|
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: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Regardless, if AQ wanted participation in the Iraqi government after the Americans leave, the generals would have to either agree, or face an insurgency of their own. Let's not forget some other nations in the region who have an interest in seeing a weak and divided Iraq would therefore likely support the AQ insurgents. |
Why are we discussing a "possibility" no Iraqi or member of Al Queda has stated as a goal?? I know of nothing that supports the idea that Al Queda not only wants to help liberate Iraq, but then also wants to rule it.
We may as well discuss whether the moon is likely to fall tomorrow... |
Since when did AQ become a charity? You seriously think that it is spending all this time, money and training in a fight it 'doesn't have a bone in' simply to kick out the U.S. troops? That's what President Bush was talking about. One of the reasons AQ was able to mount a successful terror strike on the U.S (the Twin Towers) was the fact it had a soverign state as a home base giving it time to plan and implement said strike. It is a lot harder planning a deadly strike, when you are running from country to country. If they were able to flourish in Iraq without being hunted, how long do you think it would take before they were able to mount another strike against the U.S? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Regardless, if AQ wanted participation in the Iraqi government after the Americans leave, the generals would have to either agree, or face an insurgency of their own. Let's not forget some other nations in the region who have an interest in seeing a weak and divided Iraq would therefore likely support the AQ insurgents. |
Why are we discussing a "possibility" no Iraqi or member of Al Queda has stated as a goal?? I know of nothing that supports the idea that Al Queda not only wants to help liberate Iraq, but then also wants to rule it.
We may as well discuss whether the moon is likely to fall tomorrow... |
Since when did AQ become a charity? You seriously think that it is spending all this time, money and training in a fight it 'doesn't have a bone in' simply to kick out the U.S. troops? That's what President Bush was talking about. One of the reasons AQ was able to mount a successful terror strike on the U.S (the Twin Towers) was the fact it had a soverign state as a home base giving it time to plan and implement said strike. It is a lot harder planning a deadly strike, when you are running from country to country. If they were able to flourish in Iraq without being hunted, how long do you think it would take before they were able to mount another strike against the U.S? |
Running Iraq and existing in Iraq are hardly the same thing. Why are you now changing the parameters of the discussion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From her blog, of last week :
This immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost the world so much. George and his reckless war of choice have cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars that could be better spent at home. Judging from Katrina, Iraq has cost our country much of its security. It has cost the US any good standing we enjoyed in the world community.
It cost America the post 9/11 good will from almost the entire world. We Americans are the laughingstock of the world community. Not only is our callous and careless leadership disdained, but we the people are scorned because we "re"-elected George for a 2nd term and not only that, we are allowing him to continue to mis-lead our country into ruin.
The price many of us are paying is so much costlier than the mere monetary expense or loss of reputation. Over 2,000 American families have paid the price of our dear loved ones to the insanity. Over 15,000 of our young people are wounded with 400 of those being amputees. The Veterans Administration estimates that over 1/4 of our children will come home with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. I believe that number is higher, because I know of many cases where the military refuses to allow soldiers to seek treatment for PTSD. Many of them are sent back to battle if they even dare suggest they may be suffering from PTSD. Even if they are not wounded emotionally or physically, or killed, our soldiers will not come home entirely whole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Regardless, if AQ wanted participation in the Iraqi government after the Americans leave, the generals would have to either agree, or face an insurgency of their own. Let's not forget some other nations in the region who have an interest in seeing a weak and divided Iraq would therefore likely support the AQ insurgents. |
Why are we discussing a "possibility" no Iraqi or member of Al Queda has stated as a goal?? I know of nothing that supports the idea that Al Queda not only wants to help liberate Iraq, but then also wants to rule it.
We may as well discuss whether the moon is likely to fall tomorrow... |
Since when did AQ become a charity? You seriously think that it is spending all this time, money and training in a fight it 'doesn't have a bone in' simply to kick out the U.S. troops? That's what President Bush was talking about. One of the reasons AQ was able to mount a successful terror strike on the U.S (the Twin Towers) was the fact it had a soverign state as a home base giving it time to plan and implement said strike. It is a lot harder planning a deadly strike, when you are running from country to country. If they were able to flourish in Iraq without being hunted, how long do you think it would take before they were able to mount another strike against the U.S? |
Running Iraq and existing in Iraq are hardly the same thing. Why are you now changing the parameters of the discussion? |
If AQ were running Iraq would it not be existing in Iraq? They can be the same thing. No one is changing the parameters of the discussion. You are however imposing a very rigid interpretation of them. And I did not say "existing" I said "flourish" meaning having a say in how Iraq is governed as they would certainly "flourish" under those conditions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Regardless, if AQ wanted participation in the Iraqi government after the Americans leave, the generals would have to either agree, or face an insurgency of their own. Let's not forget some other nations in the region who have an interest in seeing a weak and divided Iraq would therefore likely support the AQ insurgents. |
Why are we discussing a "possibility" no Iraqi or member of Al Queda has stated as a goal?? I know of nothing that supports the idea that Al Queda not only wants to help liberate Iraq, but then also wants to rule it.
We may as well discuss whether the moon is likely to fall tomorrow... |
Since when did AQ become a charity? You seriously think that it is spending all this time, money and training in a fight it 'doesn't have a bone in' simply to kick out the U.S. troops? That's what President Bush was talking about. One of the reasons AQ was able to mount a successful terror strike on the U.S (the Twin Towers) was the fact it had a soverign state as a home base giving it time to plan and implement said strike. It is a lot harder planning a deadly strike, when you are running from country to country. If they were able to flourish in Iraq without being hunted, how long do you think it would take before they were able to mount another strike against the U.S? |
Running Iraq and existing in Iraq are hardly the same thing. Why are you now changing the parameters of the discussion? |
If AQ were running Iraq would it not be existing in Iraq? They can be the same thing. No one is changing the parameters of the discussion. You are however imposing a very rigid interpretation of them. And I did not say "existing" I said "flourish" meaning having a say in how Iraq is governed as they would certainly "flourish" under those conditions. |
Picky, but OK: Factor in what I said about the people leading the insurgency not being interested in Al Queda. Also, what I said about Iraq *not* being a theocracy and the leaders of the insurgency almost certainly wanting to keep it that way *because they would become powerless otherwise.* Then factor in whether they would risk being invaded again, this time legitimately, for being the base for Al Queda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Regardless, if AQ wanted participation in the Iraqi government after the Americans leave, the generals would have to either agree, or face an insurgency of their own. Let's not forget some other nations in the region who have an interest in seeing a weak and divided Iraq would therefore likely support the AQ insurgents. |
Why are we discussing a "possibility" no Iraqi or member of Al Queda has stated as a goal?? I know of nothing that supports the idea that Al Queda not only wants to help liberate Iraq, but then also wants to rule it.
We may as well discuss whether the moon is likely to fall tomorrow... |
Since when did AQ become a charity? You seriously think that it is spending all this time, money and training in a fight it 'doesn't have a bone in' simply to kick out the U.S. troops? That's what President Bush was talking about. One of the reasons AQ was able to mount a successful terror strike on the U.S (the Twin Towers) was the fact it had a soverign state as a home base giving it time to plan and implement said strike. It is a lot harder planning a deadly strike, when you are running from country to country. If they were able to flourish in Iraq without being hunted, how long do you think it would take before they were able to mount another strike against the U.S? |
Running Iraq and existing in Iraq are hardly the same thing. Why are you now changing the parameters of the discussion? |
If AQ were running Iraq would it not be existing in Iraq? They can be the same thing. No one is changing the parameters of the discussion. You are however imposing a very rigid interpretation of them. And I did not say "existing" I said "flourish" meaning having a say in how Iraq is governed as they would certainly "flourish" under those conditions. |
Picky, but OK: Factor in what I said about the people leading the insurgency not being interested in Al Queda. Also, what I said about Iraq *not* being a theocracy and the leaders of the insurgency almost certainly wanting to keep it that way *because they would become powerless otherwise.* Then factor in whether they would risk being invaded again, this time legitimately, for being the base for Al Queda. |
Okay, you have some valid points but let's look at them a little more closely:
The people leading the insurgency: Some of the leaders ARE AQ. As for the rest, if AQ was to insist on a say in their government "from behind the scenes, do you really think they would want to fight another insurgency from AQ?
Granted Iraq is not a theocracy, but I doubt that is a pressing concern for AQ right now. It would likely be willing to wait as it has shown in the past.
They have the ability for long term planning as 9/11 showed.
As for your third point, I doubt the next president (whoever he is, is going to invade Iraq again. It would cost so much in voter goodwill, and political capital, not to mention American lives and money that it would not be worth it. Look at how the Iraq war has divided America, and seriously there is no way that you can say the next president wants to be responsible for something like this. It would take another attack on America by AQ for this to happen again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:18 am Post subject: Re: Al Qaeda's territorial ambitions |
|
|
| You know, actually, I don't think it's very off-base to suggest that Al Qaeda would like to set up some territory in Iraq. This article thinks its more than plausible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Regardless, if AQ wanted participation in the Iraqi government after the Americans leave, the generals would have to either agree, or face an insurgency of their own. Let's not forget some other nations in the region who have an interest in seeing a weak and divided Iraq would therefore likely support the AQ insurgents. |
Why are we discussing a "possibility" no Iraqi or member of Al Queda has stated as a goal?? I know of nothing that supports the idea that Al Queda not only wants to help liberate Iraq, but then also wants to rule it.
We may as well discuss whether the moon is likely to fall tomorrow... |
Since when did AQ become a charity? You seriously think that it is spending all this time, money and training in a fight it 'doesn't have a bone in' simply to kick out the U.S. troops? That's what President Bush was talking about. One of the reasons AQ was able to mount a successful terror strike on the U.S (the Twin Towers) was the fact it had a soverign state as a home base giving it time to plan and implement said strike. It is a lot harder planning a deadly strike, when you are running from country to country. If they were able to flourish in Iraq without being hunted, how long do you think it would take before they were able to mount another strike against the U.S? |
Running Iraq and existing in Iraq are hardly the same thing. Why are you now changing the parameters of the discussion? |
If AQ were running Iraq would it not be existing in Iraq? They can be the same thing. No one is changing the parameters of the discussion. You are however imposing a very rigid interpretation of them. And I did not say "existing" I said "flourish" meaning having a say in how Iraq is governed as they would certainly "flourish" under those conditions. |
Picky, but OK: Factor in what I said about the people leading the insurgency not being interested in Al Queda. Also, what I said about Iraq *not* being a theocracy and the leaders of the insurgency almost certainly wanting to keep it that way *because they would become powerless otherwise.* Then factor in whether they would risk being invaded again, this time legitimately, for being the base for Al Queda. |
Okay, you have some valid points but let's look at them a little more closely:
The people leading the insurgency: Some of the leaders ARE AQ. As for the rest, if AQ was to insist on a say in their government "from behind the scenes, do you really think they would want to fight another insurgency from AQ? |
Where has Al queda fought against other Muslims? In Iraq it is the insurgents who are killing the Muslims while the AQ folk are killing the "invaders." I suppose there is some mixing of these two elements given that some younger Iraqis are drawn to AQ because they want to kill the foreign troops. Again, all this from Iraq insurgency leaders.
| Quote: |
Granted Iraq is not a theocracy, but I doubt that is a pressing concern for AQ right now. It would likely be willing to wait as it has shown in the past.
They have the ability for long term planning as 9/11 showed. |
but they are setting up a theocracy. AQ should be thrilled. The ones who should be quite unhappy are the Iraqi insurgents.
| Quote: |
| As for your third point, I doubt the next president (whoever he is, is going to invade Iraq again. It would cost so much in voter goodwill, and political capital, not to mention American lives and money that it would not be worth it. Look at how the Iraq war has divided America, and seriously there is no way that you can say the next president wants to be responsible for something like this. It would take another attack on America by AQ for this to happen again. |
Afghanistan. It was (relatively) legit. We did it. Yes, there will be some fatigue, but how long does that last? I say this while acknowledging my own tactics would be more akin to the patience shown in Europe over the last 40 years. France notwithstanding. [/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Regardless, if AQ wanted participation in the Iraqi government after the Americans leave, the generals would have to either agree, or face an insurgency of their own. Let's not forget some other nations in the region who have an interest in seeing a weak and divided Iraq would therefore likely support the AQ insurgents. |
Why are we discussing a "possibility" no Iraqi or member of Al Queda has stated as a goal?? I know of nothing that supports the idea that Al Queda not only wants to help liberate Iraq, but then also wants to rule it.
We may as well discuss whether the moon is likely to fall tomorrow... |
Since when did AQ become a charity? You seriously think that it is spending all this time, money and training in a fight it 'doesn't have a bone in' simply to kick out the U.S. troops? That's what President Bush was talking about. One of the reasons AQ was able to mount a successful terror strike on the U.S (the Twin Towers) was the fact it had a soverign state as a home base giving it time to plan and implement said strike. It is a lot harder planning a deadly strike, when you are running from country to country. If they were able to flourish in Iraq without being hunted, how long do you think it would take before they were able to mount another strike against the U.S? |
Running Iraq and existing in Iraq are hardly the same thing. Why are you now changing the parameters of the discussion? |
If AQ were running Iraq would it not be existing in Iraq? They can be the same thing. No one is changing the parameters of the discussion. You are however imposing a very rigid interpretation of them. And I did not say "existing" I said "flourish" meaning having a say in how Iraq is governed as they would certainly "flourish" under those conditions. |
Picky, but OK: Factor in what I said about the people leading the insurgency not being interested in Al Queda. Also, what I said about Iraq *not* being a theocracy and the leaders of the insurgency almost certainly wanting to keep it that way *because they would become powerless otherwise.* Then factor in whether they would risk being invaded again, this time legitimately, for being the base for Al Queda. |
Okay, you have some valid points but let's look at them a little more closely:
The people leading the insurgency: Some of the leaders ARE AQ. As for the rest, if AQ was to insist on a say in their government "from behind the scenes, do you really think they would want to fight another insurgency from AQ? |
Where has Al queda fought against other Muslims? In Iraq it is the insurgents who are killing the Muslims while the AQ folk are killing the "invaders." I suppose there is some mixing of these two elements given that some younger Iraqis are drawn to AQ because they want to kill the foreign troops. Again, all this from Iraq insurgency leaders.
| Quote: |
Granted Iraq is not a theocracy, but I doubt that is a pressing concern for AQ right now. It would likely be willing to wait as it has shown in the past.
They have the ability for long term planning as 9/11 showed. |
but they are setting up a theocracy. AQ should be thrilled. The ones who should be quite unhappy are the Iraqi insurgents.
| Quote: |
| As for your third point, I doubt the next president (whoever he is, is going to invade Iraq again. It would cost so much in voter goodwill, and political capital, not to mention American lives and money that it would not be worth it. Look at how the Iraq war has divided America, and seriously there is no way that you can say the next president wants to be responsible for something like this. It would take another attack on America by AQ for this to happen again. |
Afghanistan. It was (relatively) legit. We did it. Yes, there will be some fatigue, but how long does that last? I say this while acknowledging my own tactics would be more akin to the patience shown in Europe over the last 40 years. France notwithstanding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Al-Qaeda supporters (perhaps members themselves, I don't know, nor do most outsiders I imagine) already control many of the sunni-majority towns and cities in Iraq. Not far-fetched at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Al-Qaeda supporters (perhaps members themselves, I don't know, nor do most outsiders I imagine) already control many of the sunni-majority towns and cities in Iraq. Not far-fetched at all. |
Link? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There was a big article about it in the SF Chronicle a month or two ago. I'm doing a search right now. Here is something related to it:
Insurgents eize 5 towns near Syria. Militants loyal to al-Zarqawi tell residents in 'death letters' to abandon their homes
| Quote: |
| But Alford told The Chronicle that fighters linked to al-Zarqawi had been in complete control of these ancient smuggling communities for at least the past month, and that neither U.S. nor Iraqi forces held any sway over the swath of land that abuts Iraq's desolate, porous 450-mile border with Syria. Washington has repeatedly accused Syria of providing a safe transit route for foreign fighters headed for Iraq. |
Ah yes, I believe this is the article I was thinking of:
U.S. patrols draw fire as border towns empty. Fleeing villagers describe militants' reign of terror
| Quote: |
The sudden attack came from insurgents loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his organization, al Qaeda in Iraq, who have boldly taken over al-Ubaydi and at least four other key western Iraqi towns in this western corner of volatile Anbar province, U.S. Marines and local residents say.
Marines of the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines Regiment, who are stationed in the area, say they come under attack every time they approach al-Ubaydi, and no U.S. troops enter the town where the insurgents appear to have free reign. The highway outside the town, on the border with Syria, is marked with anti-American and anti-Iraqi government billboards signed by "al Qaeda organization."
One signs reads: "Our religion will not be strong without the book and the sword." |
edit: ok, perhaps not a majority, but I wouldn't be surprised if this situation isn't prevelant elsewhere in the country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Where has Al queda fought against other Muslims? In Iraq it is the insurgents who are killing the Muslims while the AQ folk are killing the "invaders." I suppose there is some mixing of these two elements given that some younger Iraqis are drawn to AQ because they want to kill the foreign troops. Again, all this from Iraq insurgency leaders. |
They're called suicide bombings. They kill Iraqi civilians again and again, many of whom are Muslims. I suppose I could provide many links but I'm wondering where you're getting your information that AQ, the people who brought you the WTC bombings and Madrid, is not pursuing suicide attacks while other insurgent groups are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Where has Al queda fought against other Muslims? In Iraq it is the insurgents who are killing the Muslims while the AQ folk are killing the "invaders." I suppose there is some mixing of these two elements given that some younger Iraqis are drawn to AQ because they want to kill the foreign troops. Again, all this from Iraq insurgency leaders. |
They're called suicide bombings. They kill Iraqi civilians again and again, many of whom are Muslims. I suppose I could provide many links but I'm wondering where you're getting your information that AQ, the people who brought you the WTC bombings and Madrid, is not pursuing suicide attacks while other insurgent groups are. |
Aigoo... I said this myself. The distinction I made is that AQ primarily targets coalition forces while the insurgents primarily target Iraqis. I siad there is likely to be some blurring of just who is doing what as some Iraqis are joining up with the AQ groups and, well, collateral damage.
The source is former Iraqi generals who are now inusrgency leaders via CNN's Iraq update last month. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Where has Al queda fought against other Muslims? In Iraq it is the insurgents who are killing the Muslims while the AQ folk are killing the "invaders." I suppose there is some mixing of these two elements given that some younger Iraqis are drawn to AQ because they want to kill the foreign troops. Again, all this from Iraq insurgency leaders. |
They're called suicide bombings. They kill Iraqi civilians again and again, many of whom are Muslims. I suppose I could provide many links but I'm wondering where you're getting your information that AQ, the people who brought you the WTC bombings and Madrid, is not pursuing suicide attacks while other insurgent groups are. |
Aigoo... I said this myself. The distinction I made is that AQ primarily targets coalition forces while the insurgents primarily target Iraqis. I siad there is likely to be some blurring of just who is doing what as some Iraqis are joining up with the AQ groups and, well, collateral damage.
The source is former Iraqi generals who are now inusrgency leaders via CNN's Iraq update last month. |
Insurgent generals said that? Well, I'm extremely skeptical (not that they said that but that they can be believed). Especially considering Zarqawi's professed strategy last year was to blow up as many Shi'as as possible to stir up a civil war, but just generally considering that Al Qaeda has not had such scruples in who they blow up before. However, it could be possible that Al Qaeda is seeking some better PR with its withering and desperate position, although in support of your claim, I have heard before that even Ba'athists are starting to get on the bombing-civilians train. So who really knows, truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. |
|
| 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
