|
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 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject: Re: So does anyone still support the invasion of Iraq? |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| R. S. Refugee wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
...does anyone still support the invasion...? |
I support the invasion just as much today as I did in March, 2003. |
Why are you teaching in Korea and not fighting in Iraq? |
Using that logic anyone who opposes the war should be
protesting it and demonstrating against it. So when will we see you walking around with a big sign at City Hall saying "STOP THE WAR!"?
Or if you oppose the war solely because you dislike America...why aren't you fighting for the insurgents...you'd fit right in. |
One can oppose the war by not contributing to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject: Re: So does anyone still support the invasion of Iraq? |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| R. S. Refugee wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
...does anyone still support the invasion...? |
I support the invasion just as much today as I did in March, 2003. |
Why are you teaching in Korea and not fighting in Iraq? |
Using that logic anyone who opposes the war should be
protesting it and demonstrating against it. So when will we see you walking around with a big sign at City Hall saying "STOP THE WAR!"?
Or if you oppose the war solely because you dislike America...why aren't you fighting for the insurgents...you'd fit right in. |
One can oppose the war by not contributing to it. |
If you are paying any American taxes at all you are contributing to it though, n'est ce pas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:09 pm Post subject: Re: So does anyone still support the invasion of Iraq? |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| R. S. Refugee wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
...does anyone still support the invasion...? |
I support the invasion just as much today as I did in March, 2003. |
Why are you teaching in Korea and not fighting in Iraq? |
Using that logic anyone who opposes the war should be
protesting it and demonstrating against it. So when will we see you walking around with a big sign at City Hall saying "STOP THE WAR!"?
Or if you oppose the war solely because you dislike America...why aren't you fighting for the insurgents...you'd fit right in. |
One can oppose the war by not contributing to it. |
If you are paying any American taxes at all you are contributing to it though, n'est ce pas? |
Then you have the option for voting against the party who opted for the war (difficult in the US because you have a 2 party system, where the opposition were utterly gutless and backed Bush all the way), and protesting and speaking out against it
RSR has regularly spoken out against it. He has provided reasons, and pointed interested parties to various websites that provide information/reasoning for not supporting the war. In doing so, he probably hopes that he will persuade others to go against it, and so spread opposition to the war. To me this seems a constructive way to go about making a protest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:18 am Post subject: Re: So does anyone still support the invasion of Iraq? |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
If you are paying any American taxes at all you are contributing to it though, n'est ce pas? |
That's a pretty lame way to support the war, if you believe in it. If you support the war and you're an able bodied American male and you've not served your military duty already, I think it behooves one to actually put their money where their mouth is. Anything else, you just strike me as an arm chair QB. You're happy to talk a big game but you much much prefer if the other guy is doing the actual heavy lifting... or dying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
This all said, now that we're there we can't just pull out. As Jefferson once aptly said metaphorically about the issue of slavery: we have the wolf by the ears. |
Why not?
The tragedy of America is that it does not act irresponsibly enough often enough. Clinton pulling out of Somalia; good idea. The Gipper renouncing Lebanon less than a year after he had declared it an important theatre; solid thinking. George H.W. Bush letting down the Kurds and Shi'a against Saddam; what was he thinking??? |
In the first two cases, that was America acting as peace keeper. That's a bad role for the USA. No one is happy to have GIs telling them what to do. I'm sure they're not fully happy Canadians and Pakistanis are telling them what to do but it's much harder to mobilize a nation against Pakistanis or Dutch or Canadians (unless they publish cartoons of the prophet). I think the presidents were right to pull out, when the mission changes from the defined goal to "get the guy who is worse than Hitler".
The problem with Iraq is Bush assumed the UN would be happy to clean up his mess and the 1000 years of bad blood between Shiite and Sunnis would some how take a back seat to building a nation that was never their idea to begin with and was only kept together by a brutal dictator. I mean look at Yugoslavia. Once the strongman died, the country fell apart.
Bush a covered his ears to the clarion evidence and fired people who dared not agree that the people of Iraq would be so thankful to be free of Saddam they'd love to have infidel Americans hanging around towns for half a decade... |
Yeah, that's about right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| Quote: |
| How about a sense of proportion. Except for oil, this wasteland called the Middle East has a dead-end economy that threatens nothing. Except, well, it has excess population. |
I think Kuros is spot on. The Middle East has NOTHING to contribute to the world stage except oil. What else? And, God willing, we are able to beat our addiction to their only commodity, they will have nothing. And, you know what? THEY KNOW IT. They know oil is their only bargaining chip. What else is there for the rest of the world to be interested in? Culture? A hard-working, industrious populace? Vast natural resources? Intelligent, thinking people? We may wish they had some or all of these things but, sadly, they don't. The intelligent, thinking people in the region are drowned out by the radical, hate-spewing immams. |
Well, I could see how I might be misinterpreted with this sentence by those thinking I want Iraqis to die. I don't. Least of all, I don't want Americans involved in the drama. I mean I want the troops to pull out. I don't think America has initiative in the region any longer.
But I don't feel bad considering two people on this thread who've been to the ME, Bucheon Bum and Wannago, didn't find malice in my words. When I say there is excess population, I mean that there seems to be too many young men who want to fight no matter what the cause or the enemy, and not enough jobs or occupations to sustain them.
And I am happy to hear Wannago tell me there are intelligent, thinking people in that region. I took it on an assumption that there had to be some there, and indeed, the sentence Wannago gave us might even hint that there are less hate-mongers than intelligent people in the ME, its just the hate-mongers are so fatally vocal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:33 pm Post subject: Re: So does anyone still support the invasion of Iraq? |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| R. S. Refugee wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
...does anyone still support the invasion...? |
I support the invasion just as much today as I did in March, 2003. |
Why are you teaching in Korea and not fighting in Iraq? |
Using that logic anyone who opposes the war should be
protesting it and demonstrating against it. So when will we see you walking around with a big sign at City Hall saying "STOP THE WAR!"?
Or if you oppose the war solely because you dislike America...why aren't you fighting for the insurgents...you'd fit right in. |
Ah yes, that hoary - and now discredited - "you're either with us or you're with the terorists" argument.
My country is "with" America but I opposed the invasion. Does that make me anti-British? Or-pro terrorist? Of course not.
Don't forget, terrorists attacked the WTC. It was said that Saddam had WMD and that was the reason given for the invasion, not terrorism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bucheon: this misinterprets Cobra II's analysis...?
| Gopher wrote: |
Saddam did have mass-destruction weapons. He did use them repeatedly. He refused to cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors for over a decade. And he continued to threaten to employ these weapons in any war against the United States up to his overthrow. Indeed, Saddam's Iranian policy as well as his governing southern dissidents centered on his promise that he possessed such weapons.
We (and, to their surprise, his former general staff as well) now know that he lied about this capability. But we did not know that then.
We also know that he kept a nuclear weapons program on the shelf. He was waiting for the opportunity to run it again... |
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:44 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And he continued to threaten to employ these weapons in any war against the United States up to his overthrow. |
That's not how I recall it.
I remember one missile capable of carrying wmd being disovered and frantically offered up for destruction. At that time, I don't recall Saddam threatening te US with WMD. That was early March 2003. The president, in a radio address, then called for Iraq to disarm and for Hussein and his sons to leave.
He then proceeded to enter Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein. Some aluminum tubes were discovered and a mothballed nuke program in someone's flowerbed.
When pressed for evidence of WMD, the President said, "Just wait." Iraq was a big place and it would take time.
I also recall you suggesting on this board that you were opposed to the war but persuaded by Colon Powell's address to the UN. It was when Octavius Hite challenged you that you suddenly were opposed to the war all along.
But perhaps my memory is faulty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As you know, I agree with most of what you say Mr G, except the "lefties" snarl - in my conutry I am not considered of the left. (Of cousre, as one who believes in health care for all, I know that some Americans might brand me as communist, even though there has been a huge movement in favour of the same in USA since 1945).
The UN weapons inspector Blix reported in early 2003 that no WMD had been found and (I believe) that he didn't expect to find any. That truth has been borne out by subsequent events. Whether our respective leaders actually believed that is moot.
An ettempted presidential assasination, whilst serious, cannot really count as a reason for invasion: after all, were invasion to be the penalty for such a crime, which country should be invaded where the perpetrator is a US citizen?
On balance, the invasion of Iraq should not have taken place and has created the precedent of legitimising the "pre-emptive strike" in the minds of others with less moral standing than USA.
Whether the forces should now go or stay is anotehr debate and it is interesting to see how few of the ISG's recommendations have been adopted by GWB. It calls to mind the words of a Sikh chum of mine who said "Britain should never have gone to Inida, but having gone they should never have left". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| But perhaps my memory is faulty. |
No doubt it is. And you also show evidence of not having informed yourself of the facts on the matter.
Clearly you have absorbed all that John Stewart and hostile op-eds have had to say. But that is something else.
This is for Wangja's benefit as well as yours, as I believe such threats ought to trump Blix's opinions...
| Quote: |
| During his [Middle Eastern] trip, Cheney stopped in Yemen and met with President Ali Abdullah Saleh at the Sanna airport. The Bush administration did not need Yemen for a war with Iraq; the subject was fighting terrorism. Saleh, who had close ties with Saddam, told Cheney that Saddam did not want to go to war but would use chemical weapons if attacked. Cheney did not blink. If Saddam used chemical weapons, then the Americans would deal with it. |
Gordon and Trainer, Cobra II, 43.
Finally, I trusted Colin Powell's integrity. Still do. I opposed the war, but at the time, I distinctly recall deciding that if he was going to back it, there must be something there.
Still called my Senators, however, and voiced my position. As far as I was and am willing to go on the matter, for what it is worth.
Be careful, Nowhere Man: this is one of those nuanced positions that you do not usually handle very well... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:19 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
I appreciate your honesty vis-a-vis Powell,
but I don't see how Cheney talking to Yemen about terrorism means that:
"Saddam was threatenng the US with WMD until his overthrow."
No.
Blix was searching Iraq for WMD, which Iraq said it didn't have.
The whole world was involved in a debate about whether Iraq had WMD. It would have been a silly debate if Saddam was saying, "Yes! I have WMD and will use them against the US."
So, no. Saddam wasn't threatening the US with WMD until his overthrow.
You're wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
And I am happy to hear Wannago tell me there are intelligent, thinking people in that region. I took it on an assumption that there had to be some there, and indeed, the sentence Wannago gave us might even hint that there are less hate-mongers than intelligent people in the ME, its just the hate-mongers are so fatally vocal. |
I don't know if there are less hate-mongers than intelligent people. Like anywhere, a lot of people are just trying to get on with day-to-day life without thinking too much about the political ins and outs. I do know the hate-spewers have incredible influence. Like some guy with a funny moustache about 70 years ago, they play on people's insecurities and problems. There are definitely intelligent, thinking people in the ME. Most of them are also smart enough to not speak too loudly rather than be shut up permanently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| No...You're wrong. |
Could be. Hard to imagine my being so categorically wrong as you assert here, though.
This issue has never been a project for me. Gordon and Trainor's Cobra II has always been my primary information source.
Their book explores Saddam's side of the war. Draws on not-yet-declassified intelligence debriefings from Saddam's former general staff and intelligence chiefs, captured dox, and, purportedly, inside American information, not only memoranda and reports, but interviews, briefing notes, and powerpoint dox as well.
Authors present a credible narrative to me. One that shows very clearly how Saddam used the threat of mass-destruction weapons as one of his foreign- and military-policy centerpieces, as I describe above.
Also, my worldview comes into play: do not view the state or the govt as the enemy or a chronic liar. Honest differences in perspective and human error exist. I believe the W. Bush Administration exaggerated, resorted to drama and scare tactics, and generally oversold its case.
Those would seem to be our differences in a nutshell, or at least a brief outline of my position. You can take it or leave it, as with everything else.
By the way, where are you getting your info? Read Blix's reports? Or just op-eds? Or what...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:25 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
Nowhere Man wrote:
No...You're wrong.
Could be. Hard to imagine my being so categorically wrong as you assert here, though.
|
Hard for me to imagine, too, as I see no categories. I think you threw that word in to exaggerate what I've said. Posibly for emotional effect.
Anyway, it's your word, so what are the categories?
| Quote: |
This issue has never been a project for me. Gordon and Trainor's Cobra II has always been my primary information source.
Their book explores Saddam's side of the war. Draws on not-yet-declassified intelligence debriefings from Saddam's former general staff and intelligence chiefs, captured dox, and, purportedly, inside American information, not only memoranda and reports, but interviews, briefing notes, and powerpoint dox as well.
Authors present a credible narrative to me. One that shows very clearly how Saddam used the threat of mass-destruction weapons as one of his foreign- and military-policy centerpieces, as I describe above.
|
One that shows very clearly how Saddam used the threat of mass-destruction weapons as one of his foreign- and military-policy centerpieces until he was overthrown?
Did they say that?
Or did you add that last part?
until he was overthrown
I think that's a rather significant qualifier to add on, especially when you're talking about grounds for the Iraq invasion.
As I recall, nothing much was going on in Iraq when, in 2002, the Bush administration began to raise alarms. That's why the questions "Why Iraq? Why now?" arose. Saddam was playing games with weapons inspectors. That was the news.
Not that he was "threaten[ing] to employ these weapons in any war against the United States." And that was the year before his overthrow.
It also leads me to wonder why you, if you thought he was threatening the US with WMD, opposed the war.
Same goes for the idea that if Powell said so, there "must [have] be[en] something there." Personally, if I had held these beliefs, I think I might have supported the war.
That's interesting. |
|
| 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
