|
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 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Hanson wrote: |
| ... how different would the world be? |
No one knows. Counterfactual history is worthless because there are too many variables in human affairs to accurately predict any future, real or hypothetical.
But before people on this thread argue so confidently that he would have responded so rationally to 9/11, they might want to check out Stephanopoulos's description of Clinton's reaction to the Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia, and then perhaps multiply it by several factors...
Still, I agree that the Iraqi War might have unfolded differently, if at all. Don't forget, though, that Clinton himself was on the verge of invading in 1998 -- and he also signed into law a Bay of Pigs-style plan to destablize Saddam from the south, in partnership with Iraqi exiles in Washington, D.C.
And on the antiAmericanism, many European protesters were equating Clinton with Hitler and the U.S. with the Nazi regime during Yugoslavia -- a conflict, once it got going in 1999, that some were calling World War III. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
EFL
| Quote: |
| This is possibly the most obtuse comment you've made yet. In no way, shape or form would policy have been the same. First, Bush came in with an agenda to go after Iraq. This is documented. Second, Bush shaped info to fit the agenda. Third, Bush lied |
.
| Quote: |
O'Neill: 'Frenzy' distorted war plans account
Rumsfeld: Idea of a bias toward war 'a total misunderstanding'
WASHINGTON (CNN) --Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Tuesday his account of the Bush administration's early discussions about a possible invasion of Iraq has been distorted by a "red meat frenzy."
The controversy began last week when excerpts were released from a book on the administration published Tuesday in which O'Neill suggests Iraq was the focus of President Bush's first National Security Council meeting.
That started what O'Neill described to NBC's "Today" show as a "red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets."
"People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said.
"Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq."
|
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/
EFL
| Quote: |
| Those actions give us a vastly different foreign policy vs. a president bent on problem solving. A problem solver does not go: We got attacked by terrorists! Lets go beat up Iraq!!! |
| Quote: |
Because We Could
Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times Op-Ed Columnist
The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.
Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.
The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there � a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.
The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government � and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen � got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.
The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states � young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others � and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict � are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten us.
The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people, and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.
But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason: the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued that Mr. Bush should fight this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with this W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.
Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent of Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Mr. Bush did not need to find any W.M.D.'s to justify the war for me. I still feel that way. But I have to admit that I've always been fighting my own war in Iraq. Mr. Bush took the country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the evidence for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage America and be a very serious matter.
But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary to preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair and the C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt he would use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail to put Iraq onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the terrorism bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr. Bush's credibility rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and the future of the Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We must not forget that.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok Joo's psycho babble aside
If Clinton was still President, the US would have a hell of a better reputation in the world in terms of fighting the war against terror.
The sad fact is, whoever is dumb enough to get elected President in 2008 is going to have a HUGE mess on their hands. I don't care how far so and so tells me the national debt has gone down, it is huge. It's not going to be eliminated in my life time (and I'm only in my mid 30's). Oil prices through the roof, the days of $1.69 gas are forever gone. Hell I'd even venture to guess the days of gas under $2.50 a gallon are gone as well.
The last 5 years we have spent outside our means, meaning we've spent more then taxes that have been collected. It's time to balance the budget and deal with real issues, rather then push phoney baloney issues like immigration and flag burning. Yes, they are important, but not worthy of hijacking Congress and the Presidency to try to gain political capital for the November election.
Oh, and Joo don't respond because honestly I don't care what you have to say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| If Clinton was still President, the US would have a hell of a better reputation in the world in terms of fighting the war against terror. |
Oh really like when Europe refused to back the US on Iran sanctions during the 90's?
| Quote: |
The sad fact is, whoever is dumb enough to get elected President in 2008 is going to have a HUGE mess on their hands. I don't care how far so and so tells me the national debt has gone down, it is huge. It's not going to be eliminated in my life time (and I'm only in my mid 30's). Oil prices through the roof, the days of $1.69 gas are forever gone. Hell I'd even venture to guess the days of gas under $2.50 a gallon are gone as well.
The last 5 years we have spent outside our means, meaning we've spent more then taxes that have been collected. It's time to balance the budget and deal with real issues, rather then push phoney baloney issues like immigration and flag burning. Yes, they are important, but not worthy of hijacking Congress and the Presidency to try to gain political capital for the November election. |
what is the cause of the deficit? - Hey silence .
| Quote: |
| Oh, and Joo don't respond because honestly I don't care what you have to say. |
that is ok cause I like to refute representatives of MOVE ON . (joke- well not really ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
what is the cause of the deficit?
|
stock market correction
economic downturn
tax cuts for the rich
not necessarily in that order. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well tell us the effect of tax cuts for the rich.
I didn't support Bush's tax cuts but many respected individuals believe that they increase productivity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Well tell us the effect of tax cuts for the rich. |
Reduction of tax revenue.
First, let's assume the Laffer Curve. It's close enough for the sake of argument. Here it is:
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
The question is, are we to the left or right of t*? Personally, I believe we are currently well to the left. Why? From personal experience working with a lot of millionaires. From comparison with past tax rates (check out the pre-JFK top marginal rates). From comparison with other countries tax rates. Given all this information, and the fact that I've never heard of a rich person refusing to make more money because of the taxes, I personally make my conclusion.
Unscientific? Of course. But it's impossible to do an empirical study and prove the Laffer Curve, much less prove were we are on the Curve. So it comes down to fidgiting with numbers and making choices based upon what's best for the whole country. (see below)
| Quote: |
| I didn't support Bush's tax cuts but many respected individuals believe that they increase productivity. |
Many individuals with a personal gain to be had by lower taxes. Hey guys, nobody likes to pay taxes. But one, we have a massive public deficit to pay off. And deficit that could only cause many problems for the US. And two, we're at war. Very few of the rich are sending their sons and daughters into battle, the least they can do is support the cause financially. Bush and Cheney are a lot more eager to push for sacrifices from those who can least afford them than from those who can most afford to make them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
