Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Former supporter joins foes over war

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

Former supporter joins foes over war
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

R. S. Refugee

Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:10 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

I missed those Joo-Bob exchanges. Nice to see they're back. Wink

Golden oldies.

dogbert

Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:11 am Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

It has clearly been expensive for the US but we really don't know if it will turn out good for the US , but for the Iraqis it is good because Saddam was as bad as Idi Amin , and his sons were coming up next. Furthermore it is clearly good for other countires in the region.

Tell me why I should care as an American about what is good for Iraq? Tell me why you, as an American, care about what is good for the countries in the region.

I could not agree more.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:30 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Fighting the insurgents also saves lives. They would kill many more if they had the chance.

They would have no reason for an insurgency and no support from the population if the US were not in Iraq - try to say otherwise, but the US occupation is the reason there is an insurgency, not the reason the US is there.

Quote:

their is a very strong argument that keeping US forces in Iraq makes the nation better than just leaving it to disorder.

And I've been waiting to hear that argument - HOW is the US better because we keep our forces in Iraq?

Quote:

Yawn, I think you have this stuff programmed into a quick-key to same you typing it so many times. The Bush Administration has said many times that they found no connections between Saddam and 9/11 - they know it, so why don't you?

but Saddam did have contacts between Al Qaida and he did support terror and he wasn't in complience

Saddam had nothing to ddo with 9/11. You know it, everyone knows it. You amuse me.

Quote:

You couldn't refute anything. the fact is your description of the facts' isn't accurate.

You saying it doesn't make it true ... based on your track record around here, it's more likely to make it false.

Quote:

it tells where you stand and what your views are.

The fact that you have nothing cogent to say about the article in the OP tells a lot about who you are.

Quote:

No you denounce US actions but you don't denounce the insurgents for their war.

Not my job to denounce ionsurgents that wouldn't even exist were it not for the mendacity of my own govt. As an American, my patriotic duty is to speak out about the criimes WE commit, because there is much greater likelihood that some progress can be made by shining light onto them in a free society where public opinion matters.

Did you feel that Thoreau and Gandhi and King were traitors as well? And the guy who leaked The Pentagon Papers, Daniel Elsberg? And the guy who has confessed to being Deep Throat? And I suppose Seymour Hersh is a traitor, and all the news services that carried photos of Abu Ghraib, and the recent articles about homicide in Bagram ... disloyal traitors and anti-Americans, every damn one of us, eh?

Quote:

My suggestion for you is to actually discuss the ideas present on this thread, read the OP and talk about that - there is nothing new that you have said which you have not said many times, and which has not been refuted many times. Claiming otherwise is useless - non sequiteur, nonresponsive and irrelevant to the present discussion.

Your opinons on the subject of the insurgency and the actions of states hostile to the US answers many the questions about you.

And just why, Joo, do you now admit that your presence in this thread is for no other reason than to harass The Bobster? Had you come out with that honestly at the beginning we could have saved a lot of trouble, because it is now obvious why you have no interest at all in making even the slightest reference to the article in the OP.

The question posed in the OP, to refresh your memory : Is it possible for an American to love his or her country and be opposed to the war? Is it possible for someone, anyone, to understand the logic of resistance to occupation and yet be patriotic - and is it possible that those of us who oppose this particular administration have the highest regard for our country and our doing everything we can to make our country better?

Joo's answer has I think already been made clear - people who don't see things his way are not loyal Americans.

bucheon bum wrote:

Quote:

I missed those Joo-Bob exchanges. Nice to see they're back.

Golden oldies.

The guy amuses me, but mostly I have other things on my plate these days ... he's a little cute, though, and without the dudes like him and Gwangjuboy and TUM who obsess over me, I guess this place wouldn't have been quite so interesting for The Bobster the last couple of years.

Wink

Last edited by The Bobster on Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:54 am; edited 1 time in total

dogbert

Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:39 am Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Fighting the insurgents also saves lives. They would kill many more if they had the chance.

This is SO obvious, I wonder how Joo missed it.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 4:59 am Post subject:

Quote:

Uh no the insurgents fight to conquer Iraq, they don't want the Shia or the Kurds to run things.The insurgents know they can't win an election. What gives them the right to tell the 80% of Iraqis who are different from them what to do?

Quote:

Saddam had nothing to ddo with 9/11. You know it, everyone knows it. You amuse me.

but Saddam is part of the hate in the mid east ,
The mideast the way it was is a threat to the US. Changing Iraq is part of changing the mid east.

Quote:

You saying it doesn't make it true ... based on your track record around here, it's more likely to make it false.

Just cause you say so doesn't mean anything - Yawn

Quote:

the fact is that you don't oppose their war.

Quote:

Did you feel that Thoreau and Gandhi and King were traitors as well? And the guy who leaked The Pentagon Papers, Daniel Elsberg? And the guy who has confessed to being Deep Throat? And I suppose Seymour Hersh is a traitor, and all the news services that carried photos of Abu Ghraib, and the recent articles about homicide in Bagram ... disloyal traitors and anti-Americans, every damn one of us, eh?

Uh no but those people wouldn't refuse to condemn the other side if asked.

Quote:

Uh no the OP said that this war is bad for Iraqis.

That is debatable, besides you were making as strawman arguement about being being anti US .

Being anti war doesn't mean you are anti US, however refusing to condemn the insurgents and being worried that the US is too powerful and thinking the any strategic gains in Iraq are ill gotten gains that must be returned means you are not pro US.

If the shoe fits..

Quote:

The question posed in the OP, to refresh your memory : Is it possible for an American to love his or her country and be opposed to the war? Is it possible for someone, anyone, to understand the logic of resistance to occupation and yet be patriotic - and is it possible that those of us who oppose this particular administration have the highest regard for our country and our doing everything we can to make our country better?

Sure but at the same time it is probable that you are not pro US if not condemn the insurgents war and worry that the US is too powerful , and think the any strategic gains in Iraq are ill gotten gains that must be returned means you are not pro US.

Quote:

Joo's answer has I think already been made clear - people who don't see things his way are not loyal Americans.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 5:01 am Post subject:

dogbert wrote:

The Bobster wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Fighting the insurgents also saves lives. They would kill many more if they had the chance.

This is SO obvious, I wonder how Joo missed it.

No the insurgents fight to conquer Iraq, cause they can't win an election.

And Al Qaida fights to regain the Caliphate.

and mideast regimes can put an end to the hate and terror if they choose too.

dogbert

Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:50 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

dogbert wrote:

The Bobster wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Fighting the insurgents also saves lives. They would kill many more if they had the chance.

This is SO obvious, I wonder how Joo missed it.

No the insurgents fight to conquer Iraq, cause they can't win an election.

And just what were the "insurgents" doing when Saddam Hussein was in power?

I say again, I mourn the life of every American lost fighting Arabs in the Mideast. I believe that those who sent them to be killed are traitors.

You are one of the many in favor of sending Americans to be killed by Arabs.

In my book, that makes you a traitor.

The time will come when you and your ilk will be judged.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:50 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

the insurgents fight to conquer Iraq, they don't want the Shia or the Kurds to run things.

Evidence, c'ie vous plais? And try to avoid The Washington Times again, it seems to irk Dogbert a bit.

Quote:

the fact is that you don't oppose their war.

The fact is that what you want to say about me is STILL irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Still looking, have you commented at all on the real subject here instead of making everything about The Bobster?

Quote:

Uh no but those people wouldn't refuse to condemn the other side if asked.

Wanna bet? Evidence, please ...

Quote:

Uh no the OP said that this war is bad for Iraqis.

That is debatable, besides you were making as strawman arguement about being being anti US.

If it's debatable, why haven't you debated it? And if my argument is strawman, why haven't you knockled it down? How is it a strawman argument to support the troops by bringing them home from a war has given no benefit to the US and done a lot of harm, fighting people who have never attacked us? If the argument is so weak wht have you concentrated your energies attacking me personally, questioning my love of country (but not the gentleman in the OP, I notice) instead of building a counter-arguement that makes some sense and might convince someone?

Quote:

Being anti war doesn't mean you are anti US, however refusing to condemn the insurgents and being worried that the US is too powerful and thinking the any strategic gains in Iraq are ill gotten gains that must be returned means you are not pro US.

So you say. And say and say ... but seriously, do you think that understanding the logic of resistance to occupation makes one anti-American? And where is your snide little remarks that question the loyalty of the gentleman in the OP who also has not condemned the insurgents?

Quote:

You've been saying that for a while, and I've been letting you get away with it. Support it with a reasoned argument, if you please, my good man.

Quote:

Joo's answer has I think already been made clear - people who don't see things his way are not loyal Americans.

Uh no those that refuse to condemn the isurgents and who worry that the US is too powerful , and think that any strategic gains in Iraq are ill gotten gains that must be returned are not loyal Americans.[/quote]
Don't just say it, support it with reasoned argument and evidence, if you have any. It's just your opinion - and I doubt it's sincere, just a lazy rouse you use, attacking individuals instead of ideas.

Support it. Now.

And answer these clearly as well : Is the US in danger from anyone in Iraq? Has the US gained anything from our 1700 dead so far? What do we reasonably expect to gain, and how likely is it?

dogbert

Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:02 am Post subject:

Bobster, surely you as well suspect the "Wash Times"??

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:08 am Post subject:

dogbert wrote:

Bobster, surely you as well suspect the "Wash Times"??

Their news articles are as slanted as FOX, sometimes more so.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:40 am Post subject:

Quote:

Evidence, c'ie vous plais? And try to avoid The Washington Times again, it seems to irk Dogbert a bit.

well they fought the elections - why ?

and they attack the Shia and the Kurds you tell us.

They want to run things that is why. They can't ask for independence cause their area has no oil.

Quote:

anyone who doesn't oppose their war isn't pro US.

Quote:

Wanna bet? Evidence, please ...

take me sometime on that.

Quote:

If it's debatable, why haven't you debated it?

I have.

Quote:

And if my argument is strawman, why haven't you knockled it down?

I have

Quote:

How is it a strawman argument to support the troops by bringing them home from a war has given no benefit to the US and done a lot of harm, fighting people who have never attacked us? If the argument is so weak wht have you concentrated your energies attacking me personally, questioning my love of country (but not the gentleman in the OP, I notice) instead of building a counter-arguement that makes some sense and might convince someone?

The argument that this war is bad for Iraq is weak.

Quote:

You don't only try to understand their logic you try to spin it the best possible way. Defending their homes? No they are trying to conquer Iraq.

Quote:

You've been saying that for a while, and I've been letting you get away with it. Support it with a reasoned argument, if you please, my good man

.

If you are worried that the US is too powerful and that any gain the US makes is ill gotten and must be surrendered and you refuse to condemn the insurgents it is clear enough

Quote:

Support it. Now.

I did above. Your failure to condemn the insurgents as well as others who have fought against the US . And your fear the US is too powerful and you insistance that strategic gains if any from Iraq must be surrendered is enough to make the case.

Quote:

And answer these clearly as well : Is the US in danger from anyone in Iraq? Has the US gained anything from our 1700 dead so far? What do we reasonably expect to gain, and how likely is it?

[/quote]

the strategic situation of the mid east was a threat and the US needed to change it.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:44 am Post subject:

Quote:

And just what were the "insurgents" doing when Saddam Hussein was in power?

working with Saddam mostly.

Quote:

I say again, I mourn the life of every American lost fighting Arabs in the Mideast. I believe that those who sent them to be killed are traitors.

You are one of the many in favor of sending Americans to be killed by Arabs.

In my book, that makes you a traitor.

IF Al Qaida demands the the Caliphate how do you make them happy except by giving in to all their demands ?

Tell us which of Al Qaida's demands we ought not to give in to.

Why did they target Australians with the Bali bombing?

Quote:

The time will come when you and your ilk will be judged.

from the guy who wanted to keep the US out of WWII.

If the US had followed that movement the Hitler would have gotten the atom bomb and used it on the US.

with their immigration polices Einstein would have never made it to the US and England would have been knocked out which would have slowed US A bomb development.

Shows bad judgement.

Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Tue Jun 07, 2005 4:24 pm; edited 4 times in total

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:48 am Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

Has the US gained anything from our 1700 dead so far?

Yup, the removal of Saddam Hussein. As for other benefits, we'll have to see it to the end. It may prove we lose even more lives for nothing other than death, but I think you may be selling American and Iraqi lives lost a little short.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:34 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

The Bobster wrote:

Has the US gained anything from our 1700 dead so far?

Yup, the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Nup, all 1700 died after the fall of Hussein and the beginning of the occupation.

Joo is no longer worth responding to, andf I'm tired of giving him time out of my day. He is asked for evidence to support his claims, and he gives none, claims he already has though of course he has not, and finally goes back to his old game of questioning my loyalty. He ends up with this, which we have heard many times and which he offers yet again with no support or argument :

Quote:

the strategic situation of the mid east was a threat and the US needed to change it.

In what way has the strategic situation for the US changed for the better due to our occupation of Iraq? Most accounts would seem to indicate it is worse than before.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 4:01 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Joo is no longer worth responding to, andf I'm tired of giving him time out of my day. He is asked for evidence to support his claims, and he gives none, claims he already has though of course he has not, and finally goes back to his old game of questioning my loyalty. He ends up with this, which we have heard many times and which he offers yet again with no support or argument :

I did give evidence. Just cause you don't like it doesn't mean a whole lot.

You can't be pro US if you worry that the US is too powerful and that any strategic gains in Iraq must be surrendered, and you don't condemn the insurgents or other wars against the US when asked.

Quote:

In what way has the strategic situation for the US changed for the better due to our occupation of Iraq? Most accounts would seem to indicate it is worse than before.

Saddam is gone, Khaddafy disarmed, Syria is out of Lebanon as for the rest the jury is still out but really it would be hard for it to be worse than the 90's when 70,000 trained in AQ camps.

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 Next
Page 2 of 4

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