|
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 |
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
and if you look at the words of groups like Al Qaida and Hamas, and Hezzbollah - they oppose any compromise. |
"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
-as you said Joo, groups like Al Qaida and Hamas and Hezzbollah - no room for compromise.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| "Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." |
| Quote: |
| What Bush meant by that remark was that if a nation wants to have normal diplomatic or trade relations with the US then that nation has to help the US in the war against terror. The US doesn't have any obligation to trade or have normal diplomatic relations with any nation or group it doesn't want to. |
-as you said Joo, groups like Al Qaida and Hamas and Hezzbollah - no room for compromise....[/quote]
| Quote: |
It is untenable for Israeli citizens to live in terror. It is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation. And the current situation offers no prospect that life will improve. Israeli citizens will continue to be victimized by terrorists, and so Israel will continue to defend herself.
In the situation the Palestinian people will grow more and more miserable. My vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security. There is simply no way to achieve that peace until all parties fight terror. Yet, at this critical moment, if all parties will break with the past and set out on a new path, we can overcome the darkness with the light of hope. Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership, so that a Palestinian state can be born. |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020624-3.html
wouldn't it be something if Hezzbollah said that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo, you have been around so long, why can't you figure out the code sequences....  
| Joo wrote: |
| What Bush meant by that remark was that if a nation wants to have normal diplomatic or trade relations with the US then that nation has to help the US in the war against terror. The US doesn't have any obligation to trade or have normal diplomatic relations with any nation or group it doesn't want to. |
So, no compromising, right?
| Joo wrote: |
| wouldn't it be something if Hezzbollah said that? |
It would be something Joo, absolutely.... I wish it were so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Joo, you have been around so long, why can't you figure out the code sequences.... |
There are so many things to get me on why choose that one?
| Quote: |
| So, no compromising, right? |
Many nations have used trade and diplomatic pressure to get others to help them. It is asking a lot for the US to be so different when it faces that threat.
| Quote: |
| It would be something Joo, absolutely.... I wish it were so. |
On that I think we agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
There are so many things to get me on why choose that one? |
All in good fun, not meant as a serious criticism.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Many nations have used trade and diplomatic pressure to get others to help them. It is asking a lot for the US to be so different when it faces that threat. |
My point Joo, is that depending on the context, everyone is faced with an enemy to wich they will not compromise. The US at this point is faced with terror, and will not compromise. When one steps back a moment and looks at the big picture, there are reasons, for both sides, which instill this pervasiveness. It is when we only look from one angle, from one perspective, that we are blinded by our own prejudices.
It is asking the US a lot to change and be the better "man" when considering this issue, but they are the only ones with the ability and the resources to precipitate change, at all levels. I am being critical only to the point that I feel that the US can do better and be better in this struggle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bignate wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
There are so many things to get me on why choose that one? |
All in good fun, not meant as a serious criticism.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Many nations have used trade and diplomatic pressure to get others to help them. It is asking a lot for the US to be so different when it faces that threat. |
My point Joo, is that depending on the context, everyone is faced with an enemy to wich they will not compromise. The US at this point is faced with terror, and will not compromise. When one steps back a moment and looks at the big picture, there are reasons, for both sides, which instill this pervasiveness. It is when we only look from one angle, from one perspective, that we are blinded by our own prejudices.
It is asking the US a lot to change and be the better "man" when considering this issue, but they are the only ones with the ability and the resources to precipitate change, at all levels. I am being critical only to the point that I feel that the US can do better and be better in this struggle. |
I think it would be a lot easier for the US to do so if the US got more support (not just words )on the international level against Al Qaida and other actors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
I think it would be a lot easier for the US to do so if the US got more support (not just words )on the international level against Al Qaida and other actors. |
The problem is, how would they go about getting such support, since they ostensibly do not get it now. Other nations, independently thinking nations, must feel some adverse feelings towards the present mode of US thinking and actions, yes? Perhaps, it is the way the US is acting that is reducing the international support that they are receiving....
Context is everything, if the US wants support, perhaps they need to challenge their own thinking and means of doing things, not just their enemies.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patriot Act Game Pokes Fun at State Fascism
By WAYNE PARRY, Associated Press Writer
Sat Mar 18, 12:47 PM ET
HAMILTON, N.J. - In this send-up of "Monopoly," players don't pass "Go" and they don't go directly to jail — they go to Guantanamo Bay.
Instead of losing cash for landing on certain squares, they lose civil liberties. And the "Mr. Monopoly" character at the center of the board is replaced by a scowling former Attorney General John Ashcroft.
"Patriot Act: The Home Version" pokes fun at "the historic abuse of governmental powers" by the recently renewed anti-terrorism law.
But while it may be fun, creator Michael Kabbash, a graphic artist and Arab civil rights advocate, is serious about how he feels the law has curtailed Americans' freedom.
The object of the game is not to amass the most money or real estate, but to be the last player to retain civil liberties.
"I've had people complain to me that when they play, nobody wins. They say `We're all in Guantanamo and nobody has any civil liberties left,'" he said. "I'm like `Yeah, that's the point.'"
http://notagame.notlong.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeff Rense is a holocaust denier and a fascist for real just like his supporters |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:43 am 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. |
No attacks prior to Bush being elected. Some would say this is not a post hoc argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:42 pm 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. |
No attacks prior to Bush being elected. Some would say this is not a post hoc argument. |
WTC attack II was planned before Bush became president.
At any rate
World trade center attack in 1993?
the CIA shootings in the mid 1990s?
| Quote: |
On January 5, 1993 Mir Aimal Kansi murdered two persons and permanently injured three others. He attacked without warning or provocation, shooting his AK-47 assault rifle into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency Headquarters. The attack occurred during morning rush hour traffic. Kansi fled the United States immediately after the attack and was a fugitive until captured in Pakistan.
Kansi was convicted by a jury in Fairfax, Virginia for the murder of the two CIA employees on 10 November 1997.
Kansi was executed on 14 November 2002. |
http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/wanted_captured/index.cfm?page=Kansi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, let me rephrase: no significant attacks till Bush elected. and it matters not a whit when they were planned, only when they were carried out. And we all know Bush was warned about Al Queda by Clinton himself, so shut yer trap on that score.
No destruction of the Constitution till Bush elected.
No spying on Americans till Bush. (At least not since the special court was set up.)
No unwinnable wars since Vietnam till Bush.
No torture since law changed till Bush.
No CIA agents outed by the White House EVER till Bush.
No Katrina till Bush.
Etc., etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:53 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
why does it not matter when they were planned
| Quote: |
| No destruction of the Constitution till Bush elected. |
??
| Quote: |
| No spying on Americans till Bush. (At least not since the special court was set up.) |
US was at war.
| Quote: |
| No unwinnable wars since Vietnam till Bush. |
AQ , Saddam and Khomeni were at war before Bush. Maybe you hope unwinnable I dunno.
Iraq is only the first part of a bigger war.
| Quote: |
No torture since law changed till Bush. |
I wonder what the US did in other wars.
| Quote: |
| No CIA agents outed by the White House EVER till Bush. |
You don't know all the fact on that case are not out. Besides it may not have been illegal what was done , we do know that Joe Wilson is a liar. Perhaps his wife (who was not in the field misused her authority by sending him.
Look the Patriot act might not be the reason that there were no attacks , however it might be the reason there were no attacks.
I love how you say no significant attacks.
but if the US justice system is up to the task of taking down AQ then why did the US have to let him go to Sudan cause the US could not convict him in a US court?
| Quote: |
Barton Gellman Washington Post Service
WASHINGTON The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.
.
The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at hotel in Arlington, Virginia, on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.
.
Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture. .
Sudan expelled Mr. bin Laden on May 18, 1996, to Afghanistan. From there, he is thought to have planned and financed the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the near-destruction of the American destroyer Cole in Yemen last year and the devastation in New York and Washington on Sept. 11.
.
"Had we been able to roll up bin Laden then, it would have made a significant difference," said a U.S. government official with responsibilities, then and now, in counterterrorism.
.
"We probably never would have seen a Sept. 11. We would still have had networks of Sunni Islamic extremists of the sort we're dealing with here, and there would still have been terrorist attacks fomented by those folks. But there would not have been as many resources devoted to their activities, and there would not have been a single voice that so effectively articulated grievances and won support for violence."
.
Clinton administration officials maintain emphatically that they had no such option against Mr. bin Laden in 1996. In the legal, political and intelligence environment then, they said, there was no choice but to allow him to leave Sudan unmolested.
.
"In the United States, we have this thing called the Constitution, so to bring him here is to bring him into the justice system," said Samuel Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then. "I don't think that was our first choice. Our first choice was to send him some place where justice is more" - he paused a moment, then continued - "streamlined."
.
Three officials in the Clinton administration said they hoped - one described it as "a fantasy" - that the Saudi monarch, King Fahd, would order Mr. bin Laden's swift beheading, as he had done for four conspirators after a June 1995 bombing in Riyadh.
.
But Mr. Berger and Steven Simon, then director for counterterrorism for the National Security Council, said the White House considered it valuable in itself to force Mr. bin Laden out of Sudan, thus tearing him away from his extensive network of businesses, investments and training camps.
.
Conflicting policy agendas on several other fronts contributed to the missed opportunity to capture Mr. bin Laden, according to a dozen participants.
.
The Clinton administration was riven by differences on whether to engage Sudan's government or isolate it, a situation that influenced judgments about the sincerity of the offer. In the Saudi-American relationship, policymakers diverged on how much priority to give to counterterrorism over other interests, such as support for the ailing Israeli-Palestinian talks and enforcement of the no-flight zone in Iraq.
.
And there were the beginnings of debate, intensified lately, on whether the United States wanted to indict and try Mr. bin Laden or to treat him as a combatant in an underground war.
.
The Sudanese offer had its roots in a dinner at the Khartoum home of Sudan's foreign minister, Ali Othman Taha. It was Feb. 6, 1996, the last night in the country for the U.S. ambassador, Timothy Carney, before evacuating the U.S. Embassy on orders from Washington. Paul Quaglia, then the CIA station chief in Khartoum, had led a campaign to pull out all Americans after he and his staff came under aggressive surveillance and twice had to fend off attacks, one with a knife and one with claw hammers.
.
Mr. Carney and David Shinn, then chief of the State Department's East Africa desk, considered the security threat "bogus," as Mr. Shinn described it. Washington's dominant decision-makers on Sudan had lost interest in engagement, preparing plans to isolate and undermine the regime.
.
One factor in Washington's hostility was an intelligence tip that Sudan planned to assassinate President Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Anthony Lake, the most visible administration critic of Khartoum. Most U.S. analysts came to believe later that it had been a false alarm.
.
On Feb. 6, 1996, Mr. Taha, the foreign minister, asked Mr. Carney and Mr. Shinn what his country could do to dissuade Washington from the view, expressed not long before by Madeleine Albright, then the chief U.S. delegate to the United Nations, that Sudan was responsible for "continued sponsorship of international terror."
.
Mr. Carney and Mr. Shinn had a long list. Mr. bin Laden, as they both recalled, was near the top. Mr. Taha mostly listened. He raised no objection to the request for Mr. bin Laden's expulsion, though he did not agree to it that night. On March 3, 1996, Sudan's defense minister, Major General Elfatih Erwa, arrived at the Hyatt Arlington. Mr. Carney and Mr. Shinn were waiting for him, but the meeting was run by covert operatives from the CIA's Africa division. In a document dated March 8, 1996, the Americans spelled out their demands. Titled "Measures Sudan Can Take to Improve Relations with the United States," it asked for six things. Second on the list - just after an angry enumeration of attacks on the CIA station in Khartoum - was Osama bin Laden.
.
"Provide us with names, dates of arrival, departure and destination and passport data on mujahidin that Usama Bin Laden has brought into Sudan," the document demanded.
.
During the next several weeks, General Erwa raised the stakes. The Sudanese security services, he said, would happily keep close watch on Mr. bin Laden for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was prepared to place him in custody and hand him over, though to whom was ambiguous.
.
Susan Rice, then senior director for Africa on the National Security Council, remembers being intrigued with but deeply skeptical of the Sudanese offer. And unlike Mr. Berger and Mr. Simon, Ms. Rice argued that mere expulsion from Sudan was not enough.
.
"We wanted them to hand him over to a responsible external authority," she said. "We didn't want them to just let him disappear into the ether."
.
Mr. Lake and Secretary of State Warren Christopher were briefed, colleagues said, on efforts to persuade the Saudi government to take Mr. bin Laden.
.
The Saudi idea had some logic, since Mr. bin Laden had issued a fatwa, or religious edict, denouncing the House of Saud as corrupt. Riyadh had expelled Mr. bin Laden in 1991 and stripped him of his citizenship in 1994, but it wanted no part of jailing or executing him, apparently fearing a backlash from militant opponents of the government.
.
Some American diplomats said the White House did not press the Saudis very hard.
.
Resigned to Mr. bin Laden's departure from Sudan, some officials raised the possibility of shooting down his chartered aircraft, but the idea was never seriously pursued because Mr. bin Laden had not been linked to a dead American, and it was inconceivable that Mr. Clinton would sign the "lethal finding" necessary under the circumstances.
.
"In the end they said, 'Just ask him to leave the country. Just don't let him go to Somalia,'" General Erwa said in an interview. "We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they said, 'Let him.'" On May 15, 1996, Mr. Taha, the foreign minister, sent a fax to Mr. Carney in Nairobi, giving up on the transfer of custody. Sudan's government had asked Mr. bin Laden to leave the country, Mr. Taha wrote, and he would be free to go.
.
Mr. Carney faxed back a question: Would Mr. bin Laden retain his access and control to the millions of dollars of assets he had built up in Sudan?
.
Mr. Taha gave no reply before Mr. bin Laden chartered a plane three days later for his trip to Afghanistan.
.
Subsequent analysis by U.S. intelligence suggests that Mr. bin Laden managed to access the Sudanese assets from his new redoubt in Afghanistan. |
http://miami.craigslist.org/pol/135519863.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:53 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| 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
