|
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 |
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
That assumes England having been knocked out and that Hitler would have used the bomb where Stalin did not.
You have no basis for that assumption, in all honesty. |
Without the US Hitler would have knocked out England.
That means he gets the bomb first and he would have used it on the US.
|
Does not compute.
The Manhattan Project scientists were already safely in the U.S. That had zip to do with England. Plus, what's to say that Hitler would have knocked out England? His failure to do so had more to do with his attacking Russia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
That assumes England having been knocked out and that Hitler would have used the bomb where Stalin did not.
You have no basis for that assumption, in all honesty. |
Without the US Hitler would have knocked out England.
That means he gets the bomb first and he would have used it on the US.
|
Does not compute.
The Manhattan Project scientists were already safely in the U.S. That had zip to do with England. Plus, what's to say that Hitler would have knocked out England? His failure to do so had more to do with his attacking Russia. |
| Quote: |
| The Manhattan Project, or more formally, the Manhattan Engineering District, was an effort during World War II to develop the first nuclear weapons by the United States with assistance from the United Kingdom and Canada. Its research was directed by American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, and overall by General Leslie R. Groves after it became clear that a weapon based on nuclear fission was possible and that Nazi Germany was also investigating such weapons of its own. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
Besides werent' two German scientists who were living in England a big help to the US nuclear program?
http://www.hcc.mnscu.edu/programs/dept/chem/abomb/page_id_28306.html
and there was something called the MAUD report
http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/maud.htm
Without the pressure of the US who is to say how WW II turns out?
Wouldn't Hitler then have control over industrialized Europe? IF the US never got in to world war wouldn't Hitler have had access to the oil in the causcus and mideast?
Nazi Germany's industry would have been in a lot better shape w/o US bombing- yes? That would have been a big help to any and whatever advanced weapons projects Germany wanted.
And Hitler would have a lot of time to get his advanced weapons ready. Long range missiles and bombers. (US would have been w/o many German scientists then) .Hitler almost certainly would have then been able to have gotten the Atlantic fleet he was looking for.
And like WWII made communism popular wouldn't Nazi Germany's victory have made fascism popular world wide? What about Latin America? How many countires there would have aligned themselves with the Nazis? If Hitler doesn't knock out England , A pro peace with Nazi Germany government comes to power in England. How does that effect Canada? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 11:06 pm Post subject: Re: Korean-American Prof Wrote "torture memo" |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
[
The problem here is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. .. |
If a person is DELIBERATELY targeting civilians with the express purpose of killing them in order to create an atomosphere of terror, then they can not be considered a freedom fighter by any definition |
Unfortunately, that doesn't cover all the forms supposed terrorism takes, so back to revision.
And, I refer you to recent world history and the carpet bombing and firebombing of Germany and Japan, and to the us of the atom bombs in Japan: all the deliberate targeting of civilians to create a state of terror and collapse, then surrender. |
There's a difference. In Japan and Germany we were in a state of declared war. We had war with other states. The Geneva Conventions clearly applied to POWS on either side. But they don't apply to terrorists or insurgents. The insurgents are not acting for any recognized government. That makes them terrorists and not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Please read them. It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you until you do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 2:06 am Post subject: Re: Korean-American Prof Wrote "torture memo" |
|
|
[quote="TheUrbanMyth"][quote="EFLtrainer"]
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
The problem here is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. .. |
There's a difference. In Japan and Germany we were in a state of declared war. We had war with other states. The Geneva Conventions clearly applied to POWS on either side. But they don't apply to terrorists or insurgents. The insurgents are not acting for any recognized government. That makes them terrorists and not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Please read them. It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you until you do. |
The problem with th conversation has nothing to do with whether or not I have read the convention, which I have, it has to do with you ignoring my point for some reason.
We are absolutely at war. It is a political expedient, and an immoral one, that war has not been declared. It is no longer enough to say a government doesn't exist for those persons. It does. They just don't like the one they've got. Again, a simple comparison illustrates the point: The colonies in what is now the U.S. simply decided they were no longer part of England, and - viola! - new country. Remember, history is written by the winners. If the colonists had lost, they would have all been tried/punished/treated as traiters and "insurgents/terrorists".
The Taliban had a government for a number of years. They fought for what was right in their eyes and won. Ooops! No longer terrorists! Using the litmus test of whether or not they are working under the name of a government is no longer a completely valid approach to this issue.
I *repeat, yet again,* that I think the Geneva Convention is outdated and needs revision. It was written, what forty, fifty yeaars ago? I repeat, again, what do you think of this possibility? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 3:34 am Post subject: Re: Korean-American Prof Wrote "torture memo" |
|
|
[quote="EFLtrainer"][quote="TheUrbanMyth"]
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
The problem here is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. .. |
There's a difference. In Japan and Germany we were in a state of declared war. We had war with other states. The Geneva Conventions clearly applied to POWS on either side. But they don't apply to terrorists or insurgents. The insurgents are not acting for any recognized government. That makes them terrorists and not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Please read them. It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you until you do. |
The problem with th conversation has nothing to do with whether or not I have read the convention, which I have, it has to do with you ignoring my point for some reason.
We are absolutely at war. It is a political expedient, and an immoral one, that war has not been declared. It is no longer enough to say a government doesn't exist for those persons. It does. They just don't like the one they've got. Again, a simple comparison illustrates the point: The colonies in what is now the U.S. simply decided they were no longer part of England, and - viola! - new country. Remember, history is written by the winners. If the colonists had lost, they would have all been tried/punished/treated as traiters and "insurgents/terrorists".
The Taliban had a government for a number of years. They fought for what was right in their eyes and won. Ooops! No longer terrorists! Using the litmus test of whether or not they are working under the name of a government is no longer a completely valid approach to this issue.
I *repeat, yet again,* that I think the Geneva Convention is outdated and needs revision. It was written, what forty, fifty yeaars ago? I repeat, again, what do you think of this possibility? |
I don't agree that the Geneva Convention is outdated.
Nor do the insurgents have any kind of government whatsoever. There are about (or so I've heard) 50 different groups or cells. Most of them have nothing in common except a desire to get America out of Iraq. That does not consitute a government by any litmus test. Nor are we at war with a recognized state. Even the U.N doesn't think the insurgents comprise a state or even a viable government. They are a number of different groups that have temporarily banded together to oust the U.S. If they were all one group, you might have a point...but they are not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:26 am Post subject: Re: Korean-American Prof Wrote "torture memo" |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I don't agree that the Geneva Convention is outdated. |
Thus, we shall have to agree to disagree since we disagree on the definitions in the first place.
| Quote: |
| Nor do the insurgents have any kind of government whatsoever. There are about (or so I've heard) 50 different groups or cells. |
Perhaps irrelevant. I think it may be more productive to view groups in terms of their purpose and goals versus their organizational status. As long as the point of view is that they have no standin because they are not led by a government, how can they possibly get their points of view addressed? In Iraq, for example, there are most certainly people branded terrorists who simply don't want any interference in the internal politics of their nation, want Islamic law, and see the US as invaders. From their perspective, the US did invade, in which case they are defending their nation. Does this not bear consideration? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 6:16 am Post subject: Re: Korean-American Prof Wrote "torture memo" |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In Iraq, for example, there are most certainly people branded terrorists who simply don't want any interference in the internal politics of their nation, want Islamic law, and see the US as invaders. From their perspective, the US did invade, in which case they are defending their nation. Does this not bear consideration? |
Well I have said the Sunnis have a right to independence. However how is attacking other ethnic groups or trying to stop elections cause your group can't win defending your nation?
Moreover It is not legitimate to fight for the bathist geo political/ regional agenda. Nor is legitimate to go against the wishes of the legitimate Iraqi government which is not only more legitimate and representative than the previous Iraqi government but more legitimate and representative than most governments in the middle east.
If the insurgents were fighting for their homes and families they would not do these things. The insurgents are not fighting for their homes and families (as you try to spin it) , they are fighting to rule Iraq.
The insurgents ' war in not legitimate. They have a right to ask for independence but what gives them the right to tell the rest of Iraq what to do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 6:35 am Post subject: Re: Korean-American Prof Wrote "torture memo" |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In Iraq, for example, there are most certainly people branded terrorists who simply don't want any interference in the internal politics of their nation, want Islamic law, and see the US as invaders. From their perspective, the US did invade, in which case they are defending their nation. Does this not bear consideration? |
Well I have said the Sunnis have a right to independence. However how is attacking other ethnic groups or trying to stop elections cause your group can't win defending your nation?
Moreover It is not legitimate to fight for the bathist geo political/ regional agenda. Nor is legitimate to go against the wishes of the legitimate Iraqi government which is not only more legitimate and representative than the previous Iraqi government but more legitimate and representative than most governments in the middle east.
If the insurgents were fighting for their homes and families they would not do these things. The insurgents are not fighting for their homes and families (as you try to spin it) , they are fighting to rule Iraq.
The insurgents ' war in not legitimate. They have a right to ask for independence but what gives them the right to tell the rest of Iraq what to do? |
Once again, Joo, you successfully ignore what I actually post and imbue it with huge assumptions and gross generalizations.
I'm amazed you know the heart and soul of every Iraqi opposing the current situation in Iraq! When did you get hold of Dr. X's little machine, Cerebro? When can I take it for a spin? It would sure make dating easier.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let me ask you again how is attacking other ethnic groups or trying to stop elections cause your group can't win defending your nation?
What gives the insurgents the right to tell the rest of Iraq what to do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Let me ask you again how is attacking other ethnic groups or trying to stop elections cause your group can't win defending your nation?
What gives the insurgents the right to tell the rest of Iraq what to do? |
|
I never said... aigooo.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 7:02 pm Post subject: Re: Korean-American Prof Wrote "torture memo" |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I don't agree that the Geneva Convention is outdated. |
Thus, we shall have to agree to disagree since we disagree on the definitions in the first place.
| Quote: |
| Nor do the insurgents have any kind of government whatsoever. There are about (or so I've heard) 50 different groups or cells. |
Perhaps irrelevant. I think it may be more productive to view groups in terms of their purpose and goals versus their organizational status.(1) As long as the point of view is that they have no standin because they are not led by a government, how can they possibly get their points of view addressed? In Iraq, for example, there are most certainly people branded terrorists who simply don't want any interference in the internal politics of their nation, want Islamic law, and see the US as invaders. (2)From their perspective, the US did invade, in which case they are defending their nation. Does this not bear consideration? |
(numbers are mine)
(1) The problem with this is that they DID have a chance to participate in a democractic elected government. The Shias and Kurds did. The U.S. also wanted Shitt'es to participate but most choose not to. Had the insurgents laid down their arms and elected people that they could trust to get their views across, they would have had a voice. But they choose to fight a government which was legitimately and democratically elected by their own countrymen.
One doesn't have to like a government even if elected by a majority. Personally speaking I destest the current Liberal government of Canada. But I am certainly not going to take up arms to overthrow it. It was elected legitimately and even though I don't agree with it, I have to respect the democratic process. Same holds true for the Americans who disagree with the current American government and should hold true for the insurgents.
(2) The U.S. did invade. However the U.S. would withdraw if they did not have to fight the insurgents. They are simply defeating their own purpose. Most Iraqis are never going to trust the insurgency after large numbers of their own countrymen have been killed by said insurgency. Didn't the insurgency also declare war against the Shias and Kurds? Doesn't sound like they are too concerned with defending their homeland, more like they want to obtain power through terror (hence terrorists). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:00 am Post subject: Re: Korean-American Prof Wrote "torture memo" |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Had the insurgents laid down their arms and elected people that they could trust to get their views across, they would have had a voice. But they choose to fight a government which was legitimately and democratically elected by their own countrymen. |
Let point out the obvious: that's exactly what they are fighting against, a democratic goverment. Your values, not theirs. Since it's their country...
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| (2) The U.S. did invade. However the U.S. would withdraw if they did not have to fight the insurgents. They are simply defeating their own purpose. Most Iraqis are never going to trust the insurgency after large numbers of their own countrymen have been killed by said insurgency. Didn't the insurgency also declare war against the Shias and Kurds? Doesn't sound like they are too concerned with defending their homeland, more like they want to obtain power through terror (hence terrorists). |
All very convenient: we created the problem but they didn't cooperate properly!! Your logic is sound, but once we left they'd be back at each other and we'd be pulled back in, so six of one, half dozen of the other.
Just leave and let them settle things for themselves, as is their right to do as a sovereign nation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:32 am Post subject: Re: Korean-American Prof Wrote "torture memo" |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Let point out the obvious: that's exactly what they are fighting against, a democratic goverment. Your values, not theirs. Since it's their country... |
what about when they target other ethic groups? Probably for the purpose of conquering them.
[ |
|
| 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
