|
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 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| McCain wants to erect a league of Democracies. Why? He wants a new Cold War with not only Russia, but China! Dear God, why? |
I have not followed McCain on China. If this is true, his stock goes down, of course. Where are you getting this?
I also get the sense that you are beginning to project your support for Richardson onto Obama. |
Here's Zakaria talking about McCain. Again, Zakaria is a centrist, and at most only slightly left-of-center.
I've always admired Obama's denuclearization strategy. In the beginning of his campaign, he pledged to drastically cut back on America's nuclear arsenal. I like this, too. I think Obama will have a strong foreign policy. He seems to have learned from his disastrous Pakistan blunder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't read the thread. Obvious answer:
More Melanin.
Last edited by JustJohn on Thu May 22, 2008 7:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| When Kennedy and Kruschev installed red phones... |
Another bad analogy. Kennedy and Khrushchev gave and take, so to speak.
The Reagan Admin{...} |
Missed this part of my post, didn't you? For the reading impaired ...
| Quote: |
| (Great, now the lot of you will spend two days talking about the Cold War, as if it mattered ...) |
You guys, what's the topic of the thread? Nixon? Mao? Khomeini? None of the above. Let's discuss Obama, and why not? Chances are this time next year he'll be President Obama.
| Quote: |
| Talking to them, then, implies that some common ground exists somewhere. |
No. Talking implies nothing besides talking. It doesn't even necessarily entail listening. It means saying things to them directly and letting them know what they need to know. "Talk to", not even "talk with." You're still confusing "talking" with "negotiating." You need to get down with what the meaning of words are. Once you do that you'll stop falling for the fearmongering Bushist demagoguery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spliff
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reducing America's nuclear arsenal would be like neutering oneself...who could support that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goniff
Joined: 31 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| above all Obama has the ability to call a spade a spade...if I were Hillary I wouldn't give up yet...it's not over till the fat (or in this case) chubby lady sings... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ROFL, Bobster. You speak of "talking" but I only see your usual condescension and your unwillingness to even take responsibility for throwing around bad, muddled analogies.
Sure. I have fallen for the fascists' fearmongering demagoguery. That explains my position perfectly.
However this may be, I and many others remain deeply suspicious of Obama, with no experience in foreign affairs, on foreign policy, especially after what Kuros calls "his Pakistani blunder," above. And esp. given how he seems to be presenting himself as the next JFK.
What would Obama really do in foreign affairs were he elected this November? Who would he appoint to key foreign-policy positions? And how might he relate with the professionals at State, Defense, and CIA? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| ROFL, Bobster. You speak of "talking" but I only see your usual condescension and your unwillingness to even take responsibility for throwing around bad, muddled analogies. |
It was not a bad analogy, actually. The red phone was about communication, not negotiation - talking is about communication, too, not capitulation or apeasement. Obama's position on this is on no way different from statements made by several Bush advisors.
Dodge the question if you like, go ahead - tell me why it's naive and dangerous for Obama to talk about talking with our enemies, but not so when Donald Rumsfelds does so.
And, now that I notice, who's talking about Fascism? You wanna talk about Mussoline, too, as well as Mao and Nixon? Wierd. Why don't you want to talk about Barack Obama - your last post was 100% about The Bobster, 0% about Obama. Did you somehow think I'm on the ballot for November?
The topic, Gopher. The topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aarontendo
Joined: 08 Feb 2006
Location: Daegu-ish
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Is Bookdemdanno Mcgarret v2.0? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That post has nothing to do with Obama, does it?
| The Bobster wrote: |
| It was not a bad analogy, actually. The red phone was about... |
"The red phone," as you call it, derived from two govts that decided to cooperate and create an open, direct channel. The Americans wanted it. The Soviets wanted it. Easy to accomplish where neither side had physically endangered the other's embassy and where embassies and diplomatic channels already existed.
Show me where the Iranian govt is behaving in a way that justifies your (still bad) analogy. What gestures toward the United States govt has Tehran made lately?
Also, if the American govt "talks" with Tehran, it implicitly "recognizes" the regime. I get the sense that you have no idea what this means. In any case, how do you justify America's recognizing this regime, esp. at this particular time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| McCain wants to erect a league of Democracies. Why? He wants a new Cold War with not only Russia, but China! Dear God, why? |
I have not followed McCain on China. If this is true, his stock goes down, of course. Where are you getting this?
I also get the sense that you are beginning to project your support for Richardson onto Obama. |
Here's Zakaria talking about McCain. Again, Zakaria is a centrist, and at most only slightly left-of-center.
I've always admired Obama's denuclearization strategy. In the beginning of his campaign, he pledged to drastically cut back on America's nuclear arsenal. I like this, too. I think Obama will have a strong foreign policy. He seems to have learned from his disastrous Pakistan blunder. |
Two things. (1) If America does this, what will other countries do? America ought not to give up a large number of its most powerful weapons for nothing. And what's the point in going part of the way? What tangible (not hypothetical) benefits will that have?
2. You state "He seems to have learned from his disastrous Pakistan blunder" What leads you to this conclusion...what has he done in foreign policy AFTER this "Pakistan blunder" that backs this assertation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One more thing, Bobster: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has had numerous opportunities to change the course of Iranian-American relations. He held a high-profile international "conference" on the Holocaust, and Columbia University invited and permitted him to address the United States, to cite but two -- I will not bring up his embracing Hugo Chavez and his antiAmerican politics, as I assume you are fully aware of it.
How did his behavior at these and other events persuade you that there is something to be gained by "talking" to him further? What are Obama's thought processes on this, again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, we're saying that Donald Rumsfeld was naive and dangerous and offering recognition to criminal regimes when he suggested we talk to our enemies? The same is true for other Bush administration advisors?
That's the question you are still playing didge ball with Gopher. When Dems do it, it's one thing, but when Repub;licans ... ?
You'd rather not talk about that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stop the juvenile baiting tactics. You are an older, middle-aged man. Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick.
And what I say applies across the board. When have I ever spoken in favor of any of the W. Bush Administration's policies -- especially its Middle Eastern policies -- on this message board? (Cue Mrs. Gopher's searching her file on what I have said in t-minus 10-9-8...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Stop the juvenile baiting tactics. |
Dodge ball.
Is it different when dems do it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stop "debating." And read first. |
|
| 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
