|
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: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| What it did in the first Gulf War, and then let the Iraqis run their own lives. Just as we insist the rest of the world do with us. The no-fly zone was reasonable given that genocide was taking place, but the sanctions only helped Saddam... as sanctions always do... so why use them at all? But your response didn't really seem to rspond to my statement. |
Well Saddam would rearm w/o sanctions.
He even went after Kuwait again in 1994. He never quit.
| Quote: |
Again, not sure what you were responding to, but again, an attempt at an answer: You seriously need to read up on the non-party line history of the US (whether Republican or Democrat) and get some perspective on the misery the US has caused by it's interventionist policies. |
Most of the time the US was right . During the cold war. Most of the regimes the US supporter were no worse than the forces that were trying to overthrow them.
There is nothing wrong with supporting a dictator that is on your side if there is no liberal democratic alternative and the opposition was worse.
| Quote: |
| D Not only did the US essentially create the Iraqi war machine to fight Iran |
Create the Iraqi war machine? That is false.
The ones that really armed Iraq were France and Russia and Germany.
and some transport trucks and transport helecopters.
The US sold Iraq a lot of duel use stuff, but let me add that the vast majority of it any nation in the world could buy cause it wasn't tightly controled.
Saddam got his tanks from Russia . Where is the T-72 Tanks from? His Jets from Russia and France , Mig and Mirages. His Scud missiles from Russia via North korea, and his chemical plants from Germany.
The US apporved a a 5 billion dollar Agrcultural loan loan but I believe Iraq never got all of it.
Whatever that is not enough to build an army.
Show me an Iraqi f-16.
What made Iraq scary in 1990 was 5,700 tanks and Scud missiles and Jet Aircraft and a million man army and the US had nothing to do with any of that.
| Quote: |
| (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) after the US-friendly and exceedingly despotic Shah's regime was toppled, it then essentially gave a freen light to the invasion of Iraq when the US embassador indicated to Saddam that Kuwait was not high on the US interest list. |
Oh the US is too blame. I would have been great if the US was so smart to set up Saddam like that , but I don't think the US is so smart.
Please look at this it answers that claim.
| Quote: |
Proponents of deterrence also argue that since nobody has ever actually tried to deter Saddam Hussein from attacking another country, how can we claim that doing so will be difficult in the future? The example most often cited is the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, where the common wisdom holds that because of the botched messages he received from the American ambassador, April Glaspie, Iraq had no reason to believe we would fight.
In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait, but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest.
Much of the evidence for this remains classified, but at least two points can be made using public material: Tariq Aziz has told reporters that this was what Saddam Hussein thought at the time; and we know that when the Republican Guards invaded Kuwait they moved quickly — even before they had consolidated control over the country — to set up defenses along Kuwait's borders and against amphibious and airborne landings.
In other words, Saddam Hussein thinks we tried to deter him, and that we failed. He was ready and willing to fight the United States for Kuwait |
http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/a_last_chance_to_stop_iraq.htm
| Quote: |
| ]The first Gulf War was just. It was to liberate Kuwait (for which there is evidence there is US culpability in the first place). |
Ok but there is little evidence for US culpability.
| Quote: |
| See above. Read yourself. This is not a scholarly journal. If you think the US had nothing to do with building the Iraqi war machine you are either totally mis-informed or so biased it is irrelevant. |
The US had very little to do with Saddam's build up. See France and USSR and Germany. show me a US F- 16.
| Quote: |
| How young are you? This is all common knowledge. Read on the history of the Iran/Iraq war. No mystery here |
.
Please see above.
| Quote: |
| So they were designed to keep hi in power.... or to kill Iraqi children?? Strange answer. |
Designed to get rid of him , the US tried to change to smart sanctions but Saddam opposed them. So did his friends at the UN.
| Quote: |
| I'll give you a nod on semantics, but only for split-second. The history of aid do despotic regimes, including Iraq pre-Kuwait, is replete with the misappropriation of the funds. Historically a very small percentage has ever made it to the intended destination. |
it is worse than that Saddam kept food from his own people, jsut like he kept the money from smuggled oil. If Saddam had gone along the Iraq people would not have starved.
He kept the food from his own people , he was even caught selling it.
| Quote: |
Ummm... the sanctions were post-war. |
Saddam threatened Kuwait again after the war, he tried to kill a US president and he funded terror. His regime taught hate and incited violence. He should have quit
| Quote: |
| HUH??!!! Then you are saying we did invade solely to toplle Saddam? Well, then, let the impeachment begin!! |
No the US invaded to send a message to Saudi Arabia and others and get military bases in Iraq.
| Quote: |
| I'm beginning to realize why George Bush got elected then re-elected. |
If you think that that the US having Nukes in like Iraq having nukes then you can understand why people didn't listen to many of those who hate Bush.
| Quote: |
| Where are you from?? |
\
US
| Quote: |
| No, there weren't. PERIOD. To say he had them in the past is equal to him having them AT THE TIME OF THE INVASION is ridiculous. |
there were links.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-17-hadley_x.htm
| Quote: |
Commission confirms links
By Stephen J. Hadley
A 9/11 commission staff report is being cited to argue that the administration was wrong about there being suspicious ties and contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda. In fact, just the opposite is true. The staff report documents such links.
The staff report concludes that:
• Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan."
• "A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994."
• "Contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan."
Chairman Thomas Kean has confirmed: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there."
Following news stories, Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said he did not understand the media flap over this issue and that the commission does not disagree with the administration's assertion that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government.
President Bush and members of his administration have said all along that there were contacts and that those contacts raised troubling questions.
For instance, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the leader of a terrorist group that is responsible for a number of deadly attacks throughout Iraq. He and his men trained and fought with al-Qaeda for years. Zarqawi's network helped establish and operate an explosives and poisons facility in northeast Iraq. Zarqawi and nearly two-dozen al-Qaeda associates were in Baghdad before the fall of Saddam's regime. In 2002, one al-Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was "good" and that Baghdad could be transited quickly.
It may be that all of the contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda never resulted in joint terrorist attacks. But considering all that we knew, no responsible leader could take for granted that such a collaboration would never happen.
Saddam had threatened American interests for more than a decade, harbored and assisted other terrorists, and possessed and used weapons of mass destruction. Al-Qaeda had declared war on America, and bin Laden had called the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction to attack Americans a "religious duty."
The president did not order the liberation of Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. He sent American troops to Iraq to remove a grave and gathering threat to America's security. Because he acted, Iraq is free, and America and the world are safer.
Stephen J. Hadley is deputy national security adviser to President Bush. |
| Quote: |
| NK has an indisputale record of supporting terrorism, engaging in terrorism and selling weapons.... that goes back DECADES. Why are we not invading NK? |
different Strategic situation.
North Korea is surrounded by strong nations w/o natural recourses.
Iraq was surroned by rich weak nations.
Iraq could become a lot more powerful than North Korea , especially if could conquer the gulf.
Gulf oil could fund a much more powerful military than North Korea. That is the reason that in 1990 Saddam had better weapons than North korea.
but more than that the Mideast strategic situatiion was a threat to the US.
Saddam was contained but sanctions killed Iraqis like a war and made the US hated they also required the US to maintain no fly zones and keep US forces in Saddam's face forever.
What was the event that caused Bin Laden to start up the Klan in Saudi Arabia? US forces in Saudi Arabia.
Saddam kept acting up and the US would send forces to the mideast and then Saddam would back down until the next time.
That could not go on forever.
| Quote: |
And so many more since!!!! *What* is your point? |
it was so bad that the mideast needed to be changed. Force the regimes in the mideast to crush Al Qaida or get rid of them.
Bases in Iraq could threaten regimes in the area.
[quote][quote] and created a mass insurgency in
| Quote: |
| Do you ahve no concept, despite the reports on even the conservative news sources, of the increase in Al Queda membership? Have you not read the articles about the Al Queda suspects arrested who state (90 percent of them!!!!) that they had no interest in or connection to Al Queda prior to the invasion of Iraq???? This is very recent/up-to-date news. (Note I did not say prior to the invasion of Afghanistan - even most Islamic people recognize the validity of that action.) Iraq has created a huge increase in the depth and breadth i the variety of persons who are willing to join Al Queda and similar organizations. |
Mideast regimes should stop teaching hate If mideast regimes crack down on Al Qaida there won't be any Al Qaida.
I would like to see where it said they had no interest in Al Qaida before Iraq.
The reason that Al qaida has recruits is cause mideast regimes , and elites and clerics teach hate.
The reason for Al Qada was becaue the way the mideast was/is.
If the mideast isn't changed then the US will keep sufferng attacks.
| Quote: |
| Who are you to tell them what they are fighting for? You can argue you don't agree with their reasons, but be assured they beleive they are fighting to free Iraq. When you dismiss what your enemy tells you you are liekly to make stupid decisions about how to handle them. |
If that was so then why are they afraid of elections? Cause they can't win.
Why do they target other ethnic groups?
They have a right to ask for independence but they won't cause the Sunni Triangle doesn't have oil
| Quote: |
| What is this score for? And when? |
1998 or 1999 but they don't do the survey that often.
It shows how bad the regime of Saddam was.
and it shows that most of the regimes hostile to the US have terrible human rights records. That is no coincidence.
| Quote: |
| This I can understand. And it reflects exactly what I stated. |
Ok
| Quote: |
| You are not American, it would seem. As an American, what you state above is absolutely antithetical to our beliefs and system of government. If you cannot live by your beliefs, what is the point? If to keep your freedoms you must deny others their's, what are you really saying? Or, if to keep yourself safe you must give up your freedoms, what is the point? |
What are your qualificatiions to declare who is an American?
Being Pro US also mean not trying to spin everything against the US as you seem to do.
that is nonsense. That is the right thing to do in peace time but when the US is fighting a ruthless enemy the US should do what it takes to win at all costs.
Besides there was an election and Bush won. If Bush was so bad then that was the time to fire him.
| Quote: |
| And that, in a nutshell, is exactly the point. If in keeping oneself from harm one must give up one's freedom - or take that of another, then one has no freedom for nothing is certain. Why? Because ANYTHING can be justified in that scenario! Anything. That is not freedom, it is the tyranny of fear. |
To announce the real reasons for the invasion would have humiliated Saudi Arabia and made any action they took against Al Qaida seem as giving in to the US.
It that situation it would have been wrong to announce the reasons for the war.The US has always kept infomation neccessary to national security secret. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| EFL, your history "lesson" is taken straight from a left-wing, radical anti-war pamphlet or something. It is as original and insightful as Joo's tired message. |
Actually, they're not. They're based in the same thigns your's are. We all have essentially the same info, it's a matter of interpretation and who you choose to believe.
[quote="bucheon bum"]Let's now see the errors in your statements.
#1:
| Quote: |
Not only did the US essentially create the Iraqi war machine to fight Iran (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) after the US-friendly and exceedingly despotic Shah's regime was toppled, it then essentially gave a freen light to the invasion of Iraq when the US embassador indicated to Saddam that Kuwait was not high on the US interest list.
The US did not supply Iraq with weapons. Iraq's weapons were primarily from the communist countries and France I believe. The USA supplied it with intelligence when it realized Iraq might actually lose. It was surprised as everyone else when Iraq attacked Iran. So no, the US did not create the Iraqi war machine. |
Splitting hairs. I said "essentially", and the US did more than supply intelligence. Again, it all depends on the sources you choose to accept, but one thing I know for certain is that the Bush and Reagan administrations lied about their involvement and none of us will likely ever know the true depth of that involvement. REGARDLESS, the US helped foment that situation, supported it and later place all the blame on Saddam. Disengenius at best. And don't get me wrong, I understand the need for operational secrecy, but I disagree completely with secrecy in policy.
It matters not whether the support was logistical, military or otherwise. It was a simple case of waht I stated above about enemies and friends.
#2
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This is getting tedious. NOT in terms of women's rights, general freedoms, etc. Saddam was obsessed with power. He held it tightly and was a mass murderer.......It was a SECULAR society in which women were able to be professionals, they were quite free to dress and live as they wished, etc.... |
I suggest you read: "Baghdad W/out a Map."... ...And finally, debating Joo is fruitless; just ask Bob.  |
I do not believe, have not stated and never hoped that Iraq under Saddam was a good place. As I said, you had to be on his side or apolitical. But it is impossible to claim those people are *better off now.* And, yes, that is the only sane measure. But none of that is relevant. The question for the US and for the world is simply this: would more have died in the last two years under Saddam or under US occupation? It is abundantly clear the latter has caused the most deaths, and by far. Again, people conveniently ignore that Saddam had been hamstringed to quite an extent. I'll try to find stats on the death rate from 91 to 2003. Certainly his ability to kill at will in the North and South had been sharply curtailed.
And the spread of "terrorism." My lord...
Again, back to the point: it matters not at all what Saddam was or did at this point with regards to this *as an American.* I am concerned with *our* policies and actions and their effects long- and short-term. There is simply no way to argue that the policies of the US have improved life in Iraq, the Middle East or the world. At every turn innocent lives have been lost at greater numbers than would otherwise be the case due to US policy. It is well-documented that the aid from 94-2003 was mis-used by Saddam, but it is incredibly naive to think the people running this program thought Saddam would do otherwise! It was a joke! Sanctions DO NOT WORK. Never have. So why do that to the innocents who no more supported Saddam than you or I?
And this war.... please. History will excoriate Bush and the 50% of US citizens who are frightened sheep allowing this crud.
The issue is not really that this or taht happened, it is about the long-term effects. The world will long regret the twenty yers of the Reagan/Bush mini-dynasty in the United Sheep of America. Let's not even get started on the increase in the wealth disparity, the environment...
See the report on possible large increase in intensity and size of hurricanes the last day or two. Butterfly effect, indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
hundreds of thousands? according to who?
As someone who did not support the invasion, I'd appricate it if you stuck to the facts when making your argument. |
This is strange. Now the "official" number is 25,000. I clearly recall the "non-mainstream" media number last year pegging the number of casualties at 100,000. Perhaps at the time this included the wounded as well ???
Either this, or i'd suspect some dark malignant PR force playing a little black war magick with the "official" numbers game  |
|
| 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
