|
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 |
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Anyone else recall Bush saying 4 years ago Iraq was to become like JAPAN in terms of reconstruction, a parallel quickly criticized as based on no understanding whatsoever of the mind of those involved. The comparison was in no way apt.
| Quote: |
| the only comparison was having "a long term U.S troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea..." |
And by even mentioning SK the implication is that it will be somehow similar or equally justified, implied but not stated, but still there! or else 'a longterm troop presence' would have been stated with no added analogy.
Koreans accepted the U.S. troop presence with mild resistance... Iraqis will have rivers of blood, suicide bombers, rocket-propelled grenades and ex-Soviet nukes if they can get a hold of one (assuming U.S. forces build a "fortress" in the desert as planned).
There will be NO similarity in troop presence between SK and Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Kurds want US forces in their areas. If US forces are moved to Kurdistan then it does get to like the US presence in SK is some ways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alyallen
Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Location: The 4th Greatest Place on Earth = Jeonju!!!
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
Man I can't believe so many people just missed the point. Bush was not saying that Iraq was like South Korea in any way. The article makes clear that the only comparison was having "a long term U.S troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea..."
In other words South Korea has had a long term U.S troop presence
Now Bush is evisioning a long term U.S troop presence for Iraq.
Period. Nowhere did Bush say that Iraq was like or similar to Korea.
This whole thread is  |
Why did he say Korea and not Germany or any other country that has had a long term troop presence...?
Korea has a U.S. troop presence as a deterrent and as an added force to a threat. The implication that there is some sort of threat externally floating around. Meaning a long time indefinite troop presence as a deterrent to an outside threat.
Never mind that no one seems enthused to the idea of a long term troop presence in the U.S. The thread is simply stating why Iraqis would or wouldn't have a problem with continued troop presence...
So....feel free to elsewhere... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The Kurds want US forces in their areas. If US forces are moved to Kurdistan then it does get to like the US presence in SK is some ways. |
Nice try, but completely irrelevent to the topic.
Alyallen :
| Quote: |
| Korea has a U.S. troop presence as a deterrent and as an added force to a threat. |
Almost, but not exactly right. American troops are in Korea, not so much as a deterrent, but so they will be the first to die if and when a war ever happens. After they die, American political opinion will immediately allow full-scale war to happen all over the peninsula.
It's part of why the American military is leaving Yongsan and falling back to bases outside of Seoul. Our troops nearest the border were never enough to handle any kind of incursion from the north (we've got less then 30,000 and they've got a little more than 300,000 so let's all do the math) and sad to say, these bright young lads are nothing more than hostages.
Really. If Pyeongyang attacks, they die. Today, most likely.
Then the president goes on TV tomorrow and has the the political clout to mobilize every American soldier anywhere in the world. It's called the "tripwire strategy."
Not a secret, it was on 60 Minutes a couple of years ago. Those of us living in Seoul for more than a couple years refer to the place affectionately as "The Killbox."
Not a soldier, but I think it's a term used by people who are trained to kill other people in the best way possible, and hopefully for the right reasons(but how can we know?) to talk about a place where you can reasonably expect that love is never going to happen, at least not at some particular moment.
Sorry for being clever. Seoul is "The Killbox" because this where every gun, every missile, every plane with a bomb inside it is heading.
American troops here do not deter. They wait to die. Their death is the deterent. Their death is the trigger for all hell to break loose. That's the only reason they are here.
Hey, I don't like it either ... amazing thing is, I'm still here.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The Kurds want US forces in their areas. If US forces are moved to Kurdistan then it does get to like the US presence in SK is some ways. |
Protecting the khurds from Turkish and Iraqi attacks: win-win.
Resistance would then be indeed symbolic and the forces station stable rather than perpetually in combat. Hence the SK analogy. K. I buy that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alyallen
Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Location: The 4th Greatest Place on Earth = Jeonju!!!
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The Kurds want US forces in their areas. If US forces are moved to Kurdistan then it does get to like the US presence in SK is some ways. |
Nice try, but completely irrelevent to the topic.
Alyallen :
| Quote: |
| Korea has a U.S. troop presence as a deterrent and as an added force to a threat. |
Almost, but not exactly right. American troops are in Korea, not so much as a deterrent, but so they will be the first to die if and when a war ever happens. After they die, American political opinion will immediately allow full-scale war to happen all over the peninsula.
It's part of why the American military is leaving Yongsan and falling back to bases outside of Seoul. Our troops nearest the border were never enough to handle any kind of incursion from the north (we've got less then 30,000 and they've got a little more than 300,000 so let's all do the math) and sad to say, these bright young lads are nothing more than hostages.
Really. If Pyeongyang attacks, they die. Today, most likely.
Then the president goes on TV tomorrow and has the the political clout to mobilize every American soldier anywhere in the world. It's called the "tripwire strategy."
Not a secret, it was on 60 Minutes a couple of years ago. Those of us living in Seoul for more than a couple years refer to the place affectionately as "The Killbox."
Not a soldier, but I think it's a term used by people who are trained to kill other people in the best way possible, and hopefully for the right reasons(but how can we know?) to talk about a place where you can reasonably expect that love is never going to happen, at least not at some particular moment.
Sorry for being clever. Seoul is "The Killbox" because this where every gun, every missile, every plane with a bomb inside it is heading.
American troops here do not deter. They wait to die. Their death is the deterent. Their death is the trigger for all hell to break loose. That's the only reason they are here.
Hey, I don't like it either ... amazing thing is, I'm still here.
|
Too true....
What a lapse on my part...My uncle is in the army here and he pretty much told me the same thing...
In any event, U.S. army long term in Iraq will simply be long term target practice for insurgents the way things are now... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alyallen wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
Man I can't believe so many people just missed the point. Bush was not saying that Iraq was like South Korea in any way. The article makes clear that the only comparison was having "a long term U.S troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea..."
In other words South Korea has had a long term U.S troop presence
Now Bush is evisioning a long term U.S troop presence for Iraq.
Period. Nowhere did Bush say that Iraq was like or similar to Korea.
This whole thread is |
Why did he say Korea and not Germany or any other country that has had a long term troop presence...?
Korea has a U.S. troop presence as a deterrent and as an added force to a threat. The implication that there is some sort of threat externally floating around. Meaning a long time indefinite troop presence as a deterrent to an outside threat.
Never mind that no one seems enthused to the idea of a long term troop presence in the U.S. The thread is simply stating why Iraqis would or wouldn't have a problem with continued troop presence...
So....feel free to elsewhere... |
He probably said Korea because like Iraq, South Korea is a divided country and faces a long term threat.
And no this thread is stating nothing of the kind it is simply a Bush bash and ignores the context in which he made the comparision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| And no this thread is stating nothing of the kind it is simply a Bush bash and ignores the context in which he made the comparision. |
Thing is, Bush Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest have said repeatedly that they have no intentions of staying in Iraq long-term. All the while, building facilities clearly designed to house American military for many, many years.
When politicians get up and look the American people in the eye and tell bald-faced lies ... I dunno, give even one good reaon I shouldn't "bash" on it.
No secret I don't like this president. This kind of garbage is exactly why. Tell me why I'm wrong to point it out. Because that is just what you seem to be implying.
Last edited by The Bobster on Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doutdes
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
He probably said Korea because like Iraq, South Korea is a divided country and faces a long term threat.
And no this thread is stating nothing of the kind it is simply a Bush bash and ignores the context in which he made the comparision. |
The first reason he chose Korea is because Korea is considered a success. The same with Japan, Germany, etc. The second reason is that there aren't many other large wars in recent history that Bush can point to. And certainly no American wars that even slightly resemble the chaos and confusion of the current Iraq war.
Bush isn't trying to be honest about the future of American bases in Iraq. If he were, he'd be mentioning Beirut, not Korea. However, because of reason number one, he'll never mention Beirut. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Thing is, Bush Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest have said repeatedly that they haveno intentions of staying in Iraq long-term. All the while, building facilities clearly designed to house American military for many, many years.
|
easier for the US too keep objections of mideast nations to the minimum.
I mean were the US to say that US is building bases in Iraq to scare Saudi Arabia that would make any action that the Saudi took against Al Qaeda supports as being intimidated by the US.
| Quote: |
When politicians get up and look the American people in the eye and tell bald-faced lies ... I dunno, give even one good reaon I shouldn't "bash" on it.
No secret I don't like this president. This kind of garbage is exactly why. Tell me why I'm wrong to point it out. Because that is just what you seem to be implying. |
As I said I don't like the president lying but I would rather the president lie and help out US policy than to tell the truth and lose a strategic advantage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| As I said I don't like the president lying but I would rather the president lie and help out US policy than to tell the truth and lose a strategic advantage. |
You hate democracy, then. You hate America. You are friends with bin laden ... sorry, Joo, admit it, you've said worse about me with less provocation.
We cannot have a truly free country if the people who love it are not allowed to point a finger when our leaders tell lies. And if we can't have that truly free country, there's nothing worthwhile to love, and we might as well surrender.
Oh, and I'm not ready to surrender.
Last edited by The Bobster on Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anyone can say anything they want about the president.
But that is not the point . In the war against terror winning comes first over everything else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The "pious lie" is a staple of Straussian neo-con philosophy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Has anybody else noticed how civil the CE has been lately? I read this thread and I forget what site I'm reading! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alias wrote: |
| The "pious lie" is a staple of Straussian neo-con philosophy. |
| Quote: |
April 23, 2006
President Lincoln 'Lied' Us Into War Too
By Thomas Bray
The President "lied" us into war. Much of the pre-war intelligence was wrong. The civilian defense chief was detested as "brusque, domineering and unbearably unpleasant to work with." Civil liberties were abridged. And many embittered Democrats, claiming the war had been an utter failure, demanded that the administration bring the troops home.
George Bush? Well, yes - but also a President who looms far larger in American history, Abraham Lincoln. One is struck by the parallels in reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's masterful new book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln repeatedly asserted that his aim was to prevent the spread of slavery, not eliminate it in the South. "I believe I have no lawful right to do so," Goodwin quotes him as saying. Thus when he finally issued his Emancipation Proclamation two years into the war, freeing the slaves in the Confederate states, his Northern critics claimed that he had misled the country. A bloody and unnecessary war was being fought in a Utopian effort to bring the blessings of democracy to a people who had little experience with it.
Oh, and by the way, where did this President get off claiming, as Lincoln did, that his implied powers as Commander in Chief allowed him to tinker with institutions, such as slavery, expressly acknowledged in the Constitution? Or suspending the writ of habeas corpus, perhaps the most fundamental bulwark of liberty in the Anglo-Saxon tradition?
Only much later did Lincoln seek congressional authorization for the suspension of habeas corpus, despite the Constitution's explicit instruction that Congress must agree beforehand. And not until 1865 did the administration get around to pushing for the 13th Amendment officially ending slavery.
After the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, Secretary of State William Seward, Lincoln's closest advisor, predicted the war would be over in 60 days. Lincoln called on the states for only 75,000 troops - who promptly got whipped at a place called Bull Run.
And as the casualties mounted - 23,000 would die or be wounded on both sides in the Battle of Antietam - the civilian chiefs, including Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, were the subject of fierce criticism.
The criticism, moreover, came not from a retired general flogging his memoirs but from the active duty commander himself, Gen. George McClellan. McClellan, a media hero who referred to Lincoln as "the original gorilla" and once kept him waiting at his headquarters while he took a nap, had a familiar complaint: Washington wasn't giving him enough troops to do the job.
With the support of the "Peace Democrats," McClellan wound up running for President in 1864. Lincoln won by 400,000 votes and a landslide in the Electoral College, but it could have gone the other way. Before Sherman took Atlanta in early September, signaling that the war was winnable after all, Lincoln, an excellent political nose-counter, had predicted he would be reelected - but only by three electoral votes.
No, Bush is no Lincoln. As Doris Kearns Goodwin makes clear, Lincoln was a rare combination of visionary - his rhetoric may be America's greatest poetry - and "political genius." Most, if not all, historians agree that a bloody Civil War was probably inevitable. Iraq bids fair to be the quagmire critics say it is, though its consequence is dwarfed by that of the American Civil War, which, as Goodwin points out, cost the equivalent of five million casualties in proportion to today's population.
But the parallels suggest a degree of modesty among those inclined to see Bush - and his embattled Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld - as unmitigated disasters. As with Lincoln, much will depend on the outcome.
Tom Bray writes columns for The Detroit News and RealClearPolitics.com. Email: [email protected]
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/president_lincoln_lied_us_into.html at June 04, 2007 - 10:38:49 PM CDT |
|
|
| 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
