|
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 |
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Bush is not Lincoln and Blair is not Churchill.
Of course politicians have always lied but Straussian philosophy believes strongly in the pious lie. The government always knows what it right for the people. They are just sheep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Govts often lie , and in the case of Lincoln he was correct to do so.
Sometimes govts have good reasons for not telling what they plan to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Govts often lie , and in the case of Lincoln he was correct to do so. |
Call me old-fashioned. I prefer a country in which politicians have to work and worry when they lie - that's what America is all about ... but maybe we went to different schools, had different teachers. How can we choose our leaders well if we are not able to believe what they say about their future plans? How could anyone in good conscience follow such a leader?
| Quote: |
| Sometimes govts have good reasons for not telling what they plan to do. |
The present topic is not about "not telling," or failing to mention something that didn't seem important. It's about many, many frequent assurances to both the American and the Iraqi people that the US had no desire to stay in Iraq over the long-term. And now we know this is not true, that they always planned an extended presence, for decades if possible, or "necessary.
Thing is, I don't personally think any of the American administrations in the early post-Korean War years ever consciously planned to stay here this long. If someone had asked Eisenhower or Kennedy, "Whaddaya think, still gonna be Americans patroling the DMZ 50 years from now?" I really don't think they would have said, "Sure, why not?" I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Big difference here. With the Korea example, the neocon war machine has decided (quite some time ago, apparently) to make a home for itself in a part of the world that wants nothing at all to do with us ...
And they lied to get the project along the road as far as it is now.
Hell, I might even support it if it benefited our country in any way. It doesn't, though.
Last edited by The Bobster on Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Call me old-fashioned. I prefer a country in which politicians have to work and worry when they lie - that's what America is all about ... but maybe we went to different schools, had different teachers. How can we choose our leaders well if we are not able to bellieve what they say about their future plans? How could anyone in good conscience follow such a leader? |
The overall policy and goals have been fairly clear.
| Quote: |
| The present topic is not about "not telling," or failing to mention something that didn't seem important. It's about many, many frequent assurances to both American and the Iraqi people that the US had no desire to stay in Iraq over the long-term. And now we know this is not true, that they always planned an extended presence, for decades if possible or "necessary. |
you have known for a while that the US was looking for bases in Iraq.
| Quote: |
Big difference here. With the Korea example, the neocon war machine has decided (quite some time ago, apparently) to make a home for itself in a part of the world that wants nothing at all to do with us ... |
Well the US has a 80%+ approval rating from the Kurds.
But more imporantly.But more than a few in the mideast did in fact want to have something to do with the US that is why 9-11 happened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:48 pm Post subject: Re: Bush sees South Korea model for Iraq |
|
|
[
"I think the point he's trying to make is that the situation in Iraq, and indeed, the larger war on terror, are things that are going to take a long time," Snow said. "But it is not always going to require an up-front combat presence."
Instead, he said, U.S. troops would provide "the so-called over-the-horizon support that is necessary from time to time to come to the assistance of the Iraqis. But you do not want the United States forever in the front."
Asked if U.S. forces would be permanently stationed in Iraq, Snow said, "No, not necessarily." He said that the prospect of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq were "not necessarily the case, either."
Later, Snow said it was impossible to say if U.S. troops would remain in Iraq for some 50 years, as they have in South Korea. "I don't know," he said. "It is an unanswerable question. But I'm not making that suggestion. .[/quote]
Doesn't sound like they are making any firm plans for "an extended presence, for decades if possible"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:36 am Post subject: Re: Bush sees South Korea model for Iraq |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
Doesn't sound like they are making any firm plans for "an extended presence, for decades if possible"
|
Dunno why, but I just suddenly got an image of a large bird called an ostrich ... You know what they do when they are afraid, when there is something they don't want to know about?
Military Envisions Longer Stay In Iraq
From that incendiary bastion of radical propaganda, The Washington Post. Bad, bad, Washington Post!
Last edited by The Bobster on Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I would say the Kurds want US forces to stay. I wonder does the Iraqi resistance have the right to tel the Kurds if they can have US forces in their area? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee,,,,
Lefties don't like to hear about the Kurds....It screws with their entire 'neocon' war machine crapola.....when Kurds are mentioned they become Ostriches or they make a bunch of excuses ....don't hurt the peace people anymore...please |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:12 am Post subject: Re: Bush sees South Korea model for Iraq |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
Doesn't sound like they are making any firm plans for "an extended presence, for decades if possible"
|
Dunno why, but I just suddenly got an image of a large bird called an ostrich ... You know what they do when they are afraid, when there is something they don't wwant to know about?
[! |
Yep....is that where your head was for the last six days?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:24 pm Post subject: Re: Bush sees South Korea model for Iraq |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
Doesn't sound like they are making any firm plans for "an extended presence, for decades if possible"
|
Dunno why, but I just suddenly got an image of a large bird called an ostrich ... You know what they do when they are afraid, when there is something they don't wwant to know about?
[! |
Yep....is that where your head was for the last six days? |
Sorry, can't pay attention to you all the time, though maybe you'd like that ...
Point is, there is plenty to show that there HAVE been "firm plans" for an extended presence, for a long time, and lately it is publicly-announced policy, though up until this moment it was often and frequently denied. Now, you can talk about that, or you can talk about the fact I been busy elsewhere for a few days. Your choice. Whatever.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:30 am Post subject: Re: Bush sees South Korea model for Iraq |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
Doesn't sound like they are making any firm plans for "an extended presence, for decades if possible"
|
Dunno why, but I just suddenly got an image of a large bird called an ostrich ... You know what they do when they are afraid, when there is something they don't wwant to know about?
[! |
Yep....is that where your head was for the last six days? |
Sorry, can't pay attention to you all the time, though maybe you'd like that ...
Point is, there is plenty to show that there HAVE been "firm plans" for an extended presence, for a long time, and lately it is publicly-announced policy, though up until this moment it was often and frequently denied. Now, you can talk about that, or you can talk about the fact I been busy elsewhere for a few days. Your choice. Whatever.
|
I can see that you have been busy. With a measly 60+ posts between June 4 when I wrote and June 10 when you responded ( for an average of 10+ per day) I suppose it was a bit much thinking you could have spared one.
But back on topic. Have you failed to consider this possibility? Bush will be out in less than two years. Given this and his stubborness on the Iraq war, it is entirely possible that the Demos have decided to play ball until they can re-capture the White House. Think about it and it's a win-win situation for them. They don't have enough votes to override Bush's veto and they don't want to seem unpatriotic by attempting to stall and delay funding. If the surge works they can take credit for it by saying "Well we gave him the funding." If the surge doesn't work they can say "Well we opposed the war and opposed the surge.."
The point of this is that there will be a new President in less than two years. This President (if Demo) will not be necessarily committed to extending the war. Indeed he might very well bring the troops home. It's all very well for one president to envision a long term stay in one place, but if the next president is adamantly opposed to it, he CAN bring the troops home as the ultimate authority (as Commander-in-Chief) rests with him. Simply talking about a long-term presence does not mean that that idea won't leave along with him come 2009. Particularly if a Demo challenger captures the White House.
So it's a moot point regardless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
You need to pay closer attention to just what this president has said to you:
1. He sees a decadel involvement in Korea. They said this years ago. You all thought they were pondering. (Just as you believed they had not planned to go into Iraq long before 2003... or even 2002.) They were not. That was the plan all along. Proof? 1. They said so. (Duh!) 2. The PSAs. What better excuse for staying in Iraq than to protect the poor, put upon oil companies who are raping Iraqis of 80% of their oil profits? Why the hell do you think they have made passing the oil bill MANDATORY for a continued US presence? Why the HELL do you think they are building PERMANENT bases?
2. He has stated he intends to leave the situation in Iraq in such condition that the next president CANNOT withdraw, that the U.S. may achieve it's "destiny." DESTINY? What the hell does that mean?
There is much more, but if you cannot understand what the man, himself, is telling you, you have zero chance of ever understanding Iraq at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
You need to pay closer attention to just what this president has said to you:
1. He sees a decadel involvement in Korea. They said this years ago. You all thought they were pondering. (Just as you believed they had not planned to go into Iraq long before 2003... or even 2002.) They were not. That was the plan all along. Proof? 1. They said so. (Duh!) 2. The PSAs. What better excuse for staying in Iraq than to protect the poor, put upon oil companies who are raping Iraqis of 80% of their oil profits? Why the hell do you think they have made passing the oil bill MANDATORY for a continued US presence? Why the HELL do you think they are building PERMANENT bases?
2. He has stated he intends to leave the situation in Iraq in such condition that the next president CANNOT withdraw, that the U.S. may achieve it's "destiny." DESTINY? What the hell does that mean?
There is much more, but if you cannot understand what the man, himself, is telling you, you have zero chance of ever understanding Iraq at all. |
1. You don't know what I thought or believed. Don't presume.
2. The next president can and will (if he so desires) withdraw. All he has to do is give the order. And if funding is ever cut off he will have NO other choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
You need to pay closer attention to just what this president has said to you:
1. He sees a decadel involvement in Korea. They said this years ago. You all thought they were pondering. (Just as you believed they had not planned to go into Iraq long before 2003... or even 2002.) They were not. That was the plan all along. Proof? 1. They said so. (Duh!) 2. The PSAs. What better excuse for staying in Iraq than to protect the poor, put upon oil companies who are raping Iraqis of 80% of their oil profits? Why the hell do you think they have made passing the oil bill MANDATORY for a continued US presence? Why the HELL do you think they are building PERMANENT bases?
2. He has stated he intends to leave the situation in Iraq in such condition that the next president CANNOT withdraw, that the U.S. may achieve it's "destiny." DESTINY? What the hell does that mean?
There is much more, but if you cannot understand what the man, himself, is telling you, you have zero chance of ever understanding Iraq at all. |
1. You don't know what I thought or believed. Don't presume.
2. The next president can and will (if he so desires) withdraw. All he has to do is give the order. And if funding is ever cut off he will have NO other choice. |
The "you" is the plural form: "You all thought ". (But, then, that was obvious, was it not?) Regardless, your response indicates that you are certain he will be gone. That means you are either 1. ignoring the new presidential order or 2. don't know anything about it or 3. dismiss it without cause or consideration. I posted an alternative possibility. Can you be bothered to respond to the point raised? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
You need to pay closer attention to just what this president has said to you:
1. He sees a decadel involvement in Korea. They said this years ago. You all thought they were pondering. (Just as you believed they had not planned to go into Iraq long before 2003... or even 2002.) They were not. That was the plan all along. Proof? 1. They said so. (Duh!) 2. The PSAs. What better excuse for staying in Iraq than to protect the poor, put upon oil companies who are raping Iraqis of 80% of their oil profits? Why the hell do you think they have made passing the oil bill MANDATORY for a continued US presence? Why the HELL do you think they are building PERMANENT bases?
2. He has stated he intends to leave the situation in Iraq in such condition that the next president CANNOT withdraw, that the U.S. may achieve it's "destiny." DESTINY? What the hell does that mean?
There is much more, but if you cannot understand what the man, himself, is telling you, you have zero chance of ever understanding Iraq at all. |
The US wanted military bases in Iraq not for the oil companies but to project power against middle east regimes in order for them to change their behavior. |
|
| 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
