|
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 |
Dome Vans
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Bombing was done in the lead-up to the invasion on selected targets and involved "surgical" strikes, which unfortunately but inevitably resulted in "collateral damage." |
Come on, you bombed the sights that you were meant to and do you really think there was any apology or loss of sleep for the wayward bombs that landed on schools and hospitals, THAT we heard about. Guided bombs nowadays could hit an ant on the ground, there is no excuse for hitting targets that are civilian sights. It sounds a little like the Israelis "apparently deliberate targeting" of a UN observer post in Khiyam, they didn't care what they hit even though they knew what they were hitting. There are no ethics in war, if you're gonna try win a war, use what ever means are possible.
| Quote: |
| Is that what you call it? So if it's a puppet government, why did many of the Sunni leaders accede to requests to join the assembly? |
It's a puppet government when it has the backing of the invading army. The US picked the runners for the positions. Much like they put Saddam in power in the first place, that worked well didn't it. Hell, Bush got in power by gerrymandering, hardly democracy really. Using the votes of dead people and imprisoned people is not democracy.
| Quote: |
| If it is doomed, it is because too many Iraqis are not willing to tolerate religious and sectarian differences or to support their own elected parliament. |
The iraqis are a tribal nation as is most of the middle East. America knew this when trying to bomb them into democracy. Quagmire etc spring to mind.
As in no plan, there was no plan for post war iraq and there still seems to be no plan. Soldiers are fighting a losing battle, everyday is spent surviving, there's no plan for victory. I feel for the soldiers, the number of dead is rising and Bush covers it up. These people have trained to protect their country, whatever happens they will lay down their lives for it. BUt they went there and lost their lives on a lie and illegal war. That is the simple truth, any reports of an increase in morale are sadly misrepresented.
| Quote: |
| As for "pre-emptive strike," if you're referring to the initial invasion, it was threatened for years if Saddam did not toe the line. It hardly came as a surprise to the entrenched insurgency, as we have witnessed. Regardless, we're not talking about nuclear weaponry here but conventional weaponry. |
No link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, he also didn't have any WMD's that might threaten America, so therefore he launched an attack without provocation. The UN found no WMDs and they did not support the war, although Saddam had been a little difficult, the UN did their inspections and came up with nothing. SO therefore any attack was pre-emptive. I am amazed that people can defend this horrible mistake, launched by a religiously delusional man. Any man who feels that he shouldn't apologise because only God can judge him, really should look at the hard working, honest citizens who put him in power in the first place. His presidentship started as a sham and has continued throughout.
| Quote: |
| Allow me to dissect your rant from The Guardian: |
I some how feel you need to give me a break, if you believe all the rubbish you that is pumped out by your government, you really need to look a bit further than CNN, and I don't read the guardian. Although I feel that it is a slightly more reliable source than many other fear mongering media outlets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The US put Saddam in power? Next thing you will say is that he did not gas the Kurds. ( This is not gonna turn out the way you think it will )
| Quote: |
| No link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, he also didn't have any WMD's that might threaten America, so therefore he launched an attack without provocation. The UN found no WMDs and they did not support the war, although Saddam had been a little difficult, the UN did their inspections and came up with nothing. SO therefore any attack was pre-emptive. I am amazed that people can defend this horrible mistake, launched by a religiously delusional man. Any man who feels that he shouldn't apologise because only God can judge him, really should look at the hard working, honest citizens who put him in power in the first place. His presidentship started as a sham and has continued throughout. |
Saddam was not in compliance was he?
Saddam shot at US planes and tried to kill a US president.
He also continued to threaten Kuwait.
and he supported terror.
Saddam never gave up his war.
The only reason the UN was able to get inspectors into Iraq is cause the US put 100,000 soliders in Saddams' face.
When they left he would kick the inspectors out again.
and what then.
Saddam was also one of the greatest killers of the 20th century he killed 300,000 in his 30 years this doesn't include his wars with Iran or Kuwait.
His sons were coming up next. Anyone who says they oppose the Iraq war on humanitarian grounds is either ignorant or disingenuous.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the dead vote.
The dead vote usually goes to the democrats, prisoner voting when allowed is usually a tool of the liberals for instance; Massachusetts.
Both parties a re guilty of gerrymandering.
Get your facts ahead of your belief you will be more capable of a healthy opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Saddam was not in compliance was he?
Saddam shot at US planes and tried to kill a US president.
He also continued to threaten Kuwait.
and he supported terror.
Saddam never gave up his war |
I like this because you can substitute certain words and it still makes sense but with the worlds main terrorist.
Bush was not in compliance was he? (Never has been, makes his own rules from being 'commander in chief')
Bush also continued to threaten Pakistan/Iran/Palestine/France/Cuba/Venezuala/Afghanistan/North Korea/China/Russia (Take your pick)
and he supported terror. (No alteration needed here)
Bush never gave up his war. (even though it was morally and legally wrong and bankrupting his country)
| Quote: |
| Anyone who says they oppose the Iraq war on humanitarian grounds is either ignorant or disingenuous. |
Ok now it's humanitarian grounds. It's been WMDs, Saddam's Genocide, Real threat to western civilisation, regime change. And now Humanitarian grounds, surely this encompasses most of the countries in the world that have a dictatorship, why aren't America knocking on their doors? Sorry forgot, Al Qaeda. ALthough their's no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
I agree that he was a terrible man, but why he was picked on (geographically) when there are worse dictators in the world. It's because the US is for terrorism if it's state sponsored terrorism. They are the real crooks here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority
Good discussion here, save maybe for Dome Van's EFLT/Big Bird type anti-Americanism.
Not to get too off topic but I will pick a nit: I was pretty sure it was Nixon who first publicly used "silent majority" & it seems I was right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice one mosley, another brain washed, patriotic yank. It's phrased as Anti-America. There is a difference between Anti-american and anti-america. I have a lot of Anti-america feeling. But do not dislike Americans.
Still you can believe that the rest of the world loves you, but the reality is a bit different. Think outside your sphere for a moment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dome Vans wrote: |
Nice one mosley, another brain washed, patriotic yank. It's phrased as Anti-America. There is a difference between Anti-american and anti-america. I have a lot of Anti-america feeling. But do not dislike Americans.
Still you can believe that the rest of the world loves you, but the reality is a bit different. Think outside your sphere for a moment. |
No the rest of the world doesn't like the US and they have hated and resented the US since the end of the cold war because most of the world resents hyperpowers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice one, Dome...I'm Canadian, you knucklehead.
It's just that the tone & content of your posts resemble the shrillness of more well-known leftist posters at CE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moz wrote:
| Quote: |
Not to get too off topic but I will pick a nit: I was pretty sure it was Nixon who first publicly used "silent majority" & it seems I was right.
|
Quite possibly. I wondered about that. My source for it being Agnew was an old copy of Canadian Forum, which featured a discussion between W.H. Auden and Marshall McLuhan. Auden stated the classical conservative position that we should attach weight to the wisdom of those who lived before us, and McLuhan replied "well, I guess that's what old Agnew means by the silent majority. The dead."
I believe Agnew had the "nattering nabobs of negativism", though.
Last edited by On the other hand on Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:43 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interestingly, I just found this on Wikipedia...
| Quote: |
The Greek poet Homer used the phrase "the silent majority" as a reference to the dead.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dome Vans"][
I like this because you can substitute certain words and it still makes sense but with the worlds main terrorist.
Bush was not in compliance was he? (Never has been, makes his own rules from being 'commander in chief')
Compliance with what?
| Quote: |
Bush also continued to threaten Pakistan/Iran/Palestine/France/Cuba/Venezuala/Afghanistan/North Korea/China/Russia (Take your pick)
The US has a right to go after Al Qaeda.
The US did not threaten France.
Iran has been engaged in a low level war against the US.
|
| Quote: |
| and he supported terror. (No alteration needed here) |
what terror?
| Quote: |
Bush never gave up his war. (even though it was morally and legally wrong and bankrupting his country) |
The war was morally and legally justified.
Removing Saddam Hussein one of the greatest killers in the history of the world wasn't justified?
| Quote: |
| Ok now it's humanitarian grounds |
.
No just that you have no business opposing it on those terms.
| Quote: |
It's been WMDs, Saddam's Genocide, Real threat to western civilisation, regime change. And now Humanitarian grounds, surely this encompasses most of the countries in the world that have a dictatorship, why aren't America knocking on their doors? Sorry forgot, Al Qaeda. ALthough their's no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. |
Saddam was far worse than just about every dictator in the world.
Saddam however did support terror and he would not give up his war.
So he had it coming.
Saddam shot at US planes at tried to kill a US president
He regime supported terror.
On those grounds alone the US was legally justified in
I agree that he was a terrible man, but why he was picked on (geographically) when there are worse dictators in the world. It's because the US is for terrorism if it's state sponsored terrorism. They are the real crooks here.[/quote]
Who is worse than Saddam?
Over the last 40 years almost all of the US enemies have been totalitarian and expansionists and aggressive . Many of them didn't even let their own citizens leave.
It is no coincidence.
World War II was justified
The cold war was right
and the war against Bathists, Al Qaedists and Khomeni supporters is also justified. The US would be wrong to steal their oil but it is justified in forcing them to give up their war.
The US has all the right enemies including you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OTOH: Yeah, it was Nixon. And it certainly was Agnew w/the "nattering nabobs...." bit.
Ha, ha. "The dead". Still, it's a great phrase. My dear old dad loved it but then again he was a hard-bitten working-class reactionary...unlike me.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote:
and he supported terror. (No alteration needed here)
what terror?
| Quote: |
Hersh: U.S. Funds Being Secretly Funneled To Violent Al Qaeda-Linked Groups
New Yorker columnist Sy Hersh says the �single most explosive� element of his latest article involves an effort by the Bush administration to stem the growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East (specifically the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni groups.
Hersh says the U.S. has been �pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight� for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to �stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.� Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of �three Sunni jihadist groups� who are �connected to al Qaeda� but �want to take on Hezbollah.�
Hersh summed up his scoop in stark terms: �We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11.�
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/hersh-qaeda/ |
| Quote: |
Quote:
Ok now it's humanitarian grounds
.
No just that you have no business opposing it on those terms. |
Not really if they had stated that the reason for the war was for humanitarian reasons to start with then maybe they�d have a leg to stand on. But this was way down the list. No credibility when you hit the fifth reason to create a quagmire. Then this may not happen.
| Quote: |
Because it's really all about shutting the reality of the Middle East off from us. It's to prevent the British and American people from questioning the immoral and cruel and internationally illegal occupation of Muslim lands. And in the Land of the Free, this systematic censorship of Middle East reality continues even in the country's schools. Now the principal of a Connecticut high school has banned a play by pupils, based on the letters and words of US soldiers serving in Iraq. Entitled Voices in Conflict, Natalie Kropf, Seth Koproski, James Presson and their fellow pupils at Wilton High School compiled the reflections of soldiers and others - including a 19-year-old Wilton High graduate killed in Iraq - to create their own play. To no avail.
Robert Fisk: http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2430125.ece |
| Quote: |
| And it was President Bush who got us into the [Iraq] quagmire in the first place," said David Gergen, a commentator and veteran of several administrations |
| Quote: |
Military commanders tell Brown to withdraw from Iraq without delay
By Raymond Whitaker and Robert Fox
Published: 19 August 2007
Senior military commanders have told the Government that Britain can achieve "nothing more" in south-east Iraq, and that the 5,500 British troops still deployed there should move towards withdrawal without further delay.
Last month Gordon Brown said after meeting George Bush at Camp David that the decision to hand over security in Basra province � the last of the four held by the British � "will be made on the military advice of our commanders on the ground". He added: "Whatever happens, we will make a full statement to Parliament when it returns [in October]." |
Why do you think everybody is ditching the US in Iraq? Back to thread, do you think that South Korea were waiting for the right time to get the hell out of this US created mess? I think so. This was illegal, devoid of any plan, and remains so. I may be leftist in my thinking but I would rather have the balanced opinion that maybe something is not right here, and maintain the fact everybody saw this happening except Mr Bush and and his bum buddies Cheney, Wolfowitz et al.
This is my opinion based on the facts and research as I see it. You have your opinion, that�s great. But to automatically assume that somebody is a knucklehead or �an enemy� of the US because they cannot see or predicted that this mess was gonna happen is laughable. You keep your opinions, I�ll keep mine.
| Quote: |
American criticism of Britain's desire to pull back in southern Iraq has recently become public, with a US intelligence official telling The Washington Post this month that "the British have basically been defeated in the south". A senior British commander countered, "That's to miss the point. It was never that kind of battle, in which we set out to defeat an enemy." Other officers said the British force was never configured to "clear and hold" Basra in the way the Americans are seeking to do in Baghdad.
Immediate American discontent is said to centre on the CIA's reluctance to leave Basra Palace, an important base for watching Iran, which may explain why Britain has held on to the complex until now. But last week it was reported that US intelligence operatives were in the process of pulling out. Further ahead, the US is concerned over the security of its vital supply line from Kuwait, with some American commanders saying that if the British withdraw, American troops will have to be sent south to replace them. As the hub of Iraq's oil industry, Basra is also a tempting prize for the Shia militias battling each other for control. |
Is it going to get any better????? Didn't we tell you so.
Last edited by Dome Vans on Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:28 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
butlerian
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dome Vans wrote: |
Quote:
and he supported terror. (No alteration needed here)
what terror?
Quote:
Hersh: U.S. Funds Being Secretly Funneled To Violent Al Qaeda-Linked Groups
New Yorker columnist Sy Hersh says the �single most explosive� element of his latest article involves an effort by the Bush administration to stem the growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East (specifically the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni groups.
Hersh says the U.S. has been �pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight� for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to �stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.� Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of �three Sunni jihadist groups� who are �connected to al Qaeda� but �want to take on Hezbollah.�
Hersh summed up his scoop in stark terms: �We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11.�
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/hersh-qaeda/
| Quote: |
Quote:
Ok now it's humanitarian grounds
.
No just that you have no business opposing it on those terms. |
Not really if they had stated that the reason for the war was for humanitarian reasons to start with then maybe they�d have a leg to stand on. But this was way down the list. No credibility when you hit the fifth reason to create a quagmire. Then this may not happen.
| Quote: |
Because it's really all about shutting the reality of the Middle East off from us. It's to prevent the British and American people from questioning the immoral and cruel and internationally illegal occupation of Muslim lands. And in the Land of the Free, this systematic censorship of Middle East reality continues even in the country's schools. Now the principal of a Connecticut high school has banned a play by pupils, based on the letters and words of US soldiers serving in Iraq. Entitled Voices in Conflict, Natalie Kropf, Seth Koproski, James Presson and their fellow pupils at Wilton High School compiled the reflections of soldiers and others - including a 19-year-old Wilton High graduate killed in Iraq - to create their own play. To no avail.
Robert Fisk: http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2430125.ece |
| Quote: |
| And it was President Bush who got us into the [Iraq] quagmire in the first place," said David Gergen, a commentator and veteran of several administrations |
| Quote: |
Military commanders tell Brown to withdraw from Iraq without delay
By Raymond Whitaker and Robert Fox
Published: 19 August 2007
Senior military commanders have told the Government that Britain can achieve "nothing more" in south-east Iraq, and that the 5,500 British troops still deployed there should move towards withdrawal without further delay.
Last month Gordon Brown said after meeting George Bush at Camp David that the decision to hand over security in Basra province � the last of the four held by the British � "will be made on the military advice of our commanders on the ground". He added: "Whatever happens, we will make a full statement to Parliament when it returns [in October]." |
Why do you think everybody is ditching the US in Iraq? Back to thread, do you think that South Korea were waiting for the right time to get the hell out of this US created mess? I think so. This was illegal, devoid of any plan, and remains so. I may be leftist in my thinking but I would rather have the balanced opinion that maybe something is not right here, and maintain the fact everybody saw this happening except Mr Bush and and his bum buddies Cheney, Wolfowitz and .
This is my opinion based on the facts and research as I see it. You have your opinion, that�s great. But to automatically assume that somebody is a knucklehead or �an enemy� of the US because they cannot see or predicted that this mess was gonna happen is laughable. You keep your opinions, I�ll keep mine.
American criticism of Britain's desire to pull back in southern Iraq has recently become public, with a US intelligence official telling The Washington Post this month that "the British have basically been defeated in the south". A senior British commander countered, "That's to miss the point. It was never that kind of battle, in which we set out to defeat an enemy." Other officers said the British force was never configured to "clear and hold" Basra in the way the Americans are seeking to do in Baghdad.
Immediate American discontent is said to centre on the CIA's reluctance to leave Basra Palace, an important base for watching Iran, which may explain why Britain has held on to the complex until now. But last week it was reported that US intelligence operatives were in the process of pulling out. Further ahead, the US is concerned over the security of its vital supply line from Kuwait, with some American commanders saying that if the British withdraw, American troops will have to be sent south to replace them. As the hub of Iraq's oil industry, Basra is also a tempting prize for the Shia militias battling each other for control.
Is it going to get any better????? Didn't we tell you so. |
Spot on, Dome Vans. Anyone who wants to learn more about the importance of being Anti-America as opposed to Anti-American should talk to this guy. America, with its propaganda and media-controlled society, is damaging not only the rest of the world but also the minds of many of its own citizens by making it difficult for them to make good, balanced judgements. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anti-America vs Anti-American eh? Should you, if you fancy yourself a thinking individual, be a tad more careful?
Are you saying that "America", meaning the governmental institutions must be opposed always due to them being American? A bit simplistic, isn't it? |
|
| 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
