|
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: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
What is a better name?
The name by the way came from a sci fri writer in the 1950's.
Anyway I don't care about the name only that Iran is denied the strategic benefits of having nuclear weapons.
Ought the US just allow Iran to have nuclear weapons without a good answer? No way.
Why is ok for Iran to invest in nuclear weapons but it is not ok for the US to invest in an answer to deny Iran the strategic benefit of having them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The whole worship the military thing is phallic obsessive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| The whole worship the military thing is phallic obsessive. |
Then just get Iran not to build nuclear weapons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wow, Chavez might be crazy. If the Bushies are going to attack Iran, Venezuela should get out of the fire or they're just sweetening the pot for the neocons. Taking over Iran and Venezuela along with Iraq is alot of oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| Wow, Chavez might be crazy. If the Bushies are going to attack Iran, Venezuela should get out of the fire or they're just sweetening the pot for the neocons. Taking over Iran and Venezuela along with Iraq is alot of oil. |
you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, not really. The motivation to attack Iraq may have in part, possibly large part, had to do with oil, but Iran doesn't have enough oil to really freak out over. It does however have access to the Caspian Sea, and alot of oil be there.
All the conspiracy theorists make things a little too simplistic. The world is really chaotic and simple tends to fail. Look at communism, in theory a great idea saying let's all share the resources, but the execution didn't live up to the theory except in very small groups. Do I think the Bushies are going to attack Iran and Venezuela, no, no I don't. They might want to...
Iraq has been a huge debacle. It's failure has doomed further unilateral aggression by the United States. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
No, not really. The motivation to attack Iraq may have in part, possibly large part, had to do with oil, but Iran doesn't have enough oil to really freak out over. It does however have access to the Caspian Sea, and alot of oil be there.
All the conspiracy theorists make things a little too simplistic. The world is really chaotic and simple tends to fail. Look at communism, in theory a great idea saying let's all share the resources, but the execution didn't live up to the theory except in very small groups. Do I think the Bushies are going to attack Iran and Venezuela, no, no I don't. They might want to...
Iraq has been a huge debacle. It's failure has doomed further unilateral aggression by the United States. |
i'm not sure labeling the leading force behind this 'the bushies', is entirely accurate.
while i believe oil is part of a cost vs. benefits scheme, i personally believe this entire thing is most fundamentally motivated by ideology, at least at a political level. Behind the politics, or the curtains as some might say, I'm sure you are right in saying that the world is complicated. I truly can't grasp the motivation.
nonetheless, a motivation exists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| What is a better name? |
"Neo-Con Viagra" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| What is a better name? |
"Neo-Con Viagra" |
What ever keeps Iran from the strategic benefit of possessing nuclear weapons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Czarjorge wrote: |
No, not really. The motivation to attack Iraq may have in part, possibly large part, had to do with oil, but Iran doesn't have enough oil to really freak out over. It does however have access to the Caspian Sea, and alot of oil be there.
All the conspiracy theorists make things a little too simplistic. The world is really chaotic and simple tends to fail. Look at communism, in theory a great idea saying let's all share the resources, but the execution didn't live up to the theory except in very small groups. Do I think the Bushies are going to attack Iran and Venezuela, no, no I don't. They might want to...
Iraq has been a huge debacle. It's failure has doomed further unilateral aggression by the United States. |
i'm not sure labeling the leading force behind this 'the bushies', is entirely accurate.
while i believe oil is part of a cost vs. benefits scheme, i personally believe this entire thing is most fundamentally motivated by ideology, at least at a political level. Behind the politics, or the curtains as some might say, I'm sure you are right in saying that the world is complicated. I truly can't grasp the motivation.
nonetheless, a motivation exists. |
What would you call them? Cheneyies? The PNACers?
Oil was part of the reason. Iraq trying to kill Bush's daddy was part of the reason. Bush being a screw up in his father's eyes, especially as President, and having the opportunity to do something daddy couldn't was a reason. Spreading democracy in the middle east was a reason.
These guys aren't sane in the traditional sense, and they clearly don't feel traditional ethical constraints are valid. Odd that they thump the Christian drum so loudly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Czarjorge wrote: |
No, not really. The motivation to attack Iraq may have in part, possibly large part, had to do with oil, but Iran doesn't have enough oil to really freak out over. It does however have access to the Caspian Sea, and alot of oil be there.
All the conspiracy theorists make things a little too simplistic. The world is really chaotic and simple tends to fail. Look at communism, in theory a great idea saying let's all share the resources, but the execution didn't live up to the theory except in very small groups. Do I think the Bushies are going to attack Iran and Venezuela, no, no I don't. They might want to...
Iraq has been a huge debacle. It's failure has doomed further unilateral aggression by the United States. |
i'm not sure labeling the leading force behind this 'the bushies', is entirely accurate.
while i believe oil is part of a cost vs. benefits scheme, i personally believe this entire thing is most fundamentally motivated by ideology, at least at a political level. Behind the politics, or the curtains as some might say, I'm sure you are right in saying that the world is complicated. I truly can't grasp the motivation.
nonetheless, a motivation exists. |
What would you call them? Cheneyies? The PNACers?
Oil was part of the reason. Iraq trying to kill Bush's daddy was part of the reason. Bush being a screw up in his father's eyes, especially as President, and having the opportunity to do something daddy couldn't was a reason. Spreading democracy in the middle east was a reason.
These guys aren't sane in the traditional sense, and they clearly don't feel traditional ethical constraints are valid. Odd that they thump the Christian drum so loudly. |
I totally agree. |
|
| 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
