Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - America should withdraw from Iraq..

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

America should withdraw from Iraq..
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 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 Oct 23, 2007 5:51 pm Post subject:

[quote="JMO"]

Quote:

What would you describe this.

Quote:

Terrorism. Hardly a war. When did the Bathists and the khomenistthingmybobs attack America?

Terrorism is a form of war.

and inciting it as a tactic is one of the main reasons for 9-11.

Quote:

Nope, its because I have a sense of humor. Maybe its growing up in a country that had sustained terrorism(idiots called that a war too)for 30 years has made me more able to find the humor in such situation. You'll get there some day.

Well I hope the US doesn't have to suffer that.

Quote:

Slightly different situations don't you think?

Sure each strategic situation is different. But the US can end up in a very good postion.

JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Terrorism is a form of war.

and inciting it as a tactic is one of the main reasons for 9-11.

Its not war in the normal sense of the word.

Fact is nobody except AQ attacked on American soil. The attackers were mostly from SA. Seems like you went to the wrong place.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:09 pm Post subject:

Dome Vans

Quote:

I doubt much media cares about proof. Sensationalism and money is the most important thing.

& with the alternative media it is politics or even more sinister stuff.

The media does care about proof cause they don't want to get busted or sued.

Quote:

Differing viewpoints, you believe what you want to believe and I'll believe what I want to believe. What record. This guys book is the first example of the WMDs being 'moved' to Syria. There was no assertion before it

.

but your source is wrong when he said that Saddam didn't have that gas when the records show he in fact did.

Peterie states something that is not true.

While Sada states something that has not be proved.

Quote:

There's the famous line again. It's your war.

No they were after the US well before 9-11

Quote:

You are instigating it. And you assertion that the US doesn't want to control the Middle East, just so that Saddam or Iran couldn't is laughable. The area is essential to America both economically and religiously.

The US does fine with the status quo. Just as long Saddam or Iran doesn't control it.

That is the reason. The US is ok with the status quo.

Quote:

In your eyes maybe. Justified in the sense that they are trying to maintain their hegemonic status through whichever means, maybe.

cold war was defensive

Quote:

The Cold War was not 'won' by America, they hung out for a doomed ideology to implode.

without the defending itself and pressuring it would not have imploded and in fact it might have destroyed the US first.

Quote:

And the idea that The War Against Terror (Twat) will be easily won is a joke.

It might be difficult but the US can win.

Quote:

The other wars that America 'won' have been against countries that, in theory, could be defeated.

Bathism , Khomenism and Al Qaedism can be in the same situation as communism or worse.

Quote:

Islamic Terror is, in theory, a ideology, how pray tell me, do you win this war????

1) Alternative energy send oil back to 30 a barrel.

2) Space launched strategic weapons to counter Iran's nuclear program

3) Miltary bases in Kurdistan so the US can project power in mideast and carry out targeted killings.

If the US manages to do this then the strategic situation in very much in the US favor.

Quote:

Terrorism and membership is growing you can't just bomb the hell out them and expect to win it.[

Mideast regimes can stop inciting violence and teaching hate.

And of course they can find the terrorists if they choose to .

All the US needs to do is convince mideast regimes to find the terrorists and lop their heads off.

catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject:

So you are opposed to attacking Iran?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:40 pm Post subject:

Catman

Quote:

So you are opposed to attacking Iran?

Well that would depend on what Iran does , but for now - more or less - yeah.

The most important reason and really the reason not to is not cause of what Iran might do in Iraq or other places with terrorists. The US can not allow itself to be intimidated by Iran. If Iran hits the US then they US ought to always be ready to hit them harder.

But the reason not to attack Iran is that things might get better when Iran's leader Khamani dies. Nothing will change until then but afterwards well who knows? Iran's population is less anti US than just about any mideast nation.

The US needs time to see how things turn out in Iran.

While attacking Iran is not a good idea just allowing them to get nuclear weapons is without doing anything is just as bad. The US can not allow Iran to change the strategic situation and so the US needs to match them and gain the strategic edge. This is possible. Investing in new strategic weapons that will allow the US to gain a decisive strategic advantage over Iran and mess up most everything that Iran wants to achieve with nuclear weapons is the way to go. It is not getting into another war right away , yet it is taking action against Iran. The US ought to come out of this in a very good situation if the US plays its cards correctly. In this scenario Iran comes out with very little . Their won' t have brought them any strategic advantage.

Of course the US needs to invest in alternative energy , hybrid cars and also new drilling technologies and nuclear plants and anything and everything that will bring the price of oil down.

Mosley

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:05 am Post subject:

Bird Brain: Thank you. Well done. "The prosecution rests, your Honour...Hypocrisy in the first degree." No worries. Your insanity plea will be accepted. Spinoza: "Canucklehead"? Your Wildean wit cuts me to the quick. Ouch! But, as you said, you are wrong when you are right. Er, no, you are wrong when you are wrong ..er, no...two rights make a wrong...er...ah, fack it...keep ingesting the chemicals that IGTG has been giving you.... Dome Vans: Keep looking into that "sinister" pact between America & Israel. Siiiiiiiiiiiinister. Just make sure you have your dog-eared copy of THE PROTOCOLS nearby as you peruse the International ANSWER website. HAND to all....

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:23 am Post subject:

JMO"]

Quote:

Its not war in the normal sense of the word.

Well what is it?

Quote:

Fact is nobody except AQ attacked on American soil. The attackers were mostly from SA. Seems like you went to the wrong place.

Saudi Arabia was the reason for the war. but invading Saudi would not have done the trick.

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."

In the mideast mideast regimes are police states and they have supreme power within their nations , they control the media , the clerics are on the govt payroll. They know what the elties do.

At anyrate mideast regimes can get rid of the terrorists if they choose to. They just need to be persuaded to do so.

igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:38 am Post subject:

Withdraw from Iraq? Likely not. That is, not if the neo-kons get their way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocons And we all know now how terribly they expect to always "execute" their desired plans. Most believe they're still quite intent on gunning for Iraq & Syria. God Bless AmeriKa.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:42 am Post subject:

The fascist Jeff Rense follower calls the US AmericKa

Pluto

Joined: 19 Dec 2006

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:44 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Quote:

While conventional bombing can't destroy some targets this system would take out any target. This will allow the US capablity to "nuke" enemies and then claim they didn't nuke anyone. and there won't be any radioactive fallout. Right now everyone knows that the US won't be the first to use nukes. With this system that is all out the window.
North Korea knew the US would not use nuclear weapons. North Vietnam knew the US would not use nuclear weapons. Iran knows the US will not use nuclear weapons to destroy their nuclear program. However these weapons are usable or a least Iran could not be reasonably sure that the US would not use them in a conflict. This system will change all of that.
Just the possession of such a system would be a threat to any enemy. Iran is trying to change the strategic balance with their nuclear program , well the US with this system can return the strategic balance back in the US favor.

Cool! When do we get started?
The sooner we get these space based weapons in working order, the better. If we've got the resources and the know-how, what are we waiting for?[/b]

Pluto

Joined: 19 Dec 2006

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:56 am Post subject:

Dome Vans wrote:

Pluto wrote:

Dome Vans wrote:

Quote:

Bathists , Khomeni followers and Al Qaeda fight for a sinister cause.

and so do America.

A fully liberated democracy or Taliban style authoritarian rule. Which one is more sinister? Rolling Eyes

'Democracy' Haha, very good. Like it.

The eye roll, best just nip back up into my ivory tower.

Taliban, not that they are a direct threat to the States are pretty much transparent. You can see what they're doing. America, whatever they are doing in Iraq, we will never know, ergo no plan.

Better the devil you know, eh?

I'm glad you like the concept of democracy. Another funny thing is that the Japanese, the Koreans, the Germans and believe it or not so do the British. Cynicism notwithstanding.

If you are saying oppressive governments like Iran's or Syria's are better than the US, then yes, you should just lock yourself up on that ivory tower of yours.

The Taliban gave aid, comfort and land for training to AQ. So yes, it was rather obvious why we invaded Afghanistan.

As for Iraq, things are getting better. Our commitment is long-term. Once those fighting the US inside Iraq know it's futile to do so' violence will continue to decline even further.

cbclark4

Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:23 pm Post subject:

JMO wrote:

Quote:

Terrorism is a form of war.

and inciting it as a tactic is one of the main reasons for 9-11.

Its not war in the normal sense of the word.

Fact is nobody except AQ attacked on American soil. The attackers were mostly from SA. Seems like you went to the wrong place.

No.

The attack was in the right place.

AQ was in Afghanistan.

Iraq was harboring known terrorists prior to the invasion.
(See Abu Nidal)

igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:19 pm Post subject:

AND NOTHING FOR THE POOR! ... WHAT DO YOU THINK? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkQ_5eullPU&NR=1

Dome Vans
Guest

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:09 pm Post subject:

Quote:

The Taliban gave aid, comfort and land for training to AQ. So yes, it was rather obvious why we invaded Afghanistan.

Why is the Taliban still knocking about? Why haven't they been blown to smitherens by America. They're bad people, yeh? Hold on a sec, they're actually useful to America, they control the Opium growth and selling and America get a big cut of it, that's why the Taliban are still there. State sponsored terrorism is fine. I keep forgetting this. America would be sadly out of pocket if they didn't invade Afghanistan to 'eradicate' the Taliban. If they'd stuck round in Afghanistan before buggering off to Iraq then they may have got rid of them. BUt they didn't.
You could sum it up like this:

Quote:

there is no "doubt that at least one of the reasons for attacking Afghanistan was to secure the safety and future of the cultivation, growing, harvesting, production, transportation and sale of illegal drugs" or it is a proven fact that army intervention does not solve this issue.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread300448/pg1

Quote:

his massive military presence serves only one purpose, to act as a base for the US led special forces teams, now combing the mountains and deserts of southern Afghanistan, hunting for Taliban and Al Qaeda fugitives. But in their haste to fill the power vacuum left by the departing Taliban, the Americans have helped install a Governor in Kandahar with close links to this country뭩 drug lords. In essence what you have today, is an alliance between the Americans, the Governor of Kandahar and the men responsible for producing some 70% of the world뭩 opium and heroin.

Thirty kilometres outside the city of Kandahar, the Dogs of War are unleashed. Among the crowd are warlords, opium merchants and poppy farmers. This gathering is illegal. Like opium production, traditional dogfights have been banned by Afghanistan뭩 interim administration. Here, both edicts are viewed with contempt, seen as little more than a sop to western sensibilities.

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2005/s1379788.htm

Which one are you going to go for?

Quote:

As for Iraq, things are getting better. Our commitment is long-term. Once those fighting the US inside Iraq know it's futile to do so' violence will continue to decline even further.

Nonsense. Things are not getting better. Why now is it every week the self contemplation of the Yanks, shall we leave? Nah, we created this quagmire. Smells like Vietnam, this long, illegal occupation and we all know how that ended up. You're stuck there for the long haul and there'll only be one outcome.

Quote:

Quote:
While conventional bombing can't destroy some targets this system would take out any target. This will allow the US capablity to "nuke" enemies and then claim they didn't nuke anyone. and there won't be any radioactive fallout. Right now everyone knows that the US won't be the first to use nukes. With this system that is all out the window.
North Korea knew the US would not use nuclear weapons. North Vietnam knew the US would not use nuclear weapons. Iran knows the US will not use nuclear weapons to destroy their nuclear program. However these weapons are usable or a least Iran could not be reasonably sure that the US would not use them in a conflict. This system will change all of that.
Just the possession of such a system would be a threat to any enemy. Iran is trying to change the strategic balance with their nuclear program , well the US with this system can return the strategic balance back in the US favor.

Quote:

Cool! When do we get started?
The sooner we get these space based weapons in working order, the better. If we've got the resources and the know-how, what are we waiting for?

Yeh, I saw this James Bond film too. Wasn't one of the best ones. But good cars as usual.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:22 pm Post subject:

Dome Vans

Quote:

Why is the Taliban still knocking about? Why haven't they been blown to smitherens by America

cause they hide behind civilians?

Quote:

. They're bad people, yeh? Hold on a sec, they're actually useful to America, they control the Opium growth and selling and America get a big cut of it, that's why the Taliban are still there.

Moonbat

prove it.

Quote:

State sponsored terrorism is fine.

for instance?

Quote:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread300448/pg1

who says this?

Quote:

The occupation is illegal ? According to who. The UN has in fact has now given it the ok.

Quote:

Yeh, I saw this James Bond film too. Wasn't one of the best ones. But good cars as usual.

Do you Remember Putin said that no one could hit a bullet with a bullet?

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, 8 Next
Page 6 of 8

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