Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - the United States more of a threat to Korea

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

the United States more of a threat to Korea
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

ohahakehte

Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: The State of Denial

Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:02 am Post subject:

Hank Scorpio wrote:

ohahakehte wrote:

but its certainly true that Bush and others are exploiting the humanitarian and human rights abuses of the north for their own ends, as if thats why Bush and Cheney hate NK so much.

Umm, yeah, in a nutshell that is why Bush and Cheney hate NK so much. If our stated position of opposing Orwellian hermit states that employ reeduction camps, starvation as a weapon, threatening their neighbors, and proliferation of nukes doesn't go down smooth with the rest of the world, then sorry, screw the rest of the world.

talk about orwellian...ya, and bush and cheney's supposed revulsion at NK behaviour isn't selective or anything, is it?
by that logic, if the mindset of Bush & Friends was based on ethical principles and not on real politik, theres at least 15 other nations that they should include in their "axis of evil" crap. one of those nations is america's closest ally and receives tens of billions of dollars a year in unconditional loan guaruntees and military aid, not to mention blanket diplomatic support for everything it does. this nation has a human rights record far worse than NK's, has invaded and terrorized more neighbouring nations than NK and yet manages to pull all of this off and have its actions described in terms of "purity of arms" and "the only democracy" in the region. now lets play a guessing game to see which nation that is....

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:08 am Post subject:

Butterfly wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Building nuclear weapons and advertising the fact doesn't sound like a country that wants to be left alone. Nor do repeated threats of turning Seoul into a "sea of fire". Nor has Kim Jong-il lost his support from China. The oil taps are still on. China does not want the regime to collapse and N.K refugees flooding its borders. Nor does it want a unified Korea, as that would likely mean a U.S. presence on its border with Korea.

I said left alone except to receive food aid. NK can't afford to be forgotten, they would starve.

China isn't going to enter a war with the USA over North Korea are they?

And the oil taps are still on. China will support N.K. until there IS an actual war. It does NOT want a failed rogue state on its borders. And it does not want the U.S taking it over. Would you want your worst enemy on your borders being even more able to spy on you?
Are you trying to say that N.K. only built nuclear weapons so it could blackmail the U.S into sending food aid. Hmm wonder how they survived all those years without nukes? Many states receive food aid and they don't have nuclear weapons.

ohahakehte

Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: The State of Denial

Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:46 am Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

And the oil taps are still on. China will support N.K. until there IS an actual war. It does NOT want a failed rogue state on its borders.

is that supposed to be a sober political analysis? or are you just being nasty? either way what you're saying makes no sense. explain the logic

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Are you trying to say that N.K. only built nuclear weapons so it could blackmail the U.S into sending food aid.

actually the reality is that many political scientists are thinking that might be the case. but first of all theres the issue of NK's actual nuclear capability. experts dont agree that they even have the ability to develop nuclear weapons. this article by an american scholar on korea discusses the doubt over NK nuclear capabilities: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=44&ItemID=4698

as does this article: http://www.zmag.org/elich_korea.htm

consider the broader issues in the world today, especially in light of the new doctrine of preventive war that the bush administration has announced as its policy. NK has responded in kind to bush with an aggressive message. they understand that unless you have a powerful deterrent you're fair game for "shock and awe." NK knows that it has very few cards to play in the new world order if it wants to remain the way it is

nolin nae

Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Location: ��ֹ�

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:35 am Post subject:

ohahakehte wrote:

the entire bush administration, key democratic figures like joseph lieberman and others. and polls conducted before and during the iraq war indicated a majority of americans believed saddam was behind 9/11 and that he possessed the firepower to fry america.

the bush administration has never come out and said saddam hussein was behind 9/11 (not defending bush). if you look at polls taken right after 9/11 (9/13 to be exact), 78% of americans thought saddam was behind or was somehow connected to the attacks. in fact, one could argue that it was the american public's suspicion of saddam that led bush to start later hinting that saddam was involved, knowing he had the nation's ear. so it was not and indoctrinated public that fell in line with the bush administration's propoganda. by the way, who did most canadians believe was behind 9/11? are canadians too well-schooled on the inner workings of international terrorist cells to believe saddam would be connected to something this diabolical?

ohahakehte wrote:

i base it on what americans themselves have told me, what some excellent american films like Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine have documented, and the general behaviour of many americans (most relevantly those in positions of academic and political authority) that indicates that popular american beliefs reflect huge ignorance of the way the world works. consider the issue yourself instead of just attacking me.

oh, so americans themselves told you, eh? must be true then. gmafb! michael moore movies are fluff and are considered comedies in the states. what academic and political authorities? what popular american beliefs? ignorance of the way the way the world works? you could say the same things about any country in the world. please cite something specific so i can show you that someone in canada said the same things about canadians.

ryleeys

Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Location: Columbia, MD

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:38 am Post subject:

Maybe Korean men think the US is more of a threat because American men date Korean women?

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 8:16 am Post subject:

Quote:

of the way the way the world works? you could say the same things about any country in the world.

That quote should open with the word "ignorance".

It is possible that Americans are, in general, less informed about the world than Europeans(I can say for a fact that they are not less informed than Canadians). But I'm not sure how much ignorance and miseducation plays a part in susceptibility to propaganda, especially during periods of perceived crisis.

Suppose that during the build-up to the Iraq War, Irish Republican terrorists had detonated a bomb in Trafalgar Square, killing thousands of people. Suppose also that Tony Blair had tried to exploit the tragedy to his own advantage, by falsely claiming that the terrorists had links to Iraq(this wouldn't sound too far-fetched to the average Briton, as British propagnada, rightly or wrongly, linked Libya to the IRA back in the 1980s).

So, you've got bodies being pulled out of the smouldering wrecks of London, Irish terrorists still at large among the general population, drunk idiots cheering the atrocities in the streets of Belfast and Boston, Mugabe on the nightly news shouting his solidarity with the "freedom fighters", AND Tony Blair incessantly repeating that Sadaam was behind it all. In such a situation, I somehow doubt that the average Brit, however superior his education, would be poring over intelligence documents and calmly analyzing the mideast political situation to determine the accuracy of Blair's claims.

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 5:24 pm Post subject:

ohahakehte wrote:

Hank Scorpio wrote:

ohahakehte wrote:

but its certainly true that Bush and others are exploiting the humanitarian and human rights abuses of the north for their own ends, as if thats why Bush and Cheney hate NK so much.

I always tell people like yourself the same thing. If you don't like the way we do things then go and live North of the border. It is possible.

PS.Are you an example of the new face of anti-semetism that Sharon talks about? If Iran was the world's superpower, I wonder whether or not we would see Palestine receiving similar amounts of aid. At least they have elections in Isreal.

Butterfly

Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait

Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:35 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Are you trying to say that N.K. only built nuclear weapons so it could blackmail the U.S into sending food aid. Hmm wonder how they survived all those years without nukes? Many states receive food aid and they don't have nuclear weapons.

Not at all. I'm saying that NK are working hard to develop nuclear weapons because they don't want to be invaded. They're very paranoid remember. But at the same time they can't afford to be forgotten because they haven't got any food. They're in a bit of a tight spot really, but then we all know that. My only point in all this, is that stirring them up and banging on about this 'Axis of Evil' didn't help matters, and is considered a greater threat to security in this region, than the occasional infantile aggressive gesturing of Kim, Jong-il and his military without Bush's chest beating. Despite the journalese in the article, I think it is a genuine fear south of the 38th parallel and has little to do with 'car accidents' as was insensitively put.

I think we're in agreement about China Urban, I'll admit that I should have been more specific when I wrote that China no longer supports Korea, I should have said that China will not back NK if it came to war. My bad.

Above; another great post from On The Other Hand.

ohahakehte

Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: The State of Denial

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:10 am Post subject:

nolin nae wrote:

true, bush's speech writers didnt have to say that saddam was behind 9/11, perhaps because his speech writers knew that the heavily indoctrinated american population would connect the BS dots. and then the finished product was polls during fall and winter 2002 and winter 2003 showing that a majority of americans believed saddam was 9/11 and that he had the WMD capability to turn america into a "charcoal briquette" (colin powell's words for what the US might do to NK)

nolin nae wrote:

in fact, one could argue that it was the american public's suspicion of saddam that led bush to start later hinting that saddam was involved, knowing he had the nation's ear.

what? thats just silliness.
i think its really stupid that over the past 2 weeks the american (and other medias) have been making such a big deal out of that former Bush admin. finance minister who claims that the plans to invade iraq were there from the very beginning. my god, tell us something we don't know. Bush was only being honest when he explained that that was the case. theres more to it than that. the neo-con gang sent a letter to president clinton during his presidency urging him to undertake "regime change" in iraq. so what you're saying about popular american suspicion motivating bush to invade iraq is just crazy. certainly bush could count on ugly anti-arab racism which was only heightened by 9/11, not created by it, making it easy for most americans to believe that saddam was behind it all.

nolin nae wrote:

by the way, who did most canadians believe was behind 9/11? are canadians too well-schooled on the inner workings of international terrorist cells to believe saddam would be connected to something this diabolical?

if you're trying to provoke me into some kind of ridiculous canada vs america debate, dont bother. i think we would agree more than disagree if we did that. im not a particularly patriotic canadian and i think that the canadian tendency to think we're so angelic and enlightened compared to the US is misguided and ultimately self-indulgent and hypocritical. certainly i think america has some very serious problems that canada is free of - or at least has much less of - and i believe canadians in general are more sober-headed, but i dont think that we should be slamming the US for its murderous foreign policy or domestic problems with racism and poverty unless canadians are willing to look in the mirror. canadian history is not snow white. our treatment of native peoples is an international disgrace and a human rights disaster. canada and the US are very different countries in some respects and i think its presumptuous and self-indulgent for canadians to think that we would necessarily do everything different if we were the worlds superpower. and ultimately, like all states, canada has "national interests" which it can and does pursue w/o much regard to ethical restraints. i could go into more detail on this if you like.

nolin nae wrote:

oh, so americans themselves told you, eh? must be true then. gmafb! michael moore movies are fluff and are considered comedies in the states.

my god, i dont live on mars. moore's movies are *not* considered comedies in the US. gimme a break! i take that back. im sure they are considered comedies by americans who aren't willing to look in the mirror and do some soul-searching.

nolin nae wrote:

what academic and political authorities? what popular american beliefs? ignorance of the way the way the world works? you could say the same things about any country in the world.

noam chomsky has talked a lot about american indoctrination, particularly at the level of elite academics and major american media sources. read Manufacturing Consent by him and Edward Herman. as has the late edward said (he talked a lot about anti-arab racism in the US and how ingrained it is). michael moore says a lot in his films about american indoctrination, and has said as much in his books and in interviews. i could go on.

i agree that i *could* say the same things about any country in the world, but that would only be for the sake of argument. it happens that americans, i believe, are disproportinately indoctrinated for their power and influence over world affairs. how is it that Bush's first trip abroad was during his election campaign? how is it that the citizens in the most powerful and influential nation in the world - arguably the most influential nation in world history - don't even know the basic geography of the western hemisphere? i met a girl once in buffalo who asked me what part of toronto is canada in? this article discusses how most americans aren't aware of the vast network of american military bases that dot the world and which help reinforce american control over a given area: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=17&ItemID=4841 how is it that the disgusting amount of christian fundamentalism in the US is allowed to influence so much policy and yet, americans rail against "fundamentalist islamic states" (im not denying they exist or their danger) and their repressive societies? i dont see why you're getting so worked up about this.

ohahakehte

Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: The State of Denial

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:11 am Post subject:

nolin nae wrote:

true, bush's speech writers didnt have to say that saddam was behind 9/11, perhaps because his speech writers knew that the heavily indoctrinated american population would connect the BS dots. and then the finished product was polls during fall and winter 2002 and winter 2003 showing that a majority of americans believed saddam was behind 9/11 and that he had the WMD capability to turn america into a "charcoal briquette" (colin powell's words for what the US might do to NK)

nolin nae wrote:

in fact, one could argue that it was the american public's suspicion of saddam that led bush to start later hinting that saddam was involved, knowing he had the nation's ear.

nolin nae wrote:

oh, so americans themselves told you, eh? must be true then. gmafb! michael moore movies are fluff and are considered comedies in the states.

nolin nae wrote:

what academic and political authorities? what popular american beliefs? ignorance of the way the way the world works? you could say the same things about any country in the world.

ohahakehte

Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: The State of Denial

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:24 am Post subject:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

I always tell people like yourself the same thing. If you don't like the way we do things then go and live North of the border. It is possible.

classic way of getting out of an argument...
as if "if you aren't for us you're against us" and as if explanation is the same as justification...

Gwangjuboy wrote:

PS.Are you an example of the new face of anti-semetism that Sharon talks about?

well i actually havent heard too much from sharon about the "new face of anti-semitism", more from the anti-defamation league and the world zionist organization and others. but to put myself into the mindset of sharon and yourself - yes, i am a raving anti-semite. i believe jews are human beings and as such capable of good and evil like anyone else. i dont believe any state or person is beyond criticism (meaning i feel no shame or ethical contradiction in criticizing israeli actions). i believe that palestinians are being subjected to a slow genocide and that it must stop right now and that they deserve a state of their own and a just resolution of their plight like any other group on this planet. as you can see, ive crossed every red line by sharon's standards and am a bona fide hater of all jews and of democracy.

Gwangjuboy wrote:

If Iran was the world's superpower, I wonder whether or not we would see Palestine receiving similar amounts of aid. At least they have elections in Isreal.

hypothetically i dont disagree with the first point. as to the second, its true they have elections, in much the same way that "at least apartheid south africa" had elections where the dominant and privileged white minority could make decisions that affected the black and poor majority. and yes i am implying that the interests and wishes of jewish israelis dominate those of both israeli-palestinians and palestinians living in the occupied territories in the same sort of equation as south africa.

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 3:53 pm Post subject:

ohahakehte wrote:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

I always tell people like yourself the same thing. If you don't like the way we do things then go and live North of the border. It is possible.

classic way of getting out of an argument...
as if "if you aren't for us you're against us" and as if explanation is the same as justification...

Gwangjuboy wrote:

PS.Are you an example of the new face of anti-semetism that Sharon talks about?

Gwangjuboy wrote:

If Iran was the world's superpower, I wonder whether or not we would see Palestine receiving similar amounts of aid. At least they have elections in Isreal.

1. Well, you can't be a police officer and a bank robber.....

2.Maybe they would have a state of their own if Arafat didn't dismiss decent Prime Ministers like Mahmoud Abbas, and fail to control Hamas. (that peace loving organisation.)
3.That analogy is flawed considering that Arabs sit in the Israeli parliament. Further arguments could be made about who the territory belongs to, but these have all been done before. Of course, Arafat is a big fan of democracy himself. He likes peace that much that everytime there is a prime minister making peaceful overtures,he sacks him.

ohahakehte

Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: The State of Denial

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:17 pm Post subject:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

2.Maybe they would have a state of their own if Arafat didn't dismiss decent Prime Ministers like Mahmoud Abbas, and fail to control Hamas. (that peace loving organisation.)

arafat didn't dismiss him. he resigned because his role was a joke. if theres any doubt about that consider his title - the "appointed Prime Minister" of the Palestinians, appointed by israel and the US. democracy in action. maybe you're not aware that it was none other than general moshe ya'alon - the top man in the IDF - who said publicly that sharon's government - of which he's a member - didn't do enough to support abbas and didn't create a productive diplomatic environment for him. pretty crappy behaviour towards a "leader" they appointed themselves.
"controlling hamas" is rightly seen by palestinians as a civil war that would tear the weak palestinian society to shreds while sharon would be crying tears of joy. the cynical words of former IDF general yehosaphat harkabi on how to "control" terrorism make sense, "drain the swamp - get rid of the mosquitos." it would be more effective to deal with the root problems that motivate organizations like hamas - but then that would involve doing some painful self-criticism on the part of israelis and their american sponsors and ending the occupation. hamas' support would then dry up.

Gwangjuboy wrote:

3.That analogy is flawed considering that Arabs sit in the Israeli parliament.

true, but its an incredibly soul-destroying experience for them. how would you feel if you sat in the knesset hearing speeches from political leaders (like the members of the extreme right religious parties) openly advocating "transfer" of your people out of israel and occupied palestine? likud finance minister benjamin netanyahu talks about that w/o batting an eyelash. don't forget that about a year ago, the knesset tried to pass legislation that would effectively bar all arabs from sitting in the knesset. they drafted a bill that would broadly deal with the issue of those who don't think the jewish state should exist as it does - and that would mean strong and very intelligent leaders like MK (member of knesset) azmi bishara would be kicked out. if south africa did that in the 1980's during the apartheid days where they tried to pass legislation stating that any MP who doesn't believe in a white south africa would be ejected, people would be going nuts and rightly so. yet for some reason no one says anything when israel does much the same.

Gwangjuboy wrote:

Of course, Arafat is a big fan of democracy himself. He likes peace that much that everytime there is a prime minister making peaceful overtures,he sacks him.

though im no fan of arafat - some basically say the palestinians dont need enemies when they have him - its not true, as ive shown that he has a tendency for sacking PM's. they're only on their second one now and he has yet to be sacked.

nolin nae

Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Location: ��ֹ�

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:25 pm Post subject:

ohahakehte wrote:

true, bush's speech writers didnt have to say that saddam was behind 9/11, perhaps because his speech writers knew that the heavily indoctrinated american population would connect the BS dots.

let's start by having you contrast 'indoctrinated' and 'educated'. i think you're not making a disticntion. we are all indoctrinated in a sense. we all go to school and are taught "facts" that are invariably conveyed in a culturally/nationally/racially/politically/gender/personally-biased manner. we all read, hear, and see biased news coverage; whether it be mainstream or independent, it has a perspective. we must make decisions on what to accept and reject based on our own knowledge and experience. and in all countries the knowledge and experience base of the average person is too small to make unbiased decisions about every specialized issue. every person in every culture or nation is indoctrinated to some degree and to make distinctions between people from "your" culture or nation and "other" cultures or nations is itself a symptom of indoctrination.

related to saddam and 9/11:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32862-2003Sep5?language=printer

Quote:

A number of public-opinion experts agreed that the public automatically blamed Iraq, just as they would have blamed Libya if a similar attack had occurred in the 1980s. There is good evidence for this: On Sept. 13, 2001, a Time/CNN poll found that 78 percent suspected Hussein's involvement -- even though the administration had not made a connection. The belief remained consistent even as evidence to the contrary emerged.

"You can say Bush should be faulted for not correcting every single misapprehension, but that's something different than saying they set out deliberately to deceive," said Duke University political scientist Peter D. Feaver. "Since the facts are all over the place, Americans revert to a judgment: Hussein is a bad guy who would do stuff to us if he could."

Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll. That impression, which exists despite the fact that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals acting for al Qaeda, is broadly shared by Democrats, Republicans and independents.

The main reason for the endurance of the apparently groundless belief, experts in public opinion say, is a deep and enduring distrust of Hussein that makes him a likely suspect in anything related to Middle East violence. "It's very easy to picture Saddam as a demon," said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University and an expert on public opinion and war. "You get a general fuzz going around: People know they don't like al Qaeda, they are horrified by September 11th, they know this guy is a bad guy, and it's not hard to put those things together."

again, not defending bush, people had made their own conclusions about who the bad guys were before being "indoctrinated" by bush and boys. if you don't think bush saw this and realized he had an opportunity to now push through some of the things that he'd wanted to do before but didn't have the moral clout to ask for, you're silly [sticks out tongue]. (btw, can we stop using this word, it's rather childish).

ohahakehte wrote:

i believe canadians in general are more sober-headed

based on what? being canadian.

to cite chomsky (who's from my hometown, the "city of brotherly love") and michael moore (the two should never be used in the same sentence again) merely provides evidence that america is strong because we have dissenting voices that are heard and appreciated by millions and who make americans aware of what can happen if you don't pay attention. if you don't have people like this in your country than you should start to worry. and why do you think chomsky and moore chose to focus on america and americans. because the issues they discuss only happen in america? or because they're american and american issues resonate on an international scale, unlike issues in other countries? i think you know the answer. to wit, michael moore is a comedian.

edward said once wrote:

I'm only in politics because I'm a Palestinian and I feel morally obliged to stand up for my people.

again, a biased voice lamenting culturally "indoctrinated" opinions. anti-arab racism might be the highest it has ever been in america (for obvious reasons) but has not historically stood out in america. and please, by all means, show me a country as racially diverse as america that doesn't have racial problems and i'll concede this point.

ohahakehte wrote:

how is it that the citizens in the most powerful and influential nation in the world - arguably the most influential nation in world history - don't even know the basic geography of the western hemisphere? i met a girl once in buffalo who asked me what part of toronto is canada in?

do i need to point out how utterly ridiculous this assertion is? i once met a girl in calgary who asked me what part of washington d.c. seattle was in? this is my evidence to support a claim that canadians don't know the basic geography of the western hemisphere. and of course, knowing that toronto is in canada, and not vice-versa is a clear indication that a person doesn't know how the world works, right? because knowing world geography is essential to omniscience. oi fa voi!

and now the shocking news that americans don't know about "secret military bases"

Quote:

Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet. This vast network of American bases on every continent except Antarctica actually constitutes a new form of empire -- an empire of bases with its own geography not likely to be taught in any high school geography class. Without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld, one can't begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order.

oh no! our secret plan to take over the world has been revealed! you sure this guy hasn't been watching too much pinky and the brain?

ohahakehte wrote:

i dont see why you're getting so worked up about

sorry guy, you may be in canada, but i ain't canadian. you don't see why i'm getting "so worked up" because you're canadian and you've been indocrinated into a culture where blaming all the world problems on america is a daily event. but when you come on this board i'll call you on it every time. from now on, you're going to have to substantiate those beliefs that you thought everyone just took as common knowledge. welcome to the world outside of canada!

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:30 pm Post subject:

ohahakehte wrote:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

2.Maybe they would have a state of their own if Arafat didn't dismiss decent Prime Ministers like Mahmoud Abbas, and fail to control Hamas. (that peace loving organisation.)

Wrong. He was constructively dismissed. He was making progress with Israel, and terrorists like Arafat were concerned that should Abbas broker a peace deal, then his own popularity might suffer. Only a moron would argue otherwise.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 5 of 6

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