|
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 Jun 15, 2007 2:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee 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. |
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. |
Bwahahahahaha.... except that every person with an IQ above that of a rock knows you cannot defeat insurgency/terrorism with brute military force. Period. So, what's the REAL reason? Let me 'splain it to ya: Oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee 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. |
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. |
Bwahahahahaha.... except that every person with an IQ above that of a rock knows you cannot defeat insurgency/terrorism with brute military force. Period. So, what's the REAL reason? Let me 'splain it to ya: Oil. |
Sure you can. Saddam had no problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Sure you can. Saddam had no problem. |
Are you rewriting history, or just bored? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
edit Double post
Last edited by The_Conservative on Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Shiites and Kurds? Nobody is going to call the resistance in Iraq pre-war terrorists. He suppressed opposition, not insurgency or terrorism. I guess if you are using "insurgent" to mean "repressed citizens..." If so, I guess you'd have the technicality on your side, but is that in the spirit of this thread? Personally, I have always found insurgency to be a strange word to apply to citizens. "Resistance" would apply much better... and more clearly. And, really, there was none of any consequence in Iraq any time within a useful or applicable time period.
Hijack ended, back to the topic.
As usual, a "conservative" runs from the real issues and hides behind... bull. Now, son, have ya got something to say about the topic, or you gonna hide behind word games?
FACT: The Cadre said years ago this could/would take decades.
FACT: They claimed to be trying to end the war and claimed they had no intention to stay in Iraq any longer than necessary time after time.
FACT: They have been building permanent bases for YEARS while saying it meant nothing.
FACT: They have threatened to pull out immediately if they don't get 80 percent of oil revenues.
FACT: Bush has stated he will set up Iraq in such a way that it will be impossible for the next president to withdraw.
If you still think the Cadre are honest actors, speak without a forked tongue and went into Iraq without oil as reason #1, you are one or all of the following: deluded/insane/foolish/a blind, boot-licking partisan/gullible/unwilling to accept the truth/in agreement with the policy/uneducated on the topic/etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
The Shiites and Kurds? Nobody is going to call the resistance in Iraq pre-war terrorists. He suppressed opposition, not insurgency or terrorism. I guess if you are using "insurgent" to mean "repressed citizens..."
. |
I did not call them insurgents. ...that was TIME magazine. I merely used THEIR term. But I guess you know better than TIME magazine and their journalists and editors.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
The Shiites and Kurds? Nobody is going to call the resistance in Iraq pre-war terrorists. He suppressed opposition, not insurgency or terrorism. I guess if you are using "insurgent" to mean "repressed citizens..."
. |
I did not call them insurgents. ...that was TIME magazine. I merely used THEIR term. But I guess you know better than TIME magazine and their journalists and editors. |
Boy, playing with words is what people do in high school debate classes. Shut up or say something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
EFL trainer
| Quote: |
| Bwahahahahaha.... except that every person with an IQ above that of a rock knows you cannot defeat insurgency/terrorism with brute military force. Period. So, what's the REAL reason? Let me 'splain it to ya: Oil |
Haffaz Assad , Saddam Hussein , the regime in Algeria , Mubarak in Egypt and even King Hussein of Jordan had no problem at all defeating insurgents with brute force. In fact mideast regimes don't have insurgencies or rebellions anymore  I wonder why that is. Wait actually I don't wonder why that is.
and in fact there is actually someone who can find Al Qaeda and kill them with little difficulty. You know who ? The security services of mideast regimes.
They are all mostly police states like North Korea they pay the salaries of the clerics and control the media. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
The Shiites and Kurds? Nobody is going to call the resistance in Iraq pre-war terrorists. He suppressed opposition, not insurgency or terrorism. I guess if you are using "insurgent" to mean "repressed citizens..."
. |
I did not call them insurgents. ...that was TIME magazine. I merely used THEIR term. But I guess you know better than TIME magazine and their journalists and editors. |
Boy, playing with words is what people do in high school debate classes. Shut up or say something. |
Now, now sweetie you're just angry because I destroyed your argument. Either post links that state Saddam NEVER faced an insurgency or be quiet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
The Shiites and Kurds? Nobody is going to call the resistance in Iraq pre-war terrorists. He suppressed opposition, not insurgency or terrorism. I guess if you are using "insurgent" to mean "repressed citizens..."
. |
I did not call them insurgents. ...that was TIME magazine. I merely used THEIR term. But I guess you know better than TIME magazine and their journalists and editors. |
Boy, playing with words is what people do in high school debate classes. Shut up or say something. |
Now, now sweetie you're just angry because I destroyed your argument. Either post links that state Saddam NEVER faced an insurgency or be quiet. |
Post any that say he did. He didn't. He faced opposition and rebellion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
EFL trainer
| Quote: |
| Bwahahahahaha.... except that every person with an IQ above that of a rock knows you cannot defeat insurgency/terrorism with brute military force. Period. So, what's the REAL reason? Let me 'splain it to ya: Oil |
Haffaz Assad , Saddam Hussein , the regime in Algeria , Mubarak in Egypt and even King Hussein of Jordan had no problem at all defeating insurgents with brute force. In fact mideast regimes don't have insurgencies or rebellions anymore I wonder why that is. Wait actually I don't wonder why that is.
and in fact there is actually someone who can find Al Qaeda and kill them with little difficulty. You know who ? The security services of mideast regimes.
They are all mostly police states like North Korea they pay the salaries of the clerics and control the media. |
Define your terms, son. Citizens of their own nation fighting for control of that nation are not insurgents. It's stupid use of the term. And, they didn't do it with ground wars. THAT is the issue. "Force" does not equal "ground war." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
[
Define your terms, son. Citizens of their own nation fighting for control of that nation are not insurgents. It's stupid use of the term. And, they didn't do it with ground wars. THAT is the issue. "Force" does not equal "ground war." |
| Quote: |
| Explaining the Kashmir insurgency: political mobilization and BETA ]India, which is currently attempting to suppress the insurgency in the state, has held on to Kashmir with a ...... An examination of the origins of the insurgency in the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir suggests a path along which ... |
| Quote: |
| The South Thailand insurgency is a separatist campaign centered in the Pattani region, three southern provinces of Thailand, with violence increasingly spilling over into neighbouring provinces and threatening to extend up to the ... |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Thailand_insurgency
How did Assad and Hussein and do what ever? Did they use the Force? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
The Shiites and Kurds? Nobody is going to call the resistance in Iraq pre-war terrorists. He suppressed opposition, not insurgency or terrorism. I guess if you are using "insurgent" to mean "repressed citizens..."
. |
I did not call them insurgents. ...that was TIME magazine. I merely used THEIR term. But I guess you know better than TIME magazine and their journalists and editors. |
Boy, playing with words is what people do in high school debate classes. Shut up or say something. |
Now, now sweetie you're just angry because I destroyed your argument. Either post links that state Saddam NEVER faced an insurgency or be quiet. |
Post any that say he did. He didn't. He faced opposition and rebellion. |
The TIME article says he faced insurgents. Insurgents are involved in an insurgency. Like I thought you didn't even read it. FYI the on-line thesaurus listed rebellion and insurgency as SYNONYMS.
So glad you finally aqree with me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
The Shiites and Kurds? Nobody is going to call the resistance in Iraq pre-war terrorists. He suppressed opposition, not insurgency or terrorism. I guess if you are using "insurgent" to mean "repressed citizens..."
. |
I did not call them insurgents. ...that was TIME magazine. I merely used THEIR term. But I guess you know better than TIME magazine and their journalists and editors. |
Boy, playing with words is what people do in high school debate classes. Shut up or say something. |
Now, now sweetie you're just angry because I destroyed your argument. Either post links that state Saddam NEVER faced an insurgency or be quiet. |
Post any that say he did. He didn't. He faced opposition and rebellion. |
The TIME article says he faced insurgents. Insurgents are involved in an insurgency. Like I thought you didn't even read it. FYI the on-line thesaurus listed rebellion and insurgency as SYNONYMS.
So glad you finally aqree with me. |
Fine. I find it an inappropriate use of the word. The connotation is that something is entering, not acting from within. This is incorrect. Better terms exist and should be used. For the purposes of this thread, assume I am not using, and will not use, "insurgent" to mean a native/citizen of a nation acting against that government.
To repeat, I believe they were acting in what they believed to be the best interests of the country at the time. I do not believe they acted nefariously, thus I don't think they acted unethically. |
|
| 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
