|
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 |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| What was hapenning to the stock market prior to 9/11? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It wasn't crashing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 1:27 pm Post subject: Re: A Massive Miscalculation |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| When the US started its drumbeat to invasion of Iraq, one thing was very clear: it was about control of the oil supply. Why was it so clear? Simple logic and educated analysis. In fact, one would have had to have been near-brain dead to believe otherwise. |
I stopped reading after this. The assertion that there is one simple analysis, and every other analysis is wrong, is clear warning of a prejudiced and unsophisticated analysis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:35 am Post subject: Re: A Massive Miscalculation |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| I stopped reading after this. The assertion that there is one simple analysis, and every other analysis is wrong, is clear warning of a prejudiced and unsophisticated analysis. |
Tell the truth: you stopped reading when you saw my handle. You, prejudiced and unsophisticated one (How can you be anything but when you so often dismiss arguments simply because of who posts them?,) don't know the difference between trees and forest. Knowing when to focus on which is a sign of intelligence and insight, even wisdom. You've a long way to go.
Any idiot can make a list of issues that might have impinged on any given event. Some can see the core of a thing at once, some need coaxing, and some never can. With regard to Iraq, if you think invading a nation that you had no reason to invade has its genesis in the lies you've been told, you're in the "never" group.
1. It wasn't for WMDs.
2. It wasn't to get al Queda.
3. It wasn't for democracy.
4. It wasn't to get Saddam.
What's left? Everything they CLAIMED was a lie. Yet, you have seen on these forums and the sources posted a direct linkage of oil to invasion, yet you post the above.
You are young yet. The world may not give you time to grow up. Hope for your own sake there is more time than presently seems likely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
FORGET Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The real reason the United States invaded Iraq was Saudi Arabia, according to a US intelligence analyst.
Dr George Friedman, chairman of the United States private sector intelligence company Stratfor, said the US had settled on WMD as a simple justification for the war and one which it expected the public would readily accept.
Dr Friedman, in Australia on a business trip, said the US administration never wanted to explain the complex reasons for invading Iraq, keeping them from both the public and their closest supporters.
"That, primarily, was the fact that Saudi Arabia was facilitating the transfer of funds to al-Qaeda, was refusing to cooperate with the US and believed in its heart of hearts that the US would never take any action against them," he said.
Dr Friedman said the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US prompted the strategy to hunt down al-Qaeda wherever it was to be found. But that proved exceedingly difficult.
"The US was desperate. There were no good policy choices," he said.
"Then the US turned to the question - we can't find al-Qaeda so how can we stop the enablers of al-Qaeda."
He said those enablers, the financiers and recruiters, existed in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
But the Saudi government variously took the view that this wasn't true or that they lacked the ability and strength to act, he said.
Dr Friedman said in March last year, the Saudis responded to US pressure by asking the US to remove all its forces and bases from their territory. To their immense surprise, the US did just that, relocating to Qatar.
He said Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda shared a number of beliefs including that the US could not fight and win a war in the region and was casualty averse. There was a need to change that perception.
But close by was Iraq, the most strategically located nation in the Middle East, bordering Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and Iran.
"If we held Iraq we felt first there would be dramatic changes of behaviour from the Saudis," he said. "We could also manipulate the Iranians into a change of policy and finally also lean on the Syrians.
"It wasn't a great policy. It happened to be the only policy available."
Dr Friedman said US President George W Bush faced the difficulty of explaining this policy, particularly to the Saudis. Moves to link Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda failed completely.
"They then fell on WMD for two reasons," he said.
"Nobody could object to WMD and it was the one thing that every intelligence agency knew was true.
"We knew we were going to find them. And we would never have to reveal the real reasons.
"The massive intelligence failure was that everybody including Saddam thought he had WMD. He behaved as if he had WMD. He was conned by his own people." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
FORGET Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The real reason the United States invaded Iraq was Saudi Arabia, according to a US intelligence analyst.
Dr George Friedman, chairman of the United States private sector intelligence company Stratfor, said the US had settled on WMD as a simple justification for the war and one which it expected the public would readily accept.
Dr Friedman, in Australia on a business trip, said the US administration never wanted to explain the complex reasons for invading Iraq, keeping them from both the public and their closest supporters.
"That, primarily, was the fact that Saudi Arabia was facilitating the transfer of funds to al-Qaeda, was refusing to cooperate with the US and believed in its heart of hearts that the US would never take any action against them," he said.
Dr Friedman said the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US prompted the strategy to hunt down al-Qaeda wherever it was to be found. But that proved exceedingly difficult.
"The US was desperate. There were no good policy choices," he said.
"Then the US turned to the question - we can't find al-Qaeda so how can we stop the enablers of al-Qaeda." |
|
Except that we know the planning for Iraq started before 9/11, that al Queda was ignored by the Bush admin. in favor of going after Iraq, and that SA sits on the largest pile of liquid oil on the planet... so, if true, it had little or nothing to do with who or what the Saudis were funding.
Fantasy is fun, reality more useful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:20 am Post subject: Re: A Massive Miscalculation |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| I stopped reading after this. The assertion that there is one simple analysis, and every other analysis is wrong, is clear warning of a prejudiced and unsophisticated analysis. |
Tell the truth: you stopped reading when you saw my handle. |
Well, I am of the opinion that the reasons for the Iraq war are a complex mess, a recipe for a fiasco. But at the very top, you dismiss such analysis as simple.
Why read on if I'm too simple to understand such brilliant analysis such as yours?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
FORGET Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The real reason the United States invaded Iraq was Saudi Arabia, according to a US intelligence analyst.
Dr George Friedman, chairman of the United States private sector intelligence company Stratfor, said the US had settled on WMD as a simple justification for the war and one which it expected the public would readily accept.
Dr Friedman, in Australia on a business trip, said the US administration never wanted to explain the complex reasons for invading Iraq, keeping them from both the public and their closest supporters.
"That, primarily, was the fact that Saudi Arabia was facilitating the transfer of funds to al-Qaeda, was refusing to cooperate with the US and believed in its heart of hearts that the US would never take any action against them," he said.
Dr Friedman said the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US prompted the strategy to hunt down al-Qaeda wherever it was to be found. But that proved exceedingly difficult.
"The US was desperate. There were no good policy choices," he said.
"Then the US turned to the question - we can't find al-Qaeda so how can we stop the enablers of al-Qaeda." |
|
Except that we know the planning for Iraq started before 9/11, that al Queda was ignored by the Bush admin. in favor of going after Iraq, and that SA sits on the largest pile of liquid oil on the planet... so, if true, it had little or nothing to do with who or what the Saudis were funding.
Fantasy is fun, reality more useful. |
Before the US took down Saddam the policy was smart sanctions .
you are talking about something that you have zero info about.
O'Neill: 'Frenzy' distorted war plans account
Rumsfeld: Idea of a bias toward war 'a total misunderstanding'
Wednesday, January 14, 2004 Posted: 2133 GMT ( 5:33 AM HKT)
O'Neill: "I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government ... doesn't do contingency planning."
| Quote: |
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."
The idea that Bush "came into office with a predisposition to invade Iraq, I think, is a total misunderstanding of the situation," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon.
Bush administration officials have noted that U.S. policy dating from the Clinton administration was to seek "regime change" in Iraq, although it focused on funding and training Iraqi opposition groups rather than using military force. (Full story)
Retired Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he saw nothing to indicate the United States was close to attacking Iraq early in Bush's term. |
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/
Smart Sanctions
| Quote: |
Iraq 'smart sanctions' derailed by Russia
By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor
Last Updated: 7:54pm BST 03/07/2001
IRAQ claimed victory yesterday after Russia frustrated a British plan to introduce "smart sanctions" against Baghdad.
Faced by a Russian veto after months of negotiations, Britain withdrew the new sanctions policy. Instead, the Security Council is due to vote to roll over the existing "oil-for-food" programme.
Britain is fighting a rearguard action to include in the resolution a reference to the United Nation's determination to introduce smart sanctions "at the earliest opportunity".
advertisement
Nevertheless, the state-controlled press in Baghdad responded with jubilation. Al-Iraq said the delay was "the beginning of the end of American hegemony against the world".
Naji Sabri, minister of state for foreign affairs, said the indefinite postponement was a "defeat for the Anglo-American policy against Iraq".
The British proposal, backed by America, was an attempt to win back support for the crumbling sanctions policy and to shake off criticism that the decade-old embargo has caused a humanitarian disaster.
It aimed to resume the bulk of civilian trade with Iraq, except for goods on a specific list of banned imports, while ensuring that all Iraqi oil revenues continue to be routed through a UN account.
At the same time, the plan sought to tighten restrictions on military-related goods and shut off the lucrative cross-border trade.
A month ago Britain secured the official blessing of the Security Council to pursue the plan. British officials said they had won the agreement of France and China after arduous bargaining over the list of military-related goods to be banned.
But Russia's position seems to have hardened, and Moscow has reverted to demanding a general lifting of sanctions. Sergei Ordzhonikidze, the deputy foreign minister, rejected any attempt by Britain to refer to smart sanctions in the roll-over resolution.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/07/04/wirq04.xml |
Tell us if you need more info keane?
From now on every time you claim that taking down Saddam had nothing to do w/ the Saudis and was being planned before 9-11 you will see this info. Ok? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:49 am Post subject: Re: A Massive Miscalculation |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| I stopped reading after this. The assertion that there is one simple analysis, and every other analysis is wrong, is clear warning of a prejudiced and unsophisticated analysis. |
Tell the truth: you stopped reading when you saw my handle. |
Well, I am of the opinion that the reasons for the Iraq war are a complex mess, a recipe for a fiasco. But at the very top, you dismiss such analysis as simple.
Why read on if I'm too simple to understand such brilliant analysis such as yours? |
I've posted on the sequences that led to the war. You are aware of the issues raised that turned out to be lies. I have also posted that on some level there is complexity in everything. I have also said it is useful to have the insight to know when to look at the forest and when the trees. So, you can kid yourself that what you say is accurate, but it isn't. It's your justification for your stance, which is built on sand.
There were no WMDs. The inspectors said so. They weren't allowed to finish their job because the world obviously explode if they were given time to finish....  Etc.
Round and round we go. There is two logical, historical verifiable and unambiguous lines that run through the Iraq disaster: the neo-con nutbags working to crown a president king since the time of Nixon and oil. That's it. Those two. Both lines of history have been posted about extensively on these boards, so you know what I am referring to.
That's as clear as it can be. You choose to remain blind? Good for you. It's your fantasy. Live large, friend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| CYA saves the day! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:51 am Post subject: Re: A Massive Miscalculation |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| I stopped reading after this. The assertion that there is one simple analysis, and every other analysis is wrong, is clear warning of a prejudiced and unsophisticated analysis. |
Tell the truth: you stopped reading when you saw my handle. |
Well, I am of the opinion that the reasons for the Iraq war are a complex mess, a recipe for a fiasco. But at the very top, you dismiss such analysis as simple.
Why read on if I'm too simple to understand such brilliant analysis such as yours? |
I've posted on the sequences that led to the war. You are aware of the issues raised that turned out to be lies. I have also posted that on some level there is complexity in everything. I have also said it is useful to have the insight to know when to look at the forest and when the trees. So, you can kid yourself that what you say is accurate, but it isn't. It's your justification for your stance, which is built on sand.
There were no WMDs. The inspectors said so. They weren't allowed to finish their job because the world obviously explode if they were given time to finish.... Etc.
Round and round we go. There is two logical, historical verifiable and unambiguous lines that run through the Iraq disaster: the neo-con nutbags working to crown a president king since the time of Nixon and oil. That's it. Those two. Both lines of history have been posted about extensively on these boards, so you know what I am referring to.
That's as clear as it can be. You choose to remain blind? Good for you. It's your fantasy. Live large, friend. |
Bush thought Saddam had WMDs but WMDs weren't the reason for the war.
At any rate it was only the US that kept Saddam from getting WMDS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:47 pm Post subject: Re: A Massive Miscalculation |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| It's your justification for your stance, which is built on sand. |
What is my stance? Have I stated it fully here on this thread? *looks around*
No, not really.
| keane wrote: |
| That's as clear as it can be. You choose to remain blind? Good for you. It's your fantasy. Live large, friend. |
Associate my words with remaining blind.
Associate what you call my fantasy with what I've said.
Let's see if you can do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:01 pm Post subject: Re: A Massive Miscalculation |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
| It's your justification for your stance, which is built on sand. |
What is my stance? Have I stated it fully here on this thread? *looks around*
No, not really.
| keane wrote: |
| That's as clear as it can be. You choose to remain blind? Good for you. It's your fantasy. Live large, friend. |
Associate my words with remaining blind.
Associate what you call my fantasy with what I've said.
Let's see if you can do it. |
I quoted exactly what I intended to quote and exactly what shows you to be as described. You don't understand? Not surprising.
I'll explain a little, for that's all you deserve: You made a characterization of MY stance that reveals YOUR way of thinking. To repeat, I referenced EXACTLY what I intended to. Any further extrapolations are due to your own limited intellect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:22 pm Post subject: Re: A Massive Miscalculation |
|
|
| keane wrote: |
| You made a characterization of MY stance that reveals YOUR way of thinking. |
Which is? It reveals MY way of thinking...and that is??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:13 am Post subject: Re: A Massive Miscalculation |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| keane wrote: |
| You made a characterization of MY stance that reveals YOUR way of thinking. |
Which is? It reveals MY way of thinking...and that is??? |
It's non-existent. You responses are shaped by your personal dislikes, not intelligent observation or insight. You don't think, you react. Useless. You showed this once again when you dismissed a post based on who posted. While you claim it was because the post was overly simplified, this is obviously a lie, as I have already logically pointed out: that an analysis can be discredited simply because it looks at the core of an issue rather than secondary, tertiary - and beyond - influences, is illogical. It is you who has shown a lack of intelligence and insight. An intelligent, intellectually honest, objective observer would first READ a post and check its internal logic.
Yo didn't even attempt this, by your own admission.
Not to mention the post was based on other information supplied in a link.
There is no mystery as to why Bush was re-elected: Too many Americans can't think. |
|
| 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
