|
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: Sat Oct 08, 2005 3:19 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
| Pligganease wrote: |
| However, I don't know if Bush went to war on a pretense of lies or a pretense of bad intelligence. We probably never will know. I do know this, though: Something had to, and still has to, be done in the Middle East. |
Actually it wasn't bad intelligence. Intelligence already knew there was absolutely no connection whatsoever between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin. ? |
Untrue.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-17-hadley_x.htm
One knows that this is a favorite claim among the Left on this board. Unfortunately for them, it's not true. |
Your citation listed three connections:
1) Osama considered contacting Saddam once while he was in Sudan.
2) An Iraqi intelligence officer went to Sudan three times meeting Osama on a third and final trip in 1994.
3) Contacts between Saddam and Al-Qaeda occurred when Bin Ladin was in Afghanistan.
First off.. considering contact 15 years ago? I once considered contacting an author of a good book I read 15 years ago.. but it doesn't mean I conspired to throw airplanes into buildings with him.
Second one.. an Iraqi intelligence officer who met Osama 11 years ago. Must have planned the 9-11 airplane incident at that moment.. must have been an amazing coffee drinking day.
Three.. Saddam and al-Qaeda.. one of which is a massive political movement throughout the Middle East and another which is a president of a large country in the same region. Hey, I heard that Bush once met another person of a large political movement once.. must be co-conspirators in something much greater.
Considering they are both have extremely large presenses in the Middle East.. those three connections are extremely extremely miniscule to say the least. Particularly when you consider the many pictures out there of Saddam with Bush Sr, Wolfowitz, etc. and the keys of the City of Detroit given to Saddam, etc and everything else in the political world where more conspiracy theories are laughingly (and should be) written off then those 3 remote links cited in the 9-11 commission report alluding to some greater conspiracy with Saddam and 9-11. |
Yes, but YOU said and I quote "Intelligence already knew there was ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin." (Capitals are mine)
That was untrue. Going on about "extremely miniscule conections" does nothing to minimize that. And those are only the ones we know about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, it really doesn't matter that there are connections or not between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. But, Bush could never say that, so he had to play up the alleged links. The problem, after 9-11, was the following, as summed up by Hugh Fitzgerald:-
There was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and it is this: any Muslim state, Iraq or any other, that acquires certain kinds of weaponry, becomes by virtue of being Muslim, by virtue of being inhabited by Muslims, the possible source of weaponry for terrorist groups. That can happen because the regime itself sympathizes with terrorism or because individuals in that regime's armed forces do so, or because a regime that may overturn the one currently in place may do so, or because terrorist groups may simply be able to acquire those weapons through sympathizers in the government or close to it. It can happen for all of these reasons, not one of which the Bush Administration dared to offer (because to say bluntly that no Muslim state can be allowed to acquire such weapons if they have not done so already, while perfectly true, is one more of those obvious remarks that cannot be stated).
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008467.php#more
This is what the War on Terror is about. It is about making sure, as far as possible, that no muslim states are able to develop WMD. On this basis, invading Iraq was fully justified. However, to sell it to the American people, Bush had to play up links to Al-Qaeda and humanitarian concerns. What mattered was not that WMD were there, but that Saddam had attempted to in the past, and possibly would have in the future.
The bigger problem is of course Iran, which simply cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear capability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It is about making sure, as far as possible, that no muslim states are able to develop WMD. |
Not quite, its about making sure that no muslim will be able to use one against the USA.(SARCASTIC) To those who say it will never happen, can you email me that with your name under it. Can I say later, "I told you so" 
Hey, I am a *beep*  watching those who created WMD dying under them may be amusing. Especially if I can rub it in the faces of those who don't see the threat of it today. (SARCASTIC)
(SERIOUS)To the rest of the Americans, this is not who I am and if we can do everything to stop a non state/ state actor using them then I will back you. My life and voice to stop WMD being used again in my life time. What ever it takes to stop them being used. (SERIOUS) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinglejangle
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Location: Far far far away.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| What I find interesting is a few American right-wingers I've met saying things like 'I really like Bush; I agree with him on abortion and gay rights, blah blah blah, but I really wish he hadn't invaded Iraq'. They seem to think this will in the end spoil what could otherwise be a great moral agenda and mandate. They're a small minority of his supporters, to be sure, but I think this attitude says a lot and will grow. I also think that many of Bush's supporters are feeling this but don't want to say it out loud. In the end, however, I think that loyalty to Bush's moral agenda will help keep them loyal on Iraq. |
If it wasn't for Iraq and his views on Immigration I would have voted for him this last time around.
Now I can't think of many areas outside of abortion where I would support him.
Then again, I can't think of many areas where I would support any representative of the GOP or the Democrats any more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
But it would be true to say there were contacts between Saddam and Al Qaida.
Anyone who cooperates with Al Qaida deserves to be bombed. |
And it would be just as true to say there were contacts between the CIA and Al Qaeda, you broken record player. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And it would be just as true to say there were contacts between the CIA and Al Qaeda, you broken record player. |
Prove it.
And while I might be a broken record player , my answer was the proper response to a those who think that the US has no right to force mideast regimes , clerics, elites and media to stop teaching hate , planning terror , inciting violence and funding Al Qaida (sorry ) , and who also would side with anyone who is against the US -no matter what their objectives are cause they don't like hyperpowers.
These people don' t post out of moral concern , they pretend to but they don't . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
This is what the War on Terror is about. It is about making sure, as far as possible, that no muslim states are able to develop WMD. On this basis, invading Iraq was fully justified. However, to sell it to the American people, Bush had to play up links to Al-Qaeda and humanitarian concerns. What mattered was not that WMD were there, but that Saddam had attempted to in the past, and possibly would have in the future.
The bigger problem is of course Iran, which simply cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear capability. |
eh, so then what's the deal with the US alliance with Pakistan, a muslim country with nukes? Kinda throws your theory of the war on terror out the window.
So does the Iran bit. If that is really what the war on terror is about, why didn't we invade Iran instead?? There was plenty of evidence that Iran was up to no good at the time of the invasion of Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are assuming that I am agreeing with what Bush has done. What I posted were the policies that should be adopted. Alliances and aid to muslim countries are incredibly short sighted and should be ended where it is possible. Allowing a country rife with extremism as Pakistan, to purchase military hardware is incredibly short sighted.
Iran is the big danger and should have been dealt with first. However, that does not mean Iraq could not have become a serious problem in the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
This is what the War on Terror is about. It is about making sure, as far as possible, that no muslim states are able to develop WMD. On this basis, invading Iraq was fully justified. However, to sell it to the American people, Bush had to play up links to Al-Qaeda and humanitarian concerns. What mattered was not that WMD were there, but that Saddam had attempted to in the past, and possibly would have in the future.
The bigger problem is of course Iran, which simply cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear capability. |
eh, so then what's the deal with the US alliance with Pakistan, a muslim country with nukes? Kinda throws your theory of the war on terror out the window.
So does the Iran bit. If that is really what the war on terror is about, why didn't we invade Iran instead?? There was plenty of evidence that Iran was up to no good at the time of the invasion of Iraq. |
If you want to contain Muslims from acquiring WMDs, one could argue that the alliance with Pakistan is the subtle part of the Bush administration's war on terror. Of course, they'd have to reconcile that with the fact that Pakistan's Dr. Khan is Captain Proliferator. Nonetheless, right now Pakistan is on a serious road of engagement with India and so far (as I know) only uranium enrichment technology has been shared, and no actual WMD has leaked away to dangerous extremists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Butterfly
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| What I find interesting is a few American right-wingers I've met saying things like 'I really like Bush; I agree with him on abortion and gay rights, blah blah blah, but I really wish he hadn't invaded Iraq'. They seem to think this will in the end spoil what could otherwise be a great moral agenda and mandate. They're a small minority of his supporters, to be sure, but I think this attitude says a lot and will grow. I also think that many of Bush's supporters are feeling this but don't want to say it out loud. In the end, however, I think that loyalty to Bush's moral agenda will help keep them loyal on Iraq. |
I think that's an interesting point you got there, amazingly silly how homosexuals have a role to play in this whole mess, when all they want is to be left alone. I don't believe any American, or Brit or whoever, who supported the invasion of Iraq, or indeed voted for Bush for a second term, now has the right to turn around and protest that the troops should be brought home; because whoever thought invading a country, deposing it's leader, and building a new democracy where there was none before, would take less than five to ten years? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| because whoever thought invading a country, deposing it's leader, and building a new democracy where there was none before, would take less than five to ten years? |
Well, the USA managed to fashion stable democracies out of Japan and Germany. However, neither of those were muslim countries, which is, of course, the central problem. Bush and his Neo-cons seem to have a totally misplaced belief in the universality of democracy and the rights and freedoms that underpin it. As will become increasingly clear, Islamic culture and democracy do not mix, and instead of creating a democratic Iraq, we will have created a Shariah state, and such states are overwhelmingly anti-Western, Jihad supporting, women oppressing hell holes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a fantastic way to solve the problem in the middle east...
Let's carpet bomb all of Iran, and build a city-sized Wal-Mart that will be able to supply the Middle East with an endless supply of cheap Bibles, pork chops, and American flags. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| because whoever thought invading a country, deposing it's leader, and building a new democracy where there was none before, would take less than five to ten years? |
Well, the USA managed to fashion stable democracies out of Japan and Germany. However, neither of those were muslim countries, which is, of course, the central problem. |
You're leaving out an important factor that makes your example completely irrelevant - besides the Muslim issue - and that is that Japan and Germany cooperated in that process as they had previously surrendered and agreed to terms of that surrender.
The two situations could not possibly be more different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
You are right, they are different situations.
However, it does not refute the position that Islam and democracy are essentially incompatible, and that the Bush doctrine of establishing democracy in the Middle East is woefully misguided. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Butterfly
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
You are right, they are different situations.
However, it does not refute the position that Islam and democracy are essentially incompatible, and that the Bush doctrine of establishing democracy in the Middle East is woefully misguided. |
True. |
|
| 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
