|
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 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Read up on the Astros new stadium and how the land for it was acquired - not to mention most of his other business dealings - and you will understand how many of us knew he was a lying piece of crap well before he was "elected." |
Rangers dude, rangers. If you can't get even that right, wonder what else you have gotten wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: So does anyone still support the invasion of Iraq? |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
If you are paying any American taxes at all you are contributing to it though, n'est ce pas? |
That's a pretty lame way to support the war, if you believe in it. If you support the war and you're an able bodied American male and you've not served your military duty already, I think it behooves one to actually put their money where their mouth is. Anything else, you just strike me as an arm chair QB. You're happy to talk a big game but you much much prefer if the other guy is doing the actual heavy lifting... or dying. |
How about if you're a CANADIAN male with minor health problems that precluded him from serving when he volunteered a few years back?
I guess those people should have no opinions at all by your logic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject: Re: So does anyone still support the invasion of Iraq? |
|
|
[quote="Wangja"]
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| R. S. Refugee wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
...does anyone still support the invasion...? |
I support the invasion just as much today as I did in March, 2003. |
Why are you teaching in Korea and not fighting in Iraq? |
Using that logic anyone who opposes the war should be
protesting it and demonstrating against it. So when will we see you walking around with a big sign at City Hall saying "STOP THE WAR!"?
Or if you oppose the war solely because you dislike America...why aren't you fighting for the insurgents...you'd fit right in. |
Ah yes, that hoary - and now discredited - "you're either with us or you're with the terorists" argument.
I agree. It's about as hoary and discredited as the argument "If you support the war, why aren't you serving?" That was my point actually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The US never nvaded Iraq to invade Iraq " the US invaded Iraq to invade the middle east. Al Qaedists , Bathists and Khomeni followers have been after the US for a long time. They teach hate , incite violence and are the reason for just about all terror in the first place. 9-11 was what happens when you don't do anything about them. They ( Al Qaedists , Bathists and Khomeni followers) never gave up their war. Iraq it is part of a much bigger war on terror. The Question ought to be . Does anyone still support the war on terror? If you think that the war on terror is only the war in Afghanistan. Then here is a question where did the 9-11 hijackers come from? Afghanistan? The way the middle east was before 9-11 was a threat to the United States. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Read up on the Astros new stadium and how the land for it was acquired - not to mention most of his other business dealings - and you will understand how many of us knew he was a lying piece of crap well before he was "elected." |
Rangers dude, rangers. If you can't get even that right, wonder what else you have gotten wrong. |
You think you're going to embarrass me being petty about the name of the fricking team when the issue is the fraud and deceit he and his partners engaged in, while at the same time robbing people of their life savings?
Freaking joke. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Svetlana
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Then here is a question where did the 9-11 hijackers come from? Afghanistan? |
Saudi Arabia, and yet the Saudis seem to have no role in any of Americas wars in the region... It was telling how a while back when the American media was going on about how Syria and Iran should get involved in making peace in Iraq, yet Saudi Arabia who spawned the nutjobs who carried out 9/11 and share a 1000km border with Iraq have very little role in bringing peace. The Americans do not care about freedoms and peace, they care about control and exploiting resources. If America was even 1/10 as good and pure as they pretend to be, they would be in Darfur trying to help the millions of people who have and are starving to death while death squads roam free. Too bad there is not any oil in the Sudan.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Svetlana wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Then here is a question where did the 9-11 hijackers come from? Afghanistan? |
Saudi Arabia, and yet the Saudis seem to have no role in any of Americas wars in the region... It was telling how a while back when the American media was going on about how Syria and Iran should get involved in making peace in Iraq, yet Saudi Arabia who spawned the nutjobs who carried out 9/11 and share a 1000km border with Iraq have very little role in bringing peace. The Americans do not care about freedoms and peace, they care about control and exploiting resources. If America was even 1/10 as good and pure as they pretend to be, they would be in Darfur trying to help the millions of people who have and are starving to death while death squads roam free. Too bad there is not any oil in the Sudan.... |
The biggest clue somebody knows even less about the ME than the neocons do...
...they suggest it should have been Saudi Arabia that should have been attacked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:10 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
The biggest clue somebody knows even less about the ME than the neocons do...
...they suggest it should have been Saudi Arabia that should have been attacked. |
Who said that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Svetlana
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Then here is a question where did the 9-11 hijackers come from? Afghanistan? |
Saudi Arabia, and yet the Saudis seem to have no role in any of Americas wars in the region... It was telling how a while back when the American media was going on about how Syria and Iran should get involved in making peace in Iraq, yet Saudi Arabia who spawned the nutjobs who carried out 9/11 and share a 1000km border with Iraq have very little role in bringing peace. The Americans do not care about freedoms and peace, they care about control and exploiting resources. If America was even 1/10 as good and pure as they pretend to be, they would be in Darfur trying to help the millions of people who have and are starving to death while death squads roam free. Too bad there is not any oil in the Sudan.... |
The biggest clue somebody knows even less about the ME than the neocons do...
...they suggest it should have been Saudi Arabia that should have been attacked. |
Who was suggesting they should be attacked? Not me certainly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not a fan of conservative, wishy-washy David Ignatius but when even he is crying out for a totally different foreign policy, it shows the meat is rotten. He talks about how horrid is the opinion of the U.S. in the Muslim world of large. Even in those places typically uber friendly.
Now all the yahoos on this site will say -- all the Muslims are no good for nothing, who cares, they mean nothing, yatayatayata.........like little boys just wanting to see explosions and without consideration and intelligence for "the other". But a billion + of Muslims worldwide, have to be lived with, traded with, encountered, talked to, traveled among. How has U.S. policy made that secretary safer?
Invasion and attack wholesale as the U.S. commited was damn wrong and could never make any American citizen safer. The idea is perverse. Even at home, safety presumes "feel safe". Do Americans? When confronted with the hysteria of Bush's National Security apparatus and propaganda machine? Do they? I don't think so and that is why America should have just declared victory years ago and moved on......
Regarding Saudi Arabia -- you don't attack anyone who you go hunting with........that's about as simple as it gets and an example of how petty and nepotistic this administration really is .
| Quote: |
[David Ignatius]U.S. must change Iraq policy soon
DOHA - "Are you on the road, or in the ditch?" Back when I covered labor negotiations 30 years ago, that was the question reporters would ask to get a sense of how contract talks were going. The phrase came back to me last weekend as I listened to a series of relentlessly negative presentations at a conference here on America's relations with the Muslim world.
We are in the ditch in the Middle East. As bad as you think it is watching TV, it's worse. It's not just Iraq, but the whole pattern of America's dealings with the Arab world. People aren't just angry at America - they've been that way to varying degrees since I first came here 27 years ago. What's worse is that they're giving up on us - on our ability to make good decisions, to solve problems, to play the role of honest broker.
Let's start with some poll numbers presented at the Doha conference by Shibley Telhami, a University of Maryland professor and a fellow of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, which cosponsored the conference with the Qatari foreign ministry. The polling was done last year by Zogby International in six countries that are usually regarded as pro-American: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
In these six "friendly" countries, only 12 percent of those surveyed expressed favorable attitudes toward the United States. America's leaders have surpassed Israel's as objects of anger. Asked which foreign leader they disliked most, 38 percent named George Bush; Ariel Sharon was a distant second at 11 percent; and Ehud Olmert was third with 7 percent.
The poll data show a deep suspicion of American motives: 65 percent of those surveyed said they didn't think democracy was a real U.S. objective in the Middle East. Asked to name two countries that had the most freedom and democracy, only 14 percent said America, putting it far behind France and Germany. And remember, folks, this is coming from our friends.
During the Doha conference, speakers put into words the attitudes summarized by the poll numbers. Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a fiery Sunni preacher who appears regularly on al-Jazeera, said that America acted as if "some people were created to lead and others to be led," and that America had "lost the trust and confidence" of Muslims. Well, OK, he's notorious for his anti-America and anti-Israel views. But I heard the same thing from Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League, who said Arabs were "losing confidence in the U.S. role" as a peace broker.
And my friend Rami Khouri, who is one of most balanced journalists in the Arab world, warned that a broad popular front is emerging to challenge American hegemony. Iraq "discredits what America tries to do in the Mideast," he said. Khouri explained that Arabs admire Hezbollah because it represents "the end of docility, the end of acquiescence."
You don't have to agree with these Muslim critics to recognize that the anger they express represents a serious national security problem for the United States. That's what President Bush seems not to understand in his surge of troops into Iraq, his bromides about democracy and his strategy of confrontation with Iran. It isn't a tiny handful of people in the Arab world who oppose what America is doing. It's nearly everyone.
To get out of the ditch, America must change its Iraq policy, soon. That doesn't mean pulling out of Iraq quickly, as many Democrats in Washington seem to favor. I found few people here who thought a quick American pullout made sense. But it does mean shifting the American focus - so that we are talking with Iraq's neighbors, and negotiating with the Iraqis a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Tellingly, the one American who got loud, sustained applause here was Chris Kojm, a senior adviser on the Baker-Hamilton report.
And to get back on the road, for real, America must broker a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. I winced when I heard Prime Minister Olmert say last weekend in Jerusalem that "the American and Israeli positions are totally identical" on the terms for recognizing a Palestinian unity government. The Israelis are right in insisting that Hamas must recognize Israel's right to exist. But how to get there? What if Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had responded: America is a mediator in this conflict. Its positions are independent of either side, and it is willing to talk to all parties to achieve peace.
I would have loved to see the looks of astonishment from the America-bashers here.
For an ongoing discussion of international issues, David Ignatius cohosts with Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek an online forum called "PostGlobal," at www.washingtonpost.com/postglobal. David Ignatius can be reached at [email protected] |
|
|
| 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
