|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do you want the coalition forces to succeed in Iraq? |
| Yes, I really hope we win this war |
|
73% |
[ 19 ] |
| No, for any reason you have |
|
26% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 26 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:58 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The US has liberty. Even with the Patriot act the US is one of the most free and tolerant nations in the world. |
THAT is an outright falsification. |
really the US is not one of the most free and tolerant nations in the world. Really?
Country Score
1 Estonia 85.25
2 Ireland 83.34
3 Canada 82.34
4 Switzerland 82.33
5 Iceland 82.27
6 Bahamas 82.12
7 United Kingdom 81.96
8 United States 81.96
9 Cyprus 81.65
http://www.freewebs.com/globalliberty/rankings.htm
If you gave us a list - any list where the nations of the world are ranked according to freedom the US would be far closer to the top than the bottom. The countires with governments more oppressive than the US are far more numerous than the countires less oppressive.
If you have something that shows otherwise then let us see it - otherwise put up or shut up. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
otis
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Otis wrote: |
The Korean War was much more dangerous than the conflict in Iraq.
It almost sparked a nuclear war with China that would have spread through Europe. |
The Korean War raged from 1950-1953. China acquired nuclear weapons on October 16th, 1964.
Plus, I don't think BJWD was comparing the danger of the Korean War to the Iraq conflict. I think he meant to compare the danger of the Korean War with a conflict with Iran. |
Actually America contemplated using nukes on China. We had done it to Japan less than ten years earlier.
Europe was afraid this would spark a nuclear response from the Soviets.
It was a horrible conflict which for some odd reason is almost completely forgotten. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fighting right-wing thugs (Hitler et al) will always be more 'popular' in the eyes of those who write history than fighting left-wing thugs. The Chinese or Norks just don't fit nicely into an easy narrative of "right wing racist" and get less attention.
Perhaps this is also why hippies call everybody they disagree with Nazis rather than Bolsheviks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| otis wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Otis wrote: |
The Korean War was much more dangerous than the conflict in Iraq.
It almost sparked a nuclear war with China that would have spread through Europe. |
The Korean War raged from 1950-1953. China acquired nuclear weapons on October 16th, 1964.
Plus, I don't think BJWD was comparing the danger of the Korean War to the Iraq conflict. I think he meant to compare the danger of the Korean War with a conflict with Iran. |
Actually America contemplated using nukes on China. We had done it to Japan less than ten years earlier.
|
Yes, actually my very link supports that point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slep
Joined: 14 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
No. Every once in a while a superpower needs a good kick in the ass.
USSR- Afghanistan
USA- Vietnam, Iraq
England- USA, India
France- Germany x2, Vietnam, Algeria
It serves to remind us that nothing is forever, and that no one is undestructable.
And the war was illega, unjust and wrong since the beginning so I can't support it or the troops. |
My favourite is Italy vis a vis Ethiopia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slep
Joined: 14 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| otis wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Otis wrote: |
The Korean War was much more dangerous than the conflict in Iraq.
It almost sparked a nuclear war with China that would have spread through Europe. |
The Korean War raged from 1950-1953. China acquired nuclear weapons on October 16th, 1964.
Plus, I don't think BJWD was comparing the danger of the Korean War to the Iraq conflict. I think he meant to compare the danger of the Korean War with a conflict with Iran. |
Actually America contemplated using nukes on China. We had done it to Japan less than ten years earlier.
Europe was afraid this would spark a nuclear response from the Soviets.
It was a horrible conflict which for some odd reason is almost completely forgotten. |
Pol Pot? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| Well think what you like, but none of that stuff existed before the US invaded. Now they have unleashed hell on Earth. If someone invaded my country I would do whatever it took to get rid of the invaders. As for the religious violence, well thats what they get for believing in witchcraft and voodoo. My sympathy button is broken. |
Unbelievable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pulling out of Iraq would be the biggest blunder ever.
Democrats and liberals would rather pull out and run away then sit down and think of solutions. Someone tell me this master plan John Kerry had for Iraq when he ran for President???
What? He doesn't get elected so he isn't going to tell anyone what it is anymore?
I seem to remember John Kerry saying he had a plan for Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Pulling out of Iraq would be the biggest blunder ever. |
See my quote below. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh come on, you can't be serious. Pulling out is absolutely indefensible. "Pulling out" is for the people who supported the invasion in the first place. Sticking at it is the choice for those (rightly) opposed to the war in 2003.
(a) against the war in 2003 
(b) against pulling out in 2007
Anyone opposed to either or both of the above would be cast onto a steaming heap of dung if I had any say in it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| daskalos wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| You know nothing of my politics, daskalocos. Cayate la boca before I embarrass you. |
Actually, I am embarrassed for you on a regular basis. |
Brilliant. If you're going to toss straw men or ad hominems, you'd best be willing to back them up, son. Not sure what it is you're on about as I don't recall any conflicts in the past, but feel free to start one. I enjoy embarrassing fools on these boards. Truly. Otherwise, you really should just shut up because anyone with half a brain dismisses ad hominems as childish. They indicate only that you've nothing to actually say.
Have at it. |
The only fool you have ever embarrassed on these boards is yourself. Just by way of a for-instance, the chutzpah required for you to mention either straw men (a term you don�t seem to understand) or ad hominem attacks (your stock in trade), is unfathomable.
So, for the purpose of increasing your level self-awareness (an all-but futile endeavor), here�s the deal. We all know that you believe you have put paid to your detractors here on Dave�s ESL Caf�, but what most of the rest of us know is that you have only ever failed to make, for the most part, anything like a coherent point.
The proximate reason for this is that your mode of debate is most closely identifiable with the modes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore and, dare I say it, the current junta in Washington.
All you ever do is argue in terms of embittered cant and unexamined outrage, seeming to feel it is enough to say the intellectual equivalent of �I know you are, but what am I?� Seeming to believe, as Bush, et al, do, that saying something over and over again makes it true.
What�s most galling to those of us who share some of your political views (as evidenced ad infinitum on these boards) is that your tirades and rants do nothing to persuade anyone to the premise that Bush is an idiot or that he and his (rather, Cheney�s) lackeys are the core problem in the world today.
It�s people like you (as evidenced by your presence on these boards) who convinced me to withdraw from the Democratic party, to identify with no party. Though, yes, truth be told, I do more often support/vote for Democrats. One�s who aren�t as unbalanced as you are.
As evidenced on these boards, you�re just a pugnacious drone. I�ve spent some time trying to explicate your psychoses, but your current signature, quoting someone I agree with less often than I agree with you on most topics -- but whom I enjoy reading more often because he�s not psychotic -- seems to me to get very close to the heart of it.
My advice to you? Get sober, get medicated, get therapy, and get over it.
I now return us to the regularly scheduled thread topic. Whether or not going into Iraq was the right answer, pulling out now would be a bigger mistake. I personally believe that it was possible to go into Iraq correctly. Perhaps I was an idiot to give those leading the charge the benefit of the doubt, but then, I had been following things in that region for some time, and their lies and misapprehensions were, at the least, plausible and compelling. I believe that another leader, less invested in his own bullsh!t, could have made a decent go of the operation.
In the interest of handing you a bone to chew on, though, you were right; GWB was not the leader to do that. To take that bone away, though, the only thing you people had to say to those of us looking for answers during the build up to the Iraq invasion was that George W. Bush was an idiot, as though this was somehow news, as though this was somehow adding something to the public debate.
You didn't take the time or trouble to counter the assertions being put forward to make the case for invasion, you just felt it was enough to call GWB an idiot. Collectively, you used ad hominem attack, and self-righteously assumed it would be enough. It wasn't. The responsibility for the failure of averting war in Iraq lies at least partially with your ilk, who offered nothing of substance to refute the lies of the Cheney Administration.
In closing, please don't ever call me "son" again. For one, I presume I am older than you are. For two, the idea of so close a relationship to you makes my flesh crawl.
edit: seldom to often |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| daskalos wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| You know nothing of my politics, daskalocos. Cayate la boca before I embarrass you. |
Actually, I am embarrassed for you on a regular basis. |
Brilliant. If you're going to toss straw men or ad hominems, you'd best be willing to back them up, son. Not sure what it is you're on about as I don't recall any conflicts in the past, but feel free to start one. I enjoy embarrassing fools on these boards. Truly. Otherwise, you really should just shut up because anyone with half a brain dismisses ad hominems as childish. They indicate only that you've nothing to actually say.
Have at it. |
The only fool you have ever embarrassed on these boards is yourself. Just by way of a for-instance, the chutzpah required for you to mention either straw men (a term you don�t seem to understand) or ad hominem attacks (your stock in trade), is unfathomable.
So, for the purpose of increasing your level self-awareness (an all-but futile endeavor), here�s the deal. We all know that you believe you have put paid to your detractors here on Dave�s ESL Caf�, but what most of the rest of us know is that you have only ever failed to make, for the most part, anything like a coherent point.
The proximate reason for this is that your mode of debate is most closely identifiable with the modes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore and, dare I say it, the current junta in Washington.
All you ever do is argue in terms of embittered cant and unexamined outrage, seeming to feel it is enough to say the intellectual equivalent of �I know you are, but what am I?� Seeming to believe, as Bush, et al, do, that saying something over and over again makes it true.
What�s most galling to those of us who share some of your political views (as evidenced ad infinitum on these boards) is that your tirades and rants do nothing to persuade anyone to the premise that Bush is an idiot or that he and his (rather, Cheney�s) lackeys are the core problem in the world today.
It�s people like you (as evidenced by your presence on these boards) who convinced me to withdraw from the Democratic party, to identify with no party. Though, yes, truth be told, I do more often support/vote for Democrats. One�s who aren�t as unbalanced as you are.
As evidenced on these boards, you�re just a pugnacious drone. I�ve spent some time trying to explicate your psychoses, but your current signature, quoting someone I agree with less often than I agree with you on most topics -- but whom I enjoy reading more often because he�s not psychotic -- seems to me to get very close to the heart of it.
My advice to you? Get sober, get medicated, get therapy, and get over it.
I now return us to the regularly scheduled thread topic. Whether or not going into Iraq was the right answer, pulling out now would be a bigger mistake. I personally believe that it was possible to go into Iraq correctly. Perhaps I was an idiot to give those leading the charge the benefit of the doubt, but then, I had been following things in that region for some time, and their lies and misapprehensions were, at the least, plausible and compelling. I believe that another leader, less invested in his own bullsh!t, could have made a decent go of the operation.
In the interest of handing you a bone to chew on, though, you were right; GWB was not the leader to do that. To take that bone away, though, the only thing you people had to say to those of us looking for answers during the build up to the Iraq invasion was that George W. Bush was an idiot, as though this was somehow news, as though this was somehow adding something to the public debate.
You didn't take the time or trouble to counter the assertions being put forward to make the case for invasion, you just felt it was enough to call GWB an idiot. Collectively, you used ad hominem attack, and self-righteously assumed it would be enough. It wasn't. The responsibility for the failure of averting war in Iraq lies at least partially with your ilk, who offered nothing of substance to refute the lies of the Cheney Administration.
In closing, please don't ever call me "son" again. For one, I presume I am older than you are. For two, the idea of so close a relationship to you makes my flesh crawl.
edit: seldom to often |
pwnt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Oh come on, you can't be serious. Pulling out is absolutely indefensible. "Pulling out" is for the people who supported the invasion in the first place. Sticking at it is the choice for those (rightly) opposed to the war in 2003.
(a) against the war in 2003
(b) against pulling out in 2007 |
This is exactly the kind of thinking that drives me crazy!!! And it let's those in power get away with so much god awful stuff. Meaning, leaders, the big cheese can take a nation to war because even those not smoking the patriotic weed, won't dare raise their voice (though they are against). And then, they can continue to drive this jalopy of war because those against now think that since we are in it, we have to finish it. In both counts, spineless.............utterly NOT holding elected officials accountable.
Forget the pie in the sky prognastics. Iraq won't fall apart anymore than it is. America will not be threatened by fanatical terrorists with bases in Iraq. The world will not end tomorrow and the only thing that will end, will be the deaths of innocent boys (and girls), like the 5 more yesterday and 14 seriously injured.
The above arguement is like the guy who gets drunk to keep his buddy company. Then he decides that since he has gone that far, he might as well see his buddy safely home by driving him home ..... so many dying on that way "home" = wherever that drunkenly is.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
from dictionary.com:
insanity: extreme folly; senselessness; foolhardiness
But I'm with you guys on this board. Lets stay in Iraq forever, 3 soldiers a day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well if things don't improve at all in a year, the troops will be adios.
Then again, maybe that's what was said in 1967. |
|
| 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
