamy in New York
Sunday April 21, 2002
The Observer

The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.
Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.

It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan

Venezuela is the fifth biggest producer of oil. Geographically useful for America which is why he tried to oust Chavez. WHy do you think that America is trying to increase it's stranglehold on NAFTA and unsuccessfully trying to increase it with LAFTA, and was told where to go from Argentina and Venezuela. Chavez doesn't really seem to be following the same policies as Mugabe, with or without oil. Mugabe would have just upped his living and spending at the expense of his people.

Your 'Real reason for the War' piece is interesting to suggest that they attacked Iraq because they could. Hoping that they could scare Saudi Arabia and stop them funding Al-Qaeda. WHat have America actually done is to strengthen western hatred and increased membership of Islamic militants. If my whole family had been killed by one of America's 'strategic' strikes, I'd sign up and want to get revenge. He's just accelerated the process.

As Wilfred Owen wrote 'the futility of war'

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:51 am Post subject:

="Dome Vans"][

Quote:

.

what is your point? Bush thought Saddam had WMDs but that was not the real reason for the war.

Quote:

I'm saying that Bush lied about the real reasons for the war, Blair did the same after being bullied into it. Because Blair is gone we are glad to have got rid of the slimey idiot. Good riddance. He went because he had no credibility. And now he's off to reap more damage on the one area he had skrewed up on worst, the middle east. Good appointment Bush, only you could get him there.

YEs you are right Bush did not say the real reason for the war. But Bush did think that Saddam had WMDs

Quote:

I always thought that the one thing that americans hated more than anything was to be lied to. Bush used the biggest lie and is still in power, kind of ruins that assumption that americans hate lying.

A lot of presidents lie. It sucks on the other hand saying the real reasons for the war would have made it much more difficult to get Saudi to go after AQ.

Quote:

IF the US won in Iraq then it would have been good.

Saddam's regime was already a mess . so was the mideast.

The war wasn't illegal cause Saddam never gave up his war..

France and Germany were also afraid the US would win. You could even see it by France all of a sudden not wanting Sanctions lifted on Iraq after the US took down Saddam.

The UN would have approved the US going after Saddam , it was on Saddams payroll in fact.

France and Russia in fact regreted giving the US permission for the first gulf war.

Quote:

ugabe 's still knocking about and nobody doing anything about it. Kim Jong-Il is still knocking about. Saddam would still be knocking about if America hadn't found him in his little bunker. WHy be so selective? Saddam lies to the other middle eastern countries about his WMD's was to maintain his position in the area. He didn't have any. BUt they didn't know that. It was all talk, blokes do it all the time. WHat's new

That is cause the Saddam had oil which makes him potentially much more powerful than Mugagbe or Kim Jong Ill. Saddam was also next to rich nations with weaker governments.

How could the US know that Saddam didn't have WMDs? It was the opinon of most of the world that he had them.

Saddam was shown not to be in compliance in fact.

Quote:

what is their proof? the US didn't organize it. The US wasn't behind it. Some of those who were involved in it met the US officials but they US didn't fund it or organize it.

and one the sources for your article is a 9-11 conspiracy theorist Wayne madsen

Quote:

t is not surprising that U.S. officials knew of the level of unrest that existed in Venezuela, considering the days of massive public protests against Ch�vez leading up to the events of April 11; however, an investigation conducted by the U.S. Inspector General, at the request of U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, stated that "U.S. officials acted appropriately and did nothing to encourage an April coup against Venezuela's president".[18][19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat_attempt

Quote:

Former U.S. Navy intelligence officer Wayne Madsen, told the Guardian that American military attaches had been in touch with members of the Venezuelan military to explore the possibility of a coup. "I first heard of Lieutenant Colonel James Rogers [the assistant military attache now based at the US embassy in Caracas] going down there last June [2001] to set the ground," Mr. Madsen reported, adding: "Some of our counter-narcotics agents were also involved." The U.S. Navy assisted with signals intelligence as the coup played out and helped with communications jamming for the Venezuelan military, focusing on communications to and from the diplomatic missions in Caracas.

PROBLEM Wayne Madsen is a 9-11 conspiracy theorist.

Quote:

Chavez supports enemies of the US that is why the US doesn't like him. But the US had nothing to do with the coup. Except be happy about it.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/04/16/1018333526978.html

There is no proof the US organized it

Quote:

Your 'Real reason for the War' piece is interesting to suggest that they attacked Iraq because they could. Hoping that they could scare Saudi Arabia and stop them funding Al-Qaeda. WHat have America actually done is to strengthen western hatred and increased membership of Islamic militants. If my whole family had been killed by one of America's 'strategic' strikes, I'd sign up and want to get revenge. He's just accelerated the process.

70,000 trained in AQ camps during the 90's

yet no one in the mideast said anything when Saddam killed the Kurds , or when Assad destroyed the city of Hama or when Bin Laden killed muslims in Afghanistan. What relgion was the Northern alliance.

Here is the truth of the mideast.

Quote:

As usual in the Arab world, everyone knew what was happening and no one said a thing. The British and American pilots flying the pointless southern "no-fly" zone � allegedly to protect Iraq's minorities � could clearly see the receding waters of the Marsh. The Arab regimes remained silent. Neither Mubarak nor Arafat nor Assad nor Fahd uttered the mildest word of criticism, any more than they did when the Kurds were gassed.
As Wilfred Owen wrote 'the futility of war'

[/quote]

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0519-02.htm

Quote:

Al-Qaeda camps 'trained 70,000'
Still from footage purportedly showing militants at an al-Qaeda training camp
Thousands are said to have joined al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan
Some 70,000 people received weapons training and religious instruction in al-Qaeda camps, German police say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4146969.stm

Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:21 am; edited 2 times in total

Dome Vans
Guest

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:18 am Post subject:

Quote:

How could the US know that Saddam didn't have WMDs?

By waiting and paying attention to the UN and American inspections which came up with nothing. Bush had his timetable and kept to it. If they didn't have WMD's then why declare it without proof, that is where the invaders have lost their credibility, the good thing about ENgland is they've got rid of the delusional idiot who took us there in the first place. Why not Bush?

Quote:

Bush thought Saddam had WMDs but that was not the real reason for the war.

Bush doesn't think he lets the other neo-cons, multinationals and religious fundamentalists do the thinking for him, he does what they tell him to. Surely they defies the idea for having a democracy. How can you force/export democracy on other states when you have a very bas tardised version yourselves. Voice of the People!

Al-Qaeda is an ideology, the idea of destroying it is laughable. Kill Bin Laden and we've won, has me in stitches he just a face that people can put to the name. It's for people who aren't capable of abstract thought. You may be able to stop some funding here and there or intercept some weapons but you can't destroy an ideology. It organisations are 'underground' cells and all the war has done is to make the situation worse.

I don't think France and Germany ever expected America to win in Iraq. The West's history of winning wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is non existent. SO the idea of going to war without sufficient backing and post war plan leaves us with the present mess. As I mentioned previously I'd have had no problem if the war was legal and had backing but it didn't, that's my opinion, so the current situation is probably down to the 'I told you so' scenario.

I find it interesting to discuss like this, people have done their varying levels of research, etc and base their opinions on them, evreybody is different and it is always interesting to see how people formulate their arguments, I won't change my mind on this subject no matter what comes up. After five years of war I don't really think that anything new that can come up to change my mind. The reason for war was a lie in the first place, you can't change your mind and see if the people take it, or if that doesn't try another. I think tell the people the truth from the start and let them decide themselves. Unfortunately 'the mass' will go along with what they're told. But I suppose that's a little too much like Utopia if governments were to be open with the people and allow us to make our own judgements.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 6 of 7

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe