|
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 |
weso1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:38 pm Post subject: Re: How can liberals win on defense? |
 |
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| weso1 wrote: |
All of your articles are out of date.
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_19167357
None. Zero. Nada.
They're still discussing if some will return in 12 as trainers, but at this point, come Xmas, none will be there. Only a handful to protect the embassy. |
Actually according to your article MORE than 150 will be still be there. Which does not equate to "None, Zero Nada."
Also from your article:
| Quote: |
But negotiations will continue, and some of those troops might find themselves redeployed to Iraq in 2012 or beyond, a U.S. official said Friday. But the official, who spoke anonymously because the deliberations are meant to be confidential, said the talks will now center on arrangements that would begin next year, after all U.S. troops leave.
Possibilities being discussed are for some troops to come back in 2012, an option preferred by some Iraqi politicians who want to claim credit for ending what many here still call an occupation, even though legally it ended years ago.
Other scenarios being discussed include training in the United States, in a neighboring country such as Kuwait or having some U.S. troops come back under the auspices of NATO.
In the meantime, an agreement is in place to keep more than 150 Defense Department personnel, both military and civilian, in Iraq to secure the U.S. Embassy, manage military sales and carry out standard duties of a defense attach and office of security cooperation. They will operate under the authority of the State Department, which will be taking the leading role in Iraq. |
So first off you are simply incorrect in your claim that all the military is leaving.
Secondly the door is being left wide open for a return.
Both from YOUR article that you posted. |
It's so sad to see this. You just refuse to admit you were wrong.
I said only a few will be there for embassy protection. That's the 150+. Trust me, 150 is a few.
And the door is open to return in 12, I said that. But that doesn't mean they actually will return.
Wow, this is borderline pathetic to watch. How are you going to try and spin it this time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
itistime
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anyone who really believes that the troops are leaving with
the exception of 150+ should sign my online survey:
All I need is your bank acct #s, birth date, SSN, place of
birth, scan of your passport, blood sample and a small
suitcase full of unmarked bills dropped off at a location
in Seoul, to be disclosed in the near future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Liberals can't win on defense because Liberals believe:
1. US has no enemies. People hate the US because of something we must have done to them.
2. There is no need for defense. No Soviet Union, no Nazi Germans, nothing. Scrap our military and use that money for other things.
3. The rest of the world will help us. If something goes bad, everyone else will join hands and fight the evil together!
Its that kind of thinking that makes Liberals look weak on defense. Here is what Liberals need to understand:
1. The US has enemies. Whether their hatred is justified or not, they will stop at nothing to see the country fall.
2. We are in a more dangerous world than ever, in that our enemies are not so clearly identifiable. We need to stay 2 steps ahead of everyone else. Our military needs to be more advanced and smarter than the enemy's.
3. The rest of the world can not be counted on. The only country that will look out for US interests is the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Do you actually believe that if the US (proper) was attacked, that no nation would come to its aid? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weso1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Liberals can't win on defense because Liberals believe:
1. US has no enemies. People hate the US because of something we must have done to them. |
See, this is what I'm talking about. We don't think this. We all agree there are enemies in the world. For example, in the first part of the century we thought they were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. And we think the enemy is the Iranian government, not the Iranian people. Same for North Korea. And China, but neo cons are so far up the Chinese arse, they can't seem to see that.
| Quote: |
| 2. There is no need for defense. No Soviet Union, no Nazi Germans, nothing. Scrap our military and use that money for other things. |
There is a great need for defense. There just isn't a need for the F-22 to be built if we're already building the F-35 at a lower cost. There is no need to buy an extra engine for every F-35 we produce. There is no need to have C-17s when the C-5 does all that and is more durable and cheaper. There's no need for all the fat.
| Quote: |
| 3. The rest of the world will help us. If something goes bad, everyone else will join hands and fight the evil together! |
The rest of the world will help, if the cause is just. How many nations contributed blood and treasure to Afghanistan? Too many to count. How many got involved in Libya? If we went to North Korea tomorrow, do you think we'd go alone? Of course not.
Perhaps we should ask, if we're the only ones willing to go to war somewhere, is that war really justifiable? If we're the only ones willing to die for that cause, is that cause really worth dying for? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:10 am Post subject: Re: How can liberals win on defense? |
|
|
| weso1 wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| weso1 wrote: |
All of your articles are out of date.
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_19167357
None. Zero. Nada.
They're still discussing if some will return in 12 as trainers, but at this point, come Xmas, none will be there. Only a handful to protect the embassy. |
Actually according to your article MORE than 150 will be still be there. Which does not equate to "None, Zero Nada."
Also from your article:
| Quote: |
But negotiations will continue, and some of those troops might find themselves redeployed to Iraq in 2012 or beyond, a U.S. official said Friday. But the official, who spoke anonymously because the deliberations are meant to be confidential, said the talks will now center on arrangements that would begin next year, after all U.S. troops leave.
Possibilities being discussed are for some troops to come back in 2012, an option preferred by some Iraqi politicians who want to claim credit for ending what many here still call an occupation, even though legally it ended years ago.
Other scenarios being discussed include training in the United States, in a neighboring country such as Kuwait or having some U.S. troops come back under the auspices of NATO.
In the meantime, an agreement is in place to keep more than 150 Defense Department personnel, both military and civilian, in Iraq to secure the U.S. Embassy, manage military sales and carry out standard duties of a defense attach and office of security cooperation. They will operate under the authority of the State Department, which will be taking the leading role in Iraq. |
So first off you are simply incorrect in your claim that all the military is leaving.
Secondly the door is being left wide open for a return.
Both from YOUR article that you posted. |
It's so sad to see this. You just refuse to admit you were wrong.
I said only a few will be there for embassy protection. That's the 150+. Trust me, 150 is a few.
And the door is open to return in 12, I said that. But that doesn't mean they actually will return.
Wow, this is borderline pathetic to watch. How are you going to try and spin it this time? |
150 for the largest US embassy in the world. The article also notes they will be under the authority of the State Department and not the Department of Defense.
The SOFA expires at the end of this year and Iraq has declined to do a new one. Weso is correct: there will be no troops in Iraq after 12/31/11 (excluding the embassy). I'd say that the war is indeed over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| weso1 wrote: |
| Quote: |
Liberals can't win on defense because Liberals believe:
1. US has no enemies. People hate the US because of something we must have done to them. |
See, this is what I'm talking about. We don't think this. We all agree there are enemies in the world. For example, in the first part of the century we thought they were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. And we think the enemy is the Iranian government, not the Iranian people. Same for North Korea. And China, but neo cons are so far up the Chinese arse, they can't seem to see that.
| Quote: |
| 2. There is no need for defense. No Soviet Union, no Nazi Germans, nothing. Scrap our military and use that money for other things. |
There is a great need for defense. There just isn't a need for the F-22 to be built if we're already building the F-35 at a lower cost. There is no need to buy an extra engine for every F-35 we produce. There is no need to have C-17s when the C-5 does all that and is more durable and cheaper. There's no need for all the fat.
| Quote: |
| 3. The rest of the world will help us. If something goes bad, everyone else will join hands and fight the evil together! |
The rest of the world will help, if the cause is just. How many nations contributed blood and treasure to Afghanistan? Too many to count. How many got involved in Libya? If we went to North Korea tomorrow, do you think we'd go alone? Of course not.
Perhaps we should ask, if we're the only ones willing to go to war somewhere, is that war really justifiable? If we're the only ones willing to die for that cause, is that cause really worth dying for? |
Agreed, although all you had to do was ask pkang for examples of any liberal politicians saying anything along the lines he claims liberals believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:52 am Post subject: Re: How can liberals win on defense? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
Liberals can't win on defense because Liberals believe:
1. US has no enemies. People hate the US because of something we must have done to them.
2. There is no need for defense. No Soviet Union, no Nazi Germans, nothing. Scrap our military and use that money for other things.
3. The rest of the world will help us. If something goes bad, everyone else will join hands and fight the evil together!
Its that kind of thinking that makes Liberals look weak on defense. Here is what Liberals need to understand:
1. The US has enemies. Whether their hatred is justified or not, they will stop at nothing to see the country fall.
2. We are in a more dangerous world than ever, in that our enemies are not so clearly identifiable. We need to stay 2 steps ahead of everyone else. Our military needs to be more advanced and smarter than the enemy's.
3. The rest of the world can not be counted on. The only country that will look out for US interests is the US. |
minus 10 points to Slytherin. See what I mean about marketing? Its amazing some conservatives or rather anti-liberals actually believe this stuff. As if its the cornerstone thinkng of those who are politically liberal. I've voted Republican in the past, I'm an independent officially. Its these types of conserative that scare me and keep me from supporting their party in elections.
As for the other posts about the thread. 150 is splitting hairs. Its essentially zero for all intent and purposes compared to what we had before. Its a token amount.
The defense budget has been woefully bloated for years and years. There have been well over a trillion that has disappeared in that department over the years.
The fact is the Republicans are beholden to the military industrial complex that fund their campaigns and have successfully marketed a tough defense stance to the rest of us. The Dems have their groups as well (unions for example).
It was a Democrat that dragged the country and the conservatives at the time who wanted an isolationist America kicking and fighting into World War II, a morally just war by all accounts. It was a Demcorat who led us into World War I before it.
There needs to be a balance. I would hate to see a totally conservative or liberal America. Either extreme would be detrimental. As for the anti Liberal clap trap, it was the liberals of their day (called progressives then) that marked all the great social progression of America. The abololiontis movement that wanted to end slavery, women suffragist movemen giving women the right to vote, the civil rights movement to end Jim Crow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:21 pm Post subject: Re: How can liberals win on defense? |
|
|
| weso1 wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| weso1 wrote: |
y.
President Obama has handled a responsible end to the war in Iraq, |
It's still on-going. |
Literally, every single member of the US military will be out by Xmas. Not just the combat troops. Every single one will be out in just a few weeks. It's over. |
This was your original claim. You said nothing about 150 troops remaining.
You clearly said " LITERALLY, EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE US MILITARY WILL BE OUT BY XMAS"
That was incorrect.
(capitals are mine) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weso1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:26 pm Post subject: Re: How can liberals win on defense? |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| weso1 wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| weso1 wrote: |
y.
President Obama has handled a responsible end to the war in Iraq, |
It's still on-going. |
Literally, every single member of the US military will be out by Xmas. Not just the combat troops. Every single one will be out in just a few weeks. It's over. |
This was your original claim. You said nothing about 150 troops remaining.
You clearly said " LITERALLY, EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE US MILITARY WILL BE OUT BY XMAS"
That was incorrect.
(capitals are mine) |
Oh God |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was the Democratic Party that oversaw World War I, World War II and the Korean War.
The Deomocratic party has always been the Internationalist party and the party of the military and the Republicans have always been isolationists...
...unitl the Vietnam War...(a war started and mostly run by Democrats but finished by a Republican)
That was a game changer. It totally messed with Democrats heads and it still does.
Ronald Reagan ran as soneone who could revitalize the U.S. military and that America should play the key role in the world's affairs. It completely changed the way the parties were viewed.
Clinton did a good job to regain internationalism as a key Democratic party value. Obama has really returned the Democratic Party back to its roots as the most pragmatic party in terms of internationalism and military strategy.
The cycle changes. Bush did a number on the Republican Party. Look at their candidates. Its a mess. And, the Iraq War is going to be as debated as the Vietnam War - flip it around - Iraq was started and managed by Republicans and it took a Democrat to finish it.
Obama has to run on his foreign policy successes because he is the President. And, he has to blame domestic problems on Congress because they are the Congress. This will be a great test of Obama's leadership. 2012 is an election he can win if he plays his cards right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My personal opinion is that Obama made mistakes but he may be a bit chastened and if he wins will be a much better president in his 2nd term. No proof he will be just my gut feeling.
I have absolutely no faith in Romney who will likely win the nomination. If he wins and the economy turns around it will be because of the natural cycle. I see nothing but the old Republican mantra, cut taxes for the rich, cut spending, etc. that he stands for.
If Paul or Hunstman were the nominee I'd be more impressed. |
|
| 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
