|
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: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| 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? |
"Categorically wrong," means "absolutely wrong."
Organizations sometimes "categorically deny" this or that, to cite another example of this word's standard usage, to "asbolutely deny" this or that.
You said, in short, "No...you are wrong." Not "I disagree." Not "I do not follow." But rather "You are wrong." That is categorical.
As far as the rest of your post, I simply cannot determine whether you are looking to exchange views in good faith or simply playing your usual antagonism games. You pose good discussion questions above. But you usually pose questions in order to play prosecutorial and other games, like Geraldo Rivera, a dramatic but not very good interrogator, hoping to expose my "true" agenda here...
Simply clear this up, clarify your intent, and I might continue.
You may also want to read Cobra II's relevant pages so that we could center our discussion on the authors' use of evidence and their conclusions on the points I have summarized regarding Saddam's centering his foreign and military policy, at least with respect to the United States, Iran, and his own minorities, on mass-destruction weapons or the threat, sometimes only implied, thereof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Svetlana
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It was obviously a mistake, and a war crime. The United Nations and NATO condemned the invasion, then were smeared in the American media. Ironic considering both organizations were created to prevent rash and unwarranted military action. Even more ironic that it was the Americans who did the invading, considering they proclaim themselves as champions of democracy. Load of crap, America is not even a democracy, it is a republic. The illegal invasion of Iraq is no doubt a war crime and Cheney, Rumsfeld, the entire cabinet and their puppet Bush should be in the Hague standing trial for crimes against humanity right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Seems to me Nowhere Man is arguing that a lot of the world, including Blix, did not think Saddam had WMD. And even if he did have WMD, he wasn't threatening anyone. Therefore, he was not a threat and wasn't worth attacking. Correct?
And Gopher, I think you're misinterpreting Cobra II.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
Not exactly. Saddam remained vague and avoided any declarations of WMD simply because he wanted Iraq to look stronger and more menacing. His primary worry was Iran and his immediate neighbors. He wasn't too concerned with the USA and didn't realize how legitimate Bush's words and "threats" (perhaps not the best word, but I'm a little tired) actually were.
I think we all can agree that between say 2000 and the outbreak of the war in 3/03, Saddam wasn't threatening any nation overtly (except perhaps Israel, I don't know) nor made any statement(s) nor took any actions that indicated he had any interest in taking any kind of action against any other nation state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:36 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
I don't really see this as a matter of discussion.
You made statement that was wrong. I pointed out that it was incorrect.
You have yet to show anything that proves otherwise.
If you do, then do so.
If not, you could just admit you're wrong. That's something you seem to have trouble doing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| edit: nevermind, found what you were refering to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| And Gopher, I think you're misinterpreting Cobra II. |
Stand by for block quotations from the book... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do!
Now its time to leave and they can have at each other - then go back in after they have cut the population a bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bucheon Bum: before I start quoting the authors, you are suggesting that 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... |
Nowhere Man pulled his usual stunt: he he attempted to deconstruct the entire thing and then he reconstructed it so that it mischaracterized this position to the non-nuanced "Saddam threated to attack the United States with mass-destruction weapons." Not the same thing at all with respect to what I stated, above, as I hope you can see now.
In any case, I will reprint the relevant sections from the book as early as tomorrow here so you can see where I am getting this -- that is, what I said and not what Nowhere Man says I said, above... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| 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... |
Arrogant. The guy best informed on the subject, most knowledgeable should be ignored because a cadre of fools wants a war? WHAT threat? There is zero credibility to the argument that Iraq *ever* posed any kind of threat to the US. It was a broken nation without the resources for any further adventuring.
Blix asked for 3 to 6 months. You and your ilk feel trading six month of time was worth 3000+ American's lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
That is insanity.
Make all the excuses you want.
Simple fact: We know the war was manufactured. Get over it. You were fooled and are still being fooled. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To wit:
...these actions... were not in compliance with the law.
| Quote: |
| "The IG has concluded that this office was engaged in intelligence activities," Rockefeller said. "The Senate intelligence committee was never informed of these activities. Whether these actions were authorized or not, it appears that they were not in compliance with the law. In the coming days, I will carefully review all aspects of the report and will consult with [Senate intelligence committee] Vice Chairman [Kit] Bond to determine whether any additional action by the Senate intelligence committee is warranted." |
Official's Key Report On Iraq Is Faulted
'Dubious' Intelligence Fueled Push for War
| Quote: |
By Walter Pincus and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 9, 2007; A01
Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general.
Feith's office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," according to portions of the report, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith's activities as "an alternative intelligence assessment process."...
In interviews with Pentagon investigators, the summary document said, Feith insisted that his activities did not constitute intelligence and that "even if they were, [they] would be appropriate given that they were responding to direction from the Deputy Secretary of Defense."...
"The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq," Levin said yesterday. "The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war."...
The policy office, the summary stated, "was inappropriately performing Intelligence Activities . . . that should be performed by the Intelligence Community." (Illegal - my comment. EFLT) |
We all know about Downing Street, etc., etc., etc. There is ZERO to debate about the initiation of the war in Iraq: it was and is an illegal, immoral war. It was entered into, as are most things in life, for myriad reasons, but not one of those reasons was legitimate. To continue to make excuses for the actions of the president" and the cadre that leads him is not only a fool's errand, but is, frankly, disgusting. The evidence is too great that this war was engineered. Those claiming any legitimacy to this war are not just misguided, they are liars.
Now, if one wants to take the position that while immoral and illegal it will have some good in terms of the moral/ethical/geopolitical/etc. views of that person, so be it. At least that can be respected as an honest, if saddening (if not sickening), opinion. One need not agree with an opinion to respect that it is an honest one. However, again, any claim that the war in Iraq was not engineered is a lie. Bald-faced and shameful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't now, nor have I ever cared whether Saddam the Insane had WMDs or not. Irrelevant and a waste of time. Saddam neaded killin'.
After 9/11 the US demonstrated that it was going to strike out. First Afghanistan, then Iraq. The Islamic world in general and the Arab world in particular needed a crusade - the name should have been kept - against terrorism.
Now, the US should wirhdraw to bases in Kurdistan, the gulf. Basra and etc. and then let the Iraqis have their pay back and civil war for a few years and then go back in and adjust the pieces a little. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:16 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? |
That was a factor in my leaving the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
I don't now, nor have I ever cared whether Saddam the Insane had WMDs or not. Irrelevant and a waste of time. Saddam neaded killin'.
After 9/11 the US demonstrated that it was going to strike out. First Afghanistan, then Iraq. The Islamic world in general and the Arab world in particular needed a crusade - the name should have been kept - against terrorism.
Now, the US should wirhdraw to bases in Kurdistan, the gulf. Basra and etc. and then let the Iraqis have their pay back and civil war for a few years and then go back in and adjust the pieces a little. |
So are you upset that the US didn't present the need to do such as their reason or are you happy that even more people now think your leaders are a bunch of liars and populace a bunch of gullible idiots? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| However, again, any claim that the war in Iraq was not engineered is a lie. Bald-faced and shameful. |
And we have many people posting on here regarding Iraq who still think, despite all, it was all done in good faith and that those making the decisions were just following "good guidance". I wonder how those who would take this position can really maintain that they are well informed citizens and not just blind patriots. Time for them to swallow and start clean. They know who they are. For them it is always country before truth when indeed this can NEVER be the case. For country before truth entails the end and ruin of said country......
And I would add, anyone who thought Bush was an honest, straight forward, sincere politician / president after him, sitting there reading to those kids while the towers crumbled, is just someone who can't swallow the truth....
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Read up on the Astros new stadium and how the land for it was acquired - not to mention most of his other business dealings - and you will understand how many of us knew he was a lying piece of crap well before he was "elected." |
|
| 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
