|
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 |
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Good on the man. I always thought he was a better man than a president. He probably got it from his father. Bush Sr commented very little publicly on his son's presidency.
The ex presidents club is probably a tight knit one. They may disagree on politics, they may have all made clangers of mistakes, but they all know how difficult the job is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That article says, "within certain parameters, [rendition] is an acceptable practice". So basically Bush policies were not acceptable (i.e. torture). So how does Obama keeping the program but making it acceptable mean he is vindicating Bush's unacceptable use of rendition? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| ...he was a better man than a president. |
Well said. I agree.
________
It seems clear, RufusW, that you remain stubbornly unwilling to see the continuity thesis I have outlined here. Like someone wise once said, "...when you look up in the sky, you can see the stars and still not see the light (that's right)."
And I am already gone from this thread. Goodbye and good luck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riverboy
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey. Classy words from Bush. I am at once a little surprised and very impressed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
It seems clear, RufusW, that you remain stubbornly unwilling to see the continuity thesis I have outlined here. Like someone wise once said, "...when you look up in the sky, you can see the stars and still not see the light (that's right)."
And I am already gone from this thread. Goodbye and good luck. |
Well I'm claiming a win. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bush's presidential failures were a direct result of his character flaws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RJjr wrote: |
| Bush's presidential failures were a direct result of his character flaws. |
Quite likely. But it's important to note that his flaws were well known beforehand, and he was voted in not once, but twice. The first election was controversial, but the second wasn't even close. So is the fault his, or the American peoples as a whole?
His flaws, as I see it, are in being too religious, and not sufficiently intellectually curious. The first seems, unfortunately, to be required to serve in American politics since Jefferson. The second; well, an intellect is no guarantee of good decisions. Just ask Carter, Kennedy and Clinton.
I certainly think Bush will give some opinions about Obama's presidency in good time. Probably around the next election campaign. That's the only acceptable time IMO for an ex president to critique a incumbent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Voted ? 
Yeah, sure there were no irregularities at all.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Voted ?
Yeah, sure there were no irregularities at all. |
A republican wins and there are cries of voter fraud from Democrats everywhere. Mentality being, "How could we lose! They must've CHEATED!"
A Democrat wins, all of a sudden the voting machines that have been so prone to inaccuracy and tampering worked perfectly.
I
f a republican wins in 2012, I bet you the Democrats will cry Recount and Voter fraud all over again.
Mark my words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
harlowethrombey
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lol, Bush is a great man because he doesnt offer his infallible insight on the current presidency. lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A real historian would not forget the false pretenses given for the war in Iraq |
Well, I guess you don't come close to being that category.
| Quote: |
WMD: Believe Iraq or Believe the Evidence?
WorldThreats.com ^ | November 16, 2003 | Ryan Mauro
�WMD: Believe Iraq or Believe the Evidence?�
Compiled By: Ryan Mauro
[email protected]
It has been only 7 months since the war in Iraq even began, but charges that the United States lied about Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction are seen in the press daily. This report will examine evidence of WMD independently gathered from the press, and where they presently are. Before going further, I wish to make the following points:
1) The intelligence communities of every major country were confident that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before 2003. These include the United States, Canada, France, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Australia, Japan, even Iran and a slew of others. It was a working assumption that such WMD was in Iraq, so much that I never heard accusations that it wasn�t true until the political war heated up in March, 2003.
2) Colin Powell�s presentation at the UN in February 2003 proved that Iraq was deceiving UN inspectors. What is there to hide?
3) In 1995, a high-ranking Iraqi defector proved Iraq was building WMD despite the UN restrictions. After this was revealed, Iraq admitted it had violated UN restrictions. Why should we believe Iraq was in compliance with the UN today, when Saddam hasn�t in the past?
4) As shown in the Kay interim report, there were thousands of items that Saddam had that could be used in WMD programs. These are usually dual-use items�items that have an apparently �civilian� use and are bought as such, but then when coupled with other items, can make WMD goods. If Saddam violated sanctions, as we know for a fact, why should we believe he had respect for other UN demands? And why would he violate such sanctions to gain such items?
5) As shown in the Kay interim report, why was such an enormous amount of material not declared as required by the UN?
6) Much of the suspected WMDs can fit in a package the size of a palm of a hand. Together, almost all of the WMDs could fit in a two-car parking garage. Why do people expect us to find such items already? Saddam has had 12 years to make programs to deceive Western intelligence, and 4 years to do so without ANY Western interference. And only recently, Coalition forces found fighter jets under the desert sand. If we just recently found huge fighter jets, how can people complain we haven�t found WMD yet?
7) After Iraq admitted producing a certain amount of WMD, disarmament by the UN began. How come a large portion was not disarmed by the UN and Iraq first admitted that it was not disarmed, only to later say they destroyed them �unilaterally�? Why didn�t the Saddam regime just destroy them with UN supervision like the rest of them?
 There has been lots of evidence that Iraq infiltrated UN inspection and intelligence teams. Why are people surprised the UN didn�t find any WMD?
9) The UN recognized that Iraq was engaged in illicit activity and was not disarming by passing 18 resolutions demanding that Iraq did so. Are we going to believe Saddam Hussein over the world community?
10) With extensive business interests in Iraq, why are people surprised that countries like Russia, France and Germany opposed war with Saddam Hussein�s regime?
11) Bill Clinton is the one who originally put the focus on Saddam Hussein�s WMD possession and links to terrorists. How come when he bombed Iraq in 1998 for four days, there wasn�t such a political outcry that he may be wrong about WMD?
12) It is obvious that weapons would be hidden in the Sunni triangle, the most loyal area to the regime. Today, this area is still not pacified to the extent that would allow a full-fledged search in civilian homes and such. Without the most suspect area fully pacified, why are people jumping to the conclusion that WMDs are a lie?
I would like readers to first read the Kay Interim Report, which should convince any open-minded person that at the very least, Iraq had a research and development effort for WMDs, and was waiting to produce them once inspectors left and/or sanctions were lifted. Scientists were hired that could be quickly transferred to weapons work at a moment�s notice. However, at least one scientist claimed he worked in a chemical/biological program right up to the moments before war. At which point, they could be produced en masse. The media has inadequately reported on the Kay Report, which has a massive amount of evidence against the regime. Among the information is that documents prove that Iraq signed a $10 million contract with North Korea to receive the technology and equipment to made intermediate-range ballistic missiles (the supplies never came). And on the subject of missiles, Kay proved that Iraq was preparing fuel in 2002 that can only be used in SCUD missiles. The Kay Interim Report can be viewed here:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
Iraq�s WMD Efforts
Possible findings of WMDs in Iraq are reported here because it is possible the Administration is holding out on releasing such finds, so it can be presented all at once. Kay has hinted at a full report being released around June-July, 2004.
The United States took a moderate stance on the WMD efforts. It ignored reports of progress. Of these reports, several would conclude that Iraq was helping Sudan and Libya develop ballistic missiles.
[1] Iraq�s primary missile research was devoted to improving its 50 Al-Hussein medium-range missiles. Israel�s National Security Council concluded these missiles were being hidden in Iraq, and was making progress. The regime hoped to eventually get UN sanctions lifted, at which point they could be upgraded to long-range missiles.
[2] But then 9-11 happened. And as action had to be taken to limit this threat, the intensity of the accusations against Iraq was matched with the intensity of the accusations against the US and UK.
The accusations that the Bush Administration used 9-11 to make a lie about Iraq to cause war are ridiculous. Even before 9-11, the Administration was making such claims (as was the Clinton Administration beforehand). In fact, about a month prior to 9-11, the CIA concluded that Iraq was hiding dozens of Scuds with a range of 650 kilometers and rebuilt missile production facilities. The CIA concluded that by 2015 Iraq would have ICBMs that could reach the United States.
[3] Assisting in this effort was North Korea. Using its massive oil revenue (most of which comes in violation of UN sanctions); the Iraqi regime was paying Korea to assist in medium-range missile and nuclear weapons technologies, according to Western intelligence. Former UN inspector Richard Butler raised concern over the cooperation.
[4] Butler is also known for recently telling the press that he saw intelligence between 1997 and 1999 that Syria helped Iraq hide WMD, and that suspicious containers were seen being moved in and out.
In early 2001, an Iraqi defector claimed that two functional atomic bombs were in Iraq�s possession, minus the fissile core. He further proved credibility by saying that when UN inspectors were present until 1998, there were 47 nuclear program sites, and now there are 64, and more in progress.
[5] Saddam�s state press even confirmed soon after 9-11 that they had a nuclear program. Babil, owned by Uday, wrote that the heads of the Iraqi Nuclear Energy Authority would accelerate their work and dedicate it to the Iraqi nation and its leader, Saddam Hussein.
[6] Throughout 2001, Western intelligence worked to stop Saddam�s efforts to buy stainless-steal tubes that are used in centrifuge programs. Several of which were intercepted.
[7] Germany�s BND intelligence agency also reported that Iraqi agents were scouring Asia and Europe for illegal components, and that Iraq still pays thousands of technicians and scientists for illegal weapons programs.
[8] In December 2001, an Iraqi specialist named Adrian al-Haideri defected. He said he worked on secret WMD sites, and that mini-labs were being built in private homes. At the time he defected, 300 hidden sites were being used to conceal WMDs and the associated programs. Often, WMD goods were hidden in fake wells. He explained that in mid-2001, a new effort had begun to buy aluminum tubes for a centrifuge program using front companies. Most of the stuff Iraq needed and couldn�t legally purchase came via Syria.
[9] Another defector also claimed to have worked on such secret sites, particularly ones in private wells and under a Baghdad hospital. He said he knew of at least 20 hidden WMD production sites.
[10] Despite the increasing pressure, Saddam Hussein continued his WMD efforts. According to Iraqi officials that defected to Europe in 2002, Iraq had ordered three shipments of Czech medium-range SCUDs, which the Czechs believed were headed to Syria and Yemen. Arriving via Syria, the first shipment had already arrived.
[11] Iraq�s concealment efforts around August, 2002 can also explain why we haven�t found their WMD as of yet. Defectors began providing new intelligence that Iraq was still continuing to receive WMD components and equipment through Syria, and that between June and August, Iraq had abandoned all the previous hidden WMD sites in order to thwart Western intelligence. The sites holding WMD transferred the weapons to mobile vans and new underground facilities.
[12] Just to add more to the idea of the concealment effort, let me pass some information along to you from a Center for Defense Information interview with Rear Admiral Stephen Baker. He explained that WMDs were sealed in wells drilled sixty feet deep, chemical weapons components were in residential basements, under man-made lakes, palace bunkers, and in mobile vans.
[13] With this type of dispersal, how could anyone from the beginning think we�d find WMDs in just a few months? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Bush's presidential failures were a direct result of his character flaws. |
But a positive accounting could be offered without braggartry, and would include:
(1) The overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism, and the exposure of many highly suggestive links between the two elements of this Hitler-Stalin pact. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who moved from Afghanistan to Iraq before the coalition intervention, has even gone to the trouble of naming his organization al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
(2) The subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya in point of weapons of mass destruction--a capitulation that was offered not to Kofi Annan or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush.
(3) The consequent unmasking of the A.Q. Khan network for the illicit transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.
(4) The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is necessary and overdue, and the unmasking of a quasi-criminal network within its elite.
(5) The craven admission by President Chirac and Chancellor Schr�der, when confronted with irrefutable evidence of cheating and concealment, respecting solemn treaties, on the part of Iran, that not even this will alter their commitment to neutralism. (One had already suspected as much in the Iraqi case.)
(6) The ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than accept the word of a psychopathic autocrat.
(7) The immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.
( The related encouragement of democratic and civil society movements in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has regained a version of its autonomy.
(9) The violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist infiltrators into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the real prospect of greatly enlarging this number.
(10) The training and hardening of many thousands of American servicemen and women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and absolutism, which training and hardening will surely be of great use in future combat.
It would be admirable if the president could manage to make such a presentation. It would also be welcome if he and his deputies adopted a clear attitude toward the war within the war: in other words, stated plainly, that the secular and pluralist forces within Afghan and Iraqi society, while they are not our clients, can in no circumstance be allowed to wonder which outcome we favor.
The great point about Blair's 1999 speech was that it asserted the obvious. Coexistence with aggressive regimes or expansionist, theocratic, and totalitarian ideologies is not in fact possible. One should welcome this conclusion for the additional reason that such coexistence is not desirable, either. If the great effort to remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and secular democracy should fail or be defeated, I shall lose sleep for the rest of my life in reproaching myself for doing too little. But at least I shall have the comfort of not having offered, so far as I can recall, any word or deed that contributed to a defeat.
I'm optimistic about Iraq. We have made lots of mistakes (as always happens) but I think we are learning and doing better. The real advantage we have is our enemies are not supported by powerful nations that we cannot attack (unlike the North Vietnamese who were supported by both China and the U.S.S.R.). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
What type of WMD was the war sold to us on? Nukes - the 30 minute threat. Didn't Condeleeza scare everyone by saying she didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. Now, do you really think you can hide the production of nuclear weapons? The belief that they could have hid them in wells is ridiculous. America has occupied Iraq for years and still no concrete evidence. Colin Powell himself regrets giving the flimsy case infront of the U.N. Do you remember he had graphics of these 'mobile chemical factories' but no actual photos......
If you're talking about chemical weapons well maybe they were/are around somewhere.... but that wasn't the driving force of Bush & Co.'s arguement. False Pretenses. Will you deny the Bush administration actively attempted to link 9/11 with Iraq? I argued he'd never be vindicated for that mistake / intentional fudging of the reality.
Your second post attempts to justify the invasion; it suits your ideology. I presume you want to invade and occupy N.Korea. It's be a push over and they definitely want nukes! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
| The real advantage we have is our enemies are not supported by powerful nations that we cannot attack |
Neo-Con idiot hawk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
What type of WMD was the war sold to us on? Nukes - the 30 minute threat. Didn't Condeleeza scare everyone by saying she didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. Now, do you really think you can hide the production of nuclear weapons? The belief that they could have hid them in wells is ridiculous. America has occupied Iraq for years and still no concrete evidence. Colin Powell himself regrets giving the flimsy case infront of the U.N. Do you remember he had graphics of these 'mobile chemical factories' but no actual photos......
If you're talking about chemical weapons well maybe they were/are around somewhere.... but that wasn't the driving force of Bush & Co.'s arguement. False Pretenses. Will you deny the Bush administration actively attempted to link 9/11 with Iraq? I argued he'd never be vindicated for that mistake / intentional fudging of the reality.
Your second post attempts to justify the invasion; it suits your ideology. I presume you want to invade and occupy N.Korea. It's be a push over and they definitely want nukes! |
Um...you missed the post BEFORE the things about Bush.
OH...and...perhaps you should check into a book named "Saddam's Secrets", by General Georges Sadda. |
|
| 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
