|
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 |
supernick
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
One important thing that most pea brain and short-sighted people don�t realize about Americans and its government is that we aren�t short-sighted like many insignificant countries who only think about the present tenses. Americans always think in terms of future tenses (50 � 100 years in the best interest of the country and its allies).
I am so sicken tired of people with pea brains talking about why America invaded Iraq. With their limited short-sightedness, they always say that it�s because of the OIL. Give me a break, you pea brains don�t realize it, but you think that the Middle East has the largest oil deposit in the world, right? Wrong!!!! The United States probably has the largest oil deposit in the world. People will probably ask me to prove it, but I won�t. I�ll just tell you why though. Again, the U.S. is always thinking in terms of 50-100 years and beyond for our future generations. You know something called Alaska right? It�s our strategic oil reserve for the rainy days when oil dries up in the Middle East. So don�t go around saying the oil is the reason for the Iraq invasion because people make themselves look so stupid and ignorant. |
The invasion of Iraq was not over oil ( at least the official position anyway ) it was over WMD and the gathering threat of Saddam. It�s been repeated so many times by those non-pea brained people in Washington.
The war was not for the liberation of the poor Iraqi people, something like that would just be too honorable. The war was never about saving the lives of many Iraqis or Kurds from a tyrant like Saddam. If it were, the Americans would have invaded long ago. And no, the war was not just about Iraqi oil (or at least keeping it) it was about the control of Iraqi oil and further a better control of oil in the M/E.
There hasn�t been a terrorist attack on the U.S. since the invasion, so the invasion is helping in the war on terror, right?
Alaska was just part of American expansionism without brining out the military like the land grab of parts of Mexico. The oil was just a bonus.
True, America is not sort-sighted (or least in the past) as a country but the present government is.
Now what about those pea brained people (67%) that thought that Saddam or Iraq was involved in 9-11? What about those pea brained people who said that Iraq had all those WMD and that those weapons were a threat to the U.S.? Or as one pea brained America once said on this board, that the invasion of Iraq was because Americans were not going to lay on their backs to watch planes fly into buildings.
America has had great minds and great leaders, however what is going on these days is an embarrassment to all the greatness of America.
There are many pea brained people who have also soaked up too much of their own country�s propaganda that their delusion is totally visible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ChuckECheese
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| supernick wrote: |
| Quote: |
One important thing that most pea brain and short-sighted people don�t realize about Americans and its government is that we aren�t short-sighted like many insignificant countries who only think about the present tenses. Americans always think in terms of future tenses (50 � 100 years in the best interest of the country and its allies).
I am so sicken tired of people with pea brains talking about why America invaded Iraq. With their limited short-sightedness, they always say that it�s because of the OIL. Give me a break, you pea brains don�t realize it, but you think that the Middle East has the largest oil deposit in the world, right? Wrong!!!! The United States probably has the largest oil deposit in the world. People will probably ask me to prove it, but I won�t. I�ll just tell you why though. Again, the U.S. is always thinking in terms of 50-100 years and beyond for our future generations. You know something called Alaska right? It�s our strategic oil reserve for the rainy days when oil dries up in the Middle East. So don�t go around saying the oil is the reason for the Iraq invasion because people make themselves look so stupid and ignorant. |
The invasion of Iraq was not over oil ( at least the official position anyway ) it was over WMD and the gathering threat of Saddam. It�s been repeated so many times by those non-pea brained people in Washington.
Yes, the dummies (CIA) made the mistake about the WMD. For that what can I say... *beep* happens. It's not a perfect world. But who do you think is the most likely a$$hole to support, advocate, and fund terrorist organization? Wouldn't that be Mr. "Tootie Good Shoes" Saddam because we kicked his ass previously for invading other neighboring Arab country?
The war was not for the liberation of the poor Iraqi people, something like that would just be too honorable. The war was never about saving the lives of many Iraqis or Kurds from a tyrant like Saddam. If it were, the Americans would have invaded long ago. And no, the war was not just about Iraqi oil (or at least keeping it) it was about the control of Iraqi oil and further a better control of oil in the M/E.
Maybe. But somebody had to spank the terrorist supporting thug countries so they won't fund and support terrorist organization. And how is the U.S. controlling the oil? Are we selling it and profitting from it?
There hasn�t been a terrorist attack on the U.S. since the invasion, so the invasion is helping in the war on terror, right?
Right.
Alaska was just part of American expansionism without brining out the military like the land grab of parts of Mexico. The oil was just a bonus.
You need to go back and get a better history lesson. Alaska was purchased from Russia during 1800s and we had no idea about the value of the oil then. We paid good American dollar for it. I think it was the biggest land purchase ever next to the Louisiana purchase from the French.
True, America is not sort-sighted (or least in the past) as a country but the present government is.
Now what about those pea brained people (67%) that thought that Saddam or Iraq was involved in 9-11? What about those pea brained people who said that Iraq had all those WMD and that those weapons were a threat to the U.S.? Or as one pea brained America once said on this board, that the invasion of Iraq was because Americans were not going to lay on their backs to watch planes fly into buildings.
I can't say that Saddam was nor wasn't directly involved in 9/11. But if you believe that he wasn't involved in funding, supporting, and advocating terrorist organizations including al quaida, you're are very naive. To me, that reason alone justifies taking out his regime. And look-out Iran, here I come very soon.
America has had great minds and great leaders, however what is going on these days is an embarrassment to all the greatness of America.
I'm sorry that you feel that way. I am not embarrased for defending my home from bunch of crazy dudes who just despises my home for being what we are.
There are many pea brained people who have also soaked up too much of their own country�s propaganda that their delusion is totally visible.
I am not delusional when I'm defending my home and family against lunatics. 9/11 was real and it will happen again to my home if lunatics are unspanked. 
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
Because We Could
Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times Op-Ed Columnist
The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.
Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.
The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there � a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.
The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government � and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen � got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about. |
|
I agree with Freemon's explanaton: however, while the Bush administration has done a good job a hitting hard, it has absolutely failed on the other hand when it comes to staying the course.
More troops are needed in Iraq right now. But Bush won't send them becase an election is comming up. Basically, Bush is responsble for every soldiers death from now until November.
Domestic poltics in dictating the policies in Iraq. That's no way to run a war.
I mean Joo, yes the US has the power to walk into any place in Iraq and clean things up, but as soon as they leave the insurgents come right back in. How is this possible? The Americans don't have enough troops in Iraq to completely finish a job.
The same things going on in Afghanistan.
If Bush was the CEO of a complany he would be fired a long time ago. Now I realize the opposition in the US in made of a bunch of eunucs, but the Republicans have utterly failed in so many ways that I believe some should be held criminally responsible.
I mean Clinton got more flack for a BJ than Bush is getting for his failures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChuckECheese
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
Because We Could
Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times Op-Ed Columnist
The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.
Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.
The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there � a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.
The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government � and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen � got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about. |
|
I agree with Freemon's explanaton: however, while the Bush administration has done a good job a hitting hard, it has absolutely failed on the other hand when it comes to staying the course.
More troops are needed in Iraq right now. But Bush won't send them becase an election is comming up. Basically, Bush is responsble for every soldiers death from now until November.
Domestic poltics in dictating the policies in Iraq. That's no way to run a war.
I agree on that. Our boys need more support to get the job done right.
I mean Joo, yes the US has the power to walk into any place in Iraq and clean things up, but as soon as they leave the insurgents come right back in. How is this possible? The Americans don't have enough troops in Iraq to completely finish a job.
The same things going on in Afghanistan.
If Bush was the CEO of a complany he would be fired a long time ago. Now I realize the opposition in the US in made of a bunch of eunucs, but the Republicans have utterly failed in so many ways that I believe some should be held criminally responsible.
I would fire him myself if he doesn't shape up to the plate and provide better support for our boys in the Middle East.
I mean Clinton got more flack for a BJ than Bush is getting for his failures.
If he doesn't provide better support in Iraq, I'll sick Ms. Lewinsky on him. 
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| I am not delusional when I'm defending my home and family against lunatics. 9/11 was real and it will happen again to my home if lunatics are unspanked. |
And which branch of the military are you in, Chuck? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChuckECheese
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| I am not delusional when I'm defending my home and family against lunatics. 9/11 was real and it will happen again to my home if lunatics are unspanked. |
And which branch of the military are you in, Chuck? |
Does it matter? I don't have to validate my military service in Dave's. But you may ask me which military operations I was involved in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| I am not delusional when I'm defending my home and family against lunatics. 9/11 was real and it will happen again to my home if lunatics are unspanked. |
And which branch of the military are you in, Chuck? |
Does it matter? |
Yes. Last I looked, teaching English in Korea didn't exactly qualify as defending your country. If you think it's that important, then go here. I'm sure they'd love to have you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChuckECheese
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| I am not delusional when I'm defending my home and family against lunatics. 9/11 was real and it will happen again to my home if lunatics are unspanked. |
And which branch of the military are you in, Chuck? |
Does it matter? I don't have to validate my military service in Dave's. But you may ask me which military operations I was involved in. |
Yes. Last I looked, teaching English in Korea didn't exactly qualify as defending your country. If you think it's that important, then go here. I'm sure they'd love to have you. |
You left out something there buddy boy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zoobot
Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:17 am Post subject: Some thoughts from a partisan territory you guess |
|
|
my 2 cents, gathered from various readings and discussions, including discussions with Canadian diplomats posted in Saudi Arabia right now:
First of all, to show that this talk-show host is just wrong in places, but in the right spirit, if that makes any sense, like wars of pre-emption having no historical precedent, Florida was annexed by the US in a pre-emptive battle with Amerindians and Spaniards. Because Spain was overextended in its colonial project, John Quincy Adams realized that Florida was vulnerable to takeover by another European power. To pre-empt such an event, he advocated the invasion of Florida which killed lots of Amerindians and Spaniards.
Despite being a bad man for having called for the slaughter of many thousands of Kurds, and using poison gas bought with American funds against Iran, Iraq under Saddam was actually more stable than when the Americans invaded and dethroned him. Dethroning Saddam created a vacuum of chaos that is the perfect hiding place for terrorists.
The fact is that Saddam firmly adhered to the separation of church and state (one of the reasons he declared war against the Islamist Khomeini) because he understood the chaos that would be unleashed if the Shiite or Sunni factions in Iraq seized power, and as such, I think it is highly unlikely that he would fund or give any kind of material support to Islamic fascists like Bin Laden. Chaos is bad for business, and when it comes down to it, I think Saddam was a businessman.
Second of all, this talk-show host thinks the Democrats would not have invaded Iraq. Why then did Clinton sign a declaration of intention to eventually invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam (No, I did not make this up,, but I forget where I read it)?
The war is about so much more than WMD, terrorism (wasn't at least one of the 9/11 terrorist squad from Florida? - talk about karma), or even oil, although these all are motivations to a greater or lesser degree. If you crawl into the headspace of Bush (scary thought, I know), you would understand that the present administration has more "fundamentalist" (for lack of a better word) Christians than any in history. I think a largely overlooked motivation for this war is simply to control the Middle East for when "Jesus comes." The good property-owning Calvinist elect are American after all (its puritan heritage). I think Curious George has himself said that global warming and pollution don't matter because Jesus is coming any day now or something to that effect.
And Cheese: you speak as if the US single handedly won WWII, which is laughable. There was a lot of fighting long before they even joined the war, and war takes a toll on a nation no matter how strong they are. Germany took over 21 countries in a matter of two years. Don't you think they might have overextended themselves a bit? Never mind the breakdown in leadership, which is the deathblow to fascism: Hitler was entering the later stages of syphilis infection towards the end of the war, one of the symptoms of which is insanity.
Declassified American intelligence from the thirties have revealed that Hitler was a fan of American Football, and based his rally call-response styles on football games.
The first-hand accounts of WWII combat I have encountered have listed French Canadian and East Indian squads as the most infamously ferocious.
Last edited by Zoobot on Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:29 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| I am not delusional when I'm defending my home and family against lunatics. 9/11 was real and it will happen again to my home if lunatics are unspanked. |
And which branch of the military are you in, Chuck? |
Does it matter? |
Yes. Last I looked, teaching English in Korea didn't exactly qualify as defending your country. If you think it's that important, then go here. I'm sure they'd love to have you. |
Great, the idiot assault against the Right. 'If you aren't serving you're a hypocrite.' As if you wouldn't be crying fascism if to be eligible to vote for or against war or not you would have to be serving or had served.
P.S. I think Chuck E is a vet! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| I am not delusional when I'm defending my home and family against lunatics. 9/11 was real and it will happen again to my home if lunatics are unspanked. |
And which branch of the military are you in, Chuck? |
Does it matter? I don't have to validate my military service in Dave's. But you may ask me which military operations I was involved in. |
Yes. Last I looked, teaching English in Korea didn't exactly qualify as "defending your country". If you think it's that important, then go here. I'm sure they'd love to have you. |
You left out something there buddy boy. |
I'l take that as a "none". Which must mean you're not "defending your home and family." Thus the conditional "I am not delusional when I'm defending my home and family against lunatics" does not satisfy its condition. Ergo... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChuckECheese
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| I am not delusional when I'm defending my home and family against lunatics. 9/11 was real and it will happen again to my home if lunatics are unspanked. |
And which branch of the military are you in, Chuck? |
Does it matter? I don't have to validate my military service in Dave's. But you may ask me which military operations I was involved in. |
Yes. Last I looked, teaching English in Korea didn't exactly qualify as "defending your country". If you think it's that important, then go here. I'm sure they'd love to have you. |
You left out something there buddy boy. |
I'l take that as a "none". Which must mean you're not "defending your home and family." Thus the conditional "I am not delusional when I'm defending my home and family against lunatics" does not satisfy its condition. Ergo... |
I've done my active duty service and still under reserve status ready at any time. Does that satisfy you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Great, the idiot assault against the Right. 'If you aren't serving you're a hypocrite.' As if you wouldn't be crying fascism if to be eligible to vote for or against war or not you would have to be serving or had served.
P.S. I think Chuck E is a vet! |
If you want to compare the current situation with WWII then you should be serving like almost every ablebodied man in the 1940's did. So you're either not ablebodied, the situation is not like WWII, or you're either a hypocrite, or a pansy. Take your pick.
P.S. when did I ever cry fascism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
I've done my active duty service and still under reserve status ready at any time. Does that satisfy you? |
As long as you're satisfied with quitting before the job has been completed. I'm just glad my grandfather and grandmother had a little more dedication to the cause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChuckECheese
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Great, the idiot assault against the Right. 'If you aren't serving you're a hypocrite.' As if you wouldn't be crying fascism if to be eligible to vote for or against war or not you would have to be serving or had served.
P.S. I think Chuck E is a vet! |
If you want to compare the current situation with WWII then you should be serving like almost every ablebodied man in the 1940's did. So you're either not ablebodied, the situation is not like WWII, or you're either a hypocrite, or a pansy. Take your pick.
P.S. when did I ever cry fascism? |
You are true hypocrite. |
|
| 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
