Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Bush fans the flames of war...

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

Bush fans the flames of war...
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:40 pm Post subject:

Bulsajo wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

I've got 10 year-olds who do better.

Yet again the attempt to deflect from the issue at hand by implying that one's opponent lacks the wisdom and maturity that comes with age.

Again, the irony.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:50 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

2. THAT is exactly what I was taking you to task for! They are indeed different. One is singular the other plural.

You fool. Singular and plural. You can sort that out, but not it's significance with regard to function and meaning?? I've got 10 year-olds who do better.

At least MY ten-year olds know that you use one and not two question marks at the end of a question. And what's with "it's"? We were talking about two forms singular and plural. It's "their"

If you can't even get basic rules of English right, how do you expect anybody to take you seriously? Oh that's right, nobody does anyway.

Since Bulsa is so big on MY "deflections", i.e., my refusal to discuss an issue this thread is NOT about, what about your deflections? Look at this! Rather than deal with the fact you don't understand what I wrote, which implies a fairly low level of intelligence, you attack. Again. And stupidly. As does Bulsa. You both know you completely blew it. You simply didn't udnerstand my simple post. Rather than simply sayin, "Ah, I missed that," we end up with more pages of personal bullshit because you children aren't postig here because of th issue. Your responses were partisan stupidity from the beginning, not to mention personal.

Children.

You've seen more than enough of my writing to recognize when I've simply written something too quickly. I would never call you on such an obviously stupid and childish point when I understand what you were trying to say. But, gee, your reason for posting here has nothing to do with the issues. You're a child, son. A child.

Seriously, TWO question marks?? You're making an issue of TWO FREAKING QUESTION MARKS????

Child.

Quote:

It's amusing to watch you flail about madly and succeding beyond our wildest dreams in making yourself appear foolish

Can you spot your OWN grammatical errors, child??

Grow the hell up.

Bulsa, I used to respect your posts...

What a child you have proven yourself to be.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Bulsajo wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

I've got 10 year-olds who do better.

Yet again the attempt to deflect from the issue at hand by implying that one's opponent lacks the wisdom and maturity that comes with age.

Again, the irony.

Again the avoidance.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:20 pm Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

What a child you have proven yourself to be.

Again the age thing.
Do you have a baby face, people don't take you seriously because you look young or something?
I'm just rying to understand why you have a hang up about how old everyone is, and why you have such a playground mentality about it.

Quote:

Bulsa, I used to respect your posts...

I haven't changed. It's you.
Or maybe you haven't- I don't know, I never paid much attention to your posts until you started flinging around the hysterical ad hominem attacks and then when called to account you take "it's you, not me- I'm older and wiser" spin doctoring.

Is it senility, or just plain old fashioned hypocrisy?

Hindsight is 20/20, and Gopher had you pegged the moment you showed up here.

You aren't able to hold a reasoned debate- you revert to your attacks rather than address the issues.

You think I'm alone in my assessment?
Nevermind, I would want to give you a persecution complex on top of your age-related debility.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject: Re: Bush fans the flames of war...

EFLtrainer wrote:

[]Is this man not the biggest freaking idiot the planet has seen ?

This is a perfect example of irony to the Nth degree. About three ways to read this.

Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:13 pm; edited 1 time in total

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject:

It's like he has Tourrettes or something, he can't control it. Last edited by Bulsajo on Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

[, what about your deflections? .

I answered your post back on page 7. You choose not to reply and instead stepped up the personal attacks. And then you cry about it when responded to in kind. It is obvious you don't want to discuss it. I gave you a opening and you completely ignored it. Don't complain about deflections when you won't even respond to replies to questions YOU asked.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

[
His decision? What decision? To use stupid and inflammatory rhetoric? Again, rhetoric is not determined by the enemy's actions, it is determined by issues having to do with the speaker and can be completely divorced from the actions of the enemy. Bush could, for example, simply say nothing. Why didn't he? Hezzbolah put a gun to his head to make him speak??

[.

This has already been explained to you. Once more though. Israel is an ally of America. When an ally is attacked you are obligated to give it either moral or military support. If Bush had said nothing, Hezbollah could (and probably would) have claimed a diplomatic victory "See see, even America doesn't support Israel!" Given America's track record over the years of supporting Israel, it would have been suprising and notable if Bush had kept quiet.

Not only that, but as the leader of the most powerful country in the world he HAD to say something. He couldn't just, as you claim "say nothing". People would be looking for him to say something. And a neutral or supportive statement in regards to Hezbollah would have as I pointed out allow them to claim a PR victory. That would also have the effect of enraging a valuable ally in the Middle East and endangering strong diplomatic ties. When you are the leader of a country with established allies you can't just "stab them in the back" like that. Given all of the above Bush really had no choice.

There I answered your question...at least I think that was your question?

Here it is again? Care to respond?

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:37 pm Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Kuros wrote:

EFL Flip-Out wrote:

A president has a responsibility as a statesman and a leader to act as peacemaker and solver of problems rather than warmongerer and creator of problems. However, even if you exclude policy, or even accept his policy - even if immoral and unethical - he STILL has a responsibility to manage it in a way that makes success more liklely, not less.

Using inflammatory, and frankly, childish - literally - statements like he did is exceptionally poor statesmanship. His job is not to serve his own interests, it is to serve the interests of the United States. He is not doing that with this rhetoric.

If a war were to break out between Pakistan and Al Qaeda-backed militias in the Pakistani hills (this is not really so hypothetical), should the President manage the situation in a way that makes peace more likely than not?

Well, I suppose if you define peace as a lasting peace, absolutely, and I'm sure Bush would argue that a lasting peace in Lebanon is what his rhetoric was aiming for. However, we do not want peace with Al Qaeda, we want it eliminated, and that is certainly within the interests of the US.

Hezbollah is similar to Al Qaeda. It is an NGO and a political party, but not a state. It doesn't properly have any citizens, but feels the need to have vast amounts of weaponry at its disposal, despite the presence of a Lebanese army.

Before you declared all of these things irrelevent, but I submit that there are cases where unconditional surrender or outright elimination are in the interest of the US, just as it was in WWII with the Axis powers, and if you were to advance your thesis against FDR instead of Bush, you would find a lot of resistance.

I disagree. Again, the issue is, what are you hoping to achieve? In what case does inflaming the enemy help? If his aim is to specifically incite the American public, then you *might* have a point. (But then you'd have to extend the argument to whether THAT is appropriate. I lean towards educating them.) However, I see nothing in this situation that is made better by making a false claim with the sole aim of embarrassing the opposition.
Beyond that, what is the effect on the image of the US and the perceptions of others? If they do not trust the US, expecting us to act as bully rather than peacemaker, does that no also harm our national security? What happens in a future where there is far more parity than now and we've alienated virtually everyone?

Bold is mine. Actually, you know what EFLTrainer, you seem to have demonstrated yourself the validity at least of the arguments in bold above.

Merely inflaming 'the enemy,' and I take it here you mean an enemy that you are identifying as an enemy but could possibly be something else, accomplishes nothing. It acheives nothing. It makes one often look arrogant and overbearing.

As for making false claims in order to embarrass the opposition...I mean...that just seems to obstruct dialogue and conversation!

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:54 am Post subject:

Bulsajo wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Bulsajo wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

I've got 10 year-olds who do better.

Yet again the attempt to deflect from the issue at hand by implying that one's opponent lacks the wisdom and maturity that comes with age.

Again, the irony.

Again the avoidance.

Avoiding what, you foolish little liar?!

You jumped back into this thread only to insults. Foolish.

You say I am avoiding.... What the frick can I possibly be avoiding? It's my thread, not your's. You don't determine the subject, I do. The subject is ONLY, I repeat for the nth time: the president's inappropriate rhetorical style. Did you post a query about the "president's" rhetorical style that I missed, boy?

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

[, what about your deflections? .

Quote:

As for the rest of your post, typical inflamatory nonsense.

From PAGE 1, urby, page one. Now shut up. Also, I answered you umpteen times. The topic here is only the rhetorical style. You still can't sort that. Your problem. I have no responsibility to answer questions that are off-topic.

Last edited by EFLtrainer on Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:49 pm; edited 1 time in total

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:53 pm Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Avoiding what, you foolish little liar?!

You jumped back into this thread only to insults. Foolish.

Come again?
Who is insulting who here?

Pot, kettle- you know the rest.

Quote:

It's my thread, not your's.

"Mine, mine, mine."
Why, that's a very interesting viewpoint.

Quote:

Did you post a query about the "president's" rhetorical style that I missed, boy?

Again, the age thing. Considering you pretend to take the mature high road, you are as coinsistently childish as you claim me to be.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: Bush fans the flames of war...

EFLtrainer wrote:

[url]

Is this man not the biggest freaking idiot the planet has seen? Way to calm tensions there, Dumbya. And great job setting up the excuse to bomb/invade Iran. Ah, and a nice little threat of war has always done so well for you, and the puke party you represent, eh?

This is also from page 1 as well and was the FIRST post in this thread. Or are you taking the position that this is not a personal attack on Bush and the Republican party?

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:51 pm Post subject: Re: Bush fans the flames of war...

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

This is also from page 1 as well and was the FIRST post in this thread. Or are you taking the position that this is not a personal attack on Bush and the Republican party?

And what part of that was directed at anyone on this board, dumbass?

And, again, both of you fail to deal with the FACT that the issue here is about the president's rhetorical style and nothing else. How pathetic do you have to be to insult someone because YOU are off-topic?

daskalos

Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca

Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:12 pm Post subject: Re: Bush fans the flames of war...

EFLtrainer wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060815/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Quote:

Bush says Israel defeated Hezbollah By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Monday that Israel defeated Hezbollah's guerrillas in the monthlong Mideast war and that the Islamic militants were to blame for the deaths of hundreds of Lebanese civilians.

Bush admonished Iran and Syria for backing Hezbollah, which captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12 igniting the conflict. Both sides claimed victory Monday, hours after a U.N.-brokered cease-fire took effect, while Bush said Israel prevailed.

"Hezbollah attacked Israel. Hezbollah started the crisis, and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis," the president said at the State Department after a day of meetings with his top defense, diplomatic and national security advisers.

The United States backed Israel in the war, and Bush made clear he was determined to help the Israelis in the post-fighting struggle of words about who wound up on top.

The president portrayed the war, which killed about 790 Lebanese and 155 Israelis, as part of a broader struggle between freedom and terrorism. He said one can only imagine how much more dangerous such a conflict would be if Iran possessed nuclear weapons.

Is this man not the biggest freaking idiot the planet has seen? Way to calm tensions there, Dumbya. And great job setting up the excuse to bomb/invade Iran. Ah, and a nice little threat of war has always done so well for you, and the puke party you represent, eh?

I loathe George W. Bush. I think he is the worst president we've ever had.

But I'm not so fanatic in my loathing that I can't agree with him when I believe him, here and there, to be right. I believe there is no value in walking on eggshells in order to keep from inflaming fanatics (Hezbollah, Hamas, Abejimen-what-the-hell-ever-his-name-is-abad). In fact, since the fanatics are coming for us and our allies anyway, inciting them to leap to our tune is probably wiser than speaking sweetly to them until they're ready.

EFL Trainer, I believe you to be so blinded by your opposition to Bush that you refuse to consider that he might ever be right about anything, and that sounds to me like quite a childish way to be. It's children, after all, who are unable to hold two seemingly opposing thoughts in their head without having to reject utterly the idea that conflicts with what they want to believe.

I say again, I loathe Bush. His every domestic initiative, and many of his foreign ones. And it is idiotic how he has alienated, through his poorly chosen rhetoric, our allies. But my loathing of him doesn't change my mind about who our allies are or who our enemies are. And of our enemies, I still can discern between those who have a legimate reason for their anger at us and those who are fanatical monsters with whom there can be no reasoning or rapprochement.

There are worse things in the world than war -- an unjust "peace" is right at the top of the list. I am completely okay with his stance and rhetoric on the latest fighting between Israel, our ally, and its enemies.

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 ... 8, 9, 10, 11 Next
Page 9 of 11

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