|
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 |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:20 am Post subject: Abramoff knew about the invasion of Iraq a year before? |
 |
|
Article posted Oct 08 2006, 6:20 PM Category: Cover-Up/Deceptions Source: Unknownnews.org Print
Abramoff knew about war on Iraq a year before it happened
by SirJ
Isn't it just super how slime like Jack Abramoff knew there would be a war in Iraq ONE FULL YEAR before it started!
When it comes to incriminating documents for impeachment, this is as good as it gets.
The yellow highlighting is mine. This is from page 26 of the Abramoff documents [pdf] I stumbled onto the same story when I was reading Newsweek where the remark "upcoming war in Iraq" is mentioned in passing in the last paragraph of the story without comment. Googled to find out when the NCAA basketball game was, hit paydirt with this Daily Kos article.
Article posted Oct 08 2006, 6:20 PM Category: Cover-Up/Deceptions Source: Unknownnews.org Print
Abramoff knew about war on Iraq a year before it happened
by SirJ
Isn't it just super how slime like Jack Abramoff knew there would be a war in Iraq ONE FULL YEAR before it started!
When it comes to incriminating documents for impeachment, this is as good as it gets.
The yellow highlighting is mine. This is from page 26 of the Abramoff documents [pdf] I stumbled onto the same story when I was reading Newsweek where the remark "upcoming war in Iraq" is mentioned in passing in the last paragraph of the story without comment. Googled to find out when the NCAA basketball game was, hit paydirt with this Daily Kos article.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=16682
[Check the link] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:40 am Post subject: Re: Abramoff knew about the invasion of Iraq a year before? |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
Article posted Oct 08 2006, 6:20 PM Category: Cover-Up/Deceptions Source: Unknownnews.org Print
Abramoff knew about war on Iraq a year before it happened
by SirJ
Isn't it just super how slime like Jack Abramoff knew there would be a war in Iraq ONE FULL YEAR before it started!
When it comes to incriminating documents for impeachment, this is as good as it gets.
The yellow highlighting is mine. This is from page 26 of the Abramoff documents [pdf] I stumbled onto the same story when I was reading Newsweek where the remark "upcoming war in Iraq" is mentioned in passing in the last paragraph of the story without comment. Googled to find out when the NCAA basketball game was, hit paydirt with this Daily Kos article.
Article posted Oct 08 2006, 6:20 PM Category: Cover-Up/Deceptions Source: Unknownnews.org Print
Abramoff knew about war on Iraq a year before it happened
by SirJ
Isn't it just super how slime like Jack Abramoff knew there would be a war in Iraq ONE FULL YEAR before it started!
When it comes to incriminating documents for impeachment, this is as good as it gets.
The yellow highlighting is mine. This is from page 26 of the Abramoff documents [pdf] I stumbled onto the same story when I was reading Newsweek where the remark "upcoming war in Iraq" is mentioned in passing in the last paragraph of the story without comment. Googled to find out when the NCAA basketball game was, hit paydirt with this Daily Kos article.
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=16682
[Check the link] |
OH please. The entire nation knew! If in 2002 you didnt know thered be a war in Iraq, with all the threats and rhetoric and the massive troop deployments then you were alseep at the wheel or retarded or both. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Actually, in 2002 many in America were not sure America was going to war. You are saying this in hindsight. I was thinking there was a strong possibility the administration would be committing the troops to war, and I was alarmed by that. Abramoff was connected to politicians who wanted to go to war no matter what. Some people actually did believe the idea that diplomacy was being attempted, and they did have some faith in the administration. So are you saying most of America was retarted for believing that? You are talking in hindsight. And it is clear with the way Abramoff was writing in his e-mail, the administration long made up its mind to go to war which is not what it led the public to believe. And if you were in the US back then, then you would know what I am talking about. You would not have had the 75% of the population supporting the administration to go to war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Have you watched, "Why We Fight?" Pay special attention to Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (ret.) and what she has to say about the Office of Special Plans. It was not staffed by military people, but by conservative think tanks whose job it was to reinvent what the Neo-cons had already planned.. in other words, make it look like it was a new idea. Oh, and do a good lot of cherry picking along the way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Actually, in 2002 many in America were not sure America was going to war. You are saying this in hindsight. I was thinking there was a strong possibility the administration would be committing the troops to war, and I was alarmed by that. Abramoff was connected to politicians who wanted to go to war no matter what. Some people actually did believe the idea that diplomacy was being attempted, and they did have some faith in the administration. So are you saying most of America was retarted for believing that? You are talking in hindsight. And it is clear with the way Abramoff was writing in his e-mail, the administration long made up its mind to go to war which is not what it led the public to believe. And if you were in the US back then, then you would know what I am talking about. You would not have had the 75% of the population supporting the administration to go to war. |
No, Im not talking in hidnsight. I knew it was going to happen. WHen ever you have threats, rherotic, and large re deployment of troops iot means a military conflict is imminent. You were asleep at the wheel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
NAVFC, your characterization is unfair. Asleep at the wheel? Be honest: there are a lot of people who are conditioned - purposely, by the gov't and socially, just because - to accept what their leaders tell them. I mean, hell, when we don't we are labeled conspiracy nuts, unpatriotic, crazy.
No, claiming the majority should have known is bunk. You are trying to excuse the treasonous lies of the current administration, it seems.
I knew Bush would invade BEFORE he was elected, but not because of troop build-ups (there were none at that time), but because of who Bush was, who his family was, the recent history, the Repubs in general and, especially, his running mate. So... did I fall asleep at the wheel?
AND, knowing that imposing a secular gov't on a fundamentalist/radical people is basically impossible (look at how hard the neo-cons have tried to re-entwine church and state), it was easy to foresee disaster in Iraq.
But I m not a blind allegiance kindof guy. I think for myself despite how much Bush, et. al., would prefer I just get in line and go, "Mooo!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
AND, knowing that imposing a secular gov't on a fundamentalist/radical people is basically impossible (look at how hard the neo-cons have tried to re-entwine church and state), it was easy to foresee disaster in Iraq.
|
 That's a curious statement, as the Ba'ath government was a secular one, and in many ways Iraq had been a fairly successful example of a secular run society (albeit one living under a tyrannical regime) with a relatively good record for women's rights, for example. It was the US invasion that gave the fundies the chance to assert themselves and run amok. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Actually, in 2002 many in America were not sure America was going to war. You are saying this in hindsight. I was thinking there was a strong possibility the administration would be committing the troops to war, and I was alarmed by that. Abramoff was connected to politicians who wanted to go to war no matter what. Some people actually did believe the idea that diplomacy was being attempted, and they did have some faith in the administration. So are you saying most of America was retarted for believing that? You are talking in hindsight. And it is clear with the way Abramoff was writing in his e-mail, the administration long made up its mind to go to war which is not what it led the public to believe. And if you were in the US back then, then you would know what I am talking about. You would not have had the 75% of the population supporting the administration to go to war. |
No, Im not talking in hidnsight. I knew it was going to happen. WHen ever you have threats, rherotic, and large re deployment of troops iot means a military conflict is imminent. You were asleep at the wheel. |
yup, if in 2002, you weren't aware we'd invade, you must have had your head in the sand. I wasn't even in America at the time and knew we would be going to war against Iraq sooner or later during Bush's presidency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
AND, knowing that imposing a secular gov't on a fundamentalist/radical people is basically impossible (look at how hard the neo-cons have tried to re-entwine church and state), it was easy to foresee disaster in Iraq.
|
That's a curious statement, as the Ba'ath government was a secular one, and in many ways Iraq had been a fairly successful example of a secular run society (albeit one living under a tyrannical regime) with a relatively good record for women's rights, for example. It was the US invasion that gave the fundies the chance to assert themselves and run amok. |
No, it was a forced secular state, not one that developed out of a love of the people for democracy. Thus, given the freedom to actually choose, it seemed unlikely they would remain a completely secular gov't.
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Actually, in 2002 many in America were not sure America was going to war. You are saying this in hindsight. I was thinking there was a strong possibility the administration would be committing the troops to war, and I was alarmed by that. Abramoff was connected to politicians who wanted to go to war no matter what. Some people actually did believe the idea that diplomacy was being attempted, and they did have some faith in the administration. So are you saying most of America was retarted for believing that? You are talking in hindsight. And it is clear with the way Abramoff was writing in his e-mail, the administration long made up its mind to go to war which is not what it led the public to believe. And if you were in the US back then, then you would know what I am talking about. You would not have had the 75% of the population supporting the administration to go to war. |
No, Im not talking in hidnsight. I knew it was going to happen. WHen ever you have threats, rherotic, and large re deployment of troops iot means a military conflict is imminent. You were asleep at the wheel. |
yup, if in 2002, you weren't aware we'd invade, you must have had your head in the sand. I wasn't even in America at the time and knew we would be going to war against Iraq sooner or later during Bush's presidency. |
Perhaps. But it is unfair to say every person should have known. People on every side didn't foresee this. For myself, it's one of the reasons I couldn't beleive people electe him in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
AND, knowing that imposing a secular gov't on a fundamentalist/radical people is basically impossible (look at how hard the neo-cons have tried to re-entwine church and state), it was easy to foresee disaster in Iraq.
|
That's a curious statement, as the Ba'ath government was a secular one, and in many ways Iraq had been a fairly successful example of a secular run society (albeit one living under a tyrannical regime) with a relatively good record for women's rights, for example. It was the US invasion that gave the fundies the chance to assert themselves and run amok. |
Spot on |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mateomiguel
Joined: 16 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
No, Im not talking in hidnsight. I knew it was going to happen. WHen ever you have threats, rherotic, and large re deployment of troops iot means a military conflict is imminent. You were asleep at the wheel. |
isn't this guy canadian? He wasn't asleep at the wheel, he was asleep in a little dinghy tied to the stern. He's just now waking up, so be gentle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
AND, knowing that imposing a secular gov't on a fundamentalist/radical people is basically impossible (look at how hard the neo-cons have tried to re-entwine church and state), it was easy to foresee disaster in Iraq.
|
That's a curious statement, as the Ba'ath government was a secular one, and in many ways Iraq had been a fairly successful example of a secular run society (albeit one living under a tyrannical regime) with a relatively good record for women's rights, for example. It was the US invasion that gave the fundies the chance to assert themselves and run amok. |
Spot on |
Not really. While I agree with the basic observation about conditions pre- and post-invasion, and those were good arguments against invasion, AND that the invasion brought the "fundies" into power, the same would likely have happened anyway once Saddam was ousted.
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| canuckistan wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
AND, knowing that imposing a secular gov't on a fundamentalist/radical people is basically impossible (look at how hard the neo-cons have tried to re-entwine church and state), it was easy to foresee disaster in Iraq.
|
That's a curious statement, as the Ba'ath government was a secular one, and in many ways Iraq had been a fairly successful example of a secular run society (albeit one living under a tyrannical regime) with a relatively good record for women's rights, for example. It was the US invasion that gave the fundies the chance to assert themselves and run amok. |
Spot on |
Not really. While I agree with the basic observation about conditions pre- and post-invasion, and those were good arguments against invasion, AND that the invasion brought the "fundies" into power, the same would likely have happened anyway once Saddam was ousted.
|
Fundamentalism is being forced on the general population, whether they like it or not (and most don't). The clumsy interference of the Bush administration (who ignored all sane advice, both military and civillian) created a power vaccuum where radical elements could run amok, and set in a process of radicalisation among the population (nicely inflamed by US attrocities: think Falluja). An 'ousting of Saddam' didn't necessarily have to end up this way, whether or not the ousting was done by domestic elements, or foreign. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Fundamentalism is being forced on the general population, whether they like it or not (and most don't). |
secularism was forced upon them too, and they weren't fans of that either.
One of the problems facing many Middle Eastern countries is the dichotomy between the upper and lower classes. Besides the economic factor, there is a wide gap between their views towards religion as well. The more wealthy not only tend to be a lot less religious, but also tend to roll their eyes at religion and "flaunt" their anti-religous activities (in the eyes of the less fortunate). Pious people obviously become insulted, and become more and more ambivelant towards "secularism" and what they perceive to be western living.
That is a gross simplification and there are other factors as well (corruption being another large factor) but hey, a) this is just a message board b) i gotta go to work in a few minutes. 
Point being, I think you're downplaying religion a little too much Big Bird, while perhaps EFL Trainer is going a little too far in the other direction. I think we'd all agree that Bush's lack of planning (poor planning would be giving him too much credit) helped create more support and provide more power to the fundamentalists. |
|
| 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
