|
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 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 7:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
For those who are into fighting terrorism and whatever else.
How do you figure that having almost all our military running around in Baghdad and spending unlimited tax dollars doing it is best for OUR national security?
Our national security isn't based on securing Baghdad. We have our own country. Bin Ladin isn't in Baghdad. Saddam isn't even in Baghdad. NOTHING IS THERE! Not even WMD.
The entire thing is ridiculous. If I was Bin Ladin hanging out in Pakistan.. nothing would make me laugh more than all of the U.S. resources trying to secure an unrelated city getting picked off and dying everyday in the process for absolutely no real apparent reason whatsoever. That and the entire drain ALL of our monetary resources in the same fruitless endeavor.
The entire situation is so ridiculous and almost so perfect from a Muslim extremisist position, it almost makes you think maybe if God is God, then he might possibly be a Muslim God. If I were a moderate muslim myself, the ridiculousness of the situation would definetely restore my faith. |
The mideast as it was was a threat to the US. 9-11 showed that.
Tomorrow mideast regimes could get rid of all Al Qaeda supporters if they wanted to or if they felt they had to.
A military base in the Kurdish areas could be a first step in to getting mideast regimes to behead supporters of Jihad international.
The US left Afghanistan alone in the 1990's too.
For a long time Al Qaedists , Bathists and Khomeni followers have engaged in a war against the US. Is that situation acceptable?
Many on this board would like to go back to the 1990's and pretend that 9-11 never happened. That sounds like a good strategy until the US gets hit - again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Most Americans must now be on the "lunatic fringe" for opposing the war in Iraq.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alias wrote: |
| Most Americans must now be on the "lunatic fringe" for opposing the war in Iraq. |
Whoever said that opposing the war placed one on the lunatic fringe, Alias? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fighting Al Qaeda by sending US forces to Iraq is stupid.
This is the same method that Custer used to fight the Indians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let us stay focused on the ball and leave Custer out of this.
| ontheway wrote: |
| Fighting Al Qaeda by sending US forces to Iraq is stupid. |
Agreed. I have always agreed with this, in fact.
Ron Paul is still on the lunatic fringe. One can criticize the W. Bush Administration's foreign policy without grandiosly denouncing postwar American foreign policy and the institutions that arose after 1945. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alias wrote: |
| Most Americans must now be on the "lunatic fringe" for opposing the war in Iraq. |
they don't oppose the war on terror |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| ...they don't oppose the war on terror. |
I am not so sure, Joo. I think there is room to step back, deescalate, move to share power with others, namely the French-German faction in the EU, and see where things go.
Truly we need a new administration to do these things.
And the Arab-Israeli Conflict will remain a thorn in everyone's side -- just as the Iraqi mess will remain with us for some time, whether we pull out or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Alias wrote: |
| Most Americans must now be on the "lunatic fringe" for opposing the war in Iraq. |
they don't oppose the war on terror |
The "war on terror" is a political tool to frighten the population so that they 1) reelect the Republicans (who have positioned themselves as the party of safety and security and 2) accept more government in their lives.
The war on terror was to destroy AQ. They basically did that. But AQ franchised and is now more of an idea than an organization. To use an example, AQ was like the Catholic church, with leaders, head offices and set dogma and now it is like Pentecostal churches, which are more about a shared feeling among dispersed populations.
The reason for the change is that in the beginning there was one big cause: an apostate government in the land of meccah. Now, there are a wide variety of causes. This is what OBL wanted. We gave him exactly what he wanted.
The war on terror. It is 2007 and the 400BILLION$ US military machine hasn't killed/caught OBL. If they did catch him the world would say "OK, done. Good. Got your man. Back to normal please". This would not suit Bush et al well. They need fear and war in the same way that the "revolution" must have an enemy. It is an unnatural state that people will not accept naturally.
"AQ fights for the caliphate". Yes. The muslims in AQ (and many hundreds of millions of non-AQ aligned muslims) want to restore the community of islam. They do. But hey, that ain't America. Right? Maybe Spain should "heads up", and Singapore's already is, but that isn't an American problem.
Besides, if Europe becomes muslim, it will be via immigration and birthrates, not war.
Anyways, lets get back to the subject.
Ron Paul said that 9/11 was "blowback" for years of American intervention in the muslim world.
OBL has said the same. Americans were supporting the Saudi government and OBL wanted gone. That is why they got hit. Israel and others didn't help, but were not the cause. The cause was American support for the Saudi government.
Ron Paul is right.
Lastly, Gopher, if Paul is on the lunatic fringe then I think the mainstream needs to take a hard look at itself in the mirror. He believes in the idea of a free America than stands as an example and does not harm others abroad. That is what the vast majority of the world believes. That is what virtually everybody I know believes. It isn't the fringe. If it is, It sure shouldn't be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| ...if Paul is on the lunatic fringe then I think the mainstream needs to take a hard look at itself in the mirror. He believes in the idea of a free America than stands as an example and does not harm others abroad. That is what the vast majority of the world believes. That is what virtually everybody I know believes. It isn't the fringe. If it is, It sure shouldn't be. |
I understand, from another poster's comments on one or two of these Ron-Paul threads, that he has rejected the Union's Civil-War position, has called for gutting or destroying CIA, for privatizing the FAA, and a host of other things I associate with the lunatic fringe.
He also cites Chalmers Johnson and Stephen Kinzer's muckraking talking points just as transparently as Hugo Chavez did with Noam Chomsky while brandishing his book before the United Nations General Assembly last year.
Not surprising at all to travel to the extreme ends of the radical left and the radical right and find them all at home with each other's views, BJWD. In fact, Chalmers Johson -- whose "blowback" allegation Ron Paul repeats everytime he talks -- made an easy transition from the right-wing to the radical left in the course of his career.
That, at least, is what I see and hear when Ron Paul talks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, he, like me, opposes public regulatory bodies like the FAA. His position on the CIA is that if America had a "proper" foreign policy, it wouldn't be needed. I don't remember clearly, but I believe he feels the American civil war was sold as an attempt to free the slaves but was more focused on maintaining the Union for other reasons. I've certainly come across that opinion before, many times, but don't know enough to say either way.
The essence of libertarians is that coercive government is less effective than a free market (as in, an actually free one, not what we have now). FAA, CIA, Health Canada, CSIS, Environment Canada, etc etc can all be tossed aside.
But I don't agree that holding different positions puts him on any 'lunatic' anything.
I don't know who Chalmers Johnson and Stephen Kinzer are. But if they hold the "blowback" idea as true, I agree with them on that.
If country "X" was doing to Canada what has done to many other states, I would be blowin stuff up. It is only natural to lash out at the outsider messing in your business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| I don't know who Chalmers Johnson and Stephen Kinzer are. But if they hold the "blowback" idea as true, I agree with them on that. |
You might be interested in checking them out, then. They certainly offer an analysis that will resonate with your worldview. Especially see Stephen Kinzer and Stephen Schlesinger's Bitter Fruit on America's intervention in Guatemalan affairs.
And I repeat: these are the authors who have informed Ron Paul's views as he now articulates them. He parrots their vocabulary, phrases, and analysis again and again. Impossible to miss.
I have no problem keeping some of their works in my own library, by the way, just as I keep the Federalist and antiFederalist papers side-by-side as well. Just realize that these are the "anti" crowd and simply not mainstream -- or at least, they only present the negative side of the story, and consciously so.
No one who sees CIA as "the rogue elephant" or talks about "the military-industrial complex" as if it were the United States govt or insinuates even worse is mainstream, BJWD. Theirs represents an extreme position.
| BJWD wrote: |
| But I don't agree that holding different positions puts him on any 'lunatic' anything. |
You are right. I should not have employed such an emotionally-charged phrase as "lunatic fringe." I am aware that you honestly and sincerely embrace this position now. My apologies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Somehow, the use of lunatic fringe doesn't seem to apply in any way, shape, or form. If it applies to this thread, then it must apply to any who support the Iraq invasion, Bush, or doing nothing about Bush. Simple logic.
http://www.answers.com/topic/lunatic-fringe
| Quote: |
The noun lunatic fringe has one meaning:
Meaning #1: a political unit with extreme and fanatical views
lunatic fringe
n.
The fanatical, extremist, or irrational members of a society or group.
|
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lunatic%20fringe
| Quote: |
lunatic fringe
�noun
members on the periphery of any group, esp. political, social, or religious, who hold extreme or fanatical views. |
| Quote: |
| http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fanatical |
| Quote: |
fanatical
motivated or characterized by an extreme, uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Restore America, indeed. The grass roots are going deeper and deeper. When I say stay angry, I mean it, but these guys are going to a whole new level.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5WlQ54Sg0
And let us go back to a former issue, as long as we're discussing what is lunatic and what is not: Rules of Engagement.
Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.
Now, Bush WAS the commander-in-chief, was he not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The "war on terror" is a political tool to frighten the population so that they 1) reelect the Republicans (who have positioned themselves as the party of safety and security and 2) accept more government in their lives.
The war on terror was to destroy AQ. They basically did that. But AQ franchised and is now more of an idea than an organization. To use an example, AQ was like the Catholic church, with leaders, head offices and set dogma and now it is like Pentecostal churches, which are more about a shared feeling among dispersed populations. |
That may be some truth to it. Nevertheless mideast regimes can kill those involved in Jihad internationa if they choose to do so.
| Quote: |
| The reason for the change is that in the beginning there was one big cause: an apostate government in the land of meccah. Now, there are a wide variety of causes. This is what OBL wanted. We gave him exactly what he wanted. |
Bin Laden wants the Caliphate. Al Qaeda wants the Caliphate.
| Quote: |
| The war on terror. It is 2007 and the 400BILLION$ US military machine hasn't killed/caught OBL. If they did catch him the world would say "OK, done. Good. Got your man. Back to normal please". This would not suit Bush et al well. They need fear and war in the same way that the "revolution" must have an enemy. It is an unnatural state that people will not accept naturally. |
Mideast regmes and elties teach hate and incite violence and fund or allow Al Qaeda to be funded. It done and allowed as a form of warfare.
| Quote: |
| "AQ fights for the caliphate". Yes. The muslims in AQ (and many hundreds of millions of non-AQ aligned muslims) want to restore the community of islam. They do. But hey, that ain't America. Right? Maybe Spain should "heads up", and Singapore's already is, but that isn't an American problem. |
Again the US would have to give in to Jihad international's demands on each nation.
If the US withdrew from Iraq would that be the end of jihad international? No then they would make demands about other nations as well.
Ought the US not trade with India or Israel cause Jihad international demands it?
Ought the US not vote the way it sees fit at the UN cause Jihad international demands it.
Ought the US cut of all dealings with gulf states cause Jihad international demands it?
| Quote: |
Ron Paul said that 9/11 was "blowback" for years of American intervention in the muslim world.
OBL has said the same. Americans were supporting the Saudi government and OBL wanted gone. That is why they got hit. Israel and others didn't help, but were not the cause. The cause was American support for the Saudi government |
.
What exacty is support for the Saudi government? The US helps train Saudi security but that would not be the end of the Saudi government if the contract went to some European firm instead.
Besides some of Al Qaedas biggest supporters in Saudi Arabia are also friendly with the Saudi government.
And as you know OBL also blames the for supporting Russia's crackdown aganist Chenchya and China's oppression of muslims which are two things that the US has nothing at all to do with.
As was said before if the US gave into AQ's demands they would come up with 10 more the next day. |
|
| 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
