|
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 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
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? |
After the US sent a hundred thousand troops in Saddam's face. Saddam allowed the inspectors back in.
and when the troops left Saddam would kick them out again.
and Saddam was never in compliance and he interned to rearm according the the US chief weapons inspectors.
| Quote: |
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! |
Right save us from the corupt democracy.
| Quote: |
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. |
Al Qaeda is both an Ideology and an organziation.
But one reason for it is that mideast regimes teach hate and incite violence.
And one way it could be cut down is for mideast regimes and elites not to do it.
and it woudl be even better if mideast regimes killed those who support Al Qaeda. They can do it. Mideast regimes are police states they know who gets funded and what their elties do. They kill their dissidents so why not kill their terrorists?
| Quote: |
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. |
They were afraid of it of course. They though it might be like gulf war I.
and Iraq was a mess before the US invaded.
| Quote: |
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. |
YOu are correct question the government is the right thing to do - fine. But I don't see why the alternative media is beyond being questioned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 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. |
It is impossible to have a coherent conversation with you. Your view, as regards the question I asked, is exactly the same. You and they actually believe Al Queda intends to attack and overthrow the US.
Time to get back to the oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 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. |
It is impossible to have a coherent conversation with you. Your view, as regards the question I asked, is exactly the same. You and they actually believe Al Queda intends to attack and overthrow the US.
Time to get back to the oil. |
No I think AQ intends to attack the US. I think AQ thinks that one day they could overthrow the US but I don't think they think they could do this any time soon.
and you are running away from the discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Thus, your vision is exactly that stated in the quoted material I first posted. |
No my view is different that theirs. I don't think that Al Qaeda can conquer the mideast anytime soon |
It is impossible to have a coherent conversation with you. Your view, as regards the question I asked, is exactly the same. You and they actually believe Al Queda intends to attack and overthrow the US. |
No I think AQ intends to attack the US. I think AQ thinks that one day they could overthrow the US but I don't think they think they could do this any time soon. |
You have repeated yourself. Why? Let me join you: The editorial/opinion piece stated (most? many?) right wingers actually believe Al Queda intends to overthrow the US. It did not mention a time line. By what logic do you think saying "not any time soon" espouses an essentially different position?
As I said, a coherent conversation with you is impossible.
| Quote: |
| and you are running away from the discussion. |
FYI: the topic is the role of oil in the Iraq War. Running from you, Mr. Rhee? Shunning, perhaps. Running? What would be the point. Enjoy your hijack of the thread, but I will be getting back to oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="keane"][
| Quote: |
You have repeated yourself. Why? Let me join you: The editorial/opinion piece stated (most? many?) right wingers actually believe Al Queda intends to overthrow the US. It did not mention a time line. By what logic do you think saying "not any time soon" espouses an essentially different position? |
maybe they think there is a risk of it happening.
Anyway why do you think Al Qaeda attacked the US on 9-11? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In 2005 PFC Energy briefed *beep* Cheney that on a more conservative reading of OPEC�s reserves, its production could peak in 2015. So, this is apparently not an obviously absurd view. When OPEC peaks, so must the entire world. |
It is about the oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| In 2005 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| In 2005 |
Top Secret Oil meetings 2002. (Please explain to me how ANY oil meeting could be considered so vital to national security. It's absurd.)
"It's about Bin Ladin, al queda, Iraqi-supported terrorism and WMDs." Lie, lie, lie, lie. 2001 - present.
"Mid East is still the prize." 1999
"We need another Pearl Harbor." 99? 98? '01?
"Give us the oil or we pull out and do nothing to help you once we do!" 2007 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The Bush administration is certainly behaving as if the fuel supply is, or will soon become, a zero sum game, and is very wary of China whose consumption is obviously rising fast. And I think this in part explains US hostility to Iran: the Islamic Republic has recently signed a $70 billion, 25-year oil and gas supply deal with China... one witness called by America�s �US-China Economic and Security Commission� noted that one more barrel for China was one less for the US. |
http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=13 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
S Arabia 'real reason for war'
^ | 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." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
S Arabia 'real reason for war'
^ | April 3, 2004 |
How many times are you going to post that? Are you hoping someone will hunt you down and paste it to your forehead so you can read it into perpetuity?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| whatever it takes |
|
| 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
