Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Many of you voted for this administration...........

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

Many of you voted for this administration...........
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:49 am Post subject:

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

Quote:

Anyway, many of you voted for this administration and now we all will suffer the consequences.

You say this like we're not already suffering the consequences of the last administration.

Besides, talks are set to begin October 1. Who knows, something good might come of it. Can't possibly be any worse than 8 years of refusing to talk.

Your hero Obama is expanding every single policy initiated by Bush to the tee. But just keep on buying into that false left/right wing paradigm (like a lemming) Obama and his cronies deserve a good laugh at your expense.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:46 am Post subject:

If you hurry, your uni might still give you a refund on the tuition you paid. You obviously didn't learn anything. Alternatively, you could sue them for mis-educating you. Good luck.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:36 am Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

guess you missed the OP. If Obama is "expanding every single policy initiated by Bush to the tee", why is his administration deciding to drop this proposed missile shield? Seems to be ending a Bush policy. Hmmm..

Hater Depot

Joined: 29 Mar 2005

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:41 am Post subject:

[quote="Kimbop"]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6838058.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

Quote:

Some folks think that the real reason was to keep eastern europe "free". On the plus side, Obama might save some money. But anything that makes Putin happy must be bad.

Why is that so? You can't have a foreign policy based on spite. He may be an unsavory guy, but we could use Russian help in dealing with Iran, we're negotiating a new round of nuclear arms reductions with them, and it's generally better to be on good than bad terms with other countries.

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2009/09/why_obamas_decision_to_scrap_t_1.html

Quote:

Furthermore, within Russia the missile defense system was practically a gift on a silver platter to anyone who wanted to stir up or play on anti-American sentiments in an effort to justify a more antagonistic foreign policy towards the US (as well as more nationalistic behavior at home). But given the �unstated� nature of the potential for the missile defense system to provide protection to Poland and other East European nations against Russia, we could never really get into a discussion about whether 10 missile interceptors in Poland would actually have any sort of deterrent effect against any remotely likely Russian actions. As a corollary, the Russians never had to really provide any justification for why they were so angry: they could just define the interceptors as a generic threat to Russian national security.

So the bottom line is: (1) it is unclear how these interceptors would have improved US national security; (2) it is unclear how the interceptors would have improved the security of US allies in Eastern Europe; (3) they would have been expensive (note Obama�s mention of �cost-effectiveness� in his speech this morning); (4) we don�t know if they would have worked (note Obama�s emphasis on the effectiveness of his proposed alternative, stating in this morning�s statement that �This new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against missile threats than the 2007 missile defense program.�); and (5) they would have continued to provide a serious impediment to improving US-Russian relations. All in all, this does not seem like a program worth going forward with simply because people in the previous administration saw fit to initialize it. When you are the president, you ultimately need to take decision that will improve the national security of your nation, and, in my opinion, on balance the proposed missile shield would not have done so.

ubermenzch

Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:48 am Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

visitorq wrote:

Visitorq has a story to tell, and if the details don't fit his particular version, he simply disregards them.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:24 am Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

visitorq wrote:

You are absolutely right, BB.

Now that leaves only about 99% of Bush's policies that Obama is following.

I fervently hope Obama continues to surprise me.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:27 am Post subject:

Quote:

You can't have a foreign policy based on spite.

I disagree. You can, but it isn't very smart. Some proportion of GW Bush's motivation for invading Iraq was out of spite. Something about avenging the foiled attempt on Dad.

I read a bit on the newest decision. It looks as if Obama is beefing up security with short-range missiles in the Gulf, rather than squandering money on a iffy system in Eastern Europe that the generals didn't want.

One less point of irritation with the Russians, a more effective deterrent rather than an expensive pipe dream, a better defensive posture vis a vis the Iranians. What's not to like?

Hater Depot

Joined: 29 Mar 2005

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:55 am Post subject:

Quote:

I disagree. You can, but it isn't very smart.

Right. That's what I meant.

Konglishman

Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:29 am Post subject: Re: Many of you voted for this administration...........

dmbfan wrote:

Quote:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/17/united.states.missile.shield/index.html

Funny, today the I.A.E.A. reported that Iran is in fact on the road to having nuclear weapons.......not to far off.

Another funny thing, is that the shield was not meant for a deterent against Russia......................................they don't have the the missles that this shield puts its focus on.

Anyway, many of you voted for this administration and now we all will suffer the consequences.

dmbfan

The missile defense shield was a giant waste of money. Essentially, it was based on unproven technology. And there was little reason to believe that the technical problems were going to be resolved to the point that it would actually work.

Quote:

Technical criticism

There has been controversy among experts about whether it is technically feasible to build an effective missile defense system and, in particular, if the ground-based midcourse NMD will work.[41]

An April 2000 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that �[a]ny country capable of deploying a long-range missile would also be able to deploy countermeasures that would defeat the planned NMD system.� Countermeasures studied in detail were bomblets containing biological or chemical agents, aluminized balloons to serve as decoys and to disguise warheads, and cooling warheads to reduce the kill vehicle�s ability to detect them.[42][43]

In April 2004, a General Accounting Office report concluded that �MDA does not explain some critical assumptions�such as an enemy�s type and number of decoys�underlying its performance Goals.� It recommended that �DOD carry out independent, operationally realistic testing of each block being fielded� but DOD responded that �formal operational testing is not required before entry into full-rate production.�[44]

Proponents did not suggest how to discriminate between empty and warhead-enclosing balloons, for instance, but said that these �simple� countermeasures are actually hard to implement, and that defense technology is rapidly advancing to defeat them.[45] The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) said decoy discrimination techniques were classified, and emphasized its intention to provide future boost and terminal defense to diminish the importance of midcourse decoys.[46] In summer 2002 MDA ceased providing detailed intercept information and declined to answer technical questions about decoys on grounds of national security.[47]

A July 2003 study by the American Physical Society (APS) focused on the feasibility of intercepting missiles in the boost phase, which the current NMD system does not yet attempt.[48]

The study found it might be possible to develop a limited system capable of destroying a liquid-fuel propelled ICBM during the boost phase. This system could also possibly destroy some solid-propellant missiles from Iran, but not those from North Korea, because of differences in the boost time and range to target. However, there is a trend toward using solid-fueled ICBMs which are harder to intercept during boost phase.

Using orbital launchers to provide a reliable boost-phase defense against solid fuel missiles from Iran or North Korea was found to require at least 1,600 interceptors in orbit. Intercepting liquid-fueled missiles would require 700 interceptors. Using two or more interceptors per target would require many more orbital launchers.

The only boost phase systems the U.S. contemplates for near term use are the Airborne laser (ABL) and Kinetic Energy Interceptors. The study found the ABL possibly capable of intercepting missiles if within 300 km for solid fuel missiles or 600 km for liquid fuel missiles.[49]

While the APS report did not address the current U.S. mid-course NMD system, it concluded that were the U.S. in the future to develop a boost-phase ABM defense, there could be significant technical problems limiting effectiveness.

See also the article on anti-ballistic missiles for further discussion on the feasibility of NMD-like systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Missile_Defense

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:44 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

visitorq wrote:

It would appear that Obama is merely backing out, and unwillingly at that. Bush probably would have done the same. Overall, they read from the same teleprompter and have their pre-written policy handed to them by the same groups of people. The only real difference is that Obama is actually more extreme and pro-Wallstreet than Bush was.

Wangja

Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 2:06 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

RufusW wrote:

oh noes! less (American) military hardware around the world!

Huzzah! I agree with Mises..... no way Iran is going to lob a nuke over to Europe. They'd be decimated before it hit.

If the Americans decided to fire back. Sure.

Europeans don't have the spine to fight back. They'd take it and then have a conference on post-(neo?)colonial (re)constructs of over/under poverty and the Foucaultian roosting chickens from Iran. The conference will be chaired by a veiled Iranian woman (but she'll wear tons of eye makeup and designer sunglasses and the veil will have an "authentic" and colourful design which will assure the crowd that she's a modern liberated women from a rich culture).

Then, after deciding it was Bush's fault (thereby solving the problem) the "men" will put on pink shirts and have a long chat about how those Americans are so fat and don't have healthcare while driving to Ikea in search of a coffee table that appropriately demonstrates to the world that they care about dolphins.

Whatever it is you're smoking, I'd like some!

Privateer

Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:26 am Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

Quote:

Anyway, many of you voted for this administration and now we all will suffer the consequences.

Yes, so why does dmbfan talk as if a Republican administration would have been substantially different?

Privateer

Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:33 am Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

visitorq wrote:

Maybe so. Can you be more specific? According to Geitner, there were clear signs of the economic crisis building in 2007, but the government took no action because it would have been so politically contentious. In other words the Bush administration was happy to let the next government do the dirty work - but had the timing been different they'd have been just as pro-Wallstreet.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:59 am Post subject:

Privateer wrote:

visitorq wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

visitorq wrote:

Of course they'd have been just as pro-Wallstreet. This is because the entire political system of the USA has been hijacked.

Nearly all the members of both parties are also members of the Rockefeller funded/chaired think tanks that determine US governmental policy. The main one being the Council on Foreign Relations, and others including the Council of the Americas, the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group. Being a member of these groups (which are secretive, but no secret), particularly the CFR, which basically amounts to being 'chosen' by David Rockefeller (regardless of party affiliation) is a prerequisite to having any chance whatsoever of becoming president. Obama was basically chosen by many of the same people who chose Jimmy Carter (such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission).

The Clintons, the Bushes, and Obama are all members of these same think tanks, as are nearly all the people they appoint to their administrations. They all take their orders from Wallstreet.

I know it sounds like conspiracy theory hoopla, but it's not. It is a fact, hidden in plain view. Our government actually works for the banks, not for us, and they are currently working together to loot our country for all its worth (which is what the bailouts really amount to). The left/right wing paradigm is false, and is meant to confuse people. The locus of this relationship between the government and the banks is the privately owned Federal Reserve central bank, which is the ultimate tool of usury (backed by law) that the banks use against the American people.

Anyway, to help illustrate, here's a a few videos of the 'all powerful' Dick Cheney lying about his CFR membership, and groveling to his real boss, David Rockefeller:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1cFwkmSOXg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiMiMuMqXrE

Triban

Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Location: Suwon Station

Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:54 pm Post subject:

Can we all please agree that it isn't really Obama? He is just willing to sell himself out in order to further the cause of the big boys behind closed doors who are actually pulling the strings. It also helps to serve as a distraction that his skin color is different than the other 43 Presidents (it's black )

Display posts from previous:

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

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