|
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 |
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| Indeed, there's nothing wrong with the vid at all. And I fail to see why Gingrich is scaremongering at all. Scaremongering with the truth? |
You have a much greater chance of dying from septicemia than you do of dying at the hands of a terrorist. How worried are you about septicemia?
To compare a rag-tag bunch of haters to the Nazi war machine is indicative that one doesn't have a realistic understanding of history.
|
Ther Nazi war machine never had the bomb. Would you like Iran to have one?
And septicemia can be cured with antibiotics. What do you suggest be done about Muslims flooding our shores? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| Indeed, there's nothing wrong with the vid at all. And I fail to see why Gingrich is scaremongering at all. Scaremongering with the truth? |
You have a much greater chance of dying from septicemia than you do of dying at the hands of a terrorist. How worried are you about septicemia? |
A is more dangerous than B, so don't worry about B. You've more chance of dying via heart disease than cancer, so why worry about cancer?  Go and tell the millions of cancer sufferers that they should've been more worried about heart disease. Go and tell 9/11 and 7/7 families your vulgar little quip about septicemia.
I'm not particularly worried about personally dying via septicemia nor via terrorism, but how informative is that? Not very. I don't want to see a crackpot theocracy nor the parasitic Al Queda forces acquire nuclear weapons and we should take preemptive measures to stop it, because once it happens and we just sat around and let it, we're in deep poo-poo.
| Huffdaddy wrote: |
| To compare a rag-tag bunch of haters to the Nazi war machine is indicative that one doesn't have a realistic understanding of history. |
Let's have a look at the context of the Nazi quote: "I finished a novel recently called Pearl Harbor. You look at the Second World War, from December 7th 1941 to August 14th 1945 - less than 4 years. In less than 4 years we defeated Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. Today it takes 23 years to add a fifth runway to the Atlanta airport".
That was part of the "not prepared today to be a serious country" remark which I don't like either, but clearly he's not making any comparison between extreme Islam and Nazi Germany (although he should, because the Abrahamic religions, Islam especially, are the severest conceptions of totalitarianism ever dreamt up). He's emphasizing the speed and efficiency of past victories and the dangerous sluggishness of the present. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, huffdaddy. Pausing it helped.
I enjoyed the irony of Newt, the man who allied with the Christian Right to gain power, commenting on how religiously driven people don't operate the way the rest of us do.
Why have there been no more attacks on US soil since 9/11? Is it because 'they' haven't tried? I doubt it. I'm convinced that part of the 'war on terror' is being handled precisely the way it should be-- through intelligence gathering and secret operations that are not, and should not be, broadcast on the evening news. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| Indeed, there's nothing wrong with the vid at all. And I fail to see why Gingrich is scaremongering at all. Scaremongering with the truth? |
You have a much greater chance of dying from septicemia than you do of dying at the hands of a terrorist. How worried are you about septicemia?
To compare a rag-tag bunch of haters to the Nazi war machine is indicative that one doesn't have a realistic understanding of history.
To Ya-Ta: Pause it and let the video load first. Then play. |
Well they put a big hit on the US mainland something the US did not suffer during either WW II or the cold war.
And at any rate the enemy here is very cruel , very crazy , very ruthless, and they are not planning on changing their ways anytime soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
The audio is just awful. I couldn't watch more than a couple of minutes. From what little I heard (up to where he has grandchildren and South Koreans in Afghanistan), he's just scare-mongering. Same typical nonsense we had during the Cold War.
Solution: fight smart. |
late. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
Ther Nazi war machine never had the bomb. Would you like Iran to have one? |
Would it be any worse than India, Pakistan, China, or Israel having it? I think the US still has sufficient deterrence to stop them from using it.
| Quote: |
| And septicemia can be cured with antibiotics. |
Then why are so many people dying from it? Where's the outcry? The uproar from our elected leaders?
| Quote: |
| What do you suggest be done about Muslims flooding our shores? |
2-3% of the population is a flood? How about doing the same thing we did to the Irish?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
Ther Nazi war machine never had the bomb. Would you like Iran to have one? |
Would it be any worse than India, Pakistan, China, or Israel having it? I think the US still has sufficient deterrence to stop them from using it.
|
I'm currently not uptight about India, China and Israel having the bomb. I am very concerned about Pakistan, as it could be sliding into a political toilet (Musharraf sucked, but at least he kept the lid on things - although I understand the argument that dictators fuel extremism).
Iran should NOT have the capacity to produce nuclear weapons. They are a proven sponsor of terrorism with a messianic president who spouts apocolyptic rhetoric left and right.
Let me ask you: Do you think a nuclear-armed Iran is okay? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
Ther Nazi war machine never had the bomb. Would you like Iran to have one? |
Would it be any worse than India, Pakistan, China, or Israel having it? I think the US still has sufficient deterrence to stop them from using it.
|
Yes, it would be worse. Now, please answer the question, would you like Iran to have a nuclear weapon? Yes or no?
| Quote: |
| Then why are so many people dying from it [septicemia]? Where's the outcry? The uproar from our elected leaders? |
When diseases move into countries and attempt to overthrow and supplant their institutions, please give me a call.
| Quote: |
| 2-3% of the population is a flood? |
France and the Netherlands have 8.5% and 5% Muslim population respectively. They also have the most problems with Muslims.
Denmark's Muslim population is at 2% and we know the sh*t the Danes are forced to endure.
I have asked you before, what do we gain by raising that number? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
Yes, it would be worse. Now, please answer the question, would you like Iran to have a nuclear weapon? Yes or no? |
Would I like it? Why would I like anyone having nuclear weapons?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Then why are so many people dying from it? Where's the outcry? The uproar from our elected leaders? |
When diseases move into countries and attempt to overthrow and supplant their institutions, please give me a call. |
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Iran? Terrorists? Muslims? I can't answer to a constantly moving target.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| 2-3% of the population is a flood? |
France and the Netherlands have 8.5% and 5% Muslim population respectively. They also have the most problems with Muslims. I have asked you before, what do we gain by raising that number? |
I'm neither French nor Dutch. Are you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
Yes, it would be worse. Now, please answer the question, would you like Iran to have a nuclear weapon? Yes or no? |
Would I like it? Why would I like anyone having nuclear weapons?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Then why are so many people dying from it? Where's the outcry? The uproar from our elected leaders? |
When diseases move into countries and attempt to overthrow and supplant their institutions, please give me a call. |
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Iran? Terrorists? Muslims? I can't answer to a constantly moving target.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| 2-3% of the population is a flood? |
France and the Netherlands have 8.5% and 5% Muslim population respectively. They also have the most problems with Muslims. I have asked you before, what do we gain by raising that number? |
I'm neither French nor Dutch. Are you? |
Do you think Iran should have a nuclear weapon? Yes or no. Your hippy answer does not satisfy me.
Why do you downplay Islamic terrorism/immigration? Do you believe it is a good thing for the West? Yes or no. (I was talking about Muslim immigration and the problems that stem from it. I apologise for the confusion. But, let's be honest huff, your little septicemia red herring was a bit lame. ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentX
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Location: Jeolla province
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
This video is old; the NIE report came out long after this.
I'd prefer it if Iran did not have a nuclear weapon, but I'd rather have them with a bomb than the Bush Admin launching an attack on them. They're the lesser of 2 evils.
They sponsor terrorists, so do we.
They sponsor insurgents in Iraq, so do we.
They are committed to the destruction of Israel, so (it seems) are we.
They're run by religious zealots, so are we.
Personally, I wouldn't mind more Muslims in the US. Maybe that'll cut down on some of the Islamophobia that's running rampant.
Gingrich says
| Quote: |
| They are spreading their poison by sermons. By the internet, by a variety of recruiting devices. |
Sounds like the Christian Fundamentalist Movement to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Any analysis of Newt Gingrich's remarks about the Middle East should keep in mind that he was one of the principal architects -- along with Don Rumsfeld, who was fired for the same sins -- of the administration's disastrous post-invasion Iraq game plan in 2003. Then he turned around and denounced his former cronies in December of that year, when it was obvious the occupation had gone off the rails.
Gingrich is the perpetual enfant terrible of the GOP, a man who can spout "10 ideas a day, nine of which will be preposterous, one of which will be good", according to Larry Wilkerson. I'm not even sure about the "one", myself; I can't remember Gingrich ever having a single good idea, certainly not when it comes to Middle East foreign policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
about the NIE report
| Quote: |
Iranian Nuclear Rewrite
February 8, 2008; Page A16
Give Admiral Michael McConnell credit for trying to walk back the cat. Questioned this week by the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Director of National Intelligence defended the "integrity and the professionalism" of the process that produced last December's stunning National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program. Yet his testimony amounts to a reversal of the previous judgment.
The December NIE made headlines the world over for its "key judgment" that in 2003 "Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programs" -- programs that previously had been conducted in secret and in violation of Iran's Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obligations.
This was a "high confidence" judgment, though the intelligence community had only "moderate confidence" that the program hasn't since been restarted. The NIE also waded into speculative political and policy judgments, such as that "Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs."
So it was little wonder that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quickly called the NIE a "declaration of victory" for Iran's nuclear programs. Diplomatic efforts to pass a third round of U.N. economic sanctions ground to a crawl, though another weak draft resolution is currently making the rounds. Russia decided to ship nuclear fuel to the reactor it has built for Iran at Bushehr, a move it had previously postponed for months and which has worrisome proliferation risks.
Elsewhere, the NIE complicated U.S. efforts to deploy an antiballistic-missile shield in Central Europe. The Israelis worried that the report signaled the death of American seriousness on Iran, possibly requiring them to act alone. At home, Democrats used the NIE to accuse the Administration of hyping intelligence. "It's absolutely clear and eerily similar to what we saw with Iraq," said John Edwards.
Now Admiral McConnell is clearly trying to repair the damage, even if he can't say so directly. "I think I would change the way that we described [the] nuclear program," he admitted to Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) during the hearing, adding that weapon design and weaponization were "the least significant portion" of a nuclear weapons program.
He expressed some regret that the authors of the NIE had left it to a footnote to explain that the NIE's definition of "nuclear weapons program" meant only its design and weaponization and excluded its uranium enrichment. And he agreed with Mr. Bayh's statement that it would be "very difficult" for the U.S. to know if Iran had recommenced weaponization work, and that "given their industrial and technological capabilities, they are likely to be successful" in building a bomb.
The Admiral went even further in his written statement. Gone is the NIE's palaver about the cost-benefit approach or the sticks-and-carrots by which the mullahs may be induced to behave. Instead, the new assessment stresses that Iran continues to press ahead on enrichment, "the most difficult challenge in nuclear production." It notes that "Iran's efforts to perfect ballistic missiles that can reach North Africa and Europe also continue" -- a key component of a nuclear weapons capability.
Then there is the other side of WMD: "We assess that Tehran maintains dual-use facilities intended to produce CW [Chemical Warfare] agent in times of need and conducts research that may have offensive applications." Ditto for biological weapons, where "Iran has previously conducted offensive BW agent research and development," and "continues to seek dual-use technologies that could be used for biological warfare."
All this merely confirms what has long been obvious about Iran's intentions. No less importantly, his testimony underscores the extent to which the first NIE was at best a PR fiasco, at worst a revolt by intelligence analysts seeking to undermine current U.S. policy. As we reported at the time, the NIE was largely the work of State Department alumni with track records as "hyperpartisan anti-Bush officials," according to an intelligence source. They did their job too well. As Senator Bayh pointed out at the hearing, the NIE "had unintended consequences that, in my own view, are damaging to the national security interests of our country." Mr. Bayh is not a neocon.
Admiral McConnell's belated damage repair ought to refocus world attention on Iran's very real nuclear threat. Too bad his NIE rewrite won't get anywhere near the media attention that the first draft did. |
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB120243182629452341.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There's some real Klogic going on here. Why doesn't anyone in the world except a few Iranians want the Iranians to have the Bomb? Because they might use it. So the proposed solution? Bomb Tehran and kill a couple of hundred thousand Iranians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| There's some real Klogic going on here. Why doesn't anyone in the world except a few Iranians want the Iranians to have the Bomb? Because they might use it. So the proposed solution? Bomb Tehran and kill a couple of hundred thousand Iranians. |
That is not the right solution.
The correct solution is to match Iran's attempts at trying to alternate the strategic ballance. Iran can have nuclear weapons but they can not be allowed the strategic benefits of having nuclear weapons. |
|
| 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
