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

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

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?

I meant that Iraq was innocent of the reasons used for the invasion (possession of WMDs and purported links between Iraq and terrorists).

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

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.

It's called using an analogy, Joo. Mostly Saudi terrorists make terrorist attacks the U.S., so the U.S. attacks Iraq. France makes a terrorist attack in New Zealand, so does New Zealand attack Belgium? No, it doesn't.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

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

So your contention is that compared with worse countries, the U.S. is behaving angelically, and that there is therefore no reason to behave better, or even stop.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:29 am Post subject:

Quote:

I meant that Iraq was innocent of the reasons used for the invasion (possession of WMDs and purported links between Iraq and terrorists).

but Iraq was not in complience and it did have links to terrorists

Quote:

but NZ and Belgium weren't at war. Belgium never tried to kill a NZ prime minister

Quote:

So your contention is that compared with worse countries, the U.S. is behaving angelically, and that there is therefore no reason to behave better, or even stop.

Actually the US doesn't act badly compared to most counrties at war, It may even be better than average.

Tell me who behaved better during a war, I would be interested.

Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:57 am; edited 1 time in total

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:39 am Post subject:

delete Last edited by Gopher on Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:38 am; edited 1 time in total

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:08 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

sonofthedarkstranger wrote:

How does that make you any different than a Muslim cheering the 9/11 attacks?

Incidentally, I saw Chileans cheering the 9/11 attacks.

I'm certainly not trying to excuse anyone for cheering about the deaths of 3000 people, but I'm not surprised to hear that some Chileans harbour anti-American feelings, and some may even be somewhat obsessed with hating America, given the whole Salvador Allende overthrow and subsequent Pinochet dictatorship.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:31 am Post subject:

[deleted] Last edited by Gopher on Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:16 pm; edited 1 time in total

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:01 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Bulsajo wrote:

given the whole Salvador Allende overthrow and subsequent Pinochet dictatorship...

...which is an event totally bereft of historical sources and documents from the Chilean armed forces, who did what they did for their own reasons.

I wasn't trying to open a debate on the subject, so let me rephrase- I was not surprised to hear that some Chileans hold anti-American views given the generally held belief that the Allende Coup and subsequent Pinochet regime were American sponsored.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:20 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Chilean Army conveniently burned most of its papers.

It is convenient for you, in any case. The documents on ourt side would tend to be more credible in any case, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Quote:

As one Chilean historian [Fernandois] has asked: if the United States really exercised so much influence over Chilean events, how did Allende win the election in the first place?

The Chilean people I've taklked to who were alive at that time and place said it was because more people loved Allende. Sometimes democracy works out that way. Perhaps you talked to to ther Chileans who had different ideas. I'll believe the ones I talked and you you will believe the ones you have met.

Quote:

Many Latin Americans meticulously construct a counterfeit sociology that conveniently blames the United States for each and every historical problem.

And your statement here attempts to absolve trhe US from any responsibility for the things that were actually done.

Very cute.

Quote:

but don't take my word on this issue of responsibility for the coup, see the Church Committee's conclusions in Alleged Assassination Plots: "American officials had exaggerated notions about their ability to control the actions of coup leaders...the United States had no such power."

I won't comment in depth until I've had time to google and read it again, but what this is saying is the American CIA thoiught they had built a puppet and they were wrong. Pinochet was a Frankenstein that has haunted us in the world at large ever since. I believe what the Church Committeee was saying is that the CIA had done its job poorly and should quit meddling in other democracies until they figure out the right way to do it.

Quote:

Many of these coups, esp. Dominican Republic in '60, Vietnam in '63, and Chile in '73 would have occurred with or without U.S. involvement.

But would they have succeeded with the support or at least the assent of the American militasry? You are silent about that.

Quote:

One thing that many people who talk about this forget is that Allende won the 1970 elections with roughly 1/3 of the vote. Congress confirmed him as the winner after he pledged to respect the constitution.

Many European democracies operate through coalitions of parties that did not receive a majority. The US form of democracy is not the only one that exists.

Quote:

Another way of stating this is that, although 2/3 of the country was opposed to him, many of them militantly opposed to him, he made it into La Moneda on legal technicalities and somehow managed to survive in office for three years.

Actually, that would be a very innacurate way of stating it. Changing a fewe details, it would be a pretty accurate way of describing Bush's first term, though ... Wink

Quote:

Just before the Army moved against Allende, Congress was moving to impeach him, it had more than enough votes to do it at that time. Chileans who blame the U.S. for this other 11 September, conveniently forget about this fact...

What you are saying is that coup was never necessary. There is a lot of evidence that the generals would not have moved if they didn't feel the US was on their side ... so why did we do it?

Because democracy is messy, and someone we liked even less tghan Allende might have risen to the top after a coup. But the CIA felt they could control the generals ...

or maybe they just didn't care.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:33 pm Post subject:

deleted Last edited by Gopher on Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:36 am; edited 1 time in total

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:16 pm Post subject:

Quote:

The hardest thing for Chileans or Koreans or any other Third-World peoples to accept in life is their own responsibility in the making of their own history.

The best sentence on this thread.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:22 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

OK, concur with your very last line. (The rest of what you suggest is probably the most ineffective way to fight a counterinsurgency campaign that I can possibly imagine.) And no matter what, Rush Limbaugh is still a dumb-ass Nazi bastardo.

Yes, it is ineffective because he suggested warnings should be issued. forget that.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:28 pm Post subject:

Sleepy in Seoul wrote:

Derrek wrote:

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.

The Germans tried to do that during the Second World War. Are you advocating a new holocaust Derrek?

Give me a break. The Germans didn't try to wipe out the Poles, French, Russians, etc., just the Jews. It was a systematic elimination of one particular group.

What I think Derrek means is don't do things half-ass. Let's say some town is causing problems. Adios town.

Brutal, but that's war. That's derrek's point I think.

And we're getting smarter. We're having Iraqis do our dirty work and being nasty. We need to do more of that. And we need more men there. Our experience so far has shown more us troops in a place, less violence.

Insurgencies typically are 5-10 years long. Iraq is just in the early stages.

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 27, 2005 10:05 am Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

Give me a break. The Germans didn't try to wipe out the Poles, French, Russians, etc., just the Jews. It was a systematic elimination of one particular group.

Bollocks. While the Germans may have targeted the Jews with more vigour, I think that the 3 million Polish Catholic victims may disagree with you.

bucheon bum wrote:

What I think Derrek means is don't do things half-ass. Let's say some town is causing problems. Adios town.

If some town is causing problems, is it then OK to do another My Lai? I seem to remember reading that that town was in the area of American casualties. I sincerely hope that is not what you're advocating.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:19 am Post subject:

deleted Last edited by Gopher on Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:41 am; edited 1 time in total

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:01 pm Post subject:

Right gopher, which is neither what I nor Derrek are proposing. My Lai was not planned, it just happened. Apples and oranges. And no, I'm not advocating the direct killing of women and children. If they are collateral damage, so be it.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:23 pm Post subject:

Quote:

What I think Derrek means is don't do things half-ass. Let's say some town is causing problems. Adios town.

Brutal, but that's war. That's derrek's point I think.

German policy was that for every German soldier killed by the underground, 10 hostages would be taken. If the underground fighters were then turned in, the hostages would be released. If not, they were shot.

There was a famous case in Czechoslovakia but I can't remember the town name. It seems to me I read about it in Norway, too.

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 3 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