|
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 |
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005 Location: $eoul
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did you support the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Lastat?
In any case, the view that we should pull out of Iraq is indefensible. But it irritates the shit out of me to see the same people who supported this war now argue that we should pull out because the war has gone exactly the way those opposed to it predicted. That's why I ask.
My problem with Iraq |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
poet13
Joined: 22 Jan 2006 Location: Just over there....throwing lemons.
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SPIN. A lot of people have changed their support of the war precisely because they feel that the administration fabricated the evidence they needed to create support for it.
Honestly, I think GW needed his war just like his daddy had his war. I think the elder did it right though. Yup, they stopped short of baghdad, truend around and went home. They made mission and stopped. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bjonothan
Joined: 29 Apr 2003 Location: All over the place
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What I think that most of you are forgetting is that Muslims remain a threat to our societies. They take the piss out of our free speech to talk about how they want to implement their own laws that say that women should be covered and should not be able to go to school. Look at the middle east people! It is a $hithole! And our values directly contradict theirs. The top muslim cleric in Australia said recently that women are like pieces of meat. When you don't cover the meat, the cats eat it. This was drawing a reference to women not covering themselves and then being raped. First of all, I hope we kick scumbags out for thinking like that. Free speach means that you can say what you like, but there still has to be a line. I can't go out and say that I want to kill everyone and expect that it will be ok. Second that is the mentality that if we don't accept, we are being complained about. The middle east is that sort of $hit, but on a much bigger scale. This war which was not properly managed by bush from the start, is about keeping a lid on the extremists and giving people who are usually opressed a chance. The whole American foreign policy is based around stopping things before they happen, and when you get a rising body count you want to pull out? All that does, is tell them that they did a good job and make them recruit more people to do things closer to home. In world war two, had the US gotten involved earlier, lives would have been saved. Now we are fighting a different war against people far worse than the kamikaze pilots of Japan or the Nazi soldiers from Germany. These people use any tactic they can to win. Including the bombing of innocent women and children as a means to be heard. In Palestine, they shoot from behind women and children all the time. And then their media claims that the Israeli army targetted them. Israel ladies and gentlemen is an actual good model of what we are looking at if we don't start now. I hope people can read a bit more about the islamic faith and wonder why so many people that call themselves muslims are killing people all over the world right now. Whether it be Thailand, the philippines, the middle east e.t.c. A coincidence? If the western world doesn't unite on this one, we will have a lot more deaths later on as well. War is not something that people want, but wars prevent things being even worse. I hope that Bush presses ahead and keeps killing as many muslim extremists as he can until the next president is elected...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
poet13
Joined: 22 Jan 2006 Location: Just over there....throwing lemons.
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do you realize that most of the countries in which the US has had a military conflict were countries that the US installed a new regime and supplied arms too?
Think about the Middle East, Central America, and Africa.
Ths US has a long history of sticking their hands in someone else pie, adding ingredients, and then later on going back and removing the ingredient.
Do you think it's kind of ironic that the US supplies a weapons poor country with arms, and then gets involved in a conflict where Americans are killed by those same arms? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bjonothan
Joined: 29 Apr 2003 Location: All over the place
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I find it hard to see how this is real relevant to why the US should keep fighting insurgents or not. The US made foreign policy mistakes. Most countries do. Can you come up with something a bit more interesting? Yeah the stinger missiles that the US supplied against the soviet invasion are now being shot at US planes too. Your point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
poet13
Joined: 22 Jan 2006 Location: Just over there....throwing lemons.
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're arguing cause and effect. Which came first? Insurgents or the US? Maybe if the US wasn't so intent on meddling in the affairs of countries and cultures halfway around the world, things would be different.
I thought I made three interesting points. I thought your post was poorly disguised hate, starting with the generalization that muslims are a threat to our society.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bjonothan wrote: |
| What I think that most of you are forgetting is that Muslims remain a threat to our societies. |
How so?
| Quote: |
| They take the piss out of our free speech to talk about how they want to implement their own laws that say that women should be covered and should not be able to go to school. |
Is that really a potential problem? Around 1-2% of the US population identifies as Muslim. Even if every one of them wanted sharia law, it ain't going to happen. AFAIK, all of the anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-minority laws in the US were created by a predominantly Christian government.
| Quote: |
| The top muslim cleric in Australia said recently that women are like pieces of meat. When you don't cover the meat, the cats eat it. This was drawing a reference to women not covering themselves and then being raped. First of all, I hope we kick scumbags out for thinking like that. |
Sure. And also the guy who said this:
"I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it."
| Quote: |
| I hope people can read a bit more about the islamic faith and wonder why so many people that call themselves muslims are killing people all over the world right now. |
Define "so many"? And explain how the violence in the Middle East, Thailand, or the Phillipines threatens America.
Again, what is the specific threat that Islam represents to the US, and how realistic is it?
Last edited by huffdaddy on Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| By the way, doesn't having a purple heart mean nothing now? John Carrey had two, and everyone called him a coward for it last election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lastat06513
Joined: 18 Mar 2003 Location: Sensus amo Caesar , etiamnunc victus amo uni plebian
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First of all, just because I am stating an anti-war thread, it doesn't mean I'm going to side with the muslims, insurgents or even the taliban on this issue.
But I also feel the world is hypocritical at this stage of international affairs.
~ Russia is battling islamists for the control of the lower caucuses, yet they are against the US in the UN when it comes to punishing Iran for its nuclear program. Mostly because it would stop a $1 trillion nuclear reactor deal.
~ The same goes with China, who is battling the Ughur minority in Xinjiang, but yet is threatening veto of any resolution that pertains condemning Iran/Syria/ Hezb'allah for any wrongdoing because any such attempt would deny China its much needed oil for its booming economy and because they want to be seen as a counter to US superiority.
~ France and Germany were deeply against the war, not because they thought it was morally wrong, but the victory by the US would expose the extent those 2 nations gave to the Iraqi warmachine as Saddam spent billions on equipment and technical expertise from those 2 countries (there were still French and German technicians in Iraq right up until the bombs dropped in Baghdad)
~ And the reason Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan doesn't put too much effort in fighting those fighters in their countries is because they think the fight as being more a Westerner's concern and that by fighting fellow muslims, they are seen as "following the Crusaders".
I think the true problem lies in the region and it should be bombed......[j/k]
A purple heart would mean more as a medal if it was given for the right reasons and not as a way to pad some soldiers records for promotion, I have seen that and it makes me sick!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
poet13
Joined: 22 Jan 2006 Location: Just over there....throwing lemons.
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not sure which side you're taking, but I am definitely not calling him or anyone else who fought for the US a coward. My issue is with the CIC and the inner circle. People like Cheney and Rumsfeld.
It seems to me that in the past few years, the Executive Office has assumed a great deal of powers. Things that only a decade ago people assumed were sacrosanct. Since 9/11, and the creation of the homeland security department, the government has authorized thousands upon thousands of wiretaps without court order. People can be detained without charges. Bank records, email communications, the privacy of all of those things that Americans believed they had a right to has been taken away.
Where does it stop? When does congress, the senate, or the supreme court put their foot down and say, no, you cannot just assume powers and dispense with the system of checks and balances it took 250 years to put in place?
Maybe when it's too late.
(edit. added and S to "check")
Last edited by poet13 on Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
antoniothegreat

Joined: 28 Aug 2005 Location: Yangpyeong
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lastat06513 wrote: |
I beg to differ.
1. Since 9/11, airport security has become more stringent than before, and there is increased use of racial profiling (although it is denied being used) to ensure that another 9/11 won't happen again.
2. 9/11 has burned a kind of prejudice against muslims in the US and in Europe that if another terrorist attack happens, you will see various vigilante groups going around burning mosques, halal restuarants and attacking and pushing families out of whole neighborhoods. Racial attacks against muslims will certainly go up.
3. I don't know if people knew about this, but during the Reagan era (1981-1988), he was authorizing the establishment of "internment camps" in the southwest to confine people who they thought threatened future foreign policies- especially in regards to Nicaragua at the time (no kidding- the US was contemplating a full-scale invasion of Nicaragua, using Panama as a staging ground- which is why Daniel Ortega agreed to hold elections and step down)
What is to stop the US from opening them to people who oppose their policies during the war or worse, another "Manzanar era [Japanese internment during WWII]?
People might think that putting troops overseas would help the situation back here, and I at first supported the war, but as the war becomes a quagmire and it is hurting our status overseas, I think it is better to find a more "diplomatic" solution and to be honest, no group would make the mistake of attacking the US again knowing the repercussions
Here is a joke....
How does the US play Tick-Tack-Toe?
- By using grid squares on a map and using nuclear weapons as their "X"s or "O"s
Hint**- The next two "X"s are going to be put on Iran and one "O" is going to be put in Buluchistan and the NorthWest province in Pakistan. |
in response to your numbers...
1. airport security helps, but if someone wants to fly a plane into a building, security isnt going to stop them if they have any brains. i myself, on accident, took a steak knife in my backpack on accident. i forgot to take it out before i got to the airport, i used it to cut a bagel on the way there, walked right through security with it.
2. that is bad, but how does that involve the war in iraq? if we pull out now, will it change people's minds? i think we can agree that anyone that would do such an action is retarded, so what does pulling out or not do to them and their beliefs?
3. Reagan opening intern camps? umm, that is a BOLD statement, that i have nothing about before, and before i even address that, you need some evidence on that. I remember before the 2004 election, all my liberal friends were running around saying if Bush was reelected he would reinstate the draft. yeah, that happened... that was just a stupid scare tactic to get moderates to vote against Bush. I "hear" many of these wonderful plans of presidents, but no one ever has proof of any kind. i can say 'hey, i hillary clinton is elected, she is going to raise taxes to 80% of your income, and nuke Pakistan, OH MY GOD!!!!"
and to conclude, yes, a diplomatic solution would be great, and i would love that, as long as it gets the job done, then get our soldiers home and safe, but i do not think getting out without the future secured is a good idea. that is exactly what happened in Vietnam, the helicopters hadnt even taken off before the communists were taking over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
poet13
Joined: 22 Jan 2006 Location: Just over there....throwing lemons.
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"~ France and Germany were deeply against the war, not because they thought it was morally wrong, but the victory by the US would expose the extent those 2 nations gave to the Iraqi warmachine as Saddam spent billions on equipment and technical expertise from those 2 countries (there were still French and German technicians in Iraq right up until the bombs dropped in Baghdad) "
Don't forget the Americans started it in Iraq in the 80's to counter Iran... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
antoniothegreat

Joined: 28 Aug 2005 Location: Yangpyeong
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| By the way, doesn't having a purple heart mean nothing now? John Carrey had two, and everyone called him a coward for it last election. |
they didnt call him a coward, they questioned his integrity on his battles. i heard the people that questioned were later found to be frauds, but they said he was hiding from battle and there just to get his medals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
antoniothegreat

Joined: 28 Aug 2005 Location: Yangpyeong
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| poet13 wrote: |
"~ France and Germany were deeply against the war, not because they thought it was morally wrong, but the victory by the US would expose the extent those 2 nations gave to the Iraqi warmachine as Saddam spent billions on equipment and technical expertise from those 2 countries (there were still French and German technicians in Iraq right up until the bombs dropped in Baghdad) "
Don't forget the Americans started it in Iraq in the 80's to counter Iran... |
anyone that took an international relations class can tell you foreign policy in the Cold War and after the Cold War are a bit different. Perhaps not containing communists and other radicals would have been a better idea? then maybe NATO would have lost the Cold War, and we would be shot for openly saying our national leaders are bad. great idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
antoniothegreat

Joined: 28 Aug 2005 Location: Yangpyeong
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| antoniothegreat wrote: |
Obviously, I can't say that this number will always stay zero, but six years after 9/11, and the fourth year into the Iraq War, the U.S has not been attacked again, so it really looks like the people that believe the invasions will REDUCE future terrorist attacks are right. |
Well, no. First, to consider it a reduction, you have to have something to compare it to. Unless you know of an alternative universe that I don't, that's not possible.
Secondly, you also have to take into account that correlation is not causality. Is the reason there hasn't been an attack in the US because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or something else. Remember that other countries have suffered attacks. Under the "fight them on their home turf" theory, other countries should be equally safe. Which doesn't seem to be the case.
IMO, the lack of terrorist attacks in the US is the result of two things. One, only a very small number of extremists have both the desire and ability to pull off an attack. And two, the administration is actually half aware of the problem, and pays attention when they get reports that say "terrorists are planning to fly planes into buildings."
In short, the use of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan to stop terrorist attacks just doesn't make sound policy. |
then by what you are saying, if i cant say the war has prevented terrorists because i have no comparison, then no one can say the war is creating terrorists? right?
next, i do have something to compare to. pre-invastion, and post-invasion. two different times. getting away from that though, remember, Osama bin Laden did openly declare war against the USA and the west, several times he threatened to destroy us, so either he did not have the will or means to launch another attack and lied, or we are preventing him from his next attack.
about the attacks on other countries, i cant comment much there because, i have never been to spain, i dont know about their security, i dont know if the same organization is responsible for attacking them as well.
i understand the mentality of being against the war in iraq, but why not afghanistan, where everyone, even the afghan government, knew bin laden was hanging out there? are you not allowed to strike back after a declaratation of war? |
|
| 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
|
|