Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Ron Paul was Wrong.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 1:35 am Post subject:

freethought wrote:

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.

Did the US make mistaes during the cold war sure. It was still the right course.

Since Al Qaeda fights for the Caliphate so they would be at the US anyway cause they need the US out of the mideast and they wanted to show how tough they are.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 2:00 am Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

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.

I said Gopher is educated. I do think he's intelligent and rational, but that is not what I said.

EFL wrote:

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.

Hrmmm, right, and your post is what kind of response to mine...?

EFL wrote:

Kuros wrote:

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.

Right, you are not able to set a timeline for how long a nation or individual is allowed to be scarred. How convenient.

So, in your view, should the US continue to torture people in the ME because it is merely blowback from 9-11? Yes, I know that Al Qaeda is a group of stateless individuals who try to revive the Caliphate. So as long as the US restricts itself to torturing them, how long may they continue to do so? I mean, its mob mentality, right?

Quote:

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.

Oh, I see. There is some fault of mine that required freethought to clarify his opinion. It's not enough that after two posts we came to some understanding.

Why don't you just come out and tell me what my problem is? Is it that I'm irrelevent? Rolling Eyes

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 2:30 am Post subject:

Quote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

and by extension, rational (you say we wouldn't have these problems, thus people would be acting rationally, no?).

I said Gopher is educated. I do think he's intelligent and rational, but that is not what I said.

Quote:

EFL wrote:

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.

Hrmmm, right, and your post is what kind of response to mine...?

Instructive.

Quote:

EFL wrote:

Kuros wrote:

Right, you are not able to set a timeline for how long a nation or individual is allowed to be scarred. How convenient.

Have I hurt your feelings? Chrissake man...

No, you cannot set a timeline and you ignore the history behind behavior at your peril. Witness Iraq.

Quote:

So, in your view, should the US continue to torture people in the ME because it is merely blowback from 9-11? Yes, I know that Al Qaeda is a group of stateless individuals who try to revive the Caliphate. So as long as the US restricts itself to torturing them, how long may they continue to do so? I mean, its mob mentality, right?

This is just childish. You'e pulling a Joo: discussing your logic, or lack of logic, does not imply any opinion about the actions of Al Queda.

You and gopher are arguing that the history of the region beyond a given point is irrelevant. This is wrong on it's face.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Oh, I see. There is some fault of mine that required freethought to clarify his opinion. It's not enough that after two posts we came to some understanding.

Yes. Read carefully. If I understood his point without need of clarification, why didn't you?

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 3:07 am Post subject:

EFL, what is the statute of limitations on how long a state or a people can be scarred by an event into irrational acts? 9-11 is just the kind of event that would have blowback, and I would argue that Afghanistan at least is a proper response to 9-11. Torture and Iraq were not. These things might be characterized by calling them 'blowback.' So, are torture and Iraq blowback to the ME? Why or why not? Lastly, perhaps I didn't understand his point so easily because of the very point I myself made in his post: When you lazily stereotype, you're not likely to elicit the charity or understanding of the subject of that stereotype.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 5:43 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

When you lazily stereotype, you're not likely to elicit the charity or understanding of the subject of that stereotype.

What lazy stereotype?

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 7:31 pm Post subject:

This fairly clearly deals with how the right/neo-cons/republican partisans are reacting to Ron Paul.

The Neocon Reaction to Ron Paul

Quote:

..."What critical decisions have you made in your career that have affected many people?" Beck carefully selected a portion of Paul�s response:

Quote:

I guess, in medicine, I made a lot of critical decisions. I mean, you're called upon all the time to make critical, life-saving decisions. But I can't think of any one particular event where I made a critical decision that affected a lot of other people.

Doing his best to make Paul out to be a bumbling fool, Beck responded:

Quote:

That`s got to be one of the worst answers I've ever heard to the question, "Have you ever made a critical decision? Tell us how you made a critical decision where it affected a lot of people."

The guy's been in Congress now for how many years. Every decision he makes affects 300 million people, and that was his answer?

No, Mr. Beck that was only a part of his answer that you selected. In the first part of the answer (MSNBC transcript), Paul stated:

Quote:

I wonder if he's referring to a political decision like running for office, or something like that. (Laughter) I guess, in medicine, I made a lot of critical decisions. I mean, you're called upon all the time to make critical, life-saving decisions. But I can't think of any one particular event where I made a critical decision that affected a lot of other people.

With the added context, we can see that Paul was trying to figure out how to answer this extremely vague and overly broad question posed by an amateur by dividing his response into decisions he made in private life and later, those made in public life. Now that we know he only dealt with one patient at a time in his medical practice (the horror, Mr. Beck, the horror), we can now turn to what Paul said about his political career.

Quote:

But I think all our decisions we make in politics are critical. My major decision, political decision, which was a constitutional decision, was to urge for (inaudible) years that this country not go to war in Iraq.

There you go, Mr. Beck. He said exactly what you said he should have a full three seconds after you blasted him for not saying it. That has got to one of the worst attempts to smear someone I�ve ever seen...

I tell you, gotta love someone right/neo-cons/republican partisans dislike and lie about.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject:

This must have been blowback cause of US policy in the mideast. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

39 die as Lebanon battles militants
Residents cheer army after 39 die, 17 injured in fight with militant group
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:41 p.m. ET May 20, 2007
TRIPOLI, Lebanon - After spending hours huddled in basements and bathrooms as gunfire raged nearby, hundreds of Lebanese in this northern port city emerged to cheer on army troops who battled a shadowy Islamic militant group holed up in apartment buildings and a nearby Palestinian refugee camp.

Smoke billowed from the Nahr el-Bared camp as a steady barrage of artillery and heavy machine gunfire from army positions pounded positions of the Fatah Islam group inside.

“We strongly back the Lebanese army troops and what they are doing,” said Abed Attar, a Tripoli resident who stood watching soldiers firing tank shells into the camp, which is home to 30,000 Palestinian refugees and the base of Fatah Islam, a group suspected of links to al-Qaida.

http://auto1.opensearchpro.com/response3.php?search=msnbc.com

Neither Ron Paul nor his supporters know anything about why Al Qaeda / jihad international fights - which suits them fine cause they are not truly interested in why Al Qaeda fights, - only their agenda.

One more thing Ron Paul would have opposed the Korean war - . Yet he has all these supporters on this Korean job board.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe