|
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 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| But back to the OP- let's face it, only through the most dishonest reading of that article can anyone take from it the idea that former generals are counselling the Bush administration to open direct negotiations with terrorist organizations. |
Come on, Bulsa, this is blatantly false. There is no way to interpret the sentence earlier highlighted. It makes a mockery of the English language to make the claim you are making here.
It is obvious from the language and intent of the article that the generals were counseling both. I would, however, assume it is not intended as a blanket suggestion, but one meant to be sugget a case-by-case approach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The generals are probably wrong, anyway. It's very likely that some administration officials have had contacts with Iran and North Korea and even factions in Iraq that have attacked coalition forces.
I don't agree that we should enter single party talks with North Korea, for reasons that should be abundently clear to most here.
I don't agree that having talks with Iran would mean the same as having talks with the Soviet Union. Especially since Bush has offered to re-instate relations with Iran should Iran agree to uranium enrichment by the US!!! In other words, they give up their nuclear weapons program, and we help fund their peaceful nuclear energy program! I think that's a better foreign policy (put together by the State department, you know, diplomats and not generals?) than these generals have supposed.
The only thing I really agree with is the last sentence in the article, that America needs to promote security and services more and cease relying entirely on direct force. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| But back to the OP- let's face it, only through the most dishonest reading of that article can anyone take from it the idea that former generals are counselling the Bush administration to open direct negotiations with terrorist organizations. |
Come on, Bulsa, this is blatantly false. There is no way to interpret the sentence earlier highlighted. It makes a mockery of the English language to make the claim you are making here.
It is obvious from the language and intent of the article that the generals were counseling both. I would, however, assume it is not intended as a blanket suggestion, but one meant to be sugget a case-by-case approach. |
what?? dude, you are grasping for straws there- seriously. One freaking sentence by the writer and you assume that his own assumption (ok, analysis) is correct. Both you and the writer are jumping to conclusions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Quote: |
| right.. but they don't need nations to assist them in those endevors. |
BB,
You are one person whose short posts irritate me. but on the other hand, you are one of the only persons on this board who I truly feel speaks in an informed and nonpartisan, HUMAN and of the heart way......
Glad that happens and you post and contribute with such intention, whatever the post.
I'm writing this after a very long post and should have said this much earlier......
DD |
thanks? How exactly do my short posts irritate you? Your short comment leaves me wondering. 
RS (or was it Big Bird?) made a similar complaint some time ago. He or she said something along the lines of, "you criticize but that's it??" I'm totally paraphrasing there; they were a lot more articulate. Is that what you mean?
I suppose we can do this via PM but oh well... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:06 pm Post subject: Re: Generals to Bush:Negotiate w/Terrorists or face conseque |
|
|
| R. S. Refugee wrote: |
Former Generals: Bush Must Negotiate to Make America Safer
by Aaron Glantz
Twenty-one former generals and high ranking national security officials have called on United States President George W. Bush to reverse course and embrace a new area of negotiation with Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. In a letter released Thursday, the group told reporters Bush's "hard line" policies have undermined national security and made America less safe.
Of particular concern for the generals was increased saber-rattling between Washington and Tehran over the development of an Iranian nuclear program.
"We call on the administration to engage immediately in direct talks with the government of Iran without preconditions to help resolve the current crisis in the Middle East and to settle differences over an Iranian nuclear program," their letter read.
"An attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences for security in the region and U.S. forces in Iraq," they argued. "It would inflame hatred and violence in the Middle East and among Muslims everywhere."
In a telephone news conference Thursday morning, the former security officials took particular aim at the Bush Administration's policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists or with states that support them.
"That seems strange since Ronald Reagan was willing to negotiate with the Soviets even though they were the 'Evil Empire," said retired Lt. General Robert Guard, who served as special assistant to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War and now works at the non-profit Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "One wonders why George Bush can't negotiate with the Axis of Evil."
The generals further argued that the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq is at least partially responsible for Iran's drive to develop a nuclear program.
"When you announce an axis of evil of three countries and invade one and then say that Iran should take that as a lesson, it does seem that it may give them an incentive to do precisely what they don't want them to do," Guard said, "develop a nuclear weapon."
Former director of Policy Planning for the State Department, Morton Halperin, said the same goes for North Korea. The more belligerent the Bush Administration behaves, he said, the faster North Korea will work to develop nuclear weapons.
"The North Koreans want to talk to us directly," said Halperin, who now works for the Washington, DC-based Center for American Progress. "Their concern is about getting security assurances from us and about getting diplomatic recognition. We should not be afraid to talk to our opponents."
At the White House, Bush's spokesperson Tony Snow dismissed the letter.
"In a political year people are going to make political statements, including retired generals, and they're perfectly welcome to," Snow told reporters at his daily briefing. "It's an important addition to the public debate. But we're also � the president is a guy who has got real responsibility here. Now, I've got to tell you, just given to what I said...in response to the sort of ongoing cost of promoting freedom around the globe, do you not think a president will do everything in his power to succeed? And the answer is, yes. He's not sitting around saying, boy, I'm stubborn, I'm going to stick with it.
"That's not the way the president is," Snow said, insisting the Bush administration is planning policy changes while declining to offer specifics.
But the generals who signed the letter say Bush has been stubborn, and a poor student of history.
General Joseph Hoar, the Commander in Chief of U.S. Military Central Command under presidents Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush, said the George W. Bush administration would be advised to remember the French occupation of Algeria, which lasted 134 years.
Nationalist rebels launched an insurgency against the French in 1954. After eight years of insurgent bombings and counter-terrorism operations, France was finally forced to quit Algeria in 1962.
Hoar says like the Battle of Algiers the current war on terror is a war of ideas.
"Until we get away from the idea that we can solve these problems through the use of military force and begin to change the political problems causing discontent by providing security and services, we're not going to win this war," he said.
http://www.antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=9564 |
No no no no and more no.
We can not negotiate wth terrorists. To do so would only legitamize there tactics in there eyes. To do so will send the message that if you attack us, we will make concessions.
NO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| But back to the OP- let's face it, only through the most dishonest reading of that article can anyone take from it the idea that former generals are counselling the Bush administration to open direct negotiations with terrorist organizations. |
Come on, Bulsa, this is blatantly false. There is no way to interpret the sentence earlier highlighted. It makes a mockery of the English language to make the claim you are making here.
It is obvious from the language and intent of the article that the generals were counseling both. I would, however, assume it is not intended as a blanket suggestion, but one meant to be sugget a case-by-case approach. |
what?? dude, you are grasping for straws there- seriously. One freaking sentence by the writer and you assume that his own assumption (ok, analysis) is correct. Both you and the writer are jumping to conclusions. |
Are you a native speaker? I said nothing of the sort. Your response is, based on the language I used, bizarre. Absolutely a logical impossibility. I expressed no opinion as to the content of the article.
Seriously, are you a native speaker? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
I guess you don't read what you write either. 
You offered an opinion that the headline of the thread was correct. You made your argument based on that one sentence in the article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
It is obvious from the language and intent of the article that the generals were counseling both. |
Really?
Well, I'm going to have to ask you to back up that statement with examples because I think that's a complete crock.
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Seriously, are you a native speaker? |
That's funny, because I was about to ask you the same question. You seem to understand words and even short phrases, but long strings of sequential ideas which we call "sentences" and "paragraphs", as well as abstract concepts such as "logic", "deduction", and "proof" have eluded you.
But back to the portions of the article which which have led you to believe that the generals are counselling the Bush Admin to open direct negotiations with terrorist organizations- please provide examples.
Edited: one typo, to satisfy some gaping-wide arsehole who was using it as an excuse to deflect the thread away from the logical inconsistency of his subject header.
Last edited by Bulsajo on Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
But back to the portions of the article which which have lead you to believe that the generals are counselling the Bush Admin to open direct negotiations with terrorist organizations- please provide examples. |
I seldom ever comment on grammatical errors (or typos). I certainly make enough of them myself. This is after all a discussion board and not a place where everything goes through various levels of editing and proofreading before being posted.
However, I will make an exception in this case because of my (unsubstantiated) belief that we may have here an example of one of the commonest misuse of a word errors in the English language.
It's that triumverate of:
1. lead n. a very heavy element pronounced the same as the past tense of the verb 'lead' which is spelled 'led'.
2. led v. past tense of the verb 'lead.'
3. lead v. a verb meaning to guide someone along a certain path. Spelled the same as the element 'lead'.
Maybe it's not the most common English error made by native speakers, but just seems that way to me because it is the most common one that I invariably notice.
Or maybe it's just, given the xenophobic, paranoid behavior of some of many of the lovers of murder and mayhem and bigotry towards Arabs and Muslims, that I just see many westerners as suffering from a severe case of 'lead' poisoning. Or should that be 'led' poisoning? 
(But I'm not necessarily talking about you, bulsajo. ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
edit.
Accidently posted the same comment twice.
Last edited by R. S. Refugee on Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Or maybe it's just, given the xenophobic, paranoid behavior of some of many of the lovers of murder and mayhem and bigotry towards Arabs and Muslims, that I just see many westerners as suffering from a severe case of 'lead' poisoning. Or should that be 'led' poisoning? |
You need to take a break from the anti-war.com, dude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Or maybe it's just, given the xenophobic, paranoid behavior of some of many of the lovers of murder and mayhem and bigotry towards Arabs and Muslims, that I just see many westerners as suffering from a severe case of 'lead' poisoning. Or should that be 'led' poisoning? |
You need to take a break from the anti-war.com, dude. |
And here I thought you were just going to tell me to get the lead, er led out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| (But I'm not necessarily talking about you, bulsajo. ) |
No, of course not, I understand.
And by the same token, when I talk about the utter jackass who doesn't even have the wherewithal to comprehend the logical failings of his subject header, I'm not neccessarily talking about you, RS.
| R. S. Refugee wrote: |
Or maybe it's just, given the xenophobic, paranoid behavior of some of many of the lovers of murder and mayhem and bigotry towards Arabs and Muslims, that I just see many westerners as suffering from a severe case of 'lead' poisoning. Or should that be 'led' poisoning?
|
What a load of BS.
You are the one who has labelled entire countries as terrorists through your poor subject header, not me.
5 paragraphs over a typo in order to deflect from your own shortcomings?
Are You trying to give IGTG a hard time defending his "King of Intellectual Dishonesty" title around here?
The typo has been fixed:
| Quote: |
| But back to the portions of the article which have led you to believe that the generals are counselling the Bush Admin to open direct negotiations with terrorist organizations- please provide examples. |
So now EFLTrainer has no excuse not to answer my question.
What about you, RS?
You have the balls to ridicule a typo I've made, do you have the balls to defend your reasoning behind your naming of this thread?
Or are you just going to wait and hope that maybe, somehow, EFTL is able to cover your ass and do your work for you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Your silence is deafening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Are you a native speaker? |
Just a point of curiosity. What is a native speaker? American? Australian? Canadian? English? Gibraltian? Irish? New Zealander? Scottish? South African? Welsh? etc. We all have different sentence structures, grammar and words that we use.
What is native or are you just looking to insult someone. There are more countries that english could be considered native but I am not going to list them all. Though again.
What is a native speaker? |
|
| 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
