Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Is it possible to characterize incoherent views dishonestly?

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Is it possible to characterize incoherent views dishonestly?
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:25 am Post subject:

stillnotking wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

If the US can get to the point where the US is not taking deaths why ought the US not be in Iraq?

Do you see that happening any time soon, and if not, how long should we wait for it to happen?

There's also the small matter of whether the Iraqis actually want a permanent US presence.

ABC News Poll, 2/20/08

Quote:

22. How long do you think U.S. and other coalition forces should remain in
Iraq? Should they leave now, remain until security is restored, remain until
the Iraqi government is stronger, remain until Iraqi security forces can
operate independently, remain longer but leave eventually, or never leave?

----------Remain until-----------

Leave now 38
Security restored 35
Gov't stronger 14
Operate independently 10
Remain/leave eventually 3
Never leave 1

Oops.

Sometimes polls in South Korea want US forces out. Not all of them but sometimes they have shown that.

The government that Iraqis elected supports US forces in the country.

The most popular Shia group SCIRI supports US forces in the country.

Sistani the most legitimate leader in Iraq has not called for US forces to leave.

And at any rate the Kurds support US forces in the country .

So at any rate US forces ought to be in the Kurdish areas.

If US forces are in the Kurdish areas then gurrilla fighters won't be much able to get to them.

stillnotking

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:29 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

The government that Iraqis elected supports US forces in the country.

I very much doubt this will continue to be the case forever, given that one percent of Iraqis support a permanent US presence. That's rather on the order of predicting that Ron Paul will become President.

Quote:

And at any rate the Kurds support US forces in the country .

So at any rate US forces ought to be in the Kurdish areas.

If US forces are in the Kurdish areas then gurrilla fighters won't be much able to get to them.

So we should stay in "Kurdish areas" even if the federal government tells us to get out? Yeah, that'll go over real well.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:35 am Post subject:

stillnotking wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

The government that Iraqis elected supports US forces in the country.

Quote:

So we should stay in "Kurdish areas" even if the federal government tells us to get out? Yeah, that'll go over real well.

Most Koreans don't really want a permanent US presence.

Well Iraq may not survive as a nation and any rate the US ought to consider the views of its allies the Kurds in any decision about Iraq.

I think the US ought to consider the views of Iraqs federal goverment but if the country is being run by Sadr then well that changes somewhat.

The views of Bathists or Khomeni followers mean less cause of what they are.

We can leave their areas if they don't want the US there but the Kurdish area is different.

stillnotking

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:38 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

I think the US ought to consider the views of Iraqs federal goverment but if the country is being run by Sadr then well that changes somewhat.

The views of Bathists or Khomeni followers mean less cause of what they are.

Oh dear, you're going to disillusion me if you keep this up. I was so convinced that our goal in Iraq was to create an independent democratic republic. Last I checked, democracy means people get to elect whoever they want to represent them.

Modern conservatism really is a singular philosophy: it pays lip service to both democratic ideals and realpolitik without being able to actually accomplish either one. Pretty amazing.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:43 am Post subject:

stillnotking wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

that is a goal but it is not the main one.

I tell you if the Al Qaedists , the Khomeni lovers and the Bathists quit their war then the US ought to leave Iraq on the double.

In that case the US ought to do what Iraqis want.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:48 am Post subject:

Lets be clear . Bathists , Khomeni followers and Al Qaedists aren't content in their own counties they each seek to export their revolution and will use terror to blackmail other nations into giving into their demands. That is the reality. It is not a nice situation but the enemy isn't going away. In that way the war on terror is like World War II and the Cold War. It is not like the other two in everyways but in some ways it is .

stillnotking

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:32 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

In that way the war on terror is like World War II and the Cold War. It is not like the other two in everyways but in some ways it is .

I'm glad you brought that up. Did you know that the Third Geneva Convention was ratified by Congress in 1949, immediately following World War II and at the start of the Cold War? Did you know that the United States has followed the GC rules since that time, even in the darkest days of Vietnam? Did you know that captured Nazi and Japanese and Vietnamese prisoners were never "disappeared" or tortured as a matter of United States policy, and that in fact we (justly) criticized our enemies for doing those things?

The USA has held to its principles and ideals while facing much graver threats than we face today. The willingness of conservatives to toss those ideals in the sh*tter because of a bunch of ragtag Third World religious whackos is something I can only describe as cowardice.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:24 am Post subject:

stillnotking wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

In that way the war on terror is like World War II and the Cold War. It is not like the other two in everyways but in some ways it is .

I am not sure the US didn't violate those things in WW II and in other conflicts not everything was documented. The US did plenty of bad stuff in those conflicts.

and each conflict is different and requires different methods. The US used nuclear weapons in WW II and would have used more of them to defeat the enemy had they been available You wanna go that way? Didn't think so.

It is not cowardice to realize that the US justice system is not up to dealing with Al Qaeda. After all it was the opinion of the Clinton administration that the US could not convict Bin Laden in a US court.

The refusal of many in the anti war movement recognize the fact is nothing short of negligence.

The US may have faced a greater strategic threat but this threat is perhaps just as sinister. Besides why ought the US not do (almost) everything it takes to win?

That comes first.

Many in the anti war movement seem to have some kind of personal resentment against the US government who they resent as much if not more so as the enemy . But that is their problem not mine. (More could be said here)

It is not cowardice to recognize that the US system as it was wasn't and isn't up to the task of defending the nation in this conflict.

It is not cowardice- it is justice force Al Qaeda and the Khomeni followers to quit. They don't have a right to their war. That is why it is justice.

The US system by the way allowed racists in the south after reconstruction to get away with murder too. That wasn't justice either.

The US system protected the civil rights of Klansman .

stillnotking

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:18 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

stillnotking wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

In that way the war on terror is like World War II and the Cold War. It is not like the other two in everyways but in some ways it is .

I am not sure the US didn't violate those things in WW II and in other conflicts not everything was documented. The US did plenty of bad stuff in those conflicts.

We absolutely did not torture anyone as a matter of policy during WWII or the Cold War. What went on at the hands of individual soldiers or agents is another matter -- but at least we didn't try to pretend torture wasn't a crime any more.

Quote:

and each conflict is different and requires different methods. The US used nuclear weapons in WW II and would have used more of them to defeat the enemy had they been available You wanna go that way? Didn't think so.

Two things about nukes: first, no law prohibited the use of nuclear weapons, and while I feel strongly that we should not have used them on civilian population centers, that act was not a war crime. Second, it is the current avowed policy of the United States not to use nuclear weapons except as a retaliatory strike.

This argument is not about whether the United States is a perfect country. We are not. However, we are a country that has committed itself to the rule of law, and the case at hand represented one courageous soldier's effort to uphold that commitment in the face of gross lawbreaking by his superiors.

Edit: sorry, by "the case at hand" I meant this case. I'm getting my threads mixed up, since all these discussions seem to converge.

Quote:

It is not cowardice to realize that the US justice system is not up to dealing with Al Qaeda. After all it was the opinion of the Clinton administration that the US could not convict Bin Laden in a US court.

The refusal of many in the anti war movement recognize the fact is nothing short of negligence.

The US may have faced a greater strategic threat but this threat is perhaps just as sinister. Besides why ought the US not do (almost) everything it takes to win?

That comes first.

I've already explained why: because the rule of law is more important. If it comes to bottom lines, the rule of law is more important than the physical existence of the United States. But obviously, I hope, we are nowhere near that point, however "sinister" Al Qaeda may be. Sinister people are not exactly a novelty.

Quote:

Many in the anti war movement seem to have some kind of personal resentment against the US government who they resent as much if not more so as the enemy . But that is their problem not mine. (More could be said here)

Oh, I'm sure it could, but you'd be wasting your breath. I have no "personal resentment" against the US government, I just don't share your unreflectively sanguine assessment of its motives and future prospects. Nor, I would point out, did the people who created it.

Quote:

The US system protected the civil rights of Klansman .

I certainly hope it did. Joining the Ku Klux Klan does not result in forfeiture of civil rights, and you may recall that the ACLU has taken that rather unpopular position in the past.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:47 pm Post subject:

Going back to the 'America broke it, but how long should it take trying to fix it?' meme:

Quote:

If I tell you to walk down a street that is dangerous, am I morally culpable when you get mugged? After all, I didn't mug you. The muggers did.

I agree with the people who say that the muggers are morally culpable than the person who gave the directions--rather, the ones who say that the chap who engages in ethnic cleansing or sets off a car bomb in a crowded marketplace is morally worse than the US.

But I don't agree with those who say that we are therefore absolved of all responsibility. Our invasion created the conditions in which bombings, kidnappings, and so forth that weren't taking place before, now are. It seems ridiculous to me to say that we have no responsibility for the innocent people who have been terrorized by these thugs.

This is not an argument over whether we are bad or not. It's an argument over whether we have any responsibility for mitigating the bad results of our actions. I'd say we obviously do. Taking in some of the people who have been forced to flee the violence seems like a no-brainer.

I have to say, while I see good reasons to pull out and good reasons to stay a little longer, I am adamant that we need to give 1-2million Iraqi collaborators American citizenship.

stillnotking

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:59 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

I have to say, while I see good reasons to pull out and good reasons to stay a little longer, I am adamant that we need to give 1-2million Iraqi collaborators American citizenship.

I agree completely. This is by far the most pressing moral concern of our occupation, and characteristically, the Bush administration is doing zip.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:30 pm Post subject:

"stillnotking"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

stillnotking wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

In that way the war on terror is like World War II and the Cold War. It is not like the other two in everyways but in some ways it is .

I am not sure the US didn't violate those things in WW II and in other conflicts not everything was documented. The US did plenty of bad stuff in those conflicts.

Quote:

At this time it would be time for me to introduce the film. It is fiction but it shows an akin situation.

At anyrate the ought the US have not disappeared Bin Laden or Khomeni?

the US would not be better off now?

Quote:

The US doesn't have a no first use policy. It didn't even have one during the cold war.

Quote:

The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using such weapons, that adversary's leadership must "believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective." The draft also notes that U.S. policy in the past has "repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html

At any rate the US was willing to do acts in that war that the US is not willing to do now.

Quote:

This argument is not about whether the United States is a perfect country. We are not. However, we are a country that has committed itself to the rule of law, and the case at hand represented one courageous soldier's effort to uphold that commitment in the face of gross lawbreaking by his superiors.

Well I don't know all the facts in this case. but again the situation is like the film. sometimes there are more important things than just following the law.

Quote:

y.

The rule of law is not more important than the physical existance of the US , nor is it more important than winning or getting justice in this war against the enemy.

The rule of law is important but not as important as winning. Not even close.

Quote:

Well I would say the far greater good is in winning over everything else.

Quote:

The US system protected the civil rights of Klansman .

Quote:

I certainly hope it did. Joining the Ku Klux Klan does not result in forfeiture of civil rights, and you may recall that the ACLU has taken that rather unpopular position in the past

It protected the rights of Klansman to do lynchings during reconstruction.

If the US had just violated their rights and crushed them there would likely have been less of them.

Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:40 pm; edited 3 times in total

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:24 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Going back to the 'America broke it, but how long should it take trying to fix it?' meme:

Quote:

I have to say, while I see good reasons to pull out and good reasons to stay a little longer, I am adamant that we need to give 1-2million Iraqi collaborators American citizenship.

The biggest problem is...how many of these "collaborators are "sleepers"? Among 1-2 million a fair number of terrorists could slip through the cracks. Once in America they could do quite a bit of damage.

The logistics of screening and checking would be huge, particularly in a war-torn state where adequate documentation isn't always available.

Insidejohnmalkovich

Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Location: Pusan

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject:

Justin Hale wrote:

Czarjorge wrote:

What startles me most is that McCain seems to be the only candidate not to understand that our very presence there, whether peaceful or not, is equated to violence in the minds of far too many Muslims. Even allowing trainers and advisors to stay in Iraq may be too much of a presence.

Oh Good Lord, isn't that just absolutely tough luck!

I find all this discourse rather unhelpful and unnecessary. We have an obligation to the world and most importantly the Iraqis to replace the previous and present state of affairs with something superior. We can't change the past. Everyone knows that the moment the Americans leave Iraq, total chaos will inevitably result. The only people that will benefit are the Iranians and other extremists.

Take up the White Man�s burden�

Send forth the best ye breed�

Go send your sons to exile

To serve your captives' need

To wait in heavy harness

On fluttered folk and wild�

Your new-caught, sullen peoples,

Half devil and half child

(Rudyard Kipling, 1899, exhorting America to colonize the Philippines)

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe