Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Cheney Scoffs at Amnesty International
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
supernick



Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2005 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Why the switch from 'Bush and the boys' to the personal pronoun?


Simply because of what Funplanet said in the past. Bush and the boys is expanded to include the people who supported Bush and the policies. He is in the "we" because he's with them, so that's how it becomes "you". When speaking to a group I can refer to them as "you" which is the correct pronoun. But I'm sorry if you feel that I may have been refeering to all Americans, which was not my intention. In thise case, the "you" is "them".

I don't know what wannago is going on about. Canada has nothing to do with what goes on in Git'mo or else where when it comes to such other recent abuses. It's really mostly to do with America and Americans like wannago.

Quote:
Here, let me try. You Canadians talk about your southern neighbor as if they've never done anything for you....oh, except protect your worthless asses while you maintain a skeleton military force. I think Canada needs to be *beep* slapped.


What does this have to do with the thread?

Quote:
You are right in that the investigations should proceed and sentences, if merited, should be handed down. But for people to want some sort of proof before going off on a temper tantrum like you do is certainly understandable. It's an international sport now to blame the U.S. for everything. Certainly some criticism is justified but assigning blame just because you don't like Americans is just plain stupid. I would expect nothing less from you. I hope you feel better soon!

WHere did I blame anyone? I just asked for justice, but you and others in your country don't see it that way which appears to be peachy for you.

I will leave you with you saying that I am right, but it doesn't mean much coming from a moron.

Please tell us what Canada has to do with this thread. If you want to bring up this thing about "protecting", I think Canada did a pretty good job of that when the U.S. didn't.

Maybe you think people don't like you because you are American, but I doubt that's true. When you're not liked at home, you probably blame that on those "loopy libs" and when foreigners are involved you just call them "dumbass Canadians and Europeans". You also blame the foreign media, but that is not foreign to some of us. You blame all others except for yourself.

Your country wannago was mentioned in my post simply because it is your country that is in the centre of these accusations. Denmark, Germany, France and Spain have nothing to do with it.

I can understand why you on many occasions you have attacked Canada needlessly; ití»s simply a classic case of jealousy. I doubt that others would be proud of what your nation has done in the last few years. Maybe you are but thatí»s you.

No, Ií»ve never had a run in with any US military guys, nor any other problems with Americans that I have met. I doní»t base my friends on nationality. I'm sure you have many run ins with many people cus thatí»s just the kind of guy you are.

What your country does in your own country is your business but when your hands expand through the world it becomes eveyone's business. If you don't like hearing what others have to say, I suggest that you look inwards and get keep your greedy paws on your own land.


Last edited by supernick on Tue May 31, 2005 6:53 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2005 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Bush and the boys is expanded to include the people who supported Bush and the policies. He is in the "we" because he's with them, so that's how it becomes "you". When speaking to a group I can refer to them as "you" which is the correct pronoun.



OK this time. But in the future, please make the antecedent clear.
Smile

Being one of the 49% who didn't vote for Bush, I resent being lumped in with those who did.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dogbert



Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2005 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

funplanet wrote:
"wholesale slaughter of Arabs/Muslims"???? I think the Arabs/Muslims are doing a pretty good job of slaughtering themselves...


Then why does the U.S. have to join in?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
supernick



Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2005 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
OK this time. But in the future, please make the antecedent clear.


Being one of the 49% who didn't vote for Bush, I resent being lumped in with those who did.


I think that it's only a few who support Bush's policies on the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq.

I'll try to be more careful as to not sound that I'm lumping you together with the moronic minority.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
igotthisguitar



Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2005 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

>. Actually i'm surprised Joo hasn't flamed here in defense of the US military's stellar human rights record Confused

Expect for thugs like DICK, what Amnesty reported on should be a NO BRAINER ... duh

Video - If he wasn't a Terrorist before his beating he probably is now
http://www.filecabi.net/v.php?file=1117062816.wmv
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Gwangjuboy



Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2005 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dogbert wrote:
The U.S. has no business engaging in the wholesale slaughter of Arabs/Muslims.


This imples an act of deliberate slaughter irrespective of whether or not the Arab/Muslim happens to be an enemy combatant or not. The holocaust was a wholesale slaughter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gwangjuboy



Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2005 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

igotthisguitar wrote:
>. Actually i'm surprised Joo hasn't flamed here in defense of the US military's stellar human rights record Confused

Expect for thugs like *beep*, what Amnesty reported on should be a NO BRAINER ... duh

Video - If he wasn't a Terrorist before his beating he probably is now
http://www.filecabi.net/v.php?file=1117062816.wmv



The video shows an assortment of soldiers (some evidently Arab) and a couple of American soldiers apprehending a suspect found amoungst some buidings in what could have been a battle scene shortly before the man's capture. The Arab soldiers seem to be the most vicious, but without the preceeding 30 minutes of footage how do we know whether or not this man had been firing at the soldiers before his capture? Incidentally, at one point in the clip the American restraining the suspect pushes one of the Arab men away who was striking him (the suspect).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dogbert



Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2005 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gwangjuboy wrote:
dogbert wrote:
The U.S. has no business engaging in the wholesale slaughter of Arabs/Muslims.


This imples an act of deliberate slaughter irrespective of whether or not the Arab/Muslim happens to be an enemy combatant or not. The holocaust was a wholesale slaughter.


1. They are "enemy combatants" only because we deem them so. They did not attack us.

2. The ratio of killed to each side indicates a veritable slaughter. You say that a deliberate slaughter is implied; I am speaking in terms of numbers.

3. I and everyone else has already read and seen the various unarmed persons slain in cold blood at checkpoints, etc. Are they enemy combatants? The children shorn of limbs?

4. The Holocaust is a red herring here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gwangjuboy



Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

PostPosted: Tue May 31, 2005 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dogbert wrote:
They are "enemy combatants" only because we deem them so. They did not attack us.


Which ones are you refering to? Those in Iraq? Afghansitan? Locals taking up arms? Al Qaeida operatives? Bathists?

Quote:
The ratio of killed to each side indicates a veritable slaughter. You say that a deliberate slaughter is implied; I am speaking in terms of numbers.


Speaking in terms of numbers I agree with you. I misconstrued what you said.

Quote:
I and everyone else has already read and seen the various unarmed persons slain in cold blood at checkpoints, etc. Are they enemy combatants? The children shorn of limbs?


I agree they are not enemy combatants but the flagrant violation of the perfidy rules by those bearing arms hinders the ability of US troops to further limit civilian casualties. If perfidy rules are disgregarded soldiers are inevitabley going to suffer from itchier trigger fingers. Nowhere is this more apparent than at checkpoints where countless attacks against Iraqi/ US security personnel have been carried out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bush's reponse to this from this thread has him saying that those who criticize America in the way that Amnesty has must hate America. I think that's a really clumsy tack. I mean, it may be true that there are some vile arch-Leftists in Amnesty who have a bad case of anti-Americanism, but you don't have to hate America to have scruples with some of these detention policies. Abu Ghraib was a disgrace. Gitmo isn't exactly a stellar case of upholding the Geneva Conventions, either.

Sometimes I do wonder what's going on in his head when he answers these questions. There's a kind of a Sun King aspect to Bush that seems to come out when he says things like this, a real sense that he is sincerely detached from what the rest of the world thinks about him. But maybe he knows he's not going to get any support from the Left, and he's been re-elected and has a majority congress anyway, so why bother saying anything remotely concilliatory. Why not say, "With all due respect to a fine organization like Amnesty International, I have to disagree with their findings in this particular instance." I mean, the message will still get sent across, true Red Staters will take the cue and think 'Yup, America-haters.' But why imply that people from Amnesty International hate America? It doesn't seem like a very clever response.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
funplanet



Joined: 20 Jun 2003
Location: The new Bucheon!

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

all you self-righteous dip-sticks will be the ones with egg on your face...you hate Bush and Company so much you WANT TO BELIEVE in the worst...I don't care too much for either one of them but putting your faith, lock, stock, and barrel, in some report (which happens to "support" what you want to believe), is extremely risky....but then fine....be close minded
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Apple Scruff



Joined: 29 Oct 2003

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

funplanet wrote:
all you self-righteous dip-sticks will be the ones with egg on your face...you hate Bush and Company so much you WANT TO BELIEVE in the worst...I don't care too much for either one of them but putting your faith, lock, stock, and barrel, in some report (which happens to "support" what you want to believe), is extremely risky....but then fine....be close minded


You've got a piece of shit from breakfast stuck in your teeth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
R. S. Refugee



Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jaganath69 wrote:
dogbert wrote:
They should keep Gitmo going if for no other reason than the possibility that Cheney and Rumsfeld will be inmates there someday.


I always had you pegged as a GOP man Dbert, now I am all confused.


There are some anti-imperialist conservatives don'tcha know. Like Pat Buchanan and (being presumptuous here) dogbert.

Some call them paleo-conservatives as contrasted to the neocons. The very conservative former congressman Bob Barr is, if I recall correctly, currently working for the American Civil Liberties Union and actively campaigning against the most repressive portions of the Patriot Act.

The anti-imperialist liberals and the anti-imperialist conservatives may disagree strenuously on issues like universal health care, but that doesn't mean we can't agree on opposing an imperialist foreign policy.

That's how coalitions are formed.


Last edited by R. S. Refugee on Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Emu Bitter



Joined: 27 May 2004
Location: Bundang

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cheney & Rumsfeld are scum, but so are Amnesty, effete liberals who have no idea about the real world.
I don't expect anyone on this forum to be able to compute someone attacking both though, as this forum seems to be just liberals & conservatives.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dogbert



Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210

PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

R. S. Refugee wrote:
jaganath69 wrote:
dogbert wrote:
They should keep Gitmo going if for no other reason than the possibility that Cheney and Rumsfeld will be inmates there someday.


I always had you pegged as a GOP man Dbert, now I am all confused.


There are some anti-imperialist conservatives don'tcha know. Like Pat Buchanan and (being presumptuous here) dogbert.

Some call them paleo-conservatives as contrasted to the neocons. The very conservative former congressman Bob Barr is, if I recall correctly, currently working for the American Civil Liberties Union and actively campaigning against the Patriot Act.

The anti-imperialist liberals and the anti-imperialist conservatives may disagree strenuously on issues like universal health care, but that doesn't mean we can't agree on opposing an imperialist foreign policy.

That's how coalitions are formed.


I agree. And right now I think that the direction in which the current administration has taken the country is fundamentally a far far more important concern than the other policy issues on which we may disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
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


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International