Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - On Katrina : Galloway Won't Go Away

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

On Katrina : Galloway Won't Go Away
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:50 am Post subject:

Actually, the Iraqi resistance does not target its own civilians. But the people that are being fought by the resistance in Iraq are the people that are working for the occupation. Our country in 1941 stood alone when the Americans were watching the war on newsreel. Hitler was at the Channel Ports and might have crossed. If he had crossed he might have occupied our country. If he had occupied our country there would have been a British resistance. And no matter how hard up a family in Buxton was, the idea that they should join Hitler's occupying police force and not become a target of 'us', the British resistance, is preposterous. You and me would have been in the British resistance. (Newsnight January 19th 2005) Galloway, in all his glory. He is a prized idiot. Shame on the OP (not surprised though) for refering to this Jew hating fool.

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:57 am Post subject:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

Actually, the Iraqi resistance does not target its own civilians. But the people that are being fought by the resistance in Iraq are the people that are working for the occupation.

Our country in 1941 stood alone when the Americans were watching the war on newsreel. Hitler was at the Channel Ports and might have crossed. If he had crossed he might have occupied our country. If he had occupied our country there would have been a British resistance. And no matter how hard up a family in Buxton was, the idea that they should join Hitler's occupying police force and not become a target of 'us', the British resistance, is preposterous. You and me would have been in the British resistance.

(Newsnight January 19th 2005)

Galloway, in all his glory. He is a prized idiot. Shame on the OP (not surprised though) for refering to this Jew hating fool.

But, is what he says about Iraq untrue?

You can't discredit a point of view by talking sh%t about those that hold them.

He is a total fool, except in this one case. The OP needs not shaming.

Now please, someone demonstrate that the war in Iraq was not "based on a pack of lies".

I am still waiting...

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:21 am Post subject:

BJWD wrote:

But, is what he says about Iraq untrue?

Wait, you actually agree with the following?

Actually, the Iraqi resistance does not target its own civilians. But the people that are being fought by the resistance in Iraq are the people that are working for the occupation.

Maybe you didn't read this quote properly.

Quote:

You can't discredit a point of view by talking sh%t about those that hold them.

Galloway talks nonsense. What he claimed there is quite obviously moronic.

Quote:

Now please, someone demonstrate that the war in Iraq was not "based on a pack of lies".

You should have said "now demonstrate to us that Iraqi insurgents target Iraqi civilians."

Quote:

I am still waiting...

��

Summer Wine

Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:30 am Post subject:

Also, if the Sunni' militants are targeting 2/3rds the nations people who aren't sunni, well the argument they are only targeting the supporters of the occupation is stupid. Plus, if you make those distictions, you really do end up supporting civil war and the majority Shiites and Kurds would do what the US won't. The UN won't be involved, lets be honest. If the US and Britain fail at creating a non violent state and it breaks into civil war, you have a snowflakes chance in hell of the UN finding people to step into the gap. That is a reality, not a theory.

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:30 am Post subject:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

BJWD wrote:

But, is what he says about Iraq untrue?

Quote:

You can't discredit a point of view by talking sh%t about those that hold them.

Galloway talks nonsense. What he claimed there is quite obviously moronic.

Quote:

Now please, someone demonstrate that the war in Iraq was not "based on a pack of lies".

You should have said "now demonstrate to us that Iraqi insurgents target Iraqi civilians."

Quote:

I am still waiting...

��

We will dance around the question till the end of time, won't we?

No, I don't agree with the comparisons that he makes about Iraq and WW2. What I am interested in, and have asked many times now, is if his assertion that the war was "based upon a pack of lies" is untrue. I don't care about anything else beside that. I want those who support this war to defend the reasons that it was started.

And, unfortunately, I can't read Korean so I don't know what you wrote. But, I am sure that it is as polite as your are clever.

If you can't answer my question, or don't care, then don't bother. I am not going to get into some long, drawn out debate with anyone about anything.

It is one simple question. Give it a try.

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:16 am Post subject:

BJWD wrote:

We will dance around the question till the end of time, won't we?

There was no reference in any of my posts in this threads to the start of the Iraq war, thus you are strawmaning it.

Quote:

What I am interested in, and have asked many times now, is if his assertion that the war was "based upon a pack of lies" is untrue.

There was nothing in any of my posts in this thread which refered to his assertion that the war was based on a pack of lies. If you want to discuss that, start a new thread sparky.

Quote:

I don't care about anything else beside that. I want those who support this war to defend the reasons that it was started.

Deal with the quotes I threw into the ring. Your strawman is burning.

Quote:

And, unfortunately, I can't read Korean so I don't know what you wrote. But, I am sure that it is as polite as your are clever.

It means your first reponse to my question was irrelevent. �� (East question, west answer.)

Quote:

If you can't answer my question, or don't care, then don't bother. I am not going to get into some long, drawn out debate with anyone about anything.

Hell, when did someone annouce that this was amateur hour? I post up some quotes which discredit Mr Galloway, and you throw your toys out of the pram, and start asking me what the capital of Italy is.

Quote:

It is one simple question. Give it a try.

Seriously Sparks, get another thread of the ground. This thread revolves around how much time we should give the clown. The OP has refered to him, and it's only right that Mr Galloway's credibility should be called into question. When Galloway claims that Iraqi insurgents don't attack civilians he is obviously not someone who can be taken seriously.

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:22 am Post subject:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

BJWD wrote:

We will dance around the question till the end of time, won't we?

There was no reference in any of my posts in this threads to the start of the Iraq war, thus you are strawmaning it.

Quote:

What I am interested in, and have asked many times now, is if his assertion that the war was "based upon a pack of lies" is untrue.

There was nothing in any of my posts in this thread which refered to his assertion that the war was based on a pack of lies. If you want to discuss that, start a new thread sparky.

Quote:

I don't care about anything else beside that. I want those who support this war to defend the reasons that it was started.

Deal with the quotes I threw into the ring. Your strawman is burning.

Quote:

And, unfortunately, I can't read Korean so I don't know what you wrote. But, I am sure that it is as polite as your are clever.

It means your first reponse to my question was irrelevent. �� (East question, west answer.)

Quote:

If you can't answer my question, or don't care, then don't bother. I am not going to get into some long, drawn out debate with anyone about anything.

Quote:

It is one simple question. Give it a try.

Bah, you are a total clown.

Go read what a straw man is and then ponder it for a while. Next year, when you 'get' it, come back to this thread and apologize to me and the rest of the world for being such a bonehead.

And I did "deal" with the quote you posted. I said that I disagreed with it. Done. Dealt with.

Now, deal with mine.

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:46 am Post subject:

BJWD wrote:

Bah, you are a total clown.

Now you are going to make me cry.

Quote:

Go read what a straw man is and then ponder it for a while. Next year, when you 'get' it, come back to this thread and apologize to me and the rest of the world for being such a bonehead.

Hey sparky, I know what a strawman is. You were arguing with me about whether the Iraq war was based on a pack of lies. I never said anything about it. Classic strawman.

Quote:

And I did "deal" with the quote you posted. I said that I disagreed with it. Done. Dealt with.

Great sparks, I welcome you to the winning team.

Quote:

Now, deal with mine.

Start a new thread. Your question has no place in a thread about Mr Galloway and hurricanes.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:43 am Post subject:

Quote:

[quote="BJWD"]As much as I would like to debate you for pages on end about silly stuff, lets get back to the main point.

More yawn

Quote:

The Iraq war was sold on a "pack of lies". True or not true?

I don't know , the US thought Saddam had WMDS.

That was the opinon of the CIA and others .

Quote:

The Iraq war is a miserable failure. True or not true.

Results are not in yet.Saddam is gone and the US does't have US forces in Saudi Arabia, and it was a factor in getting Libya to disarm.

Also the Kurds are safe from Saddam. and the US doesn't have to worry about Saddam rearming.

Quote:

Answer these questions with at least a small degree of intellectual fortitude

I did, by the way where are you from?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:59 am Post subject:

Quote:

So are you. How strange!!

Yeah how so?

Quote:

I always find it interesting that someone on the far right only sees people on the far left, or any other direction for that matter, as radicals. Your statements here are as far right as it is possible to go. Thus you are a radical. I refer you to the bell curve: either end is major standard deviations from the norm. Both are "radical" and extreme.

How so ? Please show it.

Quote:

And Bush is every bit the dictator any of those you criticise is. The only difference is that he had to start from a more democrtic base to begin with and has to move much more carefully. But, he has taken us into an illegal war, has literally taken over two nations, has eroded personal freedom in a way no other US president has done, has raided the environment, shamelessly enriched his friends, etc., etc.

Really Bush is like Saddam Hussein?

The war was not illegal , cause Saddam never gave up his war.

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 to the negotiations.)

.http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

He also continued to threaten US interests by theatening Kuwait and other US allies in the region.

Quote:

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

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.

No more inciting violence, no more teaching hate , no more funding Al Qaida and nor more planning terror. No More.

IF mideast regimes and elites want to do that then they deserve whatever the US throws at them and more

Quote:

Make no mistake: a friend of Dumbya is a friend of extremists,

Well if things were done your way Saddam would still be in power maybe even free.

Quote:

dictatorship,

How so?

Quote:

murder

well I don't know but the US probably saved many lives with its actions

Saddam killed 300,000 in the first 30 years of his rule, what would he or his sons do in the next 30 especially if he got free?

Quote:

and mayhem

I guess the answer above would answer that one too.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:08 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

That was the opinon of the CIA and others .

This is untrue. CIA analysts, at least some and those central to that info gathering, wanted for Bush to NOT claim that because the evidence was weak at best.

Quote:

The Iraq war is a miserable failure. True or not true.

Yes, the results are in. Saddam is gone. So what? Utterly irrelevant to US safety.

MAYBE it was a factor in getting Libya to dissarm. Fact is that Qaddafi had been mellowing his stance for years prior. The biggest shift starting with Lockerbie.

The Kurds were already safe from Saddam: they were under the protection of the no-fly zone and had already gained the right to partial autonomy.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:22 am Post subject:

Quote:

[quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"]

Quote:

So are you. How strange!!

Yeah how so?

Quote:

How so ? Please show it.

Oh my goodness.

Quote:

Really Bush is like Saddam Hussein?

Short answer: yup. It's only a matter of degree. Both have disregarded th safety and well-being of tens of thousands for nothing more than personal gain, whether money, politics or power.

Quote:

The war was not illegal , cause Saddam never gave up his war.

You'd make a terrible lawyer. Your evidence is Saddam had a war vs. the US? Are you serious?

Quote:

Saddam shot as US planes , he supported terror. He tried to kill a US president.

We had invaded his country, controlled his airspace and tried to kill him. So?

Quote:

Those were all illegitimate acts. Based on those acts alone the US had a right to take down Saddam .

You need to learn a thing or two about the US legal system and international law. None of those things are justification for war. And none of them were issues at the time of the invasion. And none of them were given to the US congress or the American people as a justification. Sorry, no re-writing history.

Quote:

He also continued to threaten US interests by theatening Kuwait and other US allies in the region.

He had zero capacity for that at the time of the invasion.

Quote:

Based on the fact that Saddam was in violation of the ceasefire the US would have had the right to take down his regime.

BS. Regime change is never a legitimate act of the US government. It's called self-determination. If we reserve that right for ourselves, we must extend it to others or we are nothing more than a rogue state.

Quote:

Finalally Saddam taught hate and incited violence and was part of the problem in the mideast .

And so does the US.

Quote:

AFter 9-11 the US was not going to let mideast regimes play with matches anymore.

Oh, yes, far better to be the one with the matches.

Quote:

No more inciting violence, no more teaching hate , no more funding Al Qaida and nor more planning terror. No More.

Hahah.... how do you ever stop it? Did the African-American population of the US ever stop fighting for their rights? Did Vietnam? Did Afghanistan? You are talking as if ideas can be obliterated by military might, which is absolutely false.

Quote:

Make no mistake: a friend of Dumbya is a friend of extremists,

Well if things were done your way Saddam would still be in power maybe even free.

You are absolutely right. And 2,000 American soldiers would be alive.

30,000 Iraqis would be alive.

Iraq would be more stable than it is now.

Al Queda would be weaker than it is now.

The number of "terrorists" would be much lower than it is now.

The budget of the US might still be balanced... barely.... those stupid danged tax cuts...

The response to Katrina would have been better.

The world-wide credit bubble due to the cheap credit based on the US dollar would not be so huge.

Etc., etc....

Bush's actions saved lives? Shocked

You said Saddam killed 30,000 in the first thirty years, right... or something like that... Well, the war in Iraq has already killed that many in just a few YEARS.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:43 am Post subject:

Quote:

Oh my goodness.

show it

Quote:

Short answer: yup. It's only a matter of degree. Both have disregarded th safety and well-being of tens of thousands for nothing more than personal gain, whether money, politics or power.

but the US also saved many with its actions.

Quote:

You'd make a terrible lawyer. Your evidence is Saddam had a war vs. the US? Are you serious?

good enough to take you down.

Quote:

We had invaded his country, controlled his airspace and tried to kill him. So?

All for a good reason to save Kuwait and to save the Kurds from Genocide. Good reasons. What was the US wrong to do so?

Saddam ought to have made nice.

Saddam's war to conquer the persian gulf and the mideast was illegitimate.

All the Japanese were doing was setting up and investment zone. All Pol Pot was doing was fixing Cambodian socity. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Yes they were he wanted his war the US was right to take him down.

They are certainly justification for war. What the US has to take it?

Quote:

He had zero capacity for that at the time of the invasion.

Only cause the US was containing him. Containing Saddam was very hard for the US and not sustainable.

To let Saddam go free to commit mass murder would have been wrong.

Quote:

It depend regimes like Saddam 's are illegitimate . Regimes who are ruled like his regime , with an agenda like his regime , who have commited crimes like his regime have no right to exist.

Was Pol Pots regime legitimate? What about Stalin? What about Idi Amin?

I would not care if others did it to regimes like Saddam's.

Quote:

And so does the US.

how so?

Quote:

Oh, yes, far better to be the one with the matches.

Yes the US was attacked . No more . We don't have to allow them to do it.

The US ought to allow it? The US ought to take it. Sorry.

Quote:

The US doesn't let the Klan do what they want , and when they cause deaths or incite violence the US goes after them.

they are not fighting for their rights they are fighting for fascism.

Bathists , Khomeni followers and Bin Laden lovers are fascist and hate mongers. That is what they are about.

Khomeni followers want to conquer the Persian gulf and the mideast while and wipe out other religons - even Sunnis.

Bin Laden followers want to regain the Caliphate and kill off other relgions - even the Shia.

Saddam Hussein wanted to conquer the gulf and then the mideast while killing off other ethnic groups Jews , Kurds and Iranians.

Bathist , Khomenists and Bin Laden followers are hate mongering fascists , like the Klan.

Quote:

You are absolutely right. And 2,000 American soldiers would be alive.

Yes , but the US would eventually have to deal with Saddam. the US could not contain Saddam forever . Besides the US the way the mideast was was a threat to the US.

Quote:

30,000 Iraqis would be alive.

Yes but perhaps another 300,000 would be dead if Saddam did things the way he did stuff over the last 30 years.

Quote:

Iraq would be more stable than it is now.

Ruled by Saddam , who left free would commit more genocide.

Somehow I think 80% of Iraqis are glad the war happend.

Quote:

Al Queda would be weaker than it is now.

the real power source of Al Qaida is mideast regimes , media , clerics and teaching hate and inciting violence.

IF that changes then there won't be any Al Qaida. Anything the US does to force them to do so is ok.

Quote:

The number of "terrorists" would be much lower than it is now.

see above.

70,000 trained in Al Qadia camps in the 1990s. There is no worse.

Quote:

The budget of the US might still be balanced... barely.... those stupid danged tax cuts...

some think Tax cuts stimulate the economy and increase productivity . I don't think they were worth it but .

Anyway the real cause of the deficit wasn't the tax cuts.

Quote:

The response to Katrina would have been better.

should have withdrawn soliders from south Korea then it wouldn't matter.

Quote:

The world-wide credit bubble due to the cheap credit based on the US dollar would not be so huge.

that is one thing I won't comment on.

Quote:

Bush's actions saved lives? Shocked

Yes , this is what Saddam did during the first 30 years.

Quote:

61,000 Baghdad residents executed by Saddam: survey

December 10, 2003

Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a figure much higher than previously believed, a new study suggests.

The bloodiest massacres of Saddam's 23-year presidency occurred in Iraq's Kurdish north and Shi'ite Muslim south, but the Gallup Baghdad Survey data indicates the brutality also extended into the capital.

The survey asked 1178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime, with 6.6 per cent saying yes.

The polling firm took metropolitan Baghdad's population of 6.39 million people, and average household size of 6.9 people, to calculate that 61,000 people were executed during Saddam's rule.

Past estimates were in the low tens of thousands. Most are believed to have been buried in mass graves.

The US-led occupation authority in Iraq has said at least 300,000 people were buried in mass graves in Iraq.

Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million people were executed.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/09/1070732211173.html?from=storyrhs

Quote:

You said Saddam killed 30,000 in the first thirty years, right... or something like that...

You missed by 10xyou know. The number was 300,000 not 30,000.

300,000 just in Iraq, not his war with Iran

Quote:

Well, the war in Iraq has already killed that many in just a few YEARS.

yes but you ought to figure on what Saddam would do in the future especially if he got free.

But more than that the way the mideast was was a terrible threat to the US it had to be changed. 9 -11 showed that it could not be left the way it is.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:49 am Post subject:

Quote:

This is untrue. CIA analysts, at least some and those central to that info gathering, wanted for Bush to NOT claim that because the evidence was weak at best.

See George Tenent. Besides if the US thought Saddam didn't have WMDs the US would have come up with another reason for the war.

Quote:

Yes, the results are in. Saddam is gone. So what? Utterly irrelevant to US safety.

I don't know about that. Saddam was contained but sancitons killed like a war and made the US hated.

They also required the US to maintain no flight zones and keep US forces in Saudi Arabia - forever.

What was the reason that Bin Laden started up his war with the US in the first place? US forces in Saudi Arabia.

Quote:

The Kurds were already safe from Saddam: they were under the protection of the no-fly zone and had already gained the right to partial autonomy.

but it was the US who hade to maintain the no fly zones. It was too hard to contain Saddam forever. And the US could not contain Saddam and pressue Saudi Arabia on Al Qaida at the same time.

As long as the US contained Iraq the US probably needed the help of Saudi Arabia, and while the US was getting help that meant the US could not pressure Saudi Arabia to put an end to funding Al Qaida.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 11:50 am Post subject:

Quote:

[quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"]

Quote:

Oh my goodness.

show it

Pointless to attempt dialogue with you.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe