Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Limbaugh knows where to place the blame!

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

Limbaugh knows where to place the blame!
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Sleepy in Seoul

Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:13 am Post subject:

Measuring oneself by the worst is hardly a recommendation. To be worthy of respect, one should measure oneself by the best. If the U.S. govt. measures its actions against the best, it will be found sorely lacking. Bleating "We're better than Saddam, so we must be good!!" smacks of self-delusion.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:42 am Post subject:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

Measuring oneself by the worst is hardly a recommendation. To be worthy of respect, one should measure oneself by the best. If the U.S. govt. measures its actions against the best, it will be found sorely lacking.

Bleating "We're better than Saddam, so we must be good!!" smacks of self-delusion.

No comparing your nations behavior according to how most nations behave during war. Measuring behavior not according to the worst but to the average.

Does the US act worse than Russia during war? How about France?

Have a look below.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/05/16/france117.htm

If the US government measures its actions against the best it will be found lacking - How so?

Tell us who is better, who was better. Please try to find comparable situations.

Sleepy in Seoul

Joined: 15 May 2004
Location: Going in ever decreasing circles until I eventually disappear up my own fundament - in NZ

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:06 am Post subject:

War nowdays is far more reported than it ever used to be. Instant news by tv and newspaper which did not happen in the past. News is disseminated so quickly that leaks are not able to be hidden as in the past. All that the U.S. administration can do to cover up its mistakes is to lie, create a disturbance to take people's attention away, attack the credibility of the author or to just plain ignore it and hope it will go away.

I don't believe that I have ever stated that the U.S. are alone in committing atrocities and avoiding responsibility (just more blatant). The site you linked said

Quote:

In a letter to President Jacques Chirac, Human Rights Watch said the revelations in the book Special Services, Algeria 1955-1957, and in articles written by Gen. Aussaresses indicated that French civilian and military authorities may have been complicit in a policy of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In his book, Aussaresses described in detail his own participation in torturing prisoners to death and in extrajudicial executions of Algerian activists, including National Liberation Front leader Larbi Ben M'Hidi.

Eerily familiar, wouldn't you say? And I can't think of anyone who would, in all seriousness say that France is the best at anything...

As for which country to measure against... how about the U.S. itself after the Second World War started? When faced with a surprise attack against Pearl Harbour, did the U.S. invade a country that had nothing to do with the attack? Did they bomb that innocent country in a deliberately act desinged to provoke an incident so they could respond by invading? Did the U.S. start and maintain a series of secret prisons designed to "disappear" prisoners, many of whom were totally innocent of any wrongdoing? There are so many things that the U.S. of years ago would not have done, back when they were actually respected throughout the world and not just feared.

Another country to measure the U.S. against is New Zealand. In 1985, two French government agents planted a bomb in a ship in Auckland harbour, which killed one man after it exploded. To put it in pure numbers, the 11/9 attack killed 0.00103548% of the U.S. population. The Rainbow Warrior incident killed 0.00002676% of the New Zealand population (I know that the man killed was not a New Zealand citizen, but neither were all the people killed on the 11th of September U.S. citizens). I know that the numbers of fatalities are very different, but so are the responses by the respective governments - and the responses are not solely due to the size of the atrocities. Did New Zealand attack and invade Belgium in response? Did New Zealand detain without trial anyone with a French accent or who drank wine with breakfast, then proceed to torture some of them, even beating and torturing some to death? Call me absent minded, but I don't recall that happening...

The world is not a perfect place, and it is rapidly becoming a place where bad things are discovered very quickly indeed. If the U.S. wants to be viewed by the world as a leader worthy of respect, then they have to behave in that manner. Saying "do as I say, not as I do" just doesn't cut it. I, for one, would view the U.S. govt. in a very different light if they were to come out and say "Yes, we have done some very bad things. We are doing our utmost to stop them and the offenders will be punished to the full extent of the law and to the satisfaction of foriegn and independant observers", and then do it. But we all know that will never happen.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:01 pm Post subject:

[deleted] Last edited by Gopher on Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:08 pm; edited 1 time in total

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:06 pm Post subject:

[deleted] Last edited by Gopher on Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:08 pm; edited 2 times in total

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:18 pm Post subject:

Derrek wrote:

What we should blame is this ridiculous "hearts and minds" crap. When a nation goes to war, they should be at war. Wipe the enemy out -- totally. And if anyone stands in the way, take them out too. They're the enemy.

Don't give me this trash about how we need to be humane. War is not humane. It can never be. The countries on this earth who won wars in the past 20,000 years didn't do it by giving in to the *beep* cries of the doves.

Give "innocents" enough warning to get the hell out of Dodge, then obliterate the place and take everything as your own. if they don't want to leave -- tough eggs. And make other nations in the area know that they are next if they support the enemy.

War is to win. Period. War is hell. We should quit trying to make it seem less than that.

Hmmm, I always thought that you posted your wild raving lunatic rants under your Gollum personna.

So, how do you reconcil your 'no need to be humane' ravings with the ostensible goal of the war as 'bringing freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq'?

And the war WAS won. Bush landed on a carrier and said so. The regime was changed. The bad guy is waiting trial. The WMD threat is nil, regardless of whether or not you believed to was legitimate threat 3 years ago.

Or are you talking about no need to be humane in the war on terror? While I hope you'll remember your words when the day comes that you visit home and they snap on rubber gloves and give you a prostate massage at the airport. It's a war on terror, no way to know that doesn't mean YOU, and no need to be humane about it at customs, right?

A dozen more similar talking points on the subject spring to mind but I think I'll give it a rest for now.

sonofthedarkstranger

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:42 pm Post subject:

Derrek wrote:

True or false Derrek: We are in Iraq to build a new democracy and spread freedom to the Arab world. Is that your belief?

Then how does "obliterating" everything in sight in Iraq fit into this goal? You are talking here about destroying homes, businesses, infrastructure and lives. Seems to me your strategy could best be accomplished with neutron bombs and/or nukes. How does that sound to you, Derrek? Give everyone 3 days or so to get out of their houses and stores, then get on with the obliteration? Any suggestion as to where these people should go? Just have em wander out into the desert? Are you ready to cripple any hope at self-sufficiency Iraq may ever have? Got anyway to make sure the insurgents don't blend in and file out with the "innocents?" (quote marks yours).

Quote:

Don't give me this trash about how we need to be humane. War is not humane. It can never be. The countries on this earth who won wars in the past 20,000 years didn't do it by giving in to the *beep* cries of the doves.

I agree. That's why if you have a conscience, war should only be undertaken when absolutely necessary. Do you believe that was the case this time, Derrek? What do you think this war is all about? And why aren't you over there now, obliterating everything in sight? I know that some of the warhawks here have actually seen combat. That's not true of you, is it?

Quote:

Give "innocents" enough warning to get the hell out of Dodge, then obliterate the place and take everything as your own. if they don't want to leave -- tough eggs. And make other nations in the area know that they are next if they support the enemy.

Why the quotes around "innocents?" Sounds like you are mocking all the civilian deaths that have occurred. How does that make you any different than a Muslim cheering the 9/11 attacks?

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:39 pm Post subject:

sonofthedarkstranger wrote:

Why the quotes around "innocents?" Sounds like you are mocking all the civilian deaths that have occurred. How does that make you any different than a Muslim cheering the 9/11 attacks?

Ouch. That one's gonna leave a mark.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:08 pm Post subject:

[deleted] Last edited by Gopher on Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:07 pm; edited 2 times in total

dulouz

Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:56 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Nazi Germany in Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe.

This one is not quite right - Romania liked Germany over The USSR. So did Croatia.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:48 pm Post subject:

deleted Last edited by Gopher on Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:31 am; edited 1 time in total

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:14 am Post subject:

Quote:

I think any nation would do the same in a serious situation.

Quote:

I don't believe that I have ever stated that the U.S. are alone in committing atrocities and avoiding responsibility (just more blatant). The site you linked said

Quote:

Eerily familiar, wouldn't you say? And I can't think of anyone who would, in all seriousness say that France is the best at anything...

I don't know , it may be that France was worse during war. After all Algeria at the time didn't have members of a world wide terror group that attacked France , and the Algerian fighters weren't interested in WMDS.

Quote:

As for which country to measure against... how about the U.S. itself after the Second World War started? When faced with a surprise attack against Pearl Harbour, did the U.S. invade a country that had nothing to do with the attack?

No , but in WW II the US went after Italy who had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor.

Remember Saddam never gave up his war.

Quote:

Did they bomb that innocent country in a deliberately act desinged to provoke an incident so they could respond by invading?

Saddam's IRaq wasn't innocent.

They threatend Kurds, Kuwait and Israel.

Saddam shot at US planes , Saddam , supported terror and he tried to kill a US president.

And his regime Taught hate and incited violence.

Innocent?

Quote:

Did the U.S. start and maintain a series of secret prisons designed to "disappear" prisoners, many of whom were totally innocent of any wrongdoing? There are so many things that the U.S. of years ago would not have done, back when they were actually respected throughout the world and not just feared.

the US didn't have the problem of terror then? Besides in WW II the US did worse when they interned Japanese Americans.

Besides I wonder if not everything that went on then wasn't reported. I would guess that then there were things that the media didn't report.

Quote:

Another country to measure the U.S. against is New Zealand. In 1985, two French government agents planted a bomb in a ship in Auckland harbour, which killed one man after it exploded. To put it in pure numbers, the 11/9 attack killed 0.00103548% of the U.S. population. The Rainbow Warrior incident killed 0.00002676% of the New Zealand population (I know that the man killed was not a New Zealand citizen, but neither were all the people killed on the 11th of September U.S. citizens). I know that the numbers of fatalities are very different, but so are the responses by the respective governments - and the responses are not solely due to the size of the atrocities. Did New Zealand attack and invade Belgium in response? Did New Zealand detain without trial anyone with a French accent or who drank wine with breakfast, then proceed to torture some of them, even beating and torturing some to death? Call me absent minded, but I don't recall that happening...

different situation . Al Qaida intened to do much more to the US, Al Qaida had also done other attacks against the US.

And France didn't target the NZ government nor was Belgium at war with NZ.

T

Quote:

he world is not a perfect place, and it is rapidly becoming a place where bad things are discovered very quickly indeed. If the U.S. wants to be viewed by the world as a leader worthy of respect, then they have to behave in that manner. Saying "do as I say, not as I do" just doesn't cut it. I, for one, would view the U.S. govt. in a very different light if they were to come out and say "Yes, we have done some very bad things. We are doing our utmost to stop them and the offenders will be punished to the full extent of the law and to the satisfaction of foriegn and independant observers", and then do it. But we all know that will never happen.

The world isn't a perfect place and the strategic situation in the mideast was a threat to the US. And after 9-11 things over there had to change.

And my point remains the US doesn't act badly for a nation at war.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:29 am Post subject:

deleted Last edited by Gopher on Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:32 am; edited 1 time in total

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:33 am Post subject:

Quote:

Just a minor clarification: while Italy had little to do with Pearl Harbor, Italy was already a declared combatant in the war, and, I believe that Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S. immediately after the U.S. declared war against Japan. Mere formalities that legally recognized preexisting sympathies. Washington was not going to let London fall or Moscow win: those are the motives for getting into the war.

Moreover, Italy was the only place they could land. Italy was weaker. Hitler was very strong, nearly impregnable, in Fortress Europe at that time.

Yes well taking down Iraq was part of the US changing the strategic map of the mid east.

Please have a look.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1110567/posts

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:07 am Post subject:

[deleted] Last edited by Gopher on Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

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, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4

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