|
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 |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:00 am Post subject: Three things about Iraq (I think that was the title) |
 |
|
Dozens of trained battalions! Wow!
What's one batallion?
An American battalion has between 300 to 1000 Soldiers or Marines, and consists of several companies. It is commanded by a lieutenant colonel, with majors serving as the executive officer and the Operations Officer (S-3).
"Dozens of trained battalions" would then mean anywhere from 3600 (one dozen battalions of 300) to 36000 (three dozen battalions of 1000), and maybe more since we're talking about a vague plural number that could be up to 8 (anything higher than that and he would use the word "hundreds of thousands").
| Quote: |
Published: June 25, 2005
To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:
The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of Washington, but there was no Iraq-Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on the United States. Yet the president and his supporters continue to duck behind 9/11 whenever they feel pressure about what is happening in Iraq. The most cynical recent example was Karl Rove's absurd and offensive declaration this week that conservatives and liberals had different reactions to 9/11. Let's be clear: Americans of every political stripe were united in their outrage and grief, united in their determination to punish those who plotted the mass murder and united behind the war in Afghanistan, which was an assault on terrorists. Trying to pretend otherwise is the surest recipe for turning political dialogue into meaningless squabbling.
The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism. The breeding grounds for terrorists used to be Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia; now Iraq has become one. Of all the justifications for invading Iraq that the administration juggled in the beginning, the only one that has held up over time is the desire to create a democratic nation that could help stabilize the Middle East. Any sensible discussion of what to do next has to begin by acknowledging that. The surest way to make sure that conversation does not happen is for the administration to continue pasting the "soft on terror" label on those who want to talk about the war.
If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan. Progress has been measurable on the political front. But even staunch supporters of the war, like the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a hearing this week that President Bush was losing public support because the military effort was not keeping pace. A top general said this week that the insurgency was growing. The frequency of attacks is steady, or rising a bit, while the repulsive tactic of suicide bombings has made them more deadly.
If things are going to be turned around, there has to be an honest discussion about what is happening. But Mr. Rumsfeld was not interested. Sneering at his Democratic questioners, he insisted everything was on track and claimed "dozens of trained battalions are capable of conducting anti-insurgent operations" with American support. That would be great news if it were true. Gen. George Casey, the commander in Iraq, was more honest, saying he hoped there would be "a good number of units" capable of doing that "before the end of this year."
Americans cannot judge for themselves because the administration has decided to make the information secret. Senator John McCain spoke for us when he expressed his disbelief at this news. "I think the American people need to know," he said. "They are the ones who are paying for this conflict." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:20 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
I do beg the difference with you, Mith, over Afghanistan.
As Walden Bello best articulated, Afghanistan should have been prosecuted in a world court. Given that this could have happened quite rapidly, I see nothing wrong with it. Their government refused to relinquish bin-Laden, so they invited what should have been a globally-supported invasion.
This is how Iraq should have been handled.
Suffice to say that, since then, the Bush Administration alternates between saying it defended the world when it invaded Iraq and saying. "*beep* the world. You didn't help us."
This is a contradiction.
Absent of legitimacy.
And that's where we are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:44 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
I do beg the difference with you, Mith, over Afghanistan.
As Walden Bello best articulated, Afghanistan should have been prosecuted in a world court. Given that this could have happened quite rapidly, I see nothing wrong with it. Their government refused to relinquish bin-Laden, so they invited what should have been a globally-supported invasion.
This is how Iraq should have been handled.
Suffice to say that, since then, the Bush Administration alternates between saying it defended the world when it invaded Iraq and saying. "*beep* the world. You didn't help us."
This is a contradiction.
Absent of legitimacy.
And that's where we are. |
Why are you so sure most of the world would have supported a US invasion?
Most of the third world would have voted against it.
China reportedly wanted the US to give up missile defense in exchange for yes vote on invading Afghanistan.
What are the nationalities of the judges on the world court? The reason I ask is that judges from states that are against the US especially police states are not going to rule based on their sense of right or wrong but on what their government tells then to do so.
The world court would become like the UN human rights commission. Tell us why the UN human rights commission will never condemn China for anything?Cause they want China's support against the US.
| Quote: |
| The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. |
Yes it did. The US went into Iraq to be able to threaten Saudi Arabia and change the strategic situation of the mideast.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:33 am Post subject: How Did You Arrive at That Conclusion? |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:44 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher, I wish you would have asked that via PM. Now Joo is going to bombard us with his theory for the 100th time. |
|
| 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
