|
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: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Dome Vans wrote: |
Keano is the winner here, sorry Joo.
America joined the second world war after Pearl Harbour, they skipped the beginning bit. 'Joining' the Cold War was a done thing, wait for the country and ideology to collapse on itself and then claim victory. Much like China will do when the American Dream collapses.
'War of Terror' 
And previously mentioned I like the idea of being a moonbat, sounds all naturey. |
Keno is not here.
If the US didn't push back and protect itself during the cold war then the USSR would have surrounded the US and forced it to bow to communism or would have even attacked the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joo,
Hegemonic powers maintain their status by just that, engaging in battles that may elongate their stay as the world's main power, they maintain economic/military ties with countries for solely this purpose. They didn't need to do anything to the USSR it was a doomed ideology, America 'sat back' and waited for the inevitable to happen, and are now 'claiming' victory. The 'war on Terror' is the perfect example of America biting off more than they can chew. They've kicked the hornets nest. There's not going to be any sitting round and waiting for the muslim ideology to implode. There'll be no winners.
| Quote: |
The decline of hegemony is perceived simultaneously as very slow and quite rapid. On the other hand, suddenly, everyone seems to notice that the authority of the hegemonic power is under serious challenge, and that the achievement of its political will is no longer automatic. The hegemonic power seems to be in some economic trouble, after a long period of unquestioned prosperity. And of course the very perception of these weaknesses increases them, since others are then ready to act in the inter state arena in ways that are markedly different from the ways in which they acted during the heyday of the hegemonic power. On the other hand, decline seems slow. The hegemonic power, even when it begins to decline, is clearly still the strongest power (militarily, politically, economically, even culturally). If it does not automatically get its way, it remains hard for anyone to do things against its will. If its economic lead is cut, it still seems (and is) wealthy.
|
International Relations: critical concepts in political science
By Andrew Linklater |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
What is the difference between spreading freedom and spreading terror? Ohhhhhh I get it. We only spread freedom. Our enemies only spread terror. 
Now before you get all up in a huff. I am in no way comparing the United States with the Iranian regime, but come on. The CIA and other western intelligence agencies are just as guilty of some of the same acts.
Lets face it. These crazy little muslims just don't know how to push their agendas as well as we do. |
I love this moral relativism that lefies use. They condemn real and mostly imagined actions of the United States while excusing true criminal behavior.
They insinuate how we spread terror. One even mentioned how we are still spreading terror in Korea since 1950, yet he makes a comfortable life teaching English. Japan and Germany, 1945? We were at war. Yet today they are respectively the second and third largest economies in the world. Moreover they are free liberal democracies at peace. Speaking of successful economies, take a look around you in Korea. A successful economy which I guess can be terrifying to lefty dingbats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dome Vans wrote: |
Joo,
Hegemonic powers maintain their status by just that, engaging in battles that may elongate their stay as the world's main power, they maintain economic/military ties with countries for solely this purpose. They didn't need to do anything to the USSR it was a doomed ideology, America 'sat back' and waited for the inevitable to happen, and are now 'claiming' victory. The 'war on Terror' is the perfect example of America biting off more than they can chew. They've kicked the hornets nest. There's not going to be any sitting round and waiting for the muslim ideology to implode. There'll be no winners.
| Quote: |
The decline of hegemony is perceived simultaneously as very slow and quite rapid. On the other hand, suddenly, everyone seems to notice that the authority of the hegemonic power is under serious challenge, and that the achievement of its political will is no longer automatic. The hegemonic power seems to be in some economic trouble, after a long period of unquestioned prosperity. And of course the very perception of these weaknesses increases them, since others are then ready to act in the inter state arena in ways that are markedly different from the ways in which they acted during the heyday of the hegemonic power. On the other hand, decline seems slow. The hegemonic power, even when it begins to decline, is clearly still the strongest power (militarily, politically, economically, even culturally). If it does not automatically get its way, it remains hard for anyone to do things against its will. If its economic lead is cut, it still seems (and is) wealthy.
|
International Relations: critical concepts in political science
By Andrew Linklater |
I'm not worried.
Last edited by Pluto on Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:01 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Dome Vans"]Joo,
| Quote: |
Hegemonic powers maintain their status by just that, engaging in battles that may elongate their stay as the world's main power, they maintain economic/military ties with countries for solely this purpose. They didn't need to do anything to the USSR it was a doomed ideology, America 'sat back' and waited for the inevitable to happen, and are now 'claiming' victory. The 'war on Terror' is the perfect example of America biting off more than they can chew. They've kicked the hornets nest. There's not going to be any sitting round and waiting for the muslim ideology to implode. There'll be no winners. |
Ever notice that the enemies of the US have alway been totalitarian thugs many of them didn't even let their own citizens leave
anyway the US will win cause it will sooner or later have the ability assassinate terror leaders and those that support them.
The US isn't against muslims the US is against fascists , Khomeni followers , Al Qaedists and Bathists.The US has already made Bathism unattractive in the mideast.
As for Al Qaeda they are not getting stronger and the US will have better and better ways to kill them
As for Iran better weapons can make sure they can't enjoy nuclear weapons. The right weapons to deal with Iran are on the way.
PROJECT THOR (RODS FROM GOD) is the answer for Iran's nuclear program.
If Iran behaves themselves then they won't have a problem. If they do any kind of terror attack like at Kobar then they will loose their nuclear program. Iran's nuclear program is not longer an asset but rather a hostage. Most everything Iran wanted to gain from having nuclear weapons is now gone.
The US got the better of the other side in the cold war and they will do it again here. The war on terror is easier.
I like our chances.
| Quote: |
The decline of hegemony is perceived simultaneously as very slow and quite rapid. On the other hand, suddenly, everyone seems to notice that the authority of the hegemonic power is under serious challenge, and that the achievement of its political will is no longer automatic. The hegemonic power seems to be in some economic trouble, after a long period of unquestioned prosperity. And of course the very perception of these weaknesses increases them, since others are then ready to act in the inter state arena in ways that are markedly different from the ways in which they acted during the heyday of the hegemonic power. On the other hand, decline seems slow. The hegemonic power, even when it begins to decline, is clearly still the strongest power (militarily, politically, economically, even culturally). If it does not automatically get its way, it remains hard for anyone to do things against its will. If its economic lead is cut, it still seems (and is) wealthy.
|
The US is doing pretty good actually compare what it has going for it to Europe.
China and India are on the way up but that doesn't mean the US is on the way down.
As for the Europe they are going nowhere. Look at their long term growth rates.
By the way ever heard of Paul Kennedy the guy who said the US was on the way out as a great power well he changed his mind and said " wow are we powerful". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
What is the difference between spreading freedom and spreading terror? Ohhhhhh I get it. We only spread freedom. Our enemies only spread terror.
Now before you get all up in a huff. I am in no way comparing the United States with the Iranian regime, but come on. The CIA and other western intelligence agencies are just as guilty of some of the same acts.
Lets face it. These crazy little muslims just don't know how to push their agendas as well as we do. |
I love this moral relativism that lefies use. They condemn real and mostly imagined actions of the United States while excusing true criminal behavior.
They insinuate how we spread terror. One even mentioned how we are still spreading terror in Korea since 1950, yet he makes a comfortable life teaching English. Japan and Germany, 1945? We were at war. Yet today they are respectively the second and third largest economies in the world. Moreover they are free liberal democracies at peace. Speaking of successful economies, take a look around you in Korea. A successful economy which I guess can be terrifying to lefty dingbats. |
Wow, being accused of moral relativism. What a shocker. Hate to tell you this, but everyone is a moral relativist. Everyone colours their actions with their own society's accepted norms and moral values, its unavoidable. Ever wonder why every single death caused by us (the west) is justifiable and why every other death caused by "them" is an act of terror? You seriously think our sh#t don't stink?
Last edited by yawarakaijin on Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:19 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The difference is what a side fights for. Khomenist , Al Qaedists and Bathists are fascist bigots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thiophene
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well I as a 'leftist' condemn all 'terror'. This 'moral relativism' you speak of is just to point out the foolishness of the 'other' side, NOT to justify any behaviour...well that's what I hope most people use it for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thiophene
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The difference is what a side fights for. Khomenist , Al Qaedists and Bathists are fascist bigots. |
Do you know the life of Khomeini? What he stood for, what he fought for? Just wondering where you got all your info. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The United States, Isreal nor any other Western country don't kill others as a matter of policy. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of hezbollah, Mahmoud Ahmadinjad and countless other muslim leaders have set about policies solely for the purpose of killing Jews, Christians and other religions(the kuffaar) as stated policy. They give up their war, the killing will stop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The difference is what a side fights for. Khomenist , Al Qaedists and Bathists are fascist bigots. |
On the surface your argument holds. No one would deny that. But does "being on the right side" absolutely absolve us from any and all accountability in regards to the pain and suffering we have caused?
Carpet bombing of north vietnam to try and put an end to what was essentially a nationalist movement?
Overthrow of elected governments and installation and suppourt of ruthless dictators?
The list is endless.
Oh, it was for freedom. Every and all individuals injured by us must simply give up all notions of justice or revenge cause hey... we did it all for freedom. 
For f^ck sakes! Up until the gulf war, big bad Saddam Hussein was your number one guy in the region. But that is all excusable because we suppourted Saddam for freedom.
The world is a tough place. I fully understand the need for RealPolitik. But don't tell me that certain groups have to bend over smiling, taking america's giant red,white and blue c0ck up their bums and enjoy while it it's happening. Then wobble away, their as#es bleeding, only to turn around and thank America for a nice date.
Last edited by yawarakaijin on Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:42 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The difference is what a side fights for. Khomenist , Al Qaedists and Bathists are fascist bigots. |
On the surface your argument holds. No one would deny that. But does "being on the right side" absolutely absolve us from any and all accountability in regards to the pain and suffering we have caused?
Carpet bombing of north vietnam to try and put an end to what was essentially a nationalist movement?
Overthrow of elected governments and installation and suppourt of ruthless dictators?
The list is endless.
Oh, it was for freedom. Every and all individuals injured by us must simply give up all notions of justice or revenge cause hey... we did it all for freedom.
For f^ck sakes! Up until the gulf war, big bad Saddam Hussein was your number one guy in the region. But that is all excusable because we suppourted Saddam for freedom. |
Was Korea wrong. the US probably acted worse in that war than in this war. It the bad stuff was the same just wasn't reported in those days.
I think the Korean war was correct look at South Korea. Doesn't mean that lots of innocents didn't suffer. It is a tough world.
You are a great monday morning QB.
US messed up more than a few times but it got the better of the other side during the cold war.
It is a tough world. You make sense but there are not a lot of clear courses of action. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Also, look no further than how these governments treat their own people: They stone to death (female) adulterers. They hang people just for being gay. They teach their children to hate so much that they must commit suicide for some absurd belief. All of these people deserve better than that.
As for some of our strange bedfellows, like Joo said, there are rarely any easy solutions when action must be taken. Especially when dealing with the Middle East, the situations always become more complicated.
At any rate, no matter who we deal with, the endgame is always the same. Open up democratize and provide more opportunities for your citizens. This is the best way to achieve peace and prosperity or what you might call freedom.
Carrots and sticks, always have got to use both. Having said all of that, the best way to go about things is Theodore Roosevelt's way; Speak softly with a big stick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thiophene
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| The United States, Isreal nor any other Western country don't kill others as a matter of policy. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of hezbollah, Mahmoud Ahmadinjad and countless other muslim leaders have set about policies solely for the purpose of killing Jews, Christians and other religions(the kuffaar) as stated policy. They give up their war, the killing will stop. |
A lot of people disagree wiht this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thiophene wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| The United States, Isreal nor any other Western country don't kill others as a matter of policy. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of hezbollah, Mahmoud Ahmadinjad and countless other muslim leaders have set about policies solely for the purpose of killing Jews, Christians and other religions(the kuffaar) as stated policy. They give up their war, the killing will stop. |
A lot of people disagree wiht this. |
What do you disagree with?
Israel is not out to kill all muslims nor destroy all the muslims in the mideast , nor wipe out all muslim states in the mideast.
They even accepted Bill Clinton's peace offer , while Arafat turned it down. |
|
| 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
