|
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 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 6:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
re: anti-war people not condemning the insurgency enough.
The funny thing is, certain hawks in the Bush admin, along with their media allies, have for some time now been pushing the line that it's a GOOD thing that terrorists are going to Iraq to blow things up, because it allows the US to fight all the terrorists in one place. From Andrew Sullivan's blog:
| Quote: |
What else did president Bush mean when he challenged the terror-masters to "bring 'em on," in Iraq? Those are not the words of a man seeking merely to pacify a country, but to continue waging war against terrorism. On August 25, Donald Rumsfeld said to a group called the veterans of Foreign Wars: "In Iraq moreover we��re dealing not just with regime remnants but also with tens of thousands of criminals that were released from the jails by the regime before it fell, as well as terrorists and foreign fighters who have entered the country over the borders to try to oppose the Coalition. They pose a challenge to be sure but they also pose an opportunity because Coalition forces can deal with the terrorists now in Iraq instead of having to deal with those terrorists elsewhere, including the United States." Opportunity knocks.
Last week, Paul Wolfowitz chimed in with a piece in the Wall Street Journal, specifically citing the occupation of Iraq as a central part of the war against terror. "Even before the bombing of the U.N. headquarters, if you'd asked Gen. Mattis and his Marines," Wolfowitz wrote, "there was no question in their minds that the battle they wage - the battle to secure the peace in Iraq - is now the central battle in the war on terrorism. It's the same with the commander of the Army's 1st Armored Division, Brig. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who recently described that second group as 'international terrorists or extremists who see this as the Super Bowl.' They're going to Iraq, he said, 'to take part in something they think will advance their cause.' He added, 'They're wrong, of course.' Among the hundreds of enemy that we have captured in the last months are more than 200 foreign terrorists who came to Iraq to kill Americans and Iraqis and to do everything they can to prevent a free and successful Iraq from emerging. They must be defeated - and they will be."
The reason the Bush administration went to the U.N. last week to seek more troops from foreign countries for peace-keeping and security purposes was therefore not merely an admission that they had goofed in estimating the number of troops required to pacify the country. It was a move designed to liberate the U.S. military machine from peace-keeping in order to concentrate on war-making - against the terror network they had come to destroy. Listen to U.S. Army Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq. He just opined on CNN that attacks against U.S. forces have increased in "sophistication, especially in the improvised explosive devices that they are using, and we're working to learn from that and to be able to counter them." He went on, critically: "This is what I would call a terrorist magnet, where America, being present here in Iraq, creates a target of opportunity... But this is exactly where we want to fight them. ...This will prevent the American people from having to go through their attacks back in the United States." You won't find a better description of the "flytrap" strategy anywhere - or from a more authoritative source.
|
So, Rumsfeld says that the war is an "opportunity" to fight terrorism somewhere other than the US. Wolfowitz brags that the US has made Iraq into the "central battle" of the war against terrorism. Sanchez says Iraq is "exactly where we want to fight" terrorism. And yet people who never wanted the war to begin with are lambasted for not condemning terrorism in Iraq!
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030906
|
Actually what they appear to be saying is that terrorism is a given. There will always be terrorists. Therefore it is better that they fight terrorism in a foreign country rather than in America. I don't think anyone is saying that it is a good thing that there are terrorists in Iraq per se. Iraq is a hotbed of terrorism. Not only homegrown but also foreign terrorists. It is a better thing to take the fight to the terrorists' homeland rather than wait for them to take the fight to ours, wouldn't you say? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It is a better thing to take the fight to the terrorists' homeland rather than wait for them to take the fight to ours, wouldn't you say?
|
Their HOMELAND?! That's funny, because according to Bush et al, many if not most of these terrorists operating in Iraq are from somewhere else, slipping over the border to wreak havoc. Now you're suggesting that Iraq itself is the homeland of not only Iraqi terrorism, but of all the terrorism that was bedeviling the US even before the invasion. Well, which is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
It is a better thing to take the fight to the terrorists' homeland rather than wait for them to take the fight to ours, wouldn't you say?
|
Their HOMELAND?! That's funny, because according to Bush et al, many if not most of these terrorists operating in Iraq are from somewhere else, slipping over the border to wreak havoc. Now you're suggesting that Iraq itself is the homeland of not only Iraqi terrorism, but of all the terrorism that was bedeviling the US even before the invasion. Well, which is it? |
WHAT? Where do you come up with this garbage? When did "Bush et al" definitely say that MOST of these terrorists operating in Iraq are from somewhere else? And where I did suggest that Iraq is the homeland of "all the terrorism that was bedeviling the US even before the invasion"?
If you want to make points, make them from what was actually written, not from making up stances and then stating that I support or said such stances.
Iraq is the homeland of most terrorists who are currently involved IN THE INSURGENCY< NOT ALL TERRORISTS PER SE. UNDERSTAND?
Iraq is also the battleground for a NUMBER OF FOREIGN TERRORISTS NOT " ALL THE TERRORISM THAT WAS BEDEVILING THE US..." UNDERSTAND?
To the rest of the posters, sorry for "shouting" but certain posters seem to have a hard time understanding what I was writing. I thought this would make it clearer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, uh, if the US HADN'T invaded Iraq, these insurgents would have brought the fight to the US?
That's why the US is in Iraq?
That seems to be what you are saying here... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
So, uh, if the US HADN'T invaded Iraq, these insurgents would have brought the fight to the US?
That's why the US is in Iraq?
That seems to be what you are saying here... |
No. Read again. I was responding to the article. OTOH was claiming that the Bush adminstration was saying that it was a good thing that terrorists are going to Iraq. I suggested that maybe they were saying it was a good thing that terrorists were STAYING in Iraq and not attacking America. I also suggested that if we were going to have a "war on terror" it is best to take the war to the terrorists' homeland rather than wait for them to strike America.
But I never said that the Iraqi insurgents WOULD attack America and I never said that is why the US is in Iraq.
Read more carefully please. It seems to me that you are either not reading carefully, or just attempting to pick a fight by claiming to say things I never said.
Thank you and have a nice day! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Read more carefully please. It seems to me that you are either not reading carefully, or just attempting to pick a fight by claiming to say things I never said.
Thank you and have a nice day! |
OR I'm asking questions questions in order to get clarification.
Reading is only half of the communication here, perhaps you need to write more carefully?
Anyway, your post has made your position clear, now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Read more carefully please. It seems to me that you are either not reading carefully, or just attempting to pick a fight by claiming to say things I never said.
Thank you and have a nice day! |
OR I'm asking questions questions in order to get clarification.
Reading is only half of the communication here, perhaps you need to write more carefully?
Anyway, your post has made your position clear, now. |
Okay. I've got it. Sorry about the fight comment. You are quite right that reading is only half of the communication. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Okay. I've got it. Sorry about the fight comment. |
No need I make that mistake ALL the time.
| Quote: |
| You are quite right that reading is only half of the communication. |
I seriously think it's what causes most of the fights here. Certainly there are ideological differences but I suspect those divides are not quite as great as imperfect communication makes them seem. Human condition, I guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| When did "Bush et al" definitely say that MOST of these terrorists operating in Iraq are from somewhere else? |
I said that they claimed "many if not most". As for them making this claim, here are just two examples:
| Quote: |
Bush: I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country . And tonight I will explain the reasons why.
Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations.
|
| Quote: |
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The vast majority of suicide attackers in Iraq are thought to be foreigners — mostly Saudis and other Gulf Arabs — and the trend has become more pronounced this year with North Africans also streaming in to carry out deadly missions, U.S. and Iraqi officials say.
|
So yeah, I would say that they are definitely trying to promote the idea that foreigners are a sizable portion of the insurgency. True or not, it does kind of contradict your unqualified statement that Iraq is the "homeland" of terrosrists.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8420885/
http://www.factcheck.org/article334.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Iraq is the homeland of most terrorists who are currently involved IN THE INSURGENCY< NOT ALL TERRORISTS PER SE. UNDERSTAND?
|
Okay, so according to you, this is how the War On Terror works:
1. The US invades Iraq.
2. A terrorist insurgeny emerges in response(there was no insurgency before the invasion).
3. The US battles these terrorist insurgents.
I fail to see how this can be seen an effective part of the War On Terror, as Rumdfeld has claimed it is. It's equivalent to a fire department starting a fire and then putting it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
UM wrote:
| Quote: |
| But I never said that the Iraqi insurgents WOULD attack America and I never said that is why the US is in Iraq. |
Rumsfeld did say that, just to be clear:
| Quote: |
| They pose a challenge to be sure but they also pose an opportunity because Coalition forces can deal with the terrorists now in Iraq instead of having to deal with those terrorists elsewhere, including the United States." |
So it seems to me that the strategy you are defending, UM, is different from the one that Rumsfeld et al are actually promoting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| When did "Bush et al" definitely say that MOST of these terrorists operating in Iraq are from somewhere else? |
I said that they claimed "many if not most". As for them making this claim, here are just two examples:
| Quote: |
Bush: I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country . And tonight I will explain the reasons why.
Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations.
|
| Quote: |
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The vast majority of suicide attackers in Iraq are thought to be foreigners — mostly Saudis and other Gulf Arabs — and the trend has become more pronounced this year with North Africans also streaming in to carry out deadly missions, U.S. and Iraqi officials say.
|
So yeah, I would say that they are definitely trying to promote the idea that foreigners are a sizable portion of the insurgency. True or not, it does kind of contradict your unqualified statement that Iraq is the "homeland" of terrosrists.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8420885/
http://www.factcheck.org/article334.html |
In the first quote Bush never said "many or most"
In the second quote they said "the vast majority of SUICIDE ATTACKERS"
not terrorists overall. Just the suicide bombers.
If there are 1000 terrorists and 10 suicide bombers and 8 of these ten are foreigners, you could truthfully claim that the "vast majority of SUICIDE ATTACKERS" are foreigners.
I NEVER said that Iraqi was the homeland of terrorism. Stop twisting my words. I said IT WAS THE HOMELAND OF TERRORISTS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE INSURGENCY. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
UM wrote:
| Quote: |
| But I never said that the Iraqi insurgents WOULD attack America and I never said that is why the US is in Iraq. |
(1) Rumsfeld did say that, just to be clear:
| Quote: |
| They pose a challenge to be sure but they also pose an opportunity because Coalition forces can deal with the terrorists now in Iraq instead of having to deal with those terrorists elsewhere, including the United States." |
(2) So it seems to me that the strategy you are defending, UM, is different from the one that Rumsfeld et al are actually promoting. |
(numbers are mine)
1. But I never said that, which was the point of my post. Whether Rumsfeld or someone else said that was not what I was debating
2. How so? "Coalition forces can deal with the terrorists NOW IN IRAQ" (capitals mine). Haven't I just been saying (repeatedly) that it is better to face the terrorists in Iraq than America? Would you rather the government face terrorists in Iraq or in YOUR country? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronin
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bush created even more so called terrorists by invading Iraq and killing innocent people and he invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Majority of the people that are fighting are not Terrorists, because targeting U.S. forces because you are against occupation is not terrorism.
The U.S. creates terrorists everyday because of their foreign policy, just look at 9/11 and the London bombings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I NEVER said that Iraqi was the homeland of terrorism. Stop twisting my words. I said IT WAS THE HOMELAND OF TERRORISTS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE INSURGENCY.
|
Huh? Here is your quote, in context:
| Quote: |
| Actually what they appear to be saying is that terrorism is a given. There will always be terrorists. Therefore it is better that they fight terrorism in a foreign country rather than in America. I don't think anyone is saying that it is a good thing that there are terrorists in Iraq per se. Iraq is a hotbed of terrorism. Not only homegrown but also foreign terrorists. It is a better thing to take the fight to the terrorists' homeland rather than wait for them to take the fight to ours, wouldn't you say? |
I don't see anything there specifiying "involved in the insurgency". Of course, they are involved in the insurgency now, AS A RESULT of Rumsfeld et al's stated policy of luring terrorists to Iraq. But the point is those terrorists(according to Rumsfeld's theory) would not be in Iraq without the invasion.
| Quote: |
| Would you rather the government face terrorists in Iraq or in YOUR country? |
Sure, I'd rather deal with the terrorists in Iraq than in my own country. But is that an ethical policy? Let's say during the late 1960s, Canada had invaded St Pierre and Miquelon, with the stated justification of luring the FLQ to the islands, in order get them blowing up mailboxes and killing security guards somewhere other than Montreal. A lot of Canada might have LIKED that policy, but it sure as hell wouldn't say much about Pierre Trudeau's regard for the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon. And I would consider it quite ironic(though perhaps not an outright contradiction) if Trudeau or his supporters were to turn around and chastise people who opposed the invasion for being insufficently outraged about the terrorist atrocities on St Pierre and Miquelon. |
|
| 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
