|
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 |
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
And your posts have no "political agenda" ? 
Show me where the holocost denial articles are on this site then.
http://www.911truth.org/
No doubt they have a political agenda. They want to get these corrupt criminals out of office and return to some kind of normality.
By the way, I do think Michael Rivero has some pretty stupid things on his site, but the only thing stupider than some of his articles are some of your posts.
I really think you are smarter than a lot of the junk you have posted.
Please, don't prove me wrong. You can do it Joo.
Last edited by some waygug-in on Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sonofthedarkstranger
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| You don't know the Patriot act is not the reason. |
Chronick case of fallacies aside ( n.b. Daddy, what's an AD HOMINEM ??? ) didn't your English teachers ever lecture you on double negatives ??? Assuming they did, clearly you were obviously either staring out the window day-dreaming or fast asleep with that black mucky drool spilling out all over your desk |
Combining the two negatives into a positive ("You know the Patriot Act is the reason") changes the meaning.
Joo's sentence structure is fine in this particular case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Back to something at least vaguely related to the topic:
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney08022005.html
600 Arrests, But Only 76 Charged
Chertoff's Preemptive Crackdown
By MIKE WHITNEY
"For too long, these gangs have gone unchecked flouting all laws and demonstrating a blatant disregard for public safety."
Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security
Homeland Security's Michael Chertoff is a busy man. In the last month alone he's arrested more than 600 gang members. There's only one problem. None of them has been charged with a crime.
No matter.
In Chertoff's world that's only a minor glitch; after all, Chertoff engineered the infamous round up of 1,100 Muslims following 9-11; tossing them all in the federal hoosegow and barring them from legal counsel.
It was quite a coup, and probably helped the public feel more secure from the looming threat of domestic terror.
As it happens, not one of Chertoff's detainees was ever convicted of a crime or connected in any way to terrorism. It turns out the whole misadventure was a bigger flop than a Bill Bennett Las Vegas vacation.
A slipshod effort like the post 9-11 sweeps would normally plunk one in the long-gray line at the unemployment office. Instead, it was the boost that Chertoff needed to propel him to the zenith of the national bureaucracy; Homeland Security, the largest agency in the federal government. "Failing upwards" is a long-standing tradition in the Bush White House and Chertoff has become the resident poster child.
Read the rest if you like. It's a blast.
Last edited by some waygug-in on Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:21 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Since the Patriot act no attacks in the US.
Jeff Rense wants to see the US government overthrown , and his supporters are rooting for Al Qaida so of course they wants the Patriot gone. |
Got news for ya: Only one prior to it. Well, from EXTERNAL terrorists, that is. The vast majority of terrorism in the US has been homegrown.
And now you can't even have privacy in a library. Or in your own home. Have you actually READ the thing? There essentially is no Bill of Rights in the US any longer.
Yup, great step in the progression of human development. 
EFLtrainer
www.geocities.com/killiankob
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Get a load of this, they can't afford to put armour plating in humvees but they can afford to squander money like this?
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=96378
Homeland absurdity: Anti-terror funds going to leafy �burbs
By Dave Wedge
Wednesday, August 3, 2005 - Updated: 03:42 AM EST
State officials have doled out millions in coveted federal anti-terror cash to questionably qualified suburban towns for radios, souped-up trucks, riot gear, plasma TVs and other high-tech equipment, a Herald review found.
Among the findings:
Oak Bluffs, Martha's Vineyard (population 17,000) netted $260,000 in 2003 for chemical/bio-terror response equipment;
Raynham (population 12,000) got $460,000 in 2004 for a "rail-based information sharing demonstration project";
Concord netted $1.7 million for a regional "anti-terrorism first responder program," with local officials maintaining, "As the birthplace of the American Revolution . . . Concord holds great symbolic value and itself represents a potential target for terrorists."
Five other part-time regional law enforcement groups based in Lee, North Andover, Waltham, Everett and Natick each raked in more than the $1 million given in 2003 to state police, which is Massachusetts' lead Homeland Security agency.
"Unfortunately this is not unusual. There are a lot of areas in the country that get Department of Homeland Security money for items they will never use and don't need but they're all happy to get the money," said Tom Schatz, president of the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Since the Patriot act no attacks in the US.
Jeff Rense wants to see the US government overthrown , and his supporters are rooting for Al Qaida so of course they wants the Patriot gone. |
Got news for ya: Only one prior to it. Well, from EXTERNAL terrorists, that is. The vast majority of terrorism in the US has been homegrown.
And now you can't even have privacy in a library. Or in your own home. Have you actually READ the thing? There essentially is no Bill of Rights in the US any longer.
Yup, great step in the progression of human development. |
Can U like support what you claim?
Cause that doesn't seem to be the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Back to something at least vaguely related to the topic:
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney08022005.html
600 Arrests, But Only 76 Charged
Chertoff's Preemptive Crackdown
By MIKE WHITNEY
"For too long, these gangs have gone unchecked flouting all laws and demonstrating a blatant disregard for public safety."
Read the rest if you like. It's a blast.
Seems like incompetance and stupidity are the best skills to have in Bushworld. |
It would be hard to get someone on terror charges unless they were caught in the act.
They us has used the Patriot act to get foreigners who don't belong in the US, and it has been an extra thing for terrorists to overcome.
| Quote: |
In Defense Of the Patriot Act
By Heather Mac Donald
Sunday, August 24, 2003; Page B07
The recent indictment of a would-be arms merchant connected to al Qaeda is only the latest reminder that the threat of terrorism is as urgent as ever. Yet many among the political and opinion elites act as if America is more at risk from the Bush administration's efforts to thwart future terror attacks than from the attackers themselves. Hardly a day passes without a well-publicized denunciation of the government's alleged assault on civil liberties. Cities and counties across the country are declaring themselves "civil liberties safe zones," and a barrage of bills in Congress seeks to repeal sections of the USA Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism law passed after 9/11, on the ground that it violates constitutional rights.
The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a lawsuit in a Michigan federal court against the most frequent target of civil libertarian ire -- the Patriot Act's business records provision. The rhetoric surrounding this provision, also known as Section 215, has been alarmist, to say the least. In an editorial applauding the ACLU's action, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, for example, called the measure the "seedstock of a police state."
Section 215 allows the FBI to obtain documents in third-party hands if they are relevant to a terrorism investigation. According to the ACLU, this power allows the FBI to "spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because . . . she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy."
The charge is baseless. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the FBI can do nothing under Section 215 without the approval of a federal court. Let's say the FBI has received a tip that al Qaeda sympathizers have taken scuba lessons in preparation for an attack on Navy destroyers off the California coast. Under 215, the bureau could seek a court order for local dive school records to see if any terror suspects had recently enrolled.
The key phrase here is "seek a court order." It is inconceivable that the court that oversees espionage and counterterrorism investigations will approve a records request made because the FBI doesn't "like the books" someone reads, or "because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy," as the ACLU claims.
The ACLU also argues that Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. But like it or not, once you've disclosed information to someone else, the Constitution no longer protects it. This diffuse-it-and-lose-it rule applies to library borrowing and Web surfing as well, however much librarians may claim otherwise. By publicly borrowing library books, patrons forfeit any constitutional protections they may have had in their reading habits.
Another ACLU attack on 215 uses the tactic of ignoring legal precedent. Grand juries investigating a crime have always been able to subpoena the very items covered by 215 -- including library records and Internet logs -- without seeking a warrant or indeed any judicial approval at all. Section 215 merely gives anti-terror investigators the same access to such records as criminal grand juries, with the added protection of judicial oversight.
The administration's opponents reply that grand-jury subpoenas are preferable, because they can be contested in court and are not always confidential, as are 215 orders. But these differences are fully justified by the distinction between preempting terrorism and prosecuting crime. Speed and secrecy are essential to uncovering a terror plot before it climaxes. The perils of unnecessary delay were made clear in the Zacarias Moussaoui case, when Justice Department bureaucrats, virtually mummified by red tape, forbade Minneapolis FBI agents from searching the al Qaeda operative's computer in the weeks before 9/11.
Critics of the administration also decry the Patriot Act's provision for delaying notice of a search -- the so-called "sneak-and-peak" rule -- as an outrageous power grab by the government. The Patriot Act naysayers don't tell you that there is nothing new about this power at all: Judges have long allowed the government to delay notice of a search if notifying the target would risk witness intimidation, destruction of evidence or flight from prosecution. The Patriot Act merely codifies existing case law into one national standard.
In introducing a bill last month to amend Section 215, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) alleged that Americans had become "afraid to read books, terrified into silence." Were that ever the case, it would be thanks to the misinformation spread by advocates and politicians, not because of any real threat posed by the Bush administration's war on terror.
The writer is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A34482-2003Aug22¬Found=true |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Since the Patriot act no attacks in the US.
Jeff Rense wants to see the US government overthrown , and his supporters are rooting for Al Qaida so of course they wants the Patriot gone. |
Got news for ya: Only one prior to it. Well, from EXTERNAL terrorists, that is. The vast majority of terrorism in the US has been homegrown.
And now you can't even have privacy in a library. Or in your own home. Have you actually READ the thing? There essentially is no Bill of Rights in the US any longer.
Yup, great step in the progression of human development. |
Can U like support what you claim?
Cause that doesn't seem to be the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act |
What are you referring to? As regards terrorism, many are too young to remember, but the Black Panthers, the SLA, the Unabomber, Timothy McVey, a little-known Puerto Rican terrorist group, the Anthrax perpetrator, the Tylenol incidents, various clinic bombers... etc., etc., were all home grown. There are more I have missed or forgotten, I'm sure. I do not recall any other terrorist act, other than the first WTD bombing, in the US conducted by foreign elements before 9/11, though there may have been some. But by far, there have been many more by Americans. The only reason 9/11 resonated so strongly was the sheer scope of it.
The scale of the reaction has been disproportionate and illegal. Europe ahs dealt with tens of thousands of deaths from "terrorists" for decades, but never shut down their own freedoms or invaded a nation based on bald-faced lies.
As for freedoms, the FBI can now legally enter your home, obtain info on your reading habits, tap your phones, and many other infringements, without a search warrant. There was a good TV news report on this in the last week with the head of the FBI office in Maryland or somewhere talking about what they could do without warrants. Scary.
The post immediately above quotes an article simply saying that judicial oversight is there... but that is not true as I understand it. I think the writer is rading too much into "judicial supervision." I don thing tha mens wha he thing it mens. [sic]
EFLtrainer
www.geocities.com/killiankob
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
What are you referring to? As regards terrorism, many are too young to remember, but the Black Panthers, the SLA, the Unabomber, Timothy McVey, a little-known Puerto Rican terrorist group, the Anthrax perpetrator, the Tylenol incidents, various clinic bombers... etc., etc., were all home grown. There are more I have missed or forgotten, I'm sure. I do not recall any other terrorist act, other than the first WTD bombing, in the US conducted by foreign elements before 9/11, though there may have been some. But by far, there have been many more by Americans. The only reason 9/11 resonated so strongly was the sheer scope of it. |
that is true but Al Qaida is a new thing and they intend to mass kill,and they are a lot more powerful then any of those you mentioned. And Al Qaida has much more support around the world and funding then those guys ever did.
By the way you forgot the bombings that were planned in the 1990s by Al Qaida or Al Qaida wannbes. and you forgot the attack on the CIA in the 1990s
| Quote: |
| The scale of the reaction has been disproportionate |
so you say, just tell the Bathists , and Khomeni lovers and Bin Laden followers to give up their war. If they don't want to give up their war. If they don't want to then the deserve anything the US can dish up.
Anyway the actions of the US save lives.
but it was moral
| Quote: |
| Europe ahs dealt with tens of thousands of deaths from "terrorists" for decades, but never shut down their own freedoms or invaded a nation based on bald-faced lies. |
No in fact Europe has been pretty ineffective when it comes to terror. That is why they never got rid of it.
Heck they even let Iranian hit squads leave Europe for the sake of good relations with the regime .
No appeasement.
| Quote: |
As for freedoms, the FBI can now legally enter your home, obtain info on your reading habits, tap your phones, and many other infringements, without a search warrant. There was a good TV news report on this in the last week with the head of the FBI office in Maryland or somewhere talking about what they could do without warrants. Scary |
.
prove it. show it , I will help you with your search.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act
| Quote: |
The post immediately above quotes an article simply saying that judicial oversight is there... but that is not true as I understand it. I think the writer is rading too much into "judicial supervision." I don thing tha mens wha he thing it mens. [sic] |
Yes you are the expert , I might even believe it when you start backing up your claims |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
What are you referring to? As regards terrorism, many are too young to remember, but the Black Panthers, the SLA, the Unabomber, Timothy McVey, a little-known Puerto Rican terrorist group, the Anthrax perpetrator, the Tylenol incidents, various clinic bombers... etc., etc., were all home grown. There are more I have missed or forgotten, I'm sure. I do not recall any other terrorist act, other than the first WTD bombing, in the US conducted by foreign elements before 9/11, though there may have been some. But by far, there have been many more by Americans. The only reason 9/11 resonated so strongly was the sheer scope of it. |
that is true but Al Qaida is a new thing and they intend to mass kill,and they are a lot more powerful then any of those you mentioned. |
They are now. They weren��t nearly as plentiful or powerful even after Afghanistan. Iraq, please try to respond to my statements if you��re going to bother at all, was and is the primary motivating factor for the greater part of the increase in Al Queda members. This is not according to me, but to the Saudi government.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
By the way you forgot the bombings that were planned in the 1990s by Al Qaida or Al Qaida wannbes. and you forgot the attack on the CIA in the 1990s
| Quote: |
| The scale of the reaction has been disproportionate |
Didn��t forget, just didn��t know. And who cares what��s planned??
| Quote: |
| so you say, just tell the Bathists , and Khomeni lovers and Bin Laden followers to give up their war. If they don't want to give up their war. If they don't want to then the deserve anything the US can dish up. |
This makes no sense whatsoever. Khomeini lovers? Do you have any idea how much spin and rhetoric there is in your arguments? THERE WAS NO WAR before we invaded illegally and immorally. Persecution, yes, but that had largely come to a standstill compared to what it was prior to the Gulf War.
| Quote: |
| Anyway the actions of the US save lives. |
Blatantly false and already disproven. If the drum is broken, you should stop beating it. I asked before, are you American?
This also has been gone over and you are simply wrong. The invasion was based on lies and was entered into solely to assuage the ego of the "president" and to line the pockets of his family, friends and big business.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Europe ahs dealt with tens of thousands of deaths from "terrorists" for decades, but never shut down their own freedoms or invaded a nation based on bald-faced lies. |
No in fact Europe has been pretty ineffective when it comes to terror. That is why they never got rid of it. |
Really? Is that why the Red Brigade is destroyed, why Northern Ireland is at peace...
The issue I raised was of proportionality. Would you care to address that?
| Quote: |
Heck they even let Iranian hit squads leave Europe for the sake of good relations with the regime .
No appeasement. |
"No appeasement" is nothing more than "total war." |
| Quote: |
| As for freedoms, the FBI can now legally enter your home, obtain info on your reading habits, tap your phones, and many other infringements, without a search warrant. There was a good TV news report on this in the last week with the head of the FBI office in Maryland or somewhere talking about what they could do without warrants. Scary |
.
prove it. show it , I will help you with your search. [/quote]
Prove what? "Judicial oversight" means nothing. THEY DO NOT NEED A WARRANT. Can't make it any clearer than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The post immediately above quotes an article simply saying that judicial oversight is there... but that is not true as I understand it. I think the writer is rading too much into "judicial supervision." I don thing tha mens wha he thing it mens. [sic] |
Yes you are the expert , I might even believe it when you start backing up your claims |
[/quote]
Let me know what I haven't backed up.
EFLtrainer
www.geocities.com/killiankob
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
]
| Quote: |
| They are now. They weren��t nearly as plentiful or powerful even after Afghanistan. Iraq, please try to respond to my statements if you��re going to bother at all, was and is the primary motivating factor for the greater part of the increase in Al Queda members. This is not according to me, but to the Saudi government. |
I think I did respond to what you said. Pleae let me know what I did not respond to.
besides 70,000 trained in Al Qaida camps in the 1990s. this while the US was protecting MUSLIM kurds from Saddam and Muslims in Kosovo from Slobidan.
This was also while the US was trying to bring the Israelis and the Palestinian side together.
It could not get much worse than it was.
| Quote: |
| Al Queda members. This is not according to me, but to the Saudi government |
Of course the Saudi government is going to say that . You think they are happy that the US now has 150,000 troops and military bases in Iraq that could be used to threaten them if they don't go after those in their nation that fund Al Qaida.
| Quote: |
| Didn��t forget, just didn��t know. And who cares what��s planned?? |
You shoudl use wikipedia , besides what is planned does count especially if the reason the attacks never happend was because of US actions.
| Quote: |
| This makes no sense whatsoever. Khomeini lovers? Do you have any idea how much spin and rhetoric there is in your arguments? THERE WAS NO WAR before we invaded illegally and immorally. Persecution, yes, but that had largely come to a standstill compared to what it was prior to the Gulf War. |
You are in denial ,
Saddam shot as US planes , he supported terror. He tried to kill a US president. Those were all illegitimate acts. Based on those acts alone the US had a right to take down Saddam.
| Quote: |
| Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end t |
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
| Quote: |
| He also continued to threaten US interests by theatening Kuwait and other US allies in the region. |
Based on that the US would have had a right to take down his regime.
Based on the fact that Saddam was in violation of the ceasefire the US would have had the right to take down his regime.
Finalally Saddam taught hate and incited violence and was part of the problem in the mideast .
Based on that the US had the right to take down his regime.
AFter 9-11 the US was not going to let mideast regimes play with matches anymore.
| Quote: |
| Finally, we cannot forget that all evidence has shown Saddam Hussein to be an incorrigible optimist who willfully ignores signs of danger. Consider that on at least five occasions over the last three decades, he has embarked on foreign policy adventures that nearly destroyed him: his attack on Iraq's Kurds in 1974 (which might have ended in an Iranian assault on Baghdad if the shah of Iran had not unexpectedly decided to double-cross the Kurds instead); his invasion of Iran in 1980; his invasion of Kuwait in 1990; his assassination attempt against former President Bush in 1993; and his threatened attack on Kuwait in 1994. In each case, he took a course of action that we know even his closest advisers considered extremely dangerous. |
http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/a_last_chance_to_stop_iraq.htm
Iran too
| Quote: |
9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
Senior U.S. officials have told TIME that the 9/11 Commission's report will cite evidence suggesting that the 9/11 hijackers had previously passed through Iran |
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html
EFL TRAINER
| Quote: |
Blatantly false and already disproven. If the drum is broken, you should stop beating it. I asked before, are you American? |
EFL TRAINER
[quote]
| Quote: |
| He has been anything but circumspect about his aspirations: He has stated that he wants to turn Iraq into a "superpower" that will dominate the Middle East, to liberate Jerusalem and to drive the United States out of the region. He has said he believes the only way he can achieve his goals is through the use of force. Indeed, his half-brother and former chief of intelligence, Barzan al-Tikriti, was reported to say that Iraq needs nuclear weapons because it wants "a strong hand in order to redraw the map of the Middle East." |
http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/a_last_chance_to_stop_iraq.htm
Yes US actions saved lives . Saddam killed 300,000 and would have killed many more in the future especially if he had gone free , remember his sicko sons were coming up next.
Yes I am American
| Quote: |
| This also has been gone over and you are simply wrong. The invasion was based on lies and was entered into solely to assuage the ego of the "president" and to line the pockets of his family, friends and big business. |
No this was the real reason for the war.
| Quote: |
S Arabia 'real reason for war'
NEWS.com.au ^ | April 3, 2004
Posted on 04/03/2004 1:55:34 AM PST by Piefloater
FORGET Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The real reason the United States invaded Iraq was Saudi Arabia, according to a US intelligence analyst.
Dr George Friedman, chairman of the United States private sector intelligence company Stratfor, said the US had settled on WMD as a simple justification for the war and one which it expected the public would readily accept.
Dr Friedman, in Australia on a business trip, said the US administration never wanted to explain the complex reasons for invading Iraq, keeping them from both the public and their closest supporters.
"That, primarily, was the fact that Saudi Arabia was facilitating the transfer of funds to al-Qaeda, was refusing to cooperate with the US and believed in its heart of hearts that the US would never take any action against them," he said.
Dr Friedman said the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US prompted the strategy to hunt down al-Qaeda wherever it was to be found. But that proved exceedingly difficult.
"The US was desperate. There were no good policy choices," he said.
"Then the US turned to the question - we can't find al-Qaeda so how can we stop the enablers of al-Qaeda."
He said those enablers, the financiers and recruiters, existed in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
But the Saudi government variously took the view that this wasn't true or that they lacked the ability and strength to act, he said.
Dr Friedman said in March last year, the Saudis responded to US pressure by asking the US to remove all its forces and bases from their territory. To their immense surprise, the US did just that, relocating to Qatar.
He said Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda shared a number of beliefs including that the US could not fight and win a war in the region and was casualty averse. There was a need to change that perception.
But close by was Iraq, the most strategically located nation in the Middle East, bordering Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and Iran.
"If we held Iraq we felt first there would be dramatic changes of behaviour from the Saudis," he said. "We could also manipulate the Iranians into a change of policy and finally also lean on the Syrians.
"It wasn't a great policy. It happened to be the only policy available."
Dr Friedman said US President George W Bush faced the difficulty of explaining this policy, particularly to the Saudis. Moves to link Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda failed completely.
"They then fell on WMD for two reasons," he said.
"Nobody could object to WMD and it was the one thing that every intelligence agency knew was true.
"We knew we were going to find them. And we would never have to reveal the real reasons.
"The massive intelligence failure was that everybody including Saddam thought he had WMD. He behaved as if he had WMD. He was conned by his own people." |
| Quote: |
Really? Is that why the Red Brigade is destroyed, why Northern Ireland is at peace... |
Red Brigade is distroyed cause the US took down the Soviet Union.
| Quote: |
| The issue I raised was of proportionality. Would you care to address that? |
the US didn't do enough. How is that. Bathists Khomeni lovers and Bin Laden followers have to give up their war. Otherwise the US is right to doing anything to force them to.
| Quote: |
| "No appeasement" is nothing more than "total war." |
then let the Bathists Khomeni followers and Bin Laden lovers give up their war.
They don' t have a right to their war
| Quote: |
| Prove what? "Judicial oversight" means nothing. THEY DO NOT NEED A WARRANT. Can't make it any clearer than that. |
they need a judge. They need a court order.
L
| Quote: |
| et me know what I haven't backed up. |
Been there done that |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
]
besides 70,000 trained in Al Qaida camps in the 1990s. this while the US was protecting MUSLIM kurds from Saddam and Muslims in Kosovo from Slobidan.
This was also while the US was trying to bring the Israelis and the Palestinian side together.
It could not get much worse than it was. |
Huh?? It has, though, so what exactly do you mean?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Al Queda members. This is not according to me, but to the Saudi government |
Of course the Saudi government is going to say that . You think they are happy that the US now has 150,000 troops and military bases in Iraq that could be used to threaten them if they don't go after those in their nation that fund Al Qaida. |
So they are lying?
| Quote: |
| Saddam shot as US planes , he supported terror. He tried to kill a US president. Those were all illegitimate acts. Based on those acts alone the US had a right to take down Saddam. |
I can agree, to an extent, with the simplicity of "take down Saddam", but how does that justify all the other killing, maiming, death by lack of basic services.... etc. You keep wanting to explore simple "facts" (such as they are), and avoid analysis. THAT is what you are not rsponding to.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| He also continued to threaten US interests by theatening Kuwait and other US allies in the region. |
Based on that the US would have had a right to take down his regime. |
Again, a little CIA action to take down Saddam, not a big issue. Invading a county and killing tesn/hundreds of thousands? Please, PLEASE, give me a moral, ethical, legal and constitutional justification for this.
Iran too
| Quote: |
9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
Senior U.S. officials have told TIME that the 9/11 Commission's report will cite evidence suggesting that the 9/11 hijackers had previously passed through Iran |
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html
What has this got to do with Iraq? The only thing you have done is provide justifications for an invasion based on lies that are not legitimate. They are all based on fear, not international law, not our own constitution, not basic human decency. Please address this one simple question: how do you justify killing tens/hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT Iraqi's to get to Saddam Hussein? KISS principle in effect here. Are you up to th challenge?
| Quote: |
| Yes US actions saved lives . Saddam killed 300,000 and would have killed many more in the future especially if he had gone free , remember his sicko sons were coming up next. |
Again you fail to acknowledge that between the sanctions and the wars just as many, certainly over a hundred thousand, have been killed by the US and the UN. Justify saving lives by killing so many? This is repulsive.
| Quote: |
| This also has been gone over and you are simply wrong. The invasion was based on lies and was entered into solely to assuage the ego of the "president" and to line the pockets of his family, friends and big business. |
No this was the real reason for the war.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
S Arabia 'real reason for war'
NEWS.com.au ^ | April 3, 2004
Posted on 04/03/2004 1:55:34 AM PST by Piefloater
FORGET Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The real reason the United States invaded Iraq was Saudi Arabia, according to a US intelligence analyst.
Dr George Friedman, chairman of the United States private sector intelligence company Stratfor, said the US had settled on WMD as a simple justification for the war and one which it expected the public would readily accept.
Dr Friedman, in Australia on a business trip, said the US administration never wanted to explain the complex reasons for invading Iraq, keeping them from both the public and their closest supporters.
"That, primarily, was the fact that Saudi Arabia was facilitating the transfer of funds to al-Qaeda, was refusing to cooperate with the US and believed in its heart of hearts that the US would never take any action against them," he said.
Dr Friedman said the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US prompted the strategy to hunt down al-Qaeda wherever it was to be found. But that proved exceedingly difficult.
"The US was desperate. There were no good policy choices," he said.
"Then the US turned to the question - we can't find al-Qaeda so how can we stop the enablers of al-Qaeda."
He said those enablers, the financiers and recruiters, existed in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
But the Saudi government variously took the view that this wasn't true or that they lacked the ability and strength to act, he said.
Dr Friedman said in March last year, the Saudis responded to US pressure by asking the US to remove all its forces and bases from their territory. To their immense surprise, the US did just that, relocating to Qatar.
He said Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda shared a number of beliefs including that the US could not fight and win a war in the region and was casualty averse. There was a need to change that perception.
But close by was Iraq, the most strategically located nation in the Middle East, bordering Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and Iran.
"If we held Iraq we felt first there would be dramatic changes of behaviour from the Saudis," he said. "We could also manipulate the Iranians into a change of policy and finally also lean on the Syrians.
"It wasn't a great policy. It happened to be the only policy available."
Dr Friedman said US President George W Bush faced the difficulty of explaining this policy, particularly to the Saudis. Moves to link Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda failed completely.
"They then fell on WMD for two reasons," he said.
"Nobody could object to WMD and it was the one thing that every intelligence agency knew was true.
"We knew we were going to find them. And we would never have to reveal the real reasons.
"The massive intelligence failure was that everybody including Saddam thought he had WMD. He behaved as if he had WMD. He was conned by his own people." |
|
Talk about hung on one's own petard... If you don't understand the implications of the above, that it supports my argument, not yours, we are wasting our time. Thus, I'm done with this thread.
| Quote: |
| the US didn't do enough. How is that. Bathists Khomeni lovers and Bin Laden followers have to give up their war. Otherwise the US is right to doing anything to force them to. |
What you just stated is that the US may violate any law, any international agreement, and ethical standard, any moral principle, take any life, destroy any nation simply because it wishes to. You clearly do not understand the principles upon which this nation was founded.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Prove what? "Judicial oversight" means nothing. THEY DO NOT NEED A WARRANT. Can't make it any clearer than that. |
they need a judge. They need a court order. |
They can get blanket approval. Each instance need not be warranted, thus being equal to complete non-supervision. This is basic logic.
Well, been interesting. I have a better understanding of why the US is not the country it once was and will likely never be anything like it might have been.
EFLtrainer
www.geocities.com/killiankob
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Huh?? It has, though, so what exactly do you mean? |
I mean since 70000 trained there was no the Al Qaida problem could get much worse.
| Quote: |
| So they are lying? |
I don't think they checked , they said what they want the US to believe.
| Quote: |
| I can agree, to an extent, with the simplicity of "take down Saddam", but how does that justify all the other killing, maiming, death by lack of basic services.... etc. You keep wanting to explore simple "facts" (such as they are), and avoid analysis. THAT is what you are not rsponding to |
.
Killing Maiming - The US doesn't act worse than others during a war.
Death by lack of services? I don't think the US intends to kill Iraqi's by keeping them away from electic power.
And it is the insurgents who are doing their best to prevent their being basic services.
| Quote: |
| Again, a little CIA action to take down Saddam, not a big issue. Invading a county and killing tesn/hundreds of thousands? Please, PLEASE, give me a moral, ethical, legal and constitutional justification for this. |
CIA action ? When has there been a successful CIA action. Certainly there has never been one against a leader so well protected as Saddam was.
The fact that the only way to remove the regime of Saddam was miltary force.
| Quote: |
| What has this got to do with Iraq? |
when I refered to the Khomeni lovers you asked what I meant by that.
| Quote: |
| The only thing you have done is provide justifications for an invasion based on lies that are not legitimate. |
Telling the real reason would make it harder for Saudi Arabia to crack down on Al Qadia
| Quote: |
| They are all based on fear, |
There was something called 9-11 , there is good reason to be concerned.
| Quote: |
| not international law, |
the international system failed because the rest of the world (except the UK) did not enforce sanctions , no fly zones or contain Saddam.
| Quote: |
| not our own constitution, not basic human decency. Please address this one simple question: how do you justify killing tens/hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT Iraqi's to get to Saddam Hussein? KISS principle in effect here. Are you up to th challenge? |
It is never justified , however Saddam if he were allowed to stay in power would have done far worse especially if he had gone free - remember his sons were coming next.
The US couldn't contain Iraq much longer, so it was either let Saddam go free or get rid of his regime.
A free Saddam would have done much worse. Saddam was a bigger killer than Idi Amin.
| Quote: |
| Again you fail to acknowledge that between the sanctions and the wars just as many, certainly over a hundred thousand, have been killed by the US and the UN. Justify saving lives by killing so many? This is repulsive |
.
The 100,000 figure isn't accurate
as for the sanctions they killed the way they did because Saddam kept food , medicine and funds away from Iraqis in order to get the sanctions off.
And Saddam intended to invade Kuwait and too kill off all the Kurds , Israelis too if he ever got the chance
[
| Quote: |
What you just stated is that the US may violate any law, any international agreement, and ethical standard, any moral principle, take any life, destroy any nation simply because it wishes to. You clearly do not understand the principles upon which this nation was founded. |
rnational system failed and the US was morally right to remove Saddams' regime. The US was in a bad situation , and the president made a call. The US ought to do almost anything when its security is a risk.
the US was morally right to do what it did.
| Quote: |
| They can get blanket approval. Each instance need not be warranted, thus being equal to complete non-supervision. This is basic logic. |
if they get approval for one they probably have good reason for the rest.
| Quote: |
| Well, been interesting. I have a better understanding of why the US is not the country it once was and will likely never be anything like it might have been.[ |
even with the Patriot act the US is one of the most open and tolerant nations in the world |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Everyone else is lying, don't want to actually address any of the ramifications, no point in dealing with the ETHICS, MORALITY or LEGAL issues...
Debating with you is pointless. You just ignore whatever doesn't feed into the fear. Fear justifies everything for you. No wonder it's the only drum Bush beats on...
THERE IS NO AMERICA, just some fear-ridden assemblage. Principles, shminciples! Morals, shmorals! Ethics, shmethics!
The futures so bright I gotta pull the shades.   
EFLtrainer
www.geocities.com/killiankob
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You might be a nice guy in real life but I think you are misinformed and in denial. |
|
| 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
