Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - THERE ARE NO WMD, THERE WERE NO WMD

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

THERE ARE NO WMD, THERE WERE NO WMD
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 17, 18, 19 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:03 pm Post subject:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

You're damn right I'm gloating. Warhawks reaping the fruits of the glorification of stupidity that they've so intensively cultivated and made their way of life.

I'm with you on that. The gloating is about how the people who thought they could get away with lying to their own people, wasting the nation's funds and young lives, finally got bit in the ass by something called reality. Hopefully (thought you never know) people will be less susceptible to these sorts of scaremongering tactics and we'll see a wiser electorate next time around. 1% wiser?

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:57 pm Post subject:

Quote:

World peace? Are you *beep* me? Did it ever occur to you that the WAR in Iraq has already threatened "world peace" to death?

Are you thick or something? I am not talking about Iraq am I? I am giving a clear example that a conflict in East Asia would be a greater threat to world peace than one in Africa, and that therefore, one would take precedence over the other. Each case has to be assessed on its merits and not whether it violates the holy principles of international law. I have already stated that I did not support the war in Iraq, so please, calm down.

Quote:

To prevent China from swallowing Taiwan? Decisively? Perhaps. Legitimately? Not really.

What would be illegitmate about defending a democracy from attack by an authoritarian state? If that's not a legitimate use of force, I don't know what is.

Quote:

By the UN or whatever relevant vessel of global democracy.

I asked you how decisions would be made. What process? Via the security council, or would all nations, irrespective of size get a vote? Let's not forget that the UN did nothing about Rwanda or Kosovo, so how would you remedy these problems?

Would large nations have more votes than smaller ones? If that was the case, then how many countries would sign up, knowing they could always be outvoted by China, or by a muslim block of countries? How many votes would be needed to get a majority?

The fact is that the UN is as far as nations are prepared to go towards 'world governance'. It is powerless because nations want it to be powerless, and none of them will agree to a world government because they have nothing to gain from doing so. The only nations that would sign up for such a scheme would be irrelevant ones like Luxembourg, and if you're lucky, Belguim.

Quote:

but it isn't what the founders of my country had in mind when they enlightened your ass with notions of democracy.

The founders of your country had in mind an international criminal court, staffed by people from such bastions of human rights as Pakistan, passing judgement on the American government? I think not.

I don't know who you're talking about, but your country never enlightened my country in regards to democracy. It was your country that modelled its democratic system on ours, and in fact your country that was founded by Englishmen. Just consider yourself lucky you weren't founded by a bunch of Spaniards, and that you are not having to smuggle drugs up your arse to escape the grinding poverty of the banana republic you live in.

Quote:

And that, in itself, is *beep* up, BigV.

No, it's life, and I for one would not support sending British troops to die in the Congo or some desert hell hole, while putting down inter-ethnic conflicts, that have nothing to do with my country, and which would need addressing year after year.

Quote:

but we hav the governments in the West that we do, not by calling things reality, but by moving beyond it.

Indeed, and perhaps when the rest of the world has caught up with us, we might be closer to some of these agreements you seek. Until that time, I have slight concerns about certain states, notably those in the Islamic world, pontificating about human rights. No doubt many of these states would support driving the Jews into the sea, and under the guise of 'world government' might get the support to carry out such a crime.

Quote:

What can be achieved I base on a few thousand years of human experience

Yes, and that's probably how far off world government is, a thousand years. Maybe 500 at a stretch.

Quote:

not your miserable manure pile of ad nauseum villification of Islam

You are a very tiresome man. If I have specifically written anything you disagree with, challenge it, instead of spouting this childish garbage. For the record, I have no interest in entering into world government with any muslim nation until they abandon their calls for Shariah, and the suppression of women and minorities that entails. When such states join the rest of the civilized world, such things could be discussed, but until then world government will be something uttered only by foolish idealists, and extreme right wing nuts.

Quote:

Agreement in the US was impossible until Ike sent troops into Little Rock.

Yes, your country had deep schisms, yet it managed to overcome them. Obviously, that binding the Union together was greater than the differences. There may be differences between Mississipi and California, but they are as nothing comparted to the chasm between Islam and the West, for example.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:38 pm Post subject: Re: ...

Nowhere Man wrote:

The US didn't have enough UN votes to invade Afghanistan?

Quote:

War of Aggression Against Afghanistan

Bush, Jr. instead went to the United National Security Council to get a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. He failed. You have to remember that. This war has never been authorized by the United Nations Security Council. If you read the two resolutions that he got, it is very clear that what Bush, Jr. tried to do was to get the exact same type of language that Bush, Sr. got from the U.N. Security Council in the late fall of 1990 to authorize a war against Iraq to produce its expulsion from Kuwait. It is very clear if you read these resolutions, Bush, Jr. tried to get the exact same language twice and they failed. Indeed the first Security Council resolution refused to call what happened on September 11 an "armed attack"--that is by one state against another state. Rather they called it "terrorist attacks." But the critical point here is that this war has never been approved by the U.N. Security Council so technically it is illegal under international law. It constitutes an act and a war of aggression by the United States against Afghanistan.

http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle0917.html

Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Sep 28, 2005 2:04 pm; edited 1 time in total

yoda

Joined: 19 Jan 2003
Location: Incheon, South Korea

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:46 pm Post subject:

Joo, The United States did not need a UN resolution to attack Afghanistan to be legal. There are reservations under international law that allow countries to began belligerant actions under the well established right to self defense. These reservations supercede the UN charter. Afghanistan was legal because of 9-11 (probably before that but not politically feasible). Iraq was not legal and the only way to make it legal would have been to get a UN resolution. NATO went along with America into Afghanistan (remember the brits, canucks, and the germans who are there?) precisely because the US was attacked, the US was an ally and the US had a right to self defense regardless of what the UN thought. And what made it particularly legal was the the Taliban refused to give the Al Quada in their midst.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 2:35 pm Post subject:

Quote:

9-11 (probably before that but not politically feasible

Without giving my opinion can you explain your reasoning on that?

supernick

Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 3:56 pm Post subject:

Quote:

In any case, your (and other Canadians') obvious intent to use it as yet another opportunity to gloat or claim moral superiority over the U.S. on this board is duly noted.

I don't know who is glouting, and I would like to see some proof of this.

There's really no moral superiority that anyone is trying to claim. Your government made the lies and some people from your country still fall for them. If you have a problem with tht, then point the finger were it belongs, inward not outward.

But the, there's that victim mentallity that comes acroess; 9-11 gives you licence for stupidity. (Not you personally.)

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:03 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Still, this is a rather serious event, one with far-reaching consequences. This is not a triumph of anything.

Yes it is. The fact that a group of researchers have exhaustively searched for WMDs and have concluded that there never were any WMDs in Iraq is a triumph of truth over lies, and a revelation that the President of the US and the Prime Ministers of Britain and Australia LIED TO THE WHOLE WORLD when they said the rest of us were in imminent danger from WMDs in Iraq.

Gopher wrote:

In any case, your (and other Canadians') obvious intent to use it as yet another opportunity to gloat or claim moral superiority over the U.S. on this board is duly noted.

Well, good for you. I'm glad you're finally noting how much your own country has debased itself in comparison to its neighbors and its own purported values. And while we're on the subject of gloating or claiming moral superiority over others, what would you call this?

Gopher wrote:

Pick up any world history text in any high school classroom anywhere in the world outside of Canada. How many times does Canada appear in this text? (I've seen U.S., Brazilian, and Chilean texts, and can tell you that it is practically a non-existent country.)

If world history were a boxing match, then, Canada would not be a junior featherweight as much as mostly a waterboy or towel-bearer in our (and Britain's) corner, from time to time. When it isn't contributing in this capacity, it joins the other spectators and critics who don't have the weight to ever make it into that ring...

What would you call that?

I call it hypocracy. "Do as I say, not as I do."

Gopher wrote:

You refer to peace advocates and people with neutral views. Peace advocates, however, don't rub salt into wounds in order to gloat. There is nothing peaceful or noble in that. It isn't a neutral act.

Guess what, Gopher?

You don't get to decide what peace advocates and people with neutral views get to say or do.

People like me are perfectly justified in rubbing salt in the wound, because if nobody does it, the same mistake will happen again.

Iraq is now just another Vietnam for the US. A morass that the US is sinking deeper and deeper into every day, while the stupid in the US and Britain say "yes it's a mess, but we can't pull out now". I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam mess, and it was that line of thinking that made the whole mess even worse.

So you go right ahead and "duly note" whatever you want. And tough shit if you don't like what you hear.

Hollywoodaction

Joined: 02 Jul 2004

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 5:21 pm Post subject: Re: THERE ARE NO WMD, THERE WERE NO WMD

Wangja wrote:

It's official, the hunt is over.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm

So, one more time - what was the reason for invasion?

4$ a gallon. Need I say more?

Wangja

Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 6:05 pm Post subject: Re: THERE ARE NO WMD, THERE WERE NO WMD

Hollywoodaction wrote:

Wangja wrote:

It's official, the hunt is over.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm

So, one more time - what was the reason for invasion?

4$ a gallon. Need I say more?

I started this thread 9 months ago. If you think 4 USD a gallon is expensive, a visit to the rest of the developed world might be enlightening. In UK for example the equivalent price is all but 10 USD a gallon.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: THERE ARE NO WMD, THERE WERE NO WMD

Hollywoodaction wrote:

4$ a gallon. Need I say more?

Somebody in this forum posted a link to this great article previously. Here's an excerpt regarding- at least partially- gas prices.

Quote:

When my friend took me around, driving through the city and out to Camp Casey, we stopped at a gasoline stand. Of course I volunteered to pay. He was complaining about the sudden rise in the price of gasoline. Here was where I witnessed just another small item that made me sure that America is headed for third world status, if it is not already there. He was complaining about gasoline at $3 a gallon. I hear that in Atlanta, after Hurricane Katrina, it hit $6 a gallon.

I shook my head and thought, When are these crazy people going to wake up? Apparently it��s good that the USA invaded Iraq to secure oil. Japan has no natural resources. America does. America even has its own oil. Guess what? About seven years ago, the price for a liter of gasoline in Japan was 100 yen (3.78 liters per gallon). The price today is about 125 yen per liter. That means today��s price for a gallon of gasoline in Japan, a nation that produces no oil, is about $4.58 - an increase of 25% over the last seven years. Now, it doesn��t take much of a math whiz to figure out that if the prices at the pumps in America - a nation that produces oil - have doubled in the last few years, there��s something strange going on. How is it possible that Japan��s gasoline prices have just barely inched up over these past few years, at about 3% per year, while USA prices have doubled or more?

Is it just the Iraq war? Or is it the decline of the dollar? Probably a bit of both, but you can definitely be sure of one thing, it is the US government taking advantage of you - regardless of whether you are a Democrat or Republican. And the average American still cheers on the federal monster.

After filling up, we headed back onto the freeway. I looked at the scenery and had a feeling of deja vu. I thought to myself, Hey! I��ve seen this before. Now where did I see it? Then it came back to me: The road leading to Crawford looked an awful lot like the road leading from Phuket International Airport towards Patong Beach - a nice place, but definitely not a road leading through a world power.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers171.html

Now some of you are going to say "there goes another Canadian posting negative articles about the US- what a bastard!"

But here's what you may not have considered-
I truly WANT the US to be what it desires to be:
the the strong, righteous land of democratic ideals where truth, justice, and liberty for all have free reign.
It's not simply idealism- it's in my own BEST INTEREST for America to be what it should be.

If America tanks, Canada surely will too.
Even without NAFTA, a hurricane in in the Gulf affects my gas prices (and consequently my home energy costs, the cost of groceries in the supermarket, etc.) just as surely as it affects people in Kansas.

And even though I cannot vote for who is running the US,
if I HAVE A VESTED INTEREST in something and see it going to hell,
I'm going to say something.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:11 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Gopher wrote:

But is this really cause for satisfaction and celebration? "I told you so!" has always sounded quite petty to me. What's the point?

And "You're country is the equivalent of a water boy" isn't petty??

You do make one laugh.

Of course, anytime Thing One makes an appearance, Thing Two is never too far behind...with the same quality of "commentary."

If you were not such an arrogant, hypocritical person who acts like a fifteen year old who just discovered the debate team, you wouldn't have to worry about us pointing out the folly of your ways.

Your posts regarding Canada/Canadians are so off it's laughable. So we do. I was following this thread like you and, being an American, felt ZERO sense of being treated inferiorly by the Canadians posting here. I did see people posting on an *issue.* As others stated before I began interracting with you, you are very sensitive to any blame placed on the US gov't. Why? It's wrong! You say so yourself, then go rabid when someone else does. But your posts are always relativistic: Yes, the US was wrong, BUT.... There's always an excuse attached supposedly backed up by all this info. But no amount of "info" can overcome the base manner in which the US conducts itself at times.

Strange. Go ahead, keep taunting the Canadians for no reason. They, and I, are more than happy to point and laugh.

Last edited by EFLtrainer on Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:23 pm; edited 1 time in total

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:14 pm Post subject:

[deleted] Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:09 pm; edited 1 time in total

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:27 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

They, and I, are more than happy to point and laugh.

Because, clearly, that's all that you're really capable of, isn't it? Poining out things that you don't like, laughing, criticizing. You don't have much to say, so that is all that you can do.

Simplistic.

Brilliant. This ain't about you and me. It's reacting to what's put out there. Thing I. Brilliant. Rolling Eyes

Get over your complex. Pelase note I do not respond to every post you make because not all of them are follish. Some are. Some get responded to. Simple.

REally, get over it. The rest of us have. This thread is not going to be hi-jacked by your ego. 'Nuff said.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:30 pm Post subject:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

Gopher wrote:

What would you call that?

I call it hypocracy. "Do as I say, not as I do."

Not hypocrisy. Fact.

Canada doesn't have the population, the economy, the global leadership, or the place in world history that the U.S. does.

So whenever these opportunities present themselves (not just this, do you remember the Canadian research team that "beat" the U.S. Army to a rescue zone in New Orleans?), you and a few other Canadians get on your high horse, fold your arms in your self-satisfied grins, and gloat.

You go beyond reasonable discussion of the issue at hand, and you bring your belief that you are somehow morally superior. It's as reliable as clockwork.

Gopher wrote:

You refer to peace advocates and people with neutral views. Peace advocates, however, don't rub salt into wounds in order to gloat. There is nothing peaceful or noble in that. It isn't a neutral act.

Manner of Speaking wrote:

First, I'm not telling you what you can or can't do as a "neutral" (a laughable position with respect to your views and your gloating, in any case). I'm merely pointing out that what you are doing is not peaceful or neutral.

I also think you are overestimating your importance. I don't think that the next time something like this comes up, that any U.S. decision-maker is going to refer to your "advice," as there is nothing constructive about your presentation.

And again, deliberately rubbing salt in the wound is not the act of a peace advocate or a neutral view. It's an adversarial act. And it's not going to bring anyone at all over to your line of thinking.

There are a siginifant number of Canadians here (and U.S. citizens, too) who strongly dislike and also resent the United States -- regardless of who the President is. And that's fine. But it distorts the discussions on these threads, and makes them a continual collection of "bash the United States whenever possible" statements. Just because you all sit around and nod your heads "yes" to each other when you speak, it doesn't mean that this is not so.

Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:33 pm Post subject:

[deleted] Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:12 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 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 17, 18, 19 Next
Page 7 of 19

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