Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Taliban: S.Korea paid millions in ransom

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Taliban: S.Korea paid millions in ransom
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:09 am Post subject:

JMO wrote:

Quote:

No it wasn't a humanitarian mission.

I agree and that was my point.

I never said it was. Though if Saddam wasn't the killer he was the war probably would not have happened.

JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:12 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

JMO wrote:

Quote:

No it wasn't a humanitarian mission.

I agree and that was my point.

I never said it was. Though if Saddam wasn't the killer he was the war probably would not have happened.

Here we go again. There have been plenty of conflicts where as many people have been killed as by Saddam and America was not involved.

Just from looking at the odds then it is obvious that without having many other much bigger reasons America would not have entered into a war.

Can you prove that statement?

Quote:

Though if Saddam wasn't the killer he was the war probably would not have happened

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:53 am Post subject:

JMO wrote:

Can you prove that statement?

Quote:

Though if Saddam wasn't the killer he was the war probably would not have happened

I said probably . Saddam's record was evidence that he was dangerous if he got powerful.

If he were not such a killer the US would have been less concerned about containing him.

JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:58 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

JMO wrote:

Can you prove that statement?

Quote:

Though if Saddam wasn't the killer he was the war probably would not have happened

I said probably . Saddam's record was evidence that he was dangerous if he got powerful.

If he were not such a killer the US would have been less concerned about containing him.

mmm well we are all entitled to our opinions. I'll stick with the more obvious reasons for the war for the minute, remembering the US humanitarian record of non involvement.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:04 am Post subject:

JMO wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

JMO wrote:

Can you prove that statement?

Quote:

Though if Saddam wasn't the killer he was the war probably would not have happened

I said probably . Saddam's record was evidence that he was dangerous if he got powerful.

If he were not such a killer the US would have been less concerned about containing him.

mmm well we are all entitled to our opinions. I'll stick with the more obvious reasons for the war for the minute, remembering the US humanitarian record of non involvement.

I never said that the US invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons only that if anyone opposes the war on such grounds that they won't be able to back it up.

At any rate if Saddam wasn't the great killer he was the US would not have been so concerned about him becoming powerful or felt so strongly about the need to containing him.

JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:17 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

JMO wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

JMO wrote:

Can you prove that statement?

Quote:

Though if Saddam wasn't the killer he was the war probably would not have happened

I said probably . Saddam's record was evidence that he was dangerous if he got powerful.

If he were not such a killer the US would have been less concerned about containing him.

mmm well we are all entitled to our opinions. I'll stick with the more obvious reasons for the war for the minute, remembering the US humanitarian record of non involvement.

But you are implying humanitarian reasons in this sentence..

Quote:

if Saddam wasn't the great killer he was the US would not have been so concerned about him becoming powerful

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:22 am Post subject:

Vicissitude wrote:

BJWD wrote:

Vicissitude wrote:

If you really care about Iraq, get over there and help the people out or shut the f... up and let people do there jobs over there in Iraq.

Are you saying that the anti-war types either should go to Iraq or stop opposing the war?

I was anti-war when anti-war wasn't at all popular, back in 2002 and 2003. I got a whole lot of verbal abuse from people for my viewpoints. I told people that the Bush Admin. was lying about the WMDs and people were ready to shoot me dead in America just for saying that. I was against this war because the reasons I knew back then were lies and I knew what it would cost. On the one hand I wanted Sadam gone but on the other hand I didn't want a war mainly because of the expense and the destruction as well as the loss of lives. But I said back then and I'm saying today... "if they go into Iraq it's going to be for the long haul and it's going to be expensive." They better not pull out now because the country MUST be rebuilt and the people doing the building need protection. Also, the military must do a better job to establish law and order over there or everything will be in vein. I wish they'd stop calling this a war and start mainly trying to rebuild as a moral obligation.

Well, that is one of the better cases for staying that I've read in a while. But I still believe that the mere presence of Americans is causing more harm than any good that could be done.

If a truly multinational force of meaningful levels (as in 50k French, 50k Germans etc) could be assembled to rebuild and police the peace then I'd be willing to change my mind. But knowing how stubborn W is, I don't think he is man enough to ask.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:35 am Post subject:

JMO wrote:

[

But you are implying humanitarian reasons in this sentence..

Quote:

if Saddam wasn't the great killer he was the US would not have been so concerned about him becoming powerful

Yes if he wasnt' so cruel then the US would have not be "As" concerned about him being powerful.

The key word is AS.

Which would the US want less all things considered equal ?

A regular leader with power and oil?

A ruthless mass killer with power and oil?

If Kuwait (with the weapons they got from aliens) had invaded Iraq in 1990 , would the US have been JUST AS concerned as if Iraq had invaded Kuwait?

If Oman had invaded Kuwait in 1990 would the US have been JUST AS concerned as if Saddam had invaded Kuwait?

If Kuwait had invaded Saudi Arabia in 1990 would the US have been JUST AS concerned as when Saddam invaded Kuwait?

If Egypt had invaded Libya and taken their oil would the US have been as concerned?

Or if Morroco had invaded Algeria and taken their oil would the US have been just as concerned?

IF Uganda had invaded Angola and taken its oil would the US have been just as concerned?

Thanks for your time.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:48 am Post subject: Re: Not too much oil in Bosnia, but...

endo wrote:

Kuros wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

What was the war with Yugoslavia about? Oil?

Clinton wanted to demonstrate that he would bomb a Christian country to save Muslims.

This is what he said after 9-11.

Yeah, this is exactly what Clinton was thinking as the reason to go into the Balkins Laughing

You're an idiot. Do you seriously think that during the policy meeting, Clinton.

Here's a quote from the article you provided:

Quote:

"We need to do a better job of getting the facts out," Clinton said. "Most Muslims in the Middle East, I guarantee you, don't know [that] the last time we used our military power was to protect poor Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo."

Nowhere does this say that this was the reason for entering the war. Although in retrospect he mentioned that this war proves that Western powers have fought to save Muslim lives.

This doesn't mean this was a factor during their policy planning.

Rolling Eyes

The US and NATO entered the Balikins to preserve stability in south eastern Europe and prevent the genocide from continuing to occur.

Well, now that you've committed to calling me an idiot, its unlikely even with all the right links that I'll be able to persuade you. However, unable to throw Richard Clarke's book at you, I'll have to satisfy myself with defending myself.

Bombing a Christian nation to defend a Muslim one was part of the policy. Another part of the policy was toundermine Muslim extremism in Bosnia by supporting the mainstream fighters.

Quote:

Thwarted al-Qaida's efforts to establish a militant Islamist state in Bosnia. Clinton's efforts to quell the war in the Balkans "defeated Al Qaeda when it had attempted to take over Bosnia by having its fighters dominate the defense of the breakaway state from Serbian attacks."

Why is Richard Clarke Seething?

Quote:

Clarke believes that the way to fight Islamism is by taking the side of weaker Muslim populations against stronger non-Muslim governments as the Clinton administration did in Bosnia

So you have links from several sources supporting that Clinton was very concerned about the Middle East when he went to defend Bosnia, and later when he attacked Serbia to protect Kosovo.

Fishead soup

Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Location: Korea

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:56 pm Post subject:

idonojacs wrote:

The ransom reports seem to have originated with a Reuters story.

I consider the Washington Post to be a generally reliable source. Here is how they reported it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/01/AR2007090101376.html

Quote:

In response to public anger over this seeming recklessness, the South Korean government, which negotiated the hostages' release and was reported by the Reuters news agency to have paid a $20 million ransom, is demanding that the church and families of the hostages repay some of the costs of bringing them home, including airfare, medical treatment and the transport of the bodies of two missionaries slain by their captors.

The South Korean government said it has not yet decided whether to demand that the church and families shoulder the entire cost of its negotiations with the kidnappers. That effort, according to media reports here, included the use of agents from South Korea's spy agency, the National Intelligence Service.

Quoting an unnamed senior Taliban leader, Reuters reported Saturday that the South Korean government paid more than $20 million to secure the freedom of its citizens. "With it, we will purchase arms, get our communication network renewed and buy vehicles for carrying out more suicide attacks," the commander told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Again, Reuters. We will just have to wait and see.

It is the prior paragraph I find interesting:

Quote:

Once the missionaries arrived in Afghanistan, their behavior appeared to compound that risk. They made themselves conspicuous targets by traveling overland by night in a rented bus and hired a driver who turned out to be a Taliban associate. He quickly handed them off to armed kidnappers.

The Washington Post is owned and controlled by the Moonies

gdimension

Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Location: Jeju

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject:

Fishead soup wrote:

idonojacs wrote:

Quote:

Again, Reuters. We will just have to wait and see.

It is the prior paragraph I find interesting:

Quote:

The Washington Post is owned and controlled by the Moonies

No, it isn't.

Vicissitude

Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Location: Chef School

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:43 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

JMO wrote:

Quote:

No it wasn't a humanitarian mission.

I agree and that was my point.

I never said it was. Though if Saddam wasn't the killer he was the war probably would not have happened.

Yes, and I'll also add that the war would not have happened IF Saddam had support and close ties with his Arab brothers in the neighboring countries. In the end, he had no powerful friends. The Saudis hated him. Kuwait hated him. Iran hated him. All of the Gulf states hated him. As far as OPEC was concerned, he caused so many headaches for everyone that the best thing was to see him gone for good. You know what, you don't see anti-war rallies very often in the middle east over this thing. Not many Arabs shed tears over the execution of Saddam. Most Arabs held celebrations.

diver

Joined: 16 Jun 2003

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:45 pm Post subject:

It doesn't matter how much money the Koreans gave the Taliban. The Taliban are foreigners and won't be allowed to withdraw the money from abroad anyway. Don't forget that the Korean government hold back half of the money, as a "security deposit". The Taliban will claim that that that was never part of the deal, but there you go. Also, the Taliban will now find themselves having to keep watch over hostages on WEEKENDS, which was also not part of the deal, but the hostages' mothers want it that way, or they will send their children to another terrorist organization. There is also the distinct possibility that you might get farmed out to other countries to guard hostages there. Could you imagine being a Taliban member and showing up for your first day of work? "There, those are your hostages...go guard them". No training, no materials (gags, blindfolds, guns, etc), just get on with it. They promised a single occupancy cave to live in, but when you arrive you find that you have to share with some other Taliban members. And these guys are LOSERS. They couldn't get jobs back home, now they are forced to do this crap for a living.

The_Conservative

Joined: 15 Mar 2007

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject:

Fishead soup wrote:

[
The Washington Post is owned and controlled by the Moonies

What? By any chance are you are talking about The Washington Times?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject:

Vicissitude wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

JMO wrote:

Quote:

No it wasn't a humanitarian mission.

I agree and that was my point.

I never said it was. Though if Saddam wasn't the killer he was the war probably would not have happened.

With all due respect for the record y many in the mid east were upset when Saddam was executed.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 6 of 8

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe