|
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 |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:27 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| (Sorry, for intruding on this piece). |
No, I was wrong to try say 'bugger off if you didn't read it' in the OP. It was an attempt to control the thread (or rather keep it from devolving into the same old arguments), but I should have known better, such attempts are pointless on a message board and do more harm than good. I'm going to edit the OP now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joo,
Regarding the Caliphate/objectives of Al Qaeda & associated groups and the anti-war movement, I don't think I've ever come across anyone suggesting 'appeasement' or giving Al Qaeda what it wants.
When I hear 'anti-war movement' I think 'occupation of Iraq' and I believe the anti-War movement is right to protest the occupation of Iraq.
I know we have differences on that.
But I'm surprised to hear that you see the 'anti-War Movement' as encompassing appeasement to Al Qaeda. If there are some who voice such appeasement, they can't possibly be in the majority and would almost certainly be of the 'far left whack job' variety. I feel we should not bring up the far left and the far right whack jobs up as justification for any sort of policy decision, all that does is empower their nutty ideas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Regarding the Caliphate/objectives of Al Qaeda & associated groups and the anti-war movement, I don't think I've ever come across anyone suggesting 'appeasement' or giving Al Qaeda what it wants. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_sheehan
Lets see she wants the US to withdraw from Afghanistan
And she wants the US to do other things in regards to its foreign policy things that Bin Laden wants as if it would do some good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Lets see she wants the US to withdraw from Afghanistan. |
As does Mike Scheur, although perhaps for different reasons-
I guess her reason is to prevent any more American or Afghani deaths?
And maybe me as well (regarding a withdrawal), but I would have rather seen more of a presence in Afghanistan; Still, withdrawing might be better than maintaining a half-assed mission (if indeed that is what it is... not too sure about that either way, which is why I'm not sure on the withdrawal issue).
I guess the future will tell.
| Quote: |
| And she wants the US to do other things in regards to its foreign policy things that Bin Laden wants as if it would do some good. |
Well, right now I'm too lazy to read the Wiki article on her, what sort of things?
But I'm not sure it matters much to me, given:
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| But I'm surprised to hear that you see the 'anti-War Movement' as encompassing appeasement to Al Qaeda. If there are some who voice such appeasement, they can't possibly be in the majority and would almost certainly be of the 'far left whack job' variety. I feel we should not bring up the far left and the far right whack jobs up as justification for any sort of policy decision, all that does is empower their nutty ideas. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Leslie, in the last chapter (or rather, after having finished the book) I was left with the impression that he saw the following as key changes to policy (and I can't say I agree with them, or at least entirely agree with them):
* Do not 'half-fight' wars. This includes do not occupy countries where there is no value in doing so (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan). He would like to see the US conduct massive punitive raids/expeditions, and then leave.
*Stop trying to be 'international policeman'. Disengage from international events/incidents whre the US has no direct tangible interest. Stop trying to export democracy to places that don't want it and aren't ready for it. I think he lists Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Israel... He also puts it as 'get used to watching other people die'.
*Disengage from being the automatic ally of Israel. In terms of foreign policy treat it like any other country.
*Disengage from corrupt Arab & Muslim states. This entails disengaging from an oil based economy, or somehow become self sufficient in oil.
*"Start telling the truth" at least as far as the intelligence, military and policy communities are concerned- don't keep feeding the politicos what they want to hear but tell them how things really are. I don't think he named names in this respect but my example of this would be Tommy Franks letting Rumsfeld push him around on objectives and number of troops neccessary for Iraq (See Woodward's Plan of Attack)
I just want to make clear that the above isn't what he wrote so much as the summary of my impression of what policy change he wanted to see. I've merged some points that he had as separate ones and vice versa, and outright skipped others. |
Yeah, that's a pretty good summary of his ideas, at least from what I remember. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He definitely had some wierd ideas (or perhaps a wierd way of expressing what seems to be a sensible idea and then taking it to an unreasonable extreme):
The US should act more 'manly' in its military affairs and its memorials, in that memorials of 9/11 are memorials of a defeat and shouldn't be overly glorified, and professional soldiers are paid to die so the US shouldn't flinch when the body count rises. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Joo,
Regarding the Caliphate/objectives of Al Qaeda & associated groups and the anti-war movement, I don't think I've ever come across anyone suggesting 'appeasement' or giving Al Qaeda what it wants.
When I hear 'anti-war movement' I think 'occupation of Iraq' and I believe the anti-War movement is right to protest the occupation of Iraq.
I know we have differences on that.
But I'm surprised to hear that you see the 'anti-War Movement' as encompassing appeasement to Al Qaeda. If there are some who voice such appeasement, they can't possibly be in the majority and would almost certainly be of the 'far left whack job' variety. I feel we should not bring up the far left and the far right whack jobs up as justification for any sort of policy decision, all that does is empower their nutty ideas. |
Not everyone in the antiwar movement to be sure , but lets remember around 15% of Americans opposed US going after Afghanistan after 9-11.
I would guess about 1/3rd of the antiwar people want the US to "back off" Al Qaida and do foreign policy policy in such a way so that it would not make Bin Laden angry, these people also blame the US for 9-11.
People like International ANSWER , people like George Galloway, and probably a majority supporters of the publication Counterpunch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Not everyone in the antiwar movement to be sure , but lets remember around 15% of Americans opposed US going after Afghanistan after 9-11.
|
Well, they're probably balanced out by 15% on the other side who feel the Bush Administration has done everything right and and anyone who disagrees is a traitor and a terrorist. As I've said, I don't think there's much point in debating the extremes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
He definitely had some wierd ideas (or perhaps a wierd way of expressing what seems to be a sensible idea and then taking it to an unreasonable extreme):
The US should act more 'manly' in its military affairs and its memorials, in that memorials of 9/11 are memorials of a defeat and shouldn't be overly glorified, and professional soldiers are paid to die so the US shouldn't flinch when the body count rises. |
Why is that strange? The US's great weakness is its unwillingness to suffer casualties to advance its agenda abroad. He's also right about the 9-11 memorials being a memorial of defeat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Why is that strange? The US's great weakness is its unwillingness to suffer casualties to advance its agenda abroad. He's also right about the 9-11 memorials being a memorial of defeat. |
It's not that these are strange, it's that he takes a
| Quote: |
| sensible idea and then taking it to an unreasonable extreme |
That's the impression I got from the book- I said 'taken to an unreasonable extreme' where other people might have said 'fixated on' or 'belaboured the point'.
But yes, the kernel of these ideas is sensible and not strange.
I can't explain it any better without typing out whole chapters of the book. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo, you weren't wrong to prevent this thread being hijacked, it seems to have worked except for me. I wish i could read the book, its the one thing I miss here, no libraries and few bookshops easily accessible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| its the one thing I miss here, no libraries and few bookshops easily accessible. |
pm the user that goes by chiaa, and he can very likely order it for you and maybe even get a discount. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bobster,
Thanks for that. I am looking at another year without home time, so really need to make changes. I usually put off buying or reading books until I go home. Its the throwing away that chews at my gut, so I try not to buy stuff unless I can keep it. But I need to change as I am starting to really miss my reading. I used to read 3-6 books a week. I am what is called an avid reader. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Haven't read the book, but here are some points from an interview:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/#storyContinued
| Quote: |
| "And it's not to criticize one religion or another, but bin Laden is motivated and his followers and his associates are motivated by what they believe their religion requires them to do. And until we accept that fact and stop identifying them as gangsters or terrorists or criminals, we're very much behind the curve. Their power will wax our costs in treasure, and blood will also wax." |
This makes very much sense. Joo tends to dismiss all this with labels he's picked up from the conservative right. Bush's repeated assertions that they hate "freedom" is ridiculous. They just don't like our brand of it. To them, following Islamic law (as they interpret it, naturally) IS freedom. And I agree: as long as we treat thm like lunatics and dismiss their views rather than dealing with them, we have virtually no chance of developing policies that will be effective in ending this problem.
Joo, of course, is going to misinterpret this to say we shouldn't (my edit) "appease" them. Appeasement is to give in even when you are right. That is foolish except in the sense of compromise. I also heard a participant in the CNN coverage of Clinton's little party say the same thing: a major problem the US has in dealing with the Islamic radicals is that we are used to thinking of conflict and governance in non-religious terms. (Although this point falls on it's face a little given Dumbya's way of doing things.) I agree that for them everything, literally, is guided by their religious convictions. Unless we understand that we will fail to develop strategies that can resolve this.
So, while Dumbya and Joo, et. al., say that they are terrorists, others simply do not see them that way. A terrorist typically has a purely political aim, no? These people have a primarily religious aim: to create, or recreate, the Middle East as Islamic states.
| Quote: |
"Well, you say in your book that the reality is that there is a large and growing among the world's 1.3 billion Muslims against America, not because of a misunderstanding of America but because they understand our policies very well."
----------
Anonymous: "No, I don't think they hate everything that they — that we stand for. In fact, the same polls that show the depths of their hatred of our policies show a very strong affection for the traditional American sense of fair play, the idea of rule by law, the ability of people to educate their children. I think the mistake is made on our part to assume that they hate all those things. What they hate is the policy and the repercussions of that policy, whether it's in Israel or on the Arabian Peninsula. It's not a hatred of us as a society, it's a hatred of our policies." |
How can trying your best to understand an enemy possibly be called supporting or appeasing? It's silly on the face of it. To claim that nothing being done by Al Queda has anything to do with their reaction to US policies is to invite laughter. They are telling you this, why dismiss it? It seems to me the highest form of arrogance to simply dismiss someone's reason for something and assign them motivations built around your belief/understanding/misunderstanding of what they are doing. And I repeat the practical folly of not only not understanding your opponent, but willfully dismissing them.
| Quote: |
Mitchell: "You call the invasion of Iraq, ��an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat.�� Why do you think so?"
Anonymous: "For several reasons. That was a passage cut from a larger passage where I describe my personal aversion to aggressive war, to the war started by the United States. And I tried to draw an analogy between our war against Mexico in the 19th century and just saying it is not part of the American character or our basic sense of decency to wage wars except in self-defense or preemption.
"The major problem with the Iraq war is that it distracted us from the war against terrorism. But more importantly, it allowed—it made us invade, or it caused us to invade a country that's the second holiest place in Islam. It's not really the same as the Russians invading Afghanistan in 1979. Afghanistan is an Islamic country, but it was far from the mainstream of world Islam.
"Iraq, however, for both Sunnis and Shias, is the second holiest place in the Islamic world. And to invade that country, on the face of it, is a great offense to Islam and an action which almost entirely validated bin Laden's assertions about what the United States intended vis-à-vis the Islamic world." |
Two points: I'm very glad the war vs. Mexico, not to mention the war with Spain, was brought up. American adventurism based on the hubris of eminent domain and Monroe Doctrine is well known around the world. I beleive that after WWs I and II we were largely trusted and forgiven our previous trespasses. It seemed the US had matured as a democracy and a nation. That has been blown all to hell in the five decades since, and especially during the Dumbya era. The world is simply not thrilled with our policies. As long as we arrogantly throw our weight around, they always will be. Yes, there will always be conflicts due to conflicting interests, desire for ppower, etc., but to ignore the fact that those policies are not taken well by other nations and/or people is plain silly. And dangerous. We must listen when others complain and amend if we should. A nation is no different than an individual in that regard, but is far more dangerous when it fails to do this.
| Quote: |
| "There is no doubt that the clandestine service of the United States has staged stunning attacks against al-Qaida. I would say that damage that the clandestine service has inflicted on al-Qaida would have wiped out any other terrorist group that we've ever known of in the last 30 years, maybe longer. The point I would make is al-Qaida is not a terrorist group. It's more akin to an insurgent organization. It pays tremendous attention to succession, to leadership succession |
A vital point.
Anyway....
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| "And it's not to criticize one religion or another, but bin Laden is motivated and his followers and his associates are motivated by what they believe their religion requires them to do. And until we accept that fact and stop identifying them as gangsters or terrorists or criminals, we're very much behind the curve. Their power will wax our costs in treasure, and blood will also wax." |
the Klan believe in what they do to.
| Quote: |
| This makes very much sense. Joo tends to dismiss all this with labels he's picked up from the conservative right. Bush's repeated assertions that they hate "freedom" is ridiculous. They just don't like our brand of it. To them, following Islamic law (as they interpret it, naturally) IS freedom. And I agree: as long as we treat thm like lunatics and dismiss their views rather than dealing with them, we have virtually no chance of developing policies that will be effective in ending this problem. |
Bush was wrong to say they hate our freedom, I think he was just looking for something to say .
But you don't understand either
You miss the point Al Qaida fights for the Calipahte.
| Quote: |
| Joo, of course, is going to misinterpret this to say we should "appease" them. Appeasement is to give in even when you are right. That is foolish except in the sense of compromise. I also heard a participant in the CNN coverage of Clinton's little party say the same thing: a major problem the US has in dealing with the Islamic radicals is that we are used to thinking of conflict and governance in non-religious terms. (Although this point falls on it's face a little given Dumbya's way of doing things.) I agree that for them everything, literally, is guided by their religious convictions. Unless we understand that we will fail to develop strategies that can resolve this. |
Look Al Qaida fights for the Caliphate.
| Quote: |
Al-Qa'ida is multi-national, with members from numerous countries and with a worldwide presence. Senior leaders in the organization are also senior leaders in other terrorist organizations, including those designated by the Department of State as foreign terrorist organizations, such as the Egyptian al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya and the Egyptian al-Jihad. Al-Qa'ida seeks a global radicalization of existing Islamic groups and the creation of radical Islamic groups where none exist.
Al-Qa'ida supports Muslim fighters in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Kosovo. It also trains members of terrorist organizations from such diverse countries as the Philippines, Algeria, and Eritrea.
Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries |
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm
| Quote: |
| So, while Dumbya and Joo, et. al., say that they are terrorists, others simply do not see them that way. A terrorist typically has a purely political aim, no? These people have a primarily religious aim: to create, or recreate, the Middle East as Islamic states. |
Or as one big state where other religons would be wiped out but it doesn't stop there Al Qaida wants Spain , South Asia, and South East Asia and part of Africa.
And they will attack anyone who has relations with the governments and countries that are targeted.
----------
| Quote: |
| How can trying your best to understand an enemy possibly be called supporting or appeasing? It's silly on the face of it. To claim that nothing being done by Al Queda has anything to do with their reaction to US policies is to invite laughter |
.
In the book it will say something like.
Bin Laden accuses the US of supporting Russia's persecution of muslims. False Charge. Bin Laden accused the US of supporting China's persecution of muslims. False Charge. Bin Laden accuses the US of supporting India versus Pakistan - false charge. He blames the US for low oil prices false charge - it is the market.
Also during the 90's 70,000 trained in Al Qaida camps while the US was defending muslims and trying to bring the Israeli and the Palestinian side together.
| Quote: |
| They are telling you this, why dismiss it? It seems to me the highest form of arrogance to simply dismiss someone's reason for something and assign them motivations built around your belief/understanding/misunderstanding of what they are doing. And I repeat the practical folly of not only not understanding your opponent, but willfully dismissing them. |
Hitler said he only wanted to reunite the German people. Japan only wanted to empower East Asia.
| Quote: |
| Two points: I'm very glad the war vs. Mexico, not to mention the war with Spain, was brought up. American adventurism based on the hubris of eminent domain and Monroe Doctrine is well known around the world. I beleive that after WWs I and II we were largely trusted and forgiven our previous trespasses. It seemed the US had matured as a democracy and a nation. That has been blown all to hell in the five decades since, and especially during the Dumbya era. The world is simply not thrilled with our policies. As long as we arrogantly throw our weight around, they always will be. Yes, there will always be conflicts due to conflicting interests, desire for ppower, etc., but to ignore the fact that those policies are not taken well by other nations and/or people is plain silly. And dangerous. We must listen when others complain and amend if we should. A nation is no different than an individual in that regard, but is far more dangerous when it fails to do this. |
Much of the world has been hostile to the US since the end of the cold war the reason is that they don't like there to be superpowers. |
|
| 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
