|
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 |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| I don't see how anyone who is worried that that the US is too powerful and who thinks that any gain is a strategic gain that must be returned and who condemns the US for its actions but refuses to condemn the insurgents or other actors for theirs , can say that they are pro US. |
Not one of the things you have mentioned here has a single thing to do with loving one's country, and I don't unserstand how you fail to see that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:12 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Yes.
Who cares what half-baked allegations you lay.
You don't define America.
Nor is it in your power to subject people to litmus tests, especially when you apologize for torture. What's more, I don't see how anyone as one-sided as you can conceive of claiming some moral high ground from which to judge others as you do.
See McCarthyism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How can someone be pro US if they are worried that the US is too powerful when that power would be used against Al Qadia and similar types?
How can someone be pro US when they think that it would be a bad thing if the US gains the ability by its actions in Iraq could force other mid east nations to change their behavior? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 1:34 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| How can someone be pro US if they are worried that the US is too powerful when that power would be used against Al Qadia and similar types? |
Hence, you are saying someone is anti-US if they're worried "that the US is too powerful" because its power is being used against Al Quaida.
And this is what I'm definining as your litmus test. It's very narrow, and what you're really saying is "anyone who disagrees with my pet criteria for being 'pro-US' for my pet reason must be a traitor".
This is very much akin to McCarthyism.
While I am not per se worried about US power, I am concerned about the US wielding said power responsibly. At this current point in time, responsible handling of US power is at a contemporary, if not all-time, low.
Likewise, said power is not being used exclusively against the likes of Al Quaida. It's essentially being used against anyone, domestically or internationally, who disagrees with the Bush administration.
Where in our Declaration of Independence or the Constitution does it say that Americans cannot be worried about US power?
What you will find there are strong statements about equality, "democracy", as well as a design to prevent the tyranny and lack of representation endured while under colonial rule.
Behavior that contradicts such statements is un-American. You can call that my litmus test, Joo, but this has a basis in American principles.
And the actions of our enemies do not define whether we are good or bad.
Indulgence in such moral-relativism leads me to label you as un-American.
Don't get me wrong. I do think your intentions are good, but they are purely reactionary. It's like having a drunk step-father trying to beat some sense into you, but it's very misguided.
See "The Right Question" (or "conversation" thread).
This explains exactly what I feel.
| Quote: |
| How can someone be pro US when they think that it would be a bad thing if the US gains the ability by its actions in Iraq could force other mid east nations to change their behavior? |
Whether the US has the "ability" to bring about change anywhere doesn't mean they have the authority to do so. If they want to affect change in Texas, then fine. That's within their jurisdiction. Affecting global change can only legitimately be realized in consultation with the rest of the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:41 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Hence, you are saying someone is anti-US if they're worried "that the US is too powerful" because its power is being used against Al Quaida. |
\No not just pro US.
| Quote: |
And this is what I'm definining as your litmus test. It's very narrow, and what you're really saying is "anyone who disagrees with my pet criteria for being 'pro-US' for my pet reason must be a traitor".
This is very much akin to McCarthyism. |
No not a traitor just not pro US.
| Quote: |
| Likewise, said power is not being used exclusively against the likes of Al Quaida. It's essentially being used against anyone, domestically or internationally, who disagrees with the Bush administration. |
Can you give examples and more than isolated cases of this.
| Quote: |
| Where in our Declaration of Independence or the Constitution does it say that Americans cannot be worried about US power? |
It doesn't say anywhere , on the other hand if the US is less powerful than the US would have less to weild against Al Qaida , North Korea , or similar groups/ states.
| Quote: |
| Behavior that contradicts such statements is un-American. You can call that my litmus test, Joo, but this has a basis in American principles. |
OK but it is also fair to examine the situation and what the US is up against.
| Quote: |
| And the actions of our enemies do not define whether we are good or bad. |
OK
| Quote: |
| Whether the US has the "ability" to bring about change anywhere doesn't mean they have the authority to do so. If they want to affect change in Texas, then fine. That's within their jurisdiction. Affecting global change can only legitimately be realized in consultation with the rest of the world. |
It depends if the US is facing a security threat.
The rest of the world might very like their to be a Saddam - not cause they like him but they see him as useful cause he was a problem for the US. There might even be some in the world who see Al Qaida that way.
And many more don't want the US to win in Iraq cause that would mean the US would become much more influential in the mid east.
Most of the world including the US opposed Vietnams' invasion of Cambodia. But now most would say it was a good thing. And Vietnam went in mostly for strategic reasons, and the US opposed Vietnam for strategic reasons. The US was wrong then.
That is a case where the authorization of the world was a bad thing.
You had have nations and groups enaging in low level war against the US and the rest of the world for there own reasons refused to do anything about it, and so it is a lot to ask that the US do nothing about it. Especially when the attacks reached the US mainland.
The reason the US is in the mideast is because the Bathists , Khomenists and those that follow Bin Laden wouldn't give up their war.
It was them not the US , not the US - notice the US isn't bothering Libya nowadays. Khaddafy is still a thug but he - more or less - gave up his war and now the US pretty much ignores him.
You have much of the reat of the world worried that a US victory would leave the US too powerful and or too influential and so they won't allow the US to get at those who are making war against it.
If they don't want to sell the US oil that is their business but if they are engaging in war against the US than that is the business of the US.If they gave up their war then there wouldn't be any US war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:40 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
While I am not per se worried about US power, I am concerned about the US wielding said power responsibly. At this current point in time, responsible handling of US power is at a contemporary, if not all-time, low.
Likewise, said power is not being used exclusively against the likes of Al Quaida. It's essentially being used against anyone, domestically or internationally, who disagrees with the Bush administration. |
The part of this little tiff that Joo keeps leaving out, and the part that I get bored with having to reiterate every time he does, is that the distrust I have of American power in the world lies completely and solely due to the crowd of bozos who have had control of that power for the past 4 years and 5 months - Joo knows this, but he'll continue to tape-loop the notion that wanting Bush to have less power equals wanting my country to go down the tubes.
The truth, however, which I have stated many times and in many ways, is that it is Bush who is sending our country down the tubes, and THAT'S why I want HIM to have less power to do so.
And, one more time, it's because I love my country and want what is best for it - and the neocon cultists are the last thing my country needs.
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
| Quote: |
| Most of the world including the US opposed Vietnams' invasion of Cambodia. But now most would say it was a good thing. |
This is one more bit of The Theater of the Absurd from a little guy who resembles a theater-goer at a Beckett Festival who is just not getting the jokes ... it was the US that invaded Cambodia, with the "secret bombing" under Nixon, and it was the instability that we fostered with such actions as that which led to Pol Pot and the atrocoties in the "Killing Fields."
Where do you read your history, anyway. Oh yeah, The National Review and The Washington Times.
Never mind, then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 9:41 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The part of this little tiff that Joo keeps leaving out, and the part that I get bored with having to reiterate every time he does, is that the distrust I have of American power in the world lies completely and solely due to the crowd of bozos who have had control of that power for the past 4 years and 5 months - Joo knows this, but he'll continue to tape-loop the notion that wanting Bush to have less power equals wanting my country to go down the tubes. |
But that would also power that the US would have and Bush leaves office in 3 years. And Gee whiz better the US have that power to use against al qaida even if Bush is in office.
| Quote: |
The truth, however, which I have stated many times and in many ways, is that it is Bush who is sending our country down the tubes, and THAT'S why I want HIM to have less power to do so. |
but you said you were afraid the US was too powerful.
| Quote: |
| And, one more time, it's because I love my country and want what is best for it - and the neocon cultists are the last thing my country needs. |
Better than the appeasing fake peace activists and Anti Americans at Counterpunch.
| Quote: |
| This is one more bit of The Theater of the Absurd from a little guy who resembles a theater-goer at a Beckett Festival who is just not getting the jokes ... it was the US that invaded Cambodia, with the "secret bombing" under Nixon, and it was the instability that we fostered with such actions as that which led to Pol Pot and the atrocoties in the "Killing Fields." |
Yes and latter Vietnam invaded Cambodia. How was Pol Pot overthrown anyway Bob? Duh.
| Quote: |
| Where do you read your history, anyway. Oh yeah, The National Review and The Washington Times. |
No actually if you have been following by signiture it is the Washington Post , and the NY Times and Stratfor. Oh by the way I like Christopher Hitchens but he writes for Slate. I like Charles Krauthammer too but he writes for the Washington Post. I also like Fareed Zakaria he writes for Newsweek.
don't tell us you have never seen these articles before.
| Quote: |
| http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A13019-2003Mar11¬Found=true |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:31 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The part of this little tiff that Joo keeps leaving out, and the part that I get bored with having to reiterate every time he does, is that the distrust I have of American power in the world lies completely and solely due to the crowd of bozos who have had control of that power for the past 4 years and 5 months - Joo knows this, but he'll continue to tape-loop the notion that wanting Bush to have less power equals wanting my country to go down the tubes. |
But that would also power that the US would have and Bush leaves office in 3 years. And Gee whiz better the US have that power to use against al qaida even if Bush is in office. |
The truth, however, which I have stated many times and in many ways, is that it is Bush who is sending our country down the tubes, and THAT'S why I want HIM to have less power to do so.
Everything you say is based on this misconception - more likely, deliberate distortion - and therefore nothing that remains is wortty of response.
| Quote: |
| but you said you were afraid the US was too powerful. |
You've left some auxilliaries or verbs out that make this sentence as unintelligible as they usually are, but never mnd.
But, one more time, it is Bush that I want ot be less powerful - like many on the Right, you equate him with America. I do not. He is not America.
And, thank God, neither are you.
| Quote: |
Quote:
| Quote: |
| This is one more bit of The Theater of the Absurd from a little guy who resembles a theater-goer at a Beckett Festival who is just not getting the jokes ... it was the US that invaded Cambodia, with the "secret bombing" under Nixon, and it was the instability that we fostered with such actions as that which led to Pol Pot and the atrocoties in the "Killing Fields." |
Yes and latter Vietnam invaded Cambodia. How was Pol Pot overthrown anyway Bob? Duh. |
And who was it that invaded Cambodia and ended the "Killing Fields?" It wasn't the US, it was the evil Marxist dictatorship from Hanoi that we had fought for so long - THEY were the ones who stopped the genocide there, while WE were the ones who had engaged in "secret" bombings and hid everything we did to "help" the Cambodians ...
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Quote:
| Quote: |
| This is one more bit of The Theater of the Absurd from a little guy who resembles a theater-goer at a Beckett Festival who is just not getting the jokes ... it was the US that invaded Cambodia, with the "secret bombing" under Nixon, and it was the instability that we fostered with such actions as that which led to Pol Pot and the atrocoties in the "Killing Fields." |
Yes and latter Vietnam invaded |
Cambodia. How was Pol Pot overthrown anyway Bob? Duh. |
I saw rhe movie and I read the book. The US did not overthrow Pol Pot and the Khmer Roughe ... a lot of what we did made them stonger. Much as with Al Queda, you are ignoring history to say otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:01 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
The truth, however, which I have stated many times and in many ways, is that it is Bush who is sending our country down the tubes, and THAT'S why I want HIM to have less power to do so. |
That topic had nothing to do with Bush. and were Bush to have it the fact is that the US would too , and Bush leaves in 3 years . Moreoever you are afraid of the US being too powerful and you think that any strategic gain that the US gets from the Iraq war is an ill gotten gain that must be returned. And lets go back to it the topic was why you opposed the war. That topic wasn't wasn't about Bush
You might be worried that Bush is too powerful but you are also afraid that the US is too.
| Quote: |
Everything you say is based on this misconception - more likely, deliberate distortion - and therefore nothing that remains is wortty of response. |
\
Just cause you say so doesn't mean much
| Quote: |
You've left some auxilliaries or verbs out that make this sentence as unintelligible as they usually are, but never mnd. |
you are not worth the effort.
| Quote: |
But, one more time, it is Bush that I want ot be less powerful - like many on the Right, you equate him with America. I do not. He is not America. |
but you are also worried that the US is too powerful and you worry that any strategic gain in Iraq is an ill gotten gain that must be returned.
and you condemn the US for its actions in Iraq but you refuse to condemn the insurgents.
| Quote: |
And who was it that invaded Cambodia and ended the "Killing Fields?" It wasn't the US, it was the evil Marxist dictatorship from Hanoi that we had fought for so long - THEY were the ones who stopped the genocide there, while WE were the ones who had engaged in "secret" bombings and hid everything we did to "help" the Cambodians . |
..
Yes , but they did it for strategic reasons , not humanitarin reasons.
| Quote: |
I saw rhe movie and I read the book. The US did not overthrow Pol Pot and the Khmer Roughe ... a lot of what we did made them stonger. Much as with Al Queda, you are ignoring history to say otherwise] |
I never said the US overthrew Pol Pot, and Vietnam never got permission from the international community either (that is how the conversation went in this direction ) . Nor did they invade Cambodia for humanitarian reasons. |
|
| 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
