|
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 |
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 3:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| jinju wrote: |
| Who is your beef with? The US for not being able to root out sick, backwards traditions or the Muslims for having those sick, backwards traditions? Let me guess.... |
No. The Bush and Blair administrations pretending they were going in to Afghanistan to make things better for women. For using it as a selling point to the US and UK public (I know people who really bought it). When they knew damn well they wouldn't change a thing. When any serious observer knew damn well it would likely make things much worse for women living there.
For pretending they really cared. |
because your favorie gang the taliban should have stayed, eh?
And what the hell is this about caring? Caring is for the carebears not politicians. Bush did what he should have done. Looks like some of the taliban got away and now you socialize with them down at the bar by the pool table. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AbbeFaria
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This whole thing is grasping at straws. You're angry that the plight of women is still bad, but instead of criticizing those who actually oppress women, you blame the only people who might have a chance of making it better. Of course if we (the U.S. and Britain) simply instituted a martial-law type scenario where the burqa(sp) was banned, women were free citizens, equal to men in every way and all that jazz, no doubt you'd be on here tomorrow accusing the U.S. and Britain of trying to eradicate their culture.
You're angry that the U.S. and Britain ignored the plight of the women for so many years and didn't do anything about it. Then when they go in and remove the government, you're angry because they might have had other motives. So basically you're saying that it's only okay to invade a country, bomb them, remove evil governments from power and in general turn it in to a pretty, californian suburb, if you're completely noble about it and promise to plant flowers before you leave. War is only good if you have the nobility and beneficence of Christ and weapons no stronger than a Super Soaker.
Has the shrillness of your own voice damaged your hearing yet?
-S- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kimchi story wrote: |
I am inclined to believe that Afghan women today have it better than they did under the US backed muja hadine - a double whammy in light of the points raised by the OP.
|
Can you tell me why you're inclined to believe this? Because reports from women's organisations hint that things only became worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AbbeFaria wrote: |
This whole thing is grasping at straws. You're angry that the plight of women is still bad, but instead of criticizing those who actually oppress women, you blame the only people who might have a chance of making it better. Of course if we (the U.S. and Britain) simply instituted a martial-law type scenario where the burqa(sp) was banned, women were free citizens, equal to men in every way and all that jazz, no doubt you'd be on here tomorrow accusing the U.S. and Britain of trying to eradicate their culture.
|
Can you explain to me who are these 'only people who might have a chance of making it better' are exactly? I think perhaps you mean the US and Britain. In which case, explain to me exactly how they could make things better?
I would say that they had no plan 'to make things better' and had no real intention or interest in going about it. It was just a cynical public relations exercise to rally domestic support for the invasion. An invasion that doesn't seemed to have helped anybody there in the slightest, and probably made things much much worse. But there are actually some with the gall to pat themselves on the back and pretend they've somehow bettered the cause of women there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AbbeFaria
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| AbbeFaria wrote: |
This whole thing is grasping at straws. You're angry that the plight of women is still bad, but instead of criticizing those who actually oppress women, you blame the only people who might have a chance of making it better. Of course if we (the U.S. and Britain) simply instituted a martial-law type scenario where the burqa(sp) was banned, women were free citizens, equal to men in every way and all that jazz, no doubt you'd be on here tomorrow accusing the U.S. and Britain of trying to eradicate their culture.
|
Can you explain to me who are these 'only people who might have a chance of making it better' are exactly? I think perhaps you mean the US and Britain. In which case, explain to me exactly how they could make things better?
I would say that they had no plan 'to make things better' and had no real intention or interest in going about it. It was just a cynical public relations exercise to rally domestic support for the invasion. An invasion that doesn't seemed to have helped anybody there in the slightest, and probably made things much much worse. But there are actually some with the gall to pat themselves on the back and pretend they've somehow bettered the cause of women there. |
The only chance they have is some of those western ideals of freedom taking hold. I think you just need to admit to yourself that nothing will ever be good enough for you. The U.S. never did anything for them. Then they go and do it, but it wasn't to your liking. And damn it, they still aren't consulting you. How dare they.
How would you go about telling a 1500 year old culture that one of their founding principles, the subjugation and oppression of women, has to stop without pissing off all of them and sending you on another rant? I'd be interested in reading that.
-S- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AbbeFaria wrote: |
The only chance they have is some of those western ideals of freedom taking hold. I think you just need to admit to yourself that nothing will ever be good enough for you. The U.S. never did anything for them. Then they go and do it, but it wasn't to your liking. And damn it, they still aren't consulting you. How dare they. - |
Yes but how are those ideals going to take hold? How would you implement a plan to get them taking hold? How can a foreign occupying power force these ideals to take hold? Can't you see that the occupied population is going to resist these ideals partly because a foreign power is imposing/advocating them? Like the Koreans who'd never cared to eat dog, until a French woman (Ms Bardot) called Koreans barbarians for doing so? Then they went out and ate it with gusto. The US never did do anything for Afghanistan, except train up terrorists and fund them. If the US was in there doing good, or actually trying to do good, with an intelligently thought out plan, then I would applaud them. But the US and British are not there benefit of the Afghani people. Let's stop pretending.
| Quote: |
| How would you go about telling a 1500 year old culture that one of their founding principles, the subjugation and oppression of women, has to stop without pissing off all of them and sending you on another rant? I'd be interested in reading that. |
I've already provided my answer to that. You clearly need to pay more attention:
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Yes, in fact I have to agree with you. At the time I argued with friends that it was crazy to think we could wind women's liberation forward by the use of force. If anything, our forcing it on them would be reason for them to patriotically reject it. We probably just made it even more unlikely that women there will be emancipated anytime soon, by branding women's welfare as a 'western thing.' It is something that had to come slowly from within their own society. There was and is no quick fix for it. Our only avenue of assistance was probably to quietly fund it, and give quiet assistance in the way of expertise. And not holler about it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AbbeFaria
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Yes, in fact I have to agree with you. At the time I argued with friends that it was crazy to think we could wind women's liberation forward by the use of force. If anything, our forcing it on them would be reason for them to patriotically reject it. We probably just made it even more unlikely that women there will be emancipated anytime soon, by branding women's welfare as a 'western thing.' It is something that had to come slowly from within their own society. There was and is no quick fix for it. Our only avenue of assistance was probably to quietly fund it, and give quiet assistance in the way of expertise. And not holler about it. |
So we couldn't do anything about it then when we weren't doing anything, we can't do anything about it now when some are trying to do something. It has to happen naturally. It still comes back to you complaining about inaction and then when there's action, complaining about that too. If we quietly fund revolutionaries isn't that what folks like you always say we do in under-developed countries and then scream about how we meddle?
-S- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kimchi story
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No offence Big Bird, and I'm not being sarcastic, but if you don't give me more than suggestions of 'reports' that 'hint' I can't really comment.
The muja were fundamentalist savages - it's possible that women had it better under their control, but it's counterintuitive and I have a hard time believing it. I am, of course, wrong often enough to know that I am occasionally right.
You raise an interesting point and one I will consider. I would genuinely appreciate being privy to what you have found that suggests what you are suggesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kimchi story
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| AbbeFaria wrote: |
This whole thing is grasping at straws. You're angry that the plight of women is still bad, but instead of criticizing those who actually oppress women, you blame the only people who might have a chance of making it better. Of course if we (the U.S. and Britain) simply instituted a martial-law type scenario where the burqa(sp) was banned, women were free citizens, equal to men in every way and all that jazz, no doubt you'd be on here tomorrow accusing the U.S. and Britain of trying to eradicate their culture.
|
Can you explain to me who are these 'only people who might have a chance of making it better' are exactly? I think perhaps you mean the US and Britain. In which case, explain to me exactly how they could make things better?
I would say that they had no plan 'to make things better' and had no real intention or interest in going about it. It was just a cynical public relations exercise to rally domestic support for the invasion. An invasion that doesn't seemed to have helped anybody there in the slightest, and probably made things much much worse. But there are actually some with the gall to pat themselves on the back and pretend they've somehow bettered the cause of women there. |
Your hero, that punk Chavez would actually come on the side of the Taliban instead of the US. He is already the faithful follower of that piece of shit Castro. See, what gets me about you, is that you continuously defend people who do nothing but oppress democracy and human rights in their countries. You continue to support Chavez, and by extension Castro and whoever else Chavez will ally himself just to spite the US (Iran? support for the Taliban? why not if it pisses off Wasington) and therefore you support people who oppress their own. Then you have the gall to come here and try to tell us you care about the plight of others? You are nothing but a fat-mouthed hypocrite enjoying all the benefits of a western democracy while in effect supporting the denial of those same benefits to others. Thats what pisses me off about you and your hypocritical rants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
The US never did do anything for Afghanistan, except train up terrorists and fund them. If the US was in there doing good, or actually trying to do good, with an intelligently thought out plan, then I would applaud them. But the US and British are not there benefit of the Afghani people. Let's stop pretending. |
Suggestion? The US trained fighters to fight the Soviet invasion. Question to, what should they have done? Start world war 3? Again, why not condemn the real culprits? The backwards culture of the place, and the disgusting values championed by the Koran. Thats FAR more guilty than the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chavez is popularly elected, and his people are voluntarily and overwhelmingly giving him greater power. That makes him not an oppressor of democracy, unless you would like to enlighten me re: democracy.
Are Venezuelans stupid, and if so, does that mean they are not entitled to a limited democracy?
As far as Castro . . .
Look into Cuba's infant mortality rate, and look into how many Cuban doctors are working, on the government tab, in developing nations.
Then, look at all their internal strife.
Wait a minute . . .
Every country suppresses dissidents. Do you believe the US government does not?
Please give me a case of either of these men doing something out of sheer malice toward the US.
I will refute any single example with 3 or fewer sentences. Try me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Where the hell did the post I was responding to go? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nevermind. There it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
Chavez is popularly elected, and his people are voluntarily and overwhelmingly giving him greater power. That makes him not an oppressor of democracy, unless you would like to enlighten me re: democracy.
Are Venezuelans stupid, and if so, does that mean they are not entitled to a limited democracy?
As far as Castro . . .
Look into Cuba's infant mortality rate, and look into how many Cuban doctors are working, on the government tab, in developing nations.
Then, look at all their internal strife.
Wait a minute . . .
Every country suppresses dissidents. Do you believe the US government does not?
Please give me a case of either of these men doing something out of sheer malice toward the US.
I will refute any single example with 3 or fewer sentences. Try me. |
Cuba is such a paradise that it kills and/or arrests people who try to flee it by risking their own lives. 2 questions:
1. Why do people by the thousands risk their lives to escape Cuba (the opposite is true with the US, people try to enter it)
2. Why does Castro need to arrest or kill them?
The US puts dissidents in prisons and camps? Seriousy, you are comparing them?
Chavez is a punk. The issue with him is that he allies himself with those who WERENT elected and who oppress therir own people. Lat time I checked the US didnt kill its dissidents, Chavez's hero, Castro, DOES.
You ready to defend North Korea, too, pinko? |
|
| 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
