|
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 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," she exclaimed. |
http://electroniciraq.net/news/2098.shtml
What do you think Bobster? Is this also your opinion?
I'm wondering what she considers to be 'Palestine'.
The areas discussed in the Oslo Accords? Fine.
You can see on every newspaper and tv station that Israel is going ahead and implementing at least part of this right now.
I suspect that she might have a more radical definition of Palestine, but maybe I'm just being unkind.
Still,
I think 'Israel out of Palestine' and 'US out of Iraq' will 'stop terrorism' is not only naive to the point of stupidity, it's dangerous.
So I don't know. She might not be anti-semitic, but she sure has been saying some unreasonable things. |
I am curious about Bobs' opinion on this subject as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disappointing.
Seven pages about Ms Sheehan's alleged views of Jewish people and her attitudes toward Israel/Palestine. Not much at all on her point challenging the legitimacy of the war. The Right Wingers win again. I will have to hand it to Karl Rove. He has discovered the perfect foil for any opposition: ignore their claim and attack, by distortion or anything else, any possible point made at any time in the life time of the person or any of their relatives, friends or associates, real or not.
She's trying to hold Bush accountable for telling lies to start the war. Why are you quibbling about her definition of what Palestine is or isn't? When will the debate start about her being an environmental polluter because she wet her pants in First Grade? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sheehan isn't someone that anti-war anti-bush people should be rallying around, at best she's a tool. If people on the left ignore that then they can kiss the moral high-ground good bye.
Be that as it may, it would appear that events have outgrown this argument and mooted it- anti-war vigils are popping up all over the place.
It no longer matters who Cindy Sheehan is or what she might stand for, it's bigger than her now as well. And bigger than any particular special interest group(s) which may have held influence over her.
Which is what any critic of Bush would want, myself included. So while I don't think I was wrong about the anti-Israel components, and certainly won't be listening to what she has to say on how to defeat terrorism, I'm glad debate on the occupation of Iraq has reached a new level.
So Ya ta boy and Bobster, I think you can rest easy here- Karl Rove definitely has not 'won'.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/18/politics/main783973.shtml
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-08/18/content_3373713.htm
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8990505/
| Quote: |
Is Sheehan a Spark or a Flicker?
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, August 18, 2005; 11:45 AM
Is Cindy Sheehan the spark igniting an antiwar movement that threatens the Bush presidency? Or is she just an over-hyped flicker that will be extinguished with the next turn of the news cycle?
The White House is counting on it being the latter. As the Washington Post's Jim VandeHei explained in a Live Online discussion yesterday: "The White House thinks this whole story is a silly obsession of bored reporters with nothing better to do during the slow August."
But with more than a thousand Sheehan-inspired vigils all over the country last night -- and a national conversation unleashed -- there are reasons to think the White House may be wrong. |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/08/18/BL2005081800744.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bulsajo, and one or two others seem to want my opinion yet again re Ms Sheehan vis-a-vis that whole anti-semitism thing. I still don't see anything there. If she has opinions about the US supporting Israel as being part of the root causes of terrorism, well, those are opinions someone might very easily be able to hold without needing to also hate Jews as a matter of bigotry based on race or religion.
The remarks being quoted have to do with our support for a particular country and refer to Israel as a country, and nothing about those remarks refer to Jews, Hebrews, or even Zionism. I don't personally agree with those opinions - they seem rather simplistic - but I see nothing in them that is anti-semitic.
I keep waiting for someone to explain why opposition to our massive support of that country, and that alone, is evidence of racial and religious bigotry, and so far no one has connected those dots for me.
And, yes, it's getting bigger than her. "Camp Caseys" are springing up in many major cities at the moment, and there are other grieving parents besides just her who are spearheading these vigils. I recall having read that such vigils by surviving families of the early casualties in Vietnam occurred in 1965, and a short time later the entire country was deeply polarized and a much larger anti-war movement had come about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| [Bulsajo, and one or two others seem to want my opinion yet again re Ms Sheehan vis-a-vis that whole anti-semitism thing. I still don't see anything there. If she has opinions about the US supporting Israel as being part of the root causes of terrorism, well, those are opinions someone might very easily be able to hold without needing to also hate Jews as a matter of bigotry based on race or religion. |
What do you think that she ment by Israel out of Palestine?
| Quote: |
| The remarks being quoted have to do with our support for a particular country and refer to Israel as a country, and nothing about those remarks refer to Jews, Hebrews, or even Zionism. I don't personally agree with those opinions - they seem rather simplistic - but I see nothing in them that is anti-semitic. |
They could mean a lot of things , we really can't know for sure. We can only guess. What do you think David Dukes motivations for saying similiar stuff are?
There are a lot of theories of why the US went to war it is interesting which theory she chose.
There are those who only focus their criticism on Israel , and only on Israel. It makes you wonder why they choose Israel and only Israel but they ignore the actions of not only other nations in the region other parties directly involved in the conflict
| Quote: |
| I keep waiting for someone to explain why opposition to our massive support of that country, and that alone, is evidence of racial and religious bigotry, and so far no one has connected those dots for me. |
What do you mean by support? Really I would like to know. What do they mean by support?
I don't think the US should 3B a year to Israel- the US can't afford it , on the other hand I don't think Al Qaida or similar groups would stop their war were the US to do so.
| Quote: |
| And, yes, it's getting bigger than her. "Camp Caseys" are springing up in many major cities at the moment, and there are other grieving parents besides just her who are spearheading these vigils. I recall having read that such vigils by surviving families of the early casualties in Vietnam occurred in 1965, and a short time later the entire country was deeply polarized and a much larger anti-war movement had come about. |
that maybe so but she has shown that her judgement is not the best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
And, yes, it's getting bigger than her. "Camp Caseys" are springing up in many major cities at the moment, and there are other grieving parents besides just her who are spearheading these vigils. I recall having read that such vigils by surviving families of the early casualties in Vietnam occurred in 1965, and a short time later the entire country was deeply polarized and a much larger anti-war movement had come about.
|
Does this disturb you as much as it does me? If I were a paranoid conspiracy theory fan, I would say that that is an important reason for the invasion. Divide and conquor does not only work for the Romans and Brits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
And, yes, it's getting bigger than her. "Camp Caseys" are springing up in many major cities at the moment, and there are other grieving parents besides just her who are spearheading these vigils. I recall having read that such vigils by surviving families of the early casualties in Vietnam occurred in 1965, and a short time later the entire country was deeply polarized and a much larger anti-war movement had come about.
|
Does this disturb you as much as it does me? If I were a paranoid conspiracy theory fan, I would say that that is an important reason for the invasion. Divide and conquor does not only work for the Romans and Brits. |
Yes, well at least the Romans and Brits could stomach quite a few casualties of war. No disrespect meant to the parents who disagree with the war and blame Bush for their children's deaths, nor do I wish to demean their losses, but when I see all the moaning about the war, I truly begin to doubt if their sacrifices were worth it. I mean, in the sense that the country is strong enough to make something out of their sacrifices.
I understand that there are many negatives to this war, perhaps most of all the way the US embarked on it. But there are positives as well. Seems to me Sheehan is demeaning her son's sacrifice to advance a political agenda given that her son willingly re-enlisted.
As for Rove, well, I think his smear campaign this time is justified by the fact that he has so much to smear her with. Largely because of her own actions. Should Bush be held accountable for his mistakes? Yes, but not like this and not by this woman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Should Bush be held accountable for his mistakes? Yes, but not like this and not by this woman.
|
I respect both Bulsajo and you and usually agree with both of you. This time I don't. Rove's tactic will work every time unless his victim is a saint, and saints are vulnerable to charges of religious extremism.
In addition, I think the suspicions that there was conscious fraud at the highest levels of government are well-founded. That, to me is the greatest crime. It trumps any opinions critics may hold on other topics. If David Duke happens to agree with me, then I welcome his company--on this point alone.
I'm not yet of the opinion that the troops be brought home immediately. I have some hope that a reasonable government can be established in Iraq. But I also hope the people who lied (if they did) to get us into this mess are punished and discredited somehow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The remarks being quoted have to do with our support for a particular country and refer to Israel as a country, and nothing about those remarks refer to Jews, Hebrews, or even Zionism. I don't personally agree with those opinions - they seem rather simplistic - but I see nothing in them that is anti-semitic. |
They could mean a lot of things , we really can't know for sure. We can only guess. What do you think David Dukes motivations for saying similiar stuff are? |
What should we think YOUR motivations are for bringing a Klansman into a discussion about a grieving mother of a war hero?
Any evidence, even the slightest, that she agrees with David Dukes about anyhthing? None. Yet, you show us a link that HE agrees with her and the implication that such is true exists - and it is false, of course.
So, what are your motivations here?
There are many reasons that people who disagree on most things might agree on one or two things. I've never admitted it before, but I agree with YOU on three or four things, and that makes us far closer than Cindy and David ... but just to be clear, WHY are you trying to create this link between a suburban mom of an eagle scout who dies voluntarily for his country - and a Klansman who is unrepentant in his views about hatred toward those he fears?
WHY would you want to do that? And why would the rightwing bloggers you take your cues from be doing that except for the fact that she is what they have feared would happen all along. And from what I am reading, it is too late for you and too late for them - she is not alone. There are other moms and dads like her, and brothers and sisters, and the vigils are spreading ...
In truth, when I first started reading these anti-semetic slurs last weekend, something clicked and I realized : THIS is exactly what the rightwing warmongers have been afraid of all along. And now it has happened.
| Quote: |
| There are those who only focus their criticism on Israel , and only on Israel. It makes you wonder why they choose Israel and only Israel |
Well, then, you are talking about someone else. So far, I've seen only the two comments quoted here that even mention Israel - the state of Israel, not Jews as a race or as a religious entity - so it's a wierd definition of "focus" to make that claim in her regard.
As with David Duke, your claim of "there ared those who" is nothing but guilt-by-association, which I said when you first brought this ultr-rightwing hatemonger into the discussion a long time ago.
| Quote: |
| that maybe so but she has shown that her judgement is not the best. |
You yourself have supported an American administration that talked of mushroom clouds and smoking guns, and even while they have admitted there were no WMDs and no ties to Al Queda with respect to 9/11, you have continued to say pretty much that same stuff, even to say that Iraq was a "threat" to the US, even quite recently ...
I think there are some here who can question her judgment (I do, by the way) but you, sir, are not qualified.
Ya-ta Boy
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| And, yes, it's getting bigger than her. "Camp Caseys" are springing up in many major cities at the moment, and there are other grieving parents besides just her who are spearheading these vigils. I recall having read that such vigils by surviving families of the early casualties in Vietnam occurred in 1965, and a short time later the entire country was deeply polarized and a much larger anti-war movement had come about. |
Does this disturb you as much as it does me? |
Far from it. I think people are talking about the war in ways they might not have doen before. There was never enough truthful debate about this, and that includes among the Kerry candidacy, when it was needed the most.
Democracies thrive in the presence of open debate. The debate has occurred about this has not been open, and democracy has not thrived. Not lately. But perhaps again soon.
| Quote: |
| In addition, I think the suspicions that there was conscious fraud at the highest levels of government are well-founded. That, to me is the greatest crime. |
Sounds like you agree with Cindy, and with me. She might care about your agreement more than Bush cares about whether she agrees with him. Regardless, the important thing is that people be made aware of the fact that there is more than one valid position on this war, so that all Americans can decide what needs to be done.
A few years after the first vigils by families of the slain in Viet Nam there were, yes, riots, but the greatest threat to the Republic was something the protesters chose to call the Moratorium. It's a word that generally means, Hey, let's stop and think about it for a while - but in this case it meant : Let's just stop. Sort of like a general strike, not quite, but almost.
It meant that anyone who thought that their daily job in any way supported the war effort - that meant secretaries, factory workers, what have you - would just take a day off, Or a week. Or a month. Or whatever. Or just decline to do that part of their job. It was a way of saying that, sure, society is structured in such a way that we all must participate, even in things we know are evil ... but I personally have decided I will not any more.
It might be that it was at that moment that the war Over There was over, when the suits in DC realized that they could no longer rely on even the passive support of the population at large. That day may be coming to the US very soon, and if so, I will be glad of it.
I saw a similar thing quite a while later when I observed a secretary in a typing pool at a multinational corp decline to type a letter to another corprate entity based in S Africa during the years of boycotts and struggle against apartheid. "Maybe, someone else wants to type this letter, but I don't. Let her do it."
Polarization is a free democracy is not a bad thing. It means people are talking to each other, Ya-ta, and and it means they are talking loud enough that others have to listen.
Cindy is talking loud atg the moment. She is not the only one. If people want to attack her, fine, and I think she might not care either ... they won't be able to attack everyone who steps up to say what she wants to say, though. There will be too many. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What should we think YOUR motivations are for bringing a Klansman into a discussion about a grieving mother of a war hero? |
cause he supports her on his website. Besides you wanted evidence of someone who criticizes Israel but does it for becuase they don't like Jews.
| Quote: |
| Any evidence, even the slightest, that she agrees with David Dukes about anyhthing? None. Yet, you show us a link that HE agrees with her and the implication that such is true exists - and it is false, of course. |
Wait Bomb if Duke agrees with her then they do agree about something.
So that is evidence that they agree about something so it is not false.
| Quote: |
| So, what are your motivations here? |
for one to find our opinion on what she meant.
| Quote: |
| There are many reasons that people who disagree on most things might agree on one or two things. I've never admitted it before, but I agree with YOU on three or four things, and that makes us far closer than Cindy and David ... but just to be clear, WHY are you trying to create this link between a suburban mom of an eagle scout who dies voluntarily for his country - and a Klansman who is unrepentant in his views about hatred toward those he fears? |
You seemed to want examples of someone who is critical of Israel or calling for its destruction that does it for other reasons.
So Bob can you answer this time please?
What do you think that she ment by Israel out of Palestine?
What do you mean by support for Israel ?
I don't think the US should 3B a year to Israel- the US can't afford it , on the other hand I don't think Al Qaida or similar groups would stop their war were the US to do so.
| Quote: |
| WHY would you want to do that? And why would the rightwing bloggers you take your cues from be doing that except for the fact that she is what they have feared would happen all along. And from what I am reading, it is too late for you and too late for them - she is not alone. There are other moms and dads like her, and brothers and sisters, and the vigils are spreading ... |
The fact is that her judgement is bad.
In truth, when I first started reading these anti-semetic slurs last weekend, something clicked and I realized : THIS is exactly what the rightwing warmongers have been afraid of all along. And now it has happened.
| Quote: |
| Well, then, you are talking about someone else. So far, I've seen only the two comments quoted here that even mention Israel - the state of Israel, not Jews as a race or as a religious entity - so it's a wierd definition of "focus" to make that claim in her regard. |
Well she did give Israel as the reason for the war didn't she?
but anyway why do you think many focus on israel?
Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry?
Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.
| Quote: |
Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11.
We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy...not for the real reason, because the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq...in fact it has gotten worse.
You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism. |
| Quote: |
| Along with criticizing the Bush Administration and the War in Iraq, Sheehan has been vocal in her attacks on Israel and US foreign policy. Concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict she has said, "you get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism." [9] There is controversy over an e-mail that Sheehan sent to ABC's Nightline, stating that her son "was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel" and that he "joined the Army to protect America, not Israel." [10]. Sheehan has since stated her email had been altered, that she did not write the statements concerning Israel, and that the comments do not reflect her opinion on Israel,[11] even though a copy of her letter from March 17, 2005 was posted to the "bullyard" Google group long before the current controversy. [12] In an interview with Chris Matthews, Sheehan stated that she would feel the same anger if Casey had been killed fighting in Afghanistan. She also said her divorce proceedings with her husband Patrick are "another personal tragedy due to this war."[13]. She believes that the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are merely part of "a neo-con agenda that only benefits a very chosen few in this world." [14] She has also referred to President Bush as "Fuurhrer" in an editorial relating her experience on a recent Larry King Live show. [15] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan
why did she say that? I mean why did't she say the US went into Iraq for oil or something else?
| Quote: |
| As with David Duke, your claim of "there ared those who" is nothing but guilt-by-association, which I said when you first brought this ultr-rightwing hatemonger into the discussion a long time ago. |
Uh show that they are hate mongers. And the facts are:
Well :
| Quote: |
| Sheehan said she considered Lynne Stewart her Atticus Finch, the lawyer who defended an innocent Black man accused of rape in the book and film ��To Kill A Mockingbird |
 [/quote]
| Quote: |
| You yourself have supported an American administration that talked of mushroom clouds and smoking guns, and even while they have admitted there were no WMDs and no ties to Al Queda with respect to 9/11, you have continued to say pretty much that same stuff, even to say that Iraq was a "threat" to the US, even quite recently ... |
Whatever it takes to force Bathists Bin Laden lovers, Khomeni followers to give up their war ok.
Iraq was a threat to the US.
and the strategic situation of the mideast was a threat to the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Iraq was a threat to the US |
Iraq was not a threat to the US.
the end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lets see it was a source of danger to Americans. It was a threat to US interests since Saddam never gave up his agenda. And since his regime taught hate and incited violence it was a threat to the US .
Furthermore the strategic situation of the mideast was a threat to the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Teufelswacht
Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Location: Land Of The Not Quite Right
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bobster:
| Quote: |
Any evidence, even the slightest, that she agrees with David Dukes about anyhthing? None. Yet, you show us a link that HE agrees with her and the implication that such is true exists - and it is false, of course.
|
In all fairness, I am the one that first provided the link to David Duke's comments, not Joo. My intent, apparently lost on this forum/thread, was to illustrate how politics "makes strange bedfellows."
Ya-Ta:
| Quote: |
| I respect both Bulsajo and you and usually agree with both of you. This time I don't. Rove's tactic will work every time unless his victim is a saint, and saints are vulnerable to charges of religious extremism. |
Again, in fairness, character assassination is not a Rove/GOP/ Conservative exclusive tactic. Liberals/Democrats/Progressives/whoever are also quite adept at using this approach.
There have been attempts by some to portray Ms. Sheehan as some apolitical, middle-America, apple pie baking mommy who lost her son and wants to talk to mean ole' Bushy about it. If this is the case, if this is what they are trying to portray, then it is fair to expose the inconsistencies with this image. Ms. Sheehan, as I said before, does not have some kind of immunity from examination. Especially in light of her contradictory statements, associations, and apparent misrepresentation of certain facts. Heck, even some in the liberal British press are sceptical of the image she and others have attempted to craft. Well, to quote Ms. Sheehan, when confronted with her inconsistencies "Enough about that."
Take care. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Disappointing. ..
She's trying to hold Bush accountable for telling lies to start the war. Why are you quibbling about her definition of what Palestine is or isn't? When will the debate start about her being an environmental polluter because she wet her pants in First Grade? |
Which war would that be? She also objects to the Afghanistan war calling it for the benefit of the "favoured few".
Did we go in there for oil? 
Anybody who holds opinions that David Duke agrees with, I would be very wary of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
I thought it was pretty obvious that he was referring to Iraq.
As for David Duke, there are many other issues which he is in agreement with the neo-cons on. So what? |
|
| 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
