|
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 |
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
 Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 1:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Nice post bobster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Gwangjuboy is another matter, however. I mean, really, a fellow who asserts that S Africa was not a democratic system under apartheid but that the US under slavery was, |
Why are you lying? I challenge you to find that a quote from myself that substantiates your horrible claim. Why are you lying?
| Quote: |
China��s desire for control over a former British colony like Hong Kong constitutes international meddling in any way comparable to coups we Americans have sponsored and the torturers we��ve trained in so many countries�� hey, gimme a break.
|
Why are you digressing? This is a reacurring theme in your posts. After we established that the protesters have a selective approach to human rights, you thought it a good idea to start slamming the US's impact in Korea. After we established that the huge investment couldn't have taken place without a US military presence, and US aid, you acknowledged another poster who corrected you (after I had exposed your stupidity), and then attacked me. Can't you tolerate a different political perspective?
[/quote]Yeah, sure, of course, GB – I heard about this ��one country, two systems�� principle. Come on, dude, nobody really believed it at the time of the handover, either. Did you believe it? Did you really? Really? How cute and naive of you, even a bit jejeune – is this touching quasi-schoolboy tendency to believe what politicians tell people the reason why you choose to call yourself ��Gwangjuboy�� rather than ��Gwangjuman��? Grow up, my friend, this is the real world we��re living in. [quote]
Oh. Is it fair to suggest that your attitude to Hong Kong's problem is, "China couldn't be believed so stuff them"? So, if a government reneges on a promise not to interfere we shouldn't regard any subsequent interference as "meddling"? Nonsense.
| Quote: |
| (Lest anyone think I am being unfair or too harsh on the young man, let��s remember, please, that he called me a bigot |
I never called you a bigot. Is this an attempt to deflect attention away from your earlier defeats? I said that if you don't tolerate Bush's religious beliefs then you cross the threshold for what defines a bigot. I also suggested that if you ridicule another's religious beliefs then you could also cross that threshold. That's very different from calling you a bigot outright. Why are you continuing to tell lies?
| Quote: |
| I��m reminding you and everyone else who might consider even for a moment the prospect of having a mature and intelligent conversation with you that you admitted to trolling, right here on this thread, and I believe you are trolling with regard to many of the rest of what you are saying on this thread. |
I admitted to engaging in trolling on this thread, but the trolling I admitted to took place on another thread. I have not engaged in trolling on this thread. However, that thread has no bearing on our discussion, which I have taken very seriously. On this thread I have not made any claims that could possibly constitute trolling. I have posted evidence to support my stance, and I think that I have engaged you in a decent manner. I think that you are milking my admission (which concerned another poster, and another thread) for want of anything better to add.
| Quote: |
| How can we possibly believe in your claim of having any concern for human rights, or even know much about it, when the name ��Tibet�� has so much trouble finding it��s way to your lips? You are insincere, GB, and a waste of time to respond to in any meaningful way. |
I do know a lot about human rights. Specifically human rights law. I studied it in depth at university. Primarily, my studies focused on the rights of defendents at ICTY. I was awarded the highest posible grade for my dissertation. I make no apologies for having forgotten the name of one of many countries/regions affected by the issue of human rights. I also said thanks to you for bringing it to the forum's attention. That was a sincere thanks. I am appalled that you have thrown it in my face. Now lets talk about "intelligable" conversation shall we?
| Quote: |
| and the fact that you neither know or seem to care about the provenance of your sources illustrates what a waste of time you are here |
Right. Do you debate the figures that the Denver spiritual community cited? I only quoted the site for the figures, and not for what they said about them. Are we clear on this yet?
| Quote: |
| Troll, troll troll �� yawn. |
Until this point I actually believed I was having a debate with someone of considerable intelligence. This latest offering has given me cause to rethink.
| Quote: |
And, yes, they are religious extremists, those cats in Washington. Absolutely. They do not represent mainstream American opinion, and they were not even able to muster a simple majority of the electorate. Don��t open the door to talk about elections, GB, not after what we saw in Florida last time �� haha, boy oh boy, you SURE don��t wanna go there.
|
It's quite funny that you have to mention those elections. Now you are clutching at anything. I sure can't remember refering to those elections. It's Just a big effort to divert our audience away from your earlier mishaps. Sad.
| Quote: |
| You did not take me to task, you foamed at the mouth a bit and that��s all. And you are aware that I drew no parallels with his beliefs and Islamic extremism – you are aware that ��comparable�� is not the same as ��equivalent,�� right? Yes, you are aware, you are probably an English teacher as most of us here are, so you are possibly aware of the meanings of a few words here and there. |
There are many dictionaries that list the word "equialent" underneath the defintion of the word "comparable". Still, it's the sign of a desperate man who relies on semantics to get him out of his hole.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/comparable
| Quote: |
| The only reason a politician��s religious beliefs ought to be a matter for discussion is when and if it appears he is using them as a basis and motivation for political action and policy. This American President had confided to world leaders in private that ��God told me�� to invade Iraq – damn me, to use your phrase, if that doesn��t sound relevant to me. |
If he is, yes I agree with you. It would be nice if you could post a link or something. Not that I doubt it, but I would like to take a look at it nonetheless. If the only reason for the action in Iraq is "messages from God" then the administration has some explaining to do. However, this dooesn't detract from my opinion that the war in Iraq is right. I also happen to think that any God, irrespective of religious denomination, would have condoned the liberation of the Iraqi people.
[quote]In fact, ��His religious beliefs are his own�� is exactly how Bush Jr responded to questions about the Boykin fellow whose story I shared by way of the link to The Guardian article – that was just before Boykin got reposted to his next assignment, which was to introduce new methods of interrogation in the Baghdad prison systems.
[quote]
The Guardian is only a slightly more reliable source than the Denver spiritual community! It is a far left (bordering communist at certain times in recent history) broadheet from the UK. I have read the article but found no evidence that people were forced to say prayer as you claimed. Maybe you have a different source you can refer me to. What Bokyin says in his church has nothing to do with his postition in the US army, but if his religious beliefs determine his decisions on the job, then he should be dismissed. I don't think I made signals to the contrary. Indeed, this might be something we both agree on. Again, it has no bearing on my opinion that the action in Iraq is right.
I am not sure why you are vearing away from the original topic though. Are you willing to concede that the protesters are selective in their approach to human rights issues, and are you willing to agree that the US has had a positive impact in South Korea? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A Carrier wing doesn't need a Naval Base you know this. Besides Japan does, another nation that the US would have to support if China were ever to attack there |
.
and how does Korea fit into this?
| Quote: |
| The B-2 doesn't, but their escorts the F-22s do |
B-2 is not escorted. It is a slealth Bomber.
| Quote: |
They may not have a choice.
China has said they would not allow - under any conditions - an independent Taiwan.
The US has a treaty with Taiwan guaranteeing defence of the Island if it is attacked.
The Chinese and the North Koreans, though their relations have cooled in recent years, still have one of the most binding military alliances in the "Sino-North Korean 'Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty'" that states in the event of conflict each signatory: |
And this means what , and the effect is what?
| Quote: |
| They just agreed to send 3000 more troops in August, which will make them the third largest contingent in Iraq behind the US and Britain. |
why is South Korea sending soldiers good question.
From Stratfor.biz
| Quote: |
| For Seoul, the deployment ultimately is more about domestic military reform, Middle East relations and energy security than about appeasing the United States. |
| Quote: |
| But Seoul is not thinking as much about easing tensions with Washington over perceived increases in anti-American sentiments in South Korea as it is about strengthening the South Korean military, enhancing ties with the Middle East, locking down reconstruction contracts and securing energy supplies. |
| Quote: |
Taiwan is to be included in the US' anti-missle defence plan, you don't think that the Koreans will be in on that? |
But the US missile defense system isn't being designed to defend against that many missiles. and not that type either.
| Quote: |
| Though I agree with you that it is not in the Korean's interest to fight in a war with China, in retrospect, this may not even happen and may not be the US main strategic interest in Korea. |
the US doesn't have much strategic interest in Korea that is why the US is drawing down forces. 3,600 now and another 8,000 later.
| Quote: |
| The US has and always will want to have that foothold in Asia, because with their departure, the eventual reunification of the peninsula will occur. The US departure will leave a "vaccuum" that the Chinese would gladly fill as a dominant nation in the far east. The normalization of Asian political and economic structures would lead to a very strong Asian block, something that the US would loath to see happen. |
And if China filled the vaccum so what?
the US keeps soldiers in Korea to prevent reunification? and to keep Asia divided ? That is just plain silly.
More from Stratfor.biz
| Quote: |
| South Korea's place in the future U.S. global military posture is significantly less important than it was during the height of the Cold War. And South Korea, like neighboring Japan, is redefining its military capabilities and reach to ensure its own interests -- not in opposition to the United States but simply to accommodate a new global reality. By deploying to Iraq outside of direct U.S. jurisdiction, Seoul hopes to strengthen ties with local Iraqi leaders and regional Middle Eastern governments, and to lock down lucrative reconstruction contracts while ensuring the continued security of oil supplies to South Korea. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
supernick
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2004 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gwangjuboy wrote:
| Quote: |
| Again, the vast majority of the demonstrators have a selective approach to human rights issues. A human rights abuse is a human rights abuse regardless of the victim's abuser. To suggest that America's violations warrant more attention is silly. If anything, those abuses which take place at the hands of more obscure abusers need the most attention. I think Rawanda is a case in point. While these Iraqi prisoner abuses are in the spotlight they rob people such as those in the Eastern parts of Congo of the attention they so badly need. |
"Selective" you say? Well, Korea has sent troops to Iraq to help. Why would any person in their right mind would want to join hands with a nationa that is being accused of such atrocities? Koreans know first hand about the abuses of prisoners in their country from an occupier.
You also have to understand Korean mob mentallity. |
|
| 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
