|
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 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:13 pm Post subject: Aren't they fighting for the same thing? |
 |
|
How can someone say that the Iraqis are fighting for their homes against an invasion while they support the US actions in Afghanistan? Tell us why you think the Iraqi insurgents are fighting for their homes against an invader , but the Taliban insurgents aren't.
Actully they are both fighting to force the US out not so much to protect their homes but so they can rule the country and rule over the other ethnic groups that don't want to be ruled by them. That is why both groups are fighting to stop the democratic process - cause they know they can't win.
Q: Are they fighting for the same thing?
A: Of course they are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Butterfly
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:37 pm Post subject: Re: Aren't they fighting for the same thing? |
|
|
Didn't the Taliban allow Bin Laden and his terrorist network to base it's headquarters there in Afghanistan? (Even though I have read that the Taliban more tolerated Bin Laden than revered him).
Since it is generally accepted that Bin Laden's network is responsible for the September 11 attacks on the US, and invading Afghanistan was the only way the world was going to bring those responsible to justice.
Saddam didn't have any dealings with Bin Laden, or any part in the September 11 attacks.
The decision to go to war in Afghanistan was based on a tangible and identified fact. Thus the UN backing.
The decision to go to war in Iraq was based on decisions made long before September 11, and had no UN approval.
I don't know who the rebel forces in Iraq are now. Actually I don't even care that much, I just want British troops home.
You made your bed Uncle Sam, lie in it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:53 pm Post subject: Re: Aren't they fighting for the same thing? |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Didn't the Taliban allow Bin Laden and his terrorist network to base it's headquarters there in Afghanistan? (Even though I have read that the Taliban more tolerated Bin Laden than revered him). |
Yes , but the the question was aren't the Taliban and the insurgents fighting now for the same thing.
| Quote: |
Since it is generally accepted that Bin Laden's network is responsible for the September 11 attacks on the US, and invading Afghanistan was the only way the world was going to bring those responsible to justice. |
Yes , but invading Iraq was the only way to force Saddam to give up his war. He was shooting at US planes and supporting terror. He tried to kill a US president , continued to threaten Kuwait and persecute his minorities. He never gave up trying to conquer the Persian gulf nor did he give up trying to preserve his ability to build WMDs. He never gave up his war.
| Quote: |
Saddam didn't have any dealings with Bin Laden, or any part in the September 11 attacks.
|
Iraq did have some dealings with Al Qaida.
| Quote: |
The decision to go to war in Afghanistan was based on a tangible and identified fact. Thus the UN backing. |
There was no UN backing for the decision to go to war in Afghanistan. The US couldn't get it. China reportedly wanted the US to give up missile defense for their vote.
| Quote: |
The decision to go to war in Iraq was based on decisions made long before September 11, and had no UN approval. |
No it wasn't made before September 11th.
ind this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush
Indeed the US policy before 9-11 was smart sanctions.
The US policy since 1998 was regime change in Iraq, Bush's policy before 9-11 was the same as Bill Clintons'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Butterfly
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:07 pm Post subject: Re: Aren't they fighting for the same thing? |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Iraq did have some dealings with Al Qaida.
|
Oh, you.
It is quite clear, that such rabid determination for regime change, would eventually lead to plans for war. 9-11 gave them an excuse, taking their eye off the Al Qaeda ball.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
| In 1998 New American Century wrote: |
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein��s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of ��containment�� of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq��s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam��s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world��s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Yes , but the the question was aren't the Taliban and the insurgents fighting now for the same thing. |
Who the hell knows? The Taliban rebellion is surely miniscule compared to that of the insurgency in Iraq, which has devastating effects almost every day. If size does matter, or proportion - then bitterness towards the invasion is greater in Iraq. That must say something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes they ( 1998 New American Century) perhaps wanted to take down Saddam before 9-11 , (they thought a democratic Iraq would be good for the US but they also thought it would be good for Iraqis and the region ) but you don't see George Bush's name on that document.
But you would see Bill Clinton's name on this:
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm
At any rate he reason Bush went into Iraq was to be in a position to force mideast regimes to go after Al Qaida. The Bush administration thinks that the intellegence services of mideast regimes can sucessfully hunt down Al Qaida within their own nations. If they were all to do so Al Qaida would be in a bad situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I don't know who the rebel forces in Iraq are now. Actually I don't even care that much, I just want British troops home.
You made your bed Uncle Sam, lie in it.
|
(I also have objected to the invasion of Iraq all along.) Having said that, if the UK had refused to go along, it would have been nearly impossible for the coalition to invade. Blair and the UK bare an important responsibility for the present situation. |
|
| 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
