|
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 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 9:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Ron Paul's all-over-the-place response cites "non-intervention," "the reasons they attacked us," "[why] they attack us [now,]" "Iraq," and "Reagan." And who exactly is "they" in Ron Paul's thinking, by the way?
Now, did Giuliani deliberately mischaracterize Ron Paul's position? Or is Ron Paul's position simply a bundle of confusion and difficult, under the best of circumstances, especially in a real-time debate, to grasp in the first place? |
Ah, the sliced and diced quote routine! What he said was crystal clear, liar boy. Go watch the video and come back with some more lies. Bitchslapping you is fun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Ron Paul's all-over-the-place response cites "non-intervention," "the reasons they attacked us," "[why] they attack us [now,]" "Iraq," and "Reagan." And who exactly is "they" in Ron Paul's thinking, by the way?
Now, did Giuliani deliberately mischaracterize Ron Paul's position? Or is Ron Paul's position simply a bundle of confusion and difficult, under the best of circumstances, especially in a real-time debate, to grasp in the first place?
But how do you know that this was not the comment that stuck in Giuliani's mind and that this was what he responded to?
I do not doubt that Giuliani went for easy points. I do doubt Ron Paul's supposed clarity of thought and coherency of message in what remains -- taken together or taken in excperts you chose -- simplistic, now-past-tense/now-present-tense nonsense. |
No doubt a lot of Ron Paul's foreign policy positions are whacko, but so are a host of Bush's. That's kind of the point, as the rest of the candidates are standing up there and defending the Iraq war. There's not a lot of other place for dissent to go to but to whacko hard-line libertarian Ron Paul. Ron Paul is at least a harmless whacko because he is not electable.
Giuliani, on the other hand, is the most despicable among all of them.
Sure, McCain likes to chant 'Bomb, Bomb, Bomb; Bomb, Bomb Iran,' Tancredo has his lips planted firmly to Chen Shui-bien's ass, Romney's broad definition of what is not torture would tickle Gonzales pink, and Brownback is hardly different from Ron Paul when it comes to foreign policy although I think he hates gays. Giuliani, however, offers us nothing on foreign policy. His foreign policy experience is next to nil, unless you count throwing Arafat out of the Lincoln Center on the grounds that he was a terrorist, which I'll admit was kind of admirable.
Some of Ron Paul's points need to be heard. He is very open about all his nut-ball super-libertarian ideas. On Bill Maher he explained how he thought the Civil War was excessive and how he thought the FAA should be sold to private corporations. Giuliani is playing his weak foreign policy hand close to his chest, and looking tough and acting tough because the neo-con base gets absolutely tittilated when he does so.
Maybe I'll start a thread on how Giuliani is a fascist fake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| No doubt a lot of Ron Paul's foreign policy positions are whacko, but so are a host of Bush's. That's kind of the point, as the rest of the candidates are standing up there and defending the Iraq war. There's not a lot of other place for dissent to go to but to whacko hard-line libertarian Ron Paul. Ron Paul is at least a harmless whacko because he is not electable... |
All right. Now your position makes sense to me. And I think you and I mostly agree with the mainstream foreign-policy community in seeing W. Bush's foreign-policy ideas as whacko as well. That is, my criticism of Ron Paul does not in any way imply a defense of W. Bush. (Frankly, I do not know where that comes from, but let me clarify it right now.)
I feel the same way about the other Republican candidates, incidentally. And I have no intention of voting for Giuliani in the primary, either. That is but one reason why I look to Obama at the moment -- not strong at all in international affairs, but he has a very professional and level head and would likely surround himself with wise advisors. McCain is my fallback guy, for lack of a better term. I will most likely vote for him in the primary.
Moreover, this should not come as a surprise. In my estimation, the only Republican presidents who ran foreign policy right since 1945 were Eisenhower and H.W. Bush. And the Democrats have only one: Clinton. Most presidents run foreign affairs badly. JFK, LBJ, Reagan, W. Bush: disastrous. So, again, why should this Republican lineup surprise you?
Finally, your attention to "Ron Paul's points" seems to assign too much originality to him. They are clearly Chalmers Johnson and Stephen Kinzer's ideas: and they are whacko ideas as well. Muckrakers, hopelessly-simplistic, one-dimensional thinking. Ron Paul chronically relies on their vocabulary and historical examples. In gambling we call this "a tell." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Those who support inverventionism (military socialism) ignore facts, history and reality. They are evil in their hearts, powermad, or just have lower intelligence.
Ron Paul was correct.
Ron Paul is the only Republican who can win in 2008.
And, being the only Republican on the right side of the horrible mess the Bushies along with their interventionist allies in both big parties have made in the world, maybe he can pull out the nomination.
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10984
To quote Pat Buchanan:
"Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right are babbling in confession, "If I had only known then what I know now ..."
Rudy implied that Ron Paul was unpatriotic to suggest the violence against us out of the Middle East may be in reaction to U.S. policy in the Middle East. Was President Hoover unpatriotic when, the day after Pearl Harbor, he wrote to friends, "You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten."
Pearl Harbor came out of the blue, but it also came out of the troubled history of U.S.-Japanese relations going back 40 years. Hitler's attack on Poland was naked aggression. But to understand it, we must understand what was done at Versailles � after the Germans laid down their arms based on Wilson's 14 Points. We do not excuse � but we must understand.
Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.
By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq."
The fact that interventionists on this site understand neither the facts of history nor have the ability to analyze cause and effect throughout history does not mean that others cannot. Pat Buchanan recognizes the historical impact of interventionist policies, as does Ron Paul, and as I have been relating for years here on Dave's.
Ron Paul is securing the support of those individuals who believe in and advocate liberty. We do not expect the supporters of evil to support liberty. We expect to fight them.
Yes, Ron Paul is correct. He won the debate. The others looked like fools.
It IS time to Restore the Republic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Representative Paul thanks for coming today.
Mr Buchanan thank you also for attending.
First question either of you are free to answer.
Does Al Qaeda fight for the Caliphate?
Second question either of you are free to answer, please describe interventionism.
Third question like the first two questions above if either of you were president which demands of Al Qaeda ought the US give in to? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is a pretty inane thread. Paul is an idiot, btw.
But as to the sort-of-discussion that is taking place and how it applies to why America was attacked, I give you two of Gopher's comments:
| Quote: |
| America had been in Saudi Arabia for decades -- and on friendly terms with the govt. I refer to ARAMCO, among other things, including military agreements. |
The saudi 'government'.... that's funny, but also the problem. Things like ARAMCO, the military agreements etc, are EXACTLY what the Paul comment was getting at. The Saudi gov is not, and has never been a representative body.
and
| Quote: |
The American govt (previous administrations more so than the present one) moves willfully and with a purpose |
This purpose that you speak of was completely one sided, more often than not against the interests of the people being impacted in the region, and certainly not supported by them.
and
As for the history lessons you love to teach, you're once again wrong. Your attitude in your postings is exactly why people hate America/Americans, and why so many of the problems are now occuring. Comments like 'i only look at this board to see what you crazy leftists think, since people of my great intelligence and political leanings know we are right...'
If you want to use history as a means to understand the impact of what policy can do, maybe take a look at two things that happened relatively close together, 1. Suez, and 2. overthrowing of Mossadegh(q).
The CIA overthrew good old Mohammed. The man wasn't really popularly supported, but was more supported than the shah. His lack of religious faith and backing is what made the overthrow possible. The problem is though, that this little act of overthrowing a 'popular' leader, would become an event with long lasting repercussions. It started over oil. Not US oil interests, really, but oil and foreign control over it. Any of this sound familiar???
As for Suez, it was a major issue to France and England, and had it not been election time, the US reaction would have been bigger. The crisis was started by the withdrawal of American and British support for the Aswan damn project. Many reasons existed for this withdrawal of support, but if it had gone forward, the Suez crisis never happens and you likely have a far different middle east. How the Suez crisis was solved is another lesson that goes to the heart of what paul was sort of trying to say. Whereas the Brits, French and Israelis came up with an elaborate and incredibly ill-conceived plan for military/diplomatic action to take the canal back, the fact is they went against popular sentiment of a large group of people and national sovereignty to get what they wanted-- that's also something that sounds familiar.
Blow bacl or whatever other term you want to use is the right one. Paul didn't state it overly well, and in stating it it doesn;t mean the people/governments/terrorists of the Mid-East/region are calm, rational, peace loving, intelligence logical people. But saying that 9/11 was blow back is not simplistic. It's not inaccurate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How is Paul an idiot?
I'm quite sure that this is the first you have heard of him. I know it is. Can you really know enough about him to make that claim? Why don't you spend some time reading the last 10 or so years of his writings. Watch the videos of him from the floor of congress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| freethought wrote: |
| The Saudi gov is not, and has never been[,] a representative body... |
Did not read your post beyond this, Freethought. You and the other radical leftists here do not even stop at excoriating the American govt, blaming it for everything wrong in the world back to God's throwing Adam out of the Garden. But you also reserve the right to self-righteously declare which govts meet your approval. Which govts in the world today meet your approval, by the way...?
The bottom line is this: you want nothing less than a socialist, Marxist-Leninist world -- or something else along radical-utopian or, in some cases, libertarian lines. "Power-to-the-people." Direct democracy. No govts or any middlemen whatsoever. Nothing else will satisfy you. So I suspect no govts meet your approval, then.
Difficult to exchange views with people who cling so tightly to such extremist standards and demands.
In any case, I stand by my ARAMCO example of how American-Middle Eastern relations have sometimes gone right (turbulence along the way notwithstanding).
Last edited by Gopher on Sat May 19, 2007 7:28 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, BJ, you're right, Gopher's the idiot...
My sincere apologies to Mr Paul. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No, neither are idiots. DuhDuh is an idiot. You just disagree with RP and G. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Freethought wrote: |
| The CIA overthrew good old Mohammed. The man wasn't really popularly supported, but was more supported than the shah. His lack of religious faith and backing is what made the overthrow possible. The problem is though, that this little act of overthrowing a 'popular' leader, would become an event with long lasting repercussions. It started over oil. Not US oil interests, really, but oil and foreign control over it. Any of this sound familiar??? |
As you say, Mossedeq had lots of popular problems. The problem wasn't the overthrow of Mossedeq, but the oppression exhibited by the Shah.
I would wonder at what point the US has paid for its actions vis a vis Iran. The hostage crisis seems to have been blowback. Khobar Towers was aggression, but that should be put into context with America's siding with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.
The problem with reaching back as far as Mossedeq and the Shah is that it is a little simple and a little easy. It ignores developments since then. For example, America has done far worse things in Vietnam in a very direct manner as compared to what the Shah did in Iran. Vietnam and America have fairly productive relations now. Or a better example would be China, when America supported the KMG, which also had a certain measure of popular support, versus the ultimately more popular Communists. I wouldn't say that China and America have the best relations, but China doesn't call America the great Satan any more, and Americans don't call China 'Red China,' either.
| freethought wrote: |
| As for the history lessons you love to teach, you're once again wrong. Your attitude in your postings is exactly why people hate America/Americans, and why so many of the problems are now occuring. Comments like 'i only look at this board to see what you crazy leftists think, since people of my great intelligence and political leanings know we are right...' |
[Emphasis added]
No, it is not. If the American electorate were as educated as Gopher, we wouldn't be having a lot of the problems we have today. I'm sorry, but your talk about Americans is lazy stereotyping. I'm always certain that whenever I hear someone say, 'I hate Americans because...,' they always have the same problems with political opponents among their own fellow countrymen, but probably share a lot with Rudy Giuliani when it comes to understand their points of view.
-------------------------
What Ron Paul says about blowback isn't far off the mark. He has said elsewhere that the 9-11 commission informs his comment. IOW, he wants to say, like the bi-partisan commission, that actions in the ME have repercussions, and the US has to pay attention to those. Ron Paul also adds that Middle Eastern politics are so irrational it is hard for American policy-makers to understand. This is true as well. When combined together, he presents a cogent critique of American policy in the Middle-East. Namely, aggressive American acts in the ME have particularly unintended consequences.
I think his case is weakened by his ramblings about particulars, especially given that he has described ME politics as irrational. His bringing up Mossedeq is just a bit more relevent than the Iranians being insulted by the characterization of Xerxes in the movie 300.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm remembering now why I've been avoiding this f-ing forum...
Mossadaq is not irrelevant to bring up, since I wasn't bringing it up in context of today's actions, but rather past actions. You take what happened with that incident and the return of the shah, and that plays a major role in the ousting of the shah and the rise of the ayatollahs. I never said anything about modern day impacts. The collective events that I just wrote have had an impact, but I never said Mossadeq=iranian nuc program... Moreover, look at your comment: 'the problem was the oppression of the shah.' The US doesn't bring the shah back to power, and that oppression doesn't exist. THAT was my point.
As to your taking exception of my 'why people don't like Americans,' I guess you decided to jump over the bulk of what I said as well. It was the comment that followed it that mattered. The I'm better than you and my way is the only way and I don't care what you say bit... I'm not saying the other side is right in what they think, but when you adopt that attitude, having people agree with you, support you and like you, isn't really possible.
My entire post was about how actions and words have consequences, and those consequences have consequences. As to how that relates to Paul's point, they don't hate us because of our freedoms, but because of our policies. Policies have consequences... hence my post.
I think I'm done with the current events forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Freethought, ultimately the CE Forum is like Korea, you need tough skin to enjoy it.
| Quote: |
| Moreover, look at your comment: 'the problem was the oppression of the shah.' The US doesn't bring the shah back to power, and that oppression doesn't exist. THAT was my point. |
Okay.
| Quote: |
| As to your taking exception of my 'why people don't like Americans,' I guess you decided to jump over the bulk of what I said as well. It was the comment that followed it that mattered. The I'm better than you and my way is the only way and I don't care what you say bit... I'm not saying the other side is right in what they think, but when you adopt that attitude, having people agree with you, support you and like you, isn't really possible. |
But isn't that the attitude you at least display when you talk about Americans in that way? Because rather than point out that Gopher has a specific kind of attitude, you went ahead and declared that this was characteristic of Americans as a whole. I find that this can sometimes be a characteristic of Americans, as well as of other nationalities, but it depends on how you conduct a conversation. IOW, I find your explanation convenient in that the explanation itself elicits the response that you attribute as typical of Americans.
I assure you that I have the discipline to seperate the comments in your other paragraphs from the one you made in that one.
| Quote: |
| My entire post was about how actions and words have consequences, and those consequences have consequences. As to how that relates to Paul's point, they don't hate us because of our freedoms, but because of our policies. Policies have consequences... hence my post. |
I honestly wasn't sure what your point was. That is why I divided my post into two and revealed what my thoughts were, in the case that should we agree on those, we can find some common ground.
You are absolutely right, policies have consequences.
| Quote: |
| I think I'm done with the current events forum. |
You know, I think cutting back myself is never a bad idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| IOW, [Ron Paul] wants to say, like the bi-partisan commission, that actions in the ME have repercussions, and the US has to pay attention to those. Ron Paul also adds that Middle Eastern politics are so irrational it is hard for American policy-makers to understand. This is true as well. When combined together, he presents a cogent critique of American policy in the Middle-East. Namely, aggressive American acts in the ME have particularly unintended consequences. |
I wish this truly represented Ron Paul's position, Kuros. The beginning and the end of it. I wish he would use such language as you employ to articulate this position as well, because I would wholly agree with such a position -- as do, to one degree or another, mainstream foreign-policy elites like James Baker (must confess I have not read the entire report yet, but I believe he concedes or presupposes such critiques).
But Ron Paul colors pretty far outside of these lines and I cannot and will not go where he wants to lead us.
Finally, I will cite your point on Vietnam's lack of "blowback" in future discussions. I think it represents a powerful counterpoint to Chalmers Johnson's critique. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| No, it is not. If the American electorate were as educated as Gopher, we wouldn't be having a lot of the problems we have today. |
Your argument is not logical. You, first, suppose that gopher is intelligent, and by extension, rational (you say we wouldn't have these problems, thus people would be acting rationally, no?). However, gopher is not rational. It is not rational to have some write in disagreement with you, then make a list of inaccurate false statements about that person's intentions and hopes. Gopher states, simply out of anger, that the poster wants a marxist utopia, among other things. That based on what? Was that discussed even slightly by the post to which gopher responded? No.
This was nothing but another one of gopher's irrational rants vs. someone who disputes his posts. How you can hold that sort of illogical thinkin up as a model to avoid confrontation is beyond me.
| Quote: |
| I'm sorry, but your talk about Americans is lazy stereotyping. |
and what of gopher's stereotyping? Or in the following:
| Quote: |
| I'm always certain that whenever I hear someone say, 'I hate Americans because...,' they always have the same problems with political opponents among their own fellow countrymen, but probably share a lot with Rudy Giuliani when it comes to understand their points of view. |
| Quote: |
I think his case is weakened by his ramblings about particulars, especially given that he has described ME politics as irrational. His bringing up Mossedeq is just a bit more relevent than the Iranians being insulted by the characterization of Xerxes in the movie 300.
|
I disagree completely. How do you draw a line where blowback should stop having an effect? You are not talking about an individual's reaction to some life event. Even if you were, the point is not a logical or realistic one: the events of our lives affect us throughout our lifetimes. It is all a matter of degree, nothing more.
Large groups are, in fact, often far LESS rational than individuals, which is why mob mentality exists.
No, you cannot cut off the past from the present simply to minimize a person's or a country's or a group's legitimacy.
Gopher and Kuros: regarding what freethought "meant" to say: the problem was not his post. You should both consider why you were not able to understand it without having it further illuminated. |
|
| 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
