|
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 |
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
| The ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than accept the word of a psychopathic autocrat. |
We've lost thousands of good troops over a certificate?
| dmbfan wrote: |
| 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. |
Blair's speech would've been good if he hadn't buddied up with a theocrat and gotten aggressive. If Blair doesn't care about dead Iraqis and Americans, he should at least regret the deaths of British soldiers and the downfall of the British economy.
| dmbfan wrote: |
| (unlike the North Vietnamese who were supported by both China and the U.S.S.R.). |
South Vietnam deserves to make the list as well. Without widespread support in South Vietnam, most notably from the Viet Cong, it's possible North Vietnam could've lost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Iraq war got support because Saddam was linked to 9/11 and we were led to believe they had nukes.
False pretenses.
I give up if you've just going to copy and paste and tell me to read a book. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T-J
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| dmbfan wrote: |
| The real advantage we have is our enemies are not supported by powerful nations that we cannot attack |
Neo-Con idiot hawk. |
Why is it that the left are always the first to stop debating and resort to personal attacks and name calling? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| T-J wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| dmbfan wrote: |
| The real advantage we have is our enemies are not supported by powerful nations that we cannot attack |
Neo-Con idiot hawk. |
Why is it that the left are always the first to stop debating and resort to personal attacks and name calling? |
That statment is idiotic in the extreme.... Hawk, hawkish, lovin' the war. Neo-Con, neo-conservative - an extreme ideology.
I don't think the poster actually wrote those words either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
wrote:
dmbfan wrote:
The real advantage we have is our enemies are not supported by powerful nations that we cannot attack
Neo-Con idiot hawk.
Why is it that the left are always the first to stop debating and resort to personal attacks and name calling?
That statment is idiotic in the extreme.... Hawk, hawkish, lovin' the war. Neo-Con, neo-conservative - an extreme ideology.
I don't think the poster actually wrote those words either. |
Because the left (and most liberals) don't handle facts very well. They like to use "gotcha distractions" in most cases.
OH, those are not actually my words........I phucked up on posting the link.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 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! |
Wow, you are getting all worked up!
It does not matter what I think. I don't see the world as I WANT to see it (like most far left liberals). I see the world as it is.
N. Korea? Who the phuck is talking about N.Korea? Stick to the topic(s) at hand.
Invasion of Iraq.........well, considering that the U.N. was supposed to keep a leash on Saddam's ass and failed (due to the fact that UN soldiers in that area were largely made up of citizesn from third world countries who love taking bribes). In fact, Saddam grew wealthier while the people suffered. In addition, how many U.N. mandates did he break.........around 16? And...cosidering much of the Western powers were in agreement that Saddam was up to something, I feel it was a legitimate bet.
Consider this...........who were the three main powers opposed to the invasion (yet provided concrete evidence that Saddam was in fact up to no good)? France, Russia and Germany.
Now, do some research on what happend (a disaster in Syria) before the invasion in 2003. Then, dig a little deeper.............and you will find out that certain transports going out of Iraq to Syria were gaurded by French, German and Russian troops.
Considering Bush senior should have taken him in the first place, I feel it was right to take him out properly......after he was handed over to the Iraqi authorities to be judged.
Do I think it was the best move, simply invading Iraq? Well........I think it could have been handled differently. I'm not one for invasion, in the simple term. But, if one country is a threat to an entire region, while it's leader murdered at least two million of his people........................while nobody else in the region will do anything about it............then yes, I think it is the right thing to do.
Tolerance and diplomacy only goes so far.
Oh and as far as N.Korea goes..................*beep* em'. If they continue to shake, rattle and roll then I feel that someone should do something about it, BEFORE they actually go through with one of their threats. In fact, I think South Korea's president is doing what needs to be done.............NOT APPEASING THEM. But, if the shit really hits the fan, I think the U.S. is obligated to back up South Korea (even though South Korea is nothing but a money sucking country who has enjoyed a free ride) and take care of business.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I asked about N.Korea to see if you think preemptive attacks are okay; you obviously do.
Although you can try to justify (& vindicate) Bush's decision now, again, the Iraq war was 'sold' on the pretense of Saddam's link to 9/11, the nuclear threat and the need to preempt it. These main arguments have not been proven to the level which was cited by the administration (AQ came into Iraq after the war / there's still no nukes / Saddam did not organise 9/11!).
So maybe historians will argue the invasion was a good thing. It has surely accelerated the move towards a democracy. But I make the case you can't vindicate Bush for the misleading arguments made for the invasion.
Neo-Cons certainly don't have a problem with preemptive strikes, but a large proportion of humanity does. I don't believe they can be justified. [they certainly wouldn't have been too helpful during the Cold War! :)] Fundamentally I could never accept any argument for the invasion even if nukes were found. Ergo, in my eyes, Bush can never be vindicated.
Getting back to the OP. Bush implicitly criticized Bush in his comments. But, he's not going to explicitly criticized him because A. he caused/helped the financial mess B. he doesn't want to get ripped apart by Obama/the blogosphere/the media. C. how exactly is he going to critize? "Gee... you should be taxing less...." |
|
| 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
