|
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 |
luvnpeas
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Location: somewhere i have never travelled
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| I'll believe you're capable of thought when you're capable of grammar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| luvnpeas wrote: |
| I'll believe you're capable of thought when you're capable of grammar. |
aren't you the anti american who doesn't have his facts in order?
As I said you talk a good game but that is where it ends. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
1. The amazing thing to me is that despite coming from a deeply neocon-leaning source, the report as quoted indicates so little in the way of any terrorist ties, and in fact much of it says what we knew, that there was no connection between Saddam and the Al Queda monsters who attacked America.
2. Saddam is bye-bye now. The ostrich cartoon is ludicrous. Sorry, but that's the way it is. |
There was no real major connection between Osama Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein, who Osama, viewed as infidel. The rationale for invading Iraq was initially WMD. Then, later Cheney was trying to add the Bin Ladin connection based on some dubious Czech intelligence.
Then later, Cheney seemed to be claiming that he never hinted that there was a connection. As far as terrorism, the Iraqi people have been terrrorised beyond belief, suffered so much under the sanctions, being bombed by the allies. It is great that they are liberated for their own good, but the adventure of the neo-cons cost American tax payers about a trillion dollars. The war was worth it for the Shiites and Kurds so far, but is it for the American people. That remains to be seen. I don't know. It is possible. A democratic Iraq is good for the region, and if if that somehow helps the US, then great.
As far as invading Kuwait, the US Government knew Saddam had 80,000 soldiers amassed on the border and was issuing threats. They knew he invaded Iran in 1980 at the encouragement of the US. Saddam was not told not to invade Kuwait. You may wonder why. The Bush Administration benefited from the invasion. I know that sounds like a conspiracy theory, but no one really disagrees that Saddam broached the subject of Kuwait with Ambassador Gillespie, and she must have briefed the president. Also, some people know that the girl who wept on camera
saying Iraqi soldiers was a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, and the Iraqi soldiers didn't do that, and the media didn't identify the girl's royal connections, and the fact that Knowlton Hill which had Bush connections coached her.
Look, I frankly belief just as LBJ staged the Gulf of Tonkin, the neo-cons and the Bush Administration number one quite possibly did the same with the whole the Kuwait thing. Saddam fell into a trap, his greed did him in, and the US Government took advantage of it. There were ways to get Saddam out of Kuwait possibly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
1. The amazing thing to me is that despite coming from a deeply neocon-leaning source, the report as quoted indicates so little in the way of any terrorist ties, and in fact much of it says what we knew, that there was no connection between Saddam and the Al Queda monsters who attacked America.
2. Saddam is bye-bye now. The ostrich cartoon is ludicrous. Sorry, but that's the way it is. |
There was no real major connection between Osama Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein, who Osama, viewed as infidel. The rationale for invading Iraq was initially WMD. Then, later Cheney was trying to add the Bin Ladin connection based on some dubious Czech intelligence.
Then later, Cheney seemed to be claiming that he never hinted that there was a connection. As far as terrorism, the Iraqi people have been terrrorised beyond belief, suffered so much under the sanctions, being bombed by the allies. It is great that they are liberated for their own good, but the adventure of the neo-cons cost American tax payers about a trillion dollars. The war was worth it for the Shiites and Kurds so far, but is it for the American people. That remains to be seen. I don't know. It is possible. A democratic Iraq is good for the region, and if if that somehow helps the US, then great.
As far as invading Kuwait, the US Government knew Saddam had 80,000 soldiers amassed on the border and was issuing threats. They knew he invaded Iran in 1980 at the encouragement of the US. Saddam was not told not to invade Kuwait. You may wonder why. The Bush Administration benefited from the invasion. I know that sounds like a conspiracy theory, but no one really disagrees that Saddam broached the subject of Kuwait with Ambassador Gillespie, and she must have briefed the president. Also, some people know that the girl who wept on camera
saying Iraqi soldiers was a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, and the Iraqi soldiers didn't do that, and the media didn't identify the girl's royal connections, and the fact that Knowlton Hill which had Bush connections coached her.
Look, I frankly belief just as LBJ staged the Gulf of Tonkin, the neo-cons and the Bush Administration number one quite possibly did the same with the whole the Kuwait thing. Saddam fell into a trap, his greed did him in, and the US Government took advantage of it. There were ways to get Saddam out of Kuwait possibly. |
The US was not smart enough to trick Saddam into invading Kuwait.
Futhermore That the US tricked Saddam has been debunked.
| Quote: |
Yet despite this warning, Saddam Hussein tried to send terrorist teams to America and did blow up the Kuwaiti oil fields -- he simply gambled on which two of the three things Mr. Baker mentioned were unlikely to result in America ending the regime. (Many officials from that Bush administration have suggested, in fact, that Saddam Hussein didn't even make the right calculation.)
Proponents of deterrence also argue that since nobody has ever actually tried to deter Saddam Hussein from attacking another country, how can we claim that doing so will be difficult in the future? The example most often cited is the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, where the common wisdom holds that because of the botched messages he received from the American ambassador, April Glaspie, Iraq had no reason to believe we would fight.
In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait, but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest.
Much of the evidence for this remains classified, but at least two points can be made using public material: Tariq Aziz has told reporters that this was what Saddam Hussein thought at the time; and we know that when the Republican Guards invaded Kuwait they moved quickly -- even before they had consolidated control over the country -- to set up defenses along Kuwait's borders and against amphibious and airborne landings.
In other words, Saddam Hussein thinks we tried to deter him, and that we failed. He was ready and willing to fight the United States for Kuwait. |
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E5DF123DF932A15751C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Futhermore *ahem* that the US tricked Saddam has been ... "debunked". |
Yes, that's right Joo.
In fact, this reminds me.
Just yesterday the news reported that the idea of 2+2=4 was "debunked".
That Washington D.C. is the capital of the USA was as well.
That there are 60 seconds in a minute was debunked.
Joo-debunking you can "bank" on 
Last edited by igotthisguitar on Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Futhermore *ahem* that the US tricked Saddam has been ... "debunked". |
Yes, that's right Joo.
In fact, this reminds me.
Just yesterday the news reported that the idea of 2+2=4 was "debunked".
That Washington D.C. is the capital of the USA was as well.
That there are 60 seconds in a minute was debunked.
Joo-debunking you can "bank" on |
IGTG No evidence.
But go on your sites help my case.
Keep up the good work |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
1. The amazing thing to me is that despite coming from a deeply neocon-leaning source, the report as quoted indicates so little in the way of any terrorist ties, and in fact much of it says what we knew, that there was no connection between Saddam and the Al Queda monsters who attacked America.
2. Saddam is bye-bye now. The ostrich cartoon is ludicrous. Sorry, but that's the way it is. |
There are also neo-cons (Ann Coulter) who still believe that Iraq had WMD. They will not give up their illusions about the Iraq War being a just cause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
1. The amazing thing to me is that despite coming from a deeply neocon-leaning source, the report as quoted indicates so little in the way of any terrorist ties, and in fact much of it says what we knew, that there was no connection between Saddam and the Al Queda monsters who attacked America.
2. Saddam is bye-bye now. The ostrich cartoon is ludicrous. Sorry, but that's the way it is. |
There are also neo-cons (Ann Coulter) who still believe that Iraq had WMD. They will not give up their illusions about the Iraq War being a just cause. |
Ann Coulter isn't a neo con she is more of a Paleo con.
How can the removal of a dictator worse than Idi Amin not be just cause.
Saddam had lots of stuff he was not supposed to have and he intended to rearm.
Just for the record CATMAN what should US policy towards Iraq have been?
You thought sanctions that only the US was enforcing were a good policy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| luvnpeas wrote: |
| I'll believe you're capable of thought when you're capable of grammar. |
I'll believe you are capable of thought when you can clarify to whom you have directed you comment.
Or when you learn to use the quote button whichever comes first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Ann Coulter isn't a neo con she is more of a Paleo con. |
It has been my understanding that Pale Cons are against the Iraq War.
| Quote: |
How can the removal of a dictator worse than Idi Amin not be just cause.
|
The invasion had NOTHING to do with the way Saddam treated his populace.
| Quote: |
Just for the record CATMAN what should US policy towards Iraq have been?
You thought sanctions that only the US was enforcing were a good policy? |
No the economic sanctions were murderous. They should have been dropped. Hussein was not a threat to America. He was barely even a threat to his neighbours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="catman"][
| Quote: |
| It has been my understanding that Pale Cons are against the Iraq War. |
Not all of them about half of them. More than that many neo cons are more of less socially liberal or don't have much of an opinion on domestic issues.
For the record Ann Coulter was opposed to the first gulf war.
| Quote: |
How can the removal of a dictator worse than Idi Amin not be just cause.
|
| Quote: |
| The invasion had NOTHING to do with the way Saddam treated his populace. |
Well if Saddam wasn't as ruthless he was he would have not been taken down.
but more than that there is no moral case against taking down a leader like that. Whether the US made the correct strategic decision is another issue but there is no moral case against taking down Saddam.
| Quote: |
| No the economic sanctions were murderous. They should have been dropped. Hussein was not a threat to America. He was barely even a threat to his neighbours.[/ |
I guess that means you would have expected Saddam to be nice.
No Saddam would never try to rearm or take Kuwait again. He would never try to reconquer the Kurdish areas.You are basically saying the US ought to trust Saddam Hussein.
You do know that Saddam continued to threaten Kuwait well after the first gulf war?
But I would like to thank you for telling everyone what you think US policy ought to have been. |
|
| 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
