|
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 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| My point would be that Bush wanted war... |
There is not the slightest doubt about this point. You would assign them more competency in arranging things than they deserve, however.
Don't assume that any govt knows what it is doing, or is master of anything it may survey, esp. this govt of Keystone Kops that was talking about a Special Forces limited war against China over a spy plane incident in summer 2001.
In any case, I need to see direct evidence that someone besides bin Laden planned and executed 9/11. This officer doesn't have much more than "circumstantial this" or "circumstantial that." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:19 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
OK.
But.
Who are "they" jumping off a cliff?
Do you plan to answer that question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Who are "they" jumping off a cliff? |
It's a figure of speech. An expression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:39 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Fair enough.
But who are you speaking of?
Figuratively, of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:19 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
So, is that a "NO"?
You can't explain who's "jumping off a cliff"?
And we are talking figuratively. No cause to call the police, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
No cause to call the police.
You're just a little too anxious for me to be more specific, Brer Fox. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:52 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Sorry, I am a bit dim.
Your answer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:36 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A Palestinian leader who revealed President Bush's claim to be on first-name terms with God - who told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan - today conceded that the comment was a figure of speech. |
No comment on your figure? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:44 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| A Palestinian leader who revealed President Bush's claim to be on first-name terms with God - who told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan - today conceded that the comment was a figure of speech. |
No comment on your figure? |
Sarcasm doesn't change the fact that you're comparing apples and oranges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:54 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
What am I comparing?
I'm talking about someone being brought up before the 9/11 commitee and having their security clearance cancelled the day before.
You are occupying the position you've staked out for yourself:
Talking down to me about how touchy-feely security clearances are because you were a marine.
Of course, that's ignoring the timing of all this: the day before he was going to testify.
You're simply pulling rank based on that and go on to proclaim that you don't think he's being harassed.
Why?
Are you honestly suggesting that this man's stealing of pens didn't come to the attention of the Pentagon until the DAY BEFORE he was to testify? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do you have any direct evidence that supports his lawyer's claim that this is harassment or do you just like the way that it sounds because it conforms to your ideological inclinations about the U.S. govt?
And no matter how directly I worded it, I did not intend to "talk down to you" about the security clearances issue. My apologies if you believe that was so.
In any case, they have done what you suggest they might be doing before: Eisenhower revoked Oppenheimer's clearance, even said he had "a personality disorder" or "a character disorder," I don't recall which, when he objected to Pentagon plans to develop the hydrogen bomb...
there is direct evidence for that, however. There is only circumstantial evidence for what you and this officer's lawyer allege, at least at the moment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:30 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Do you have any direct evidence that supports his lawyer's claim that this is harassment or do you just like the way that it sounds because it conforms to your ideological inclinations about the U.S. govt? |
Gopher,
I strongly believe that, if we are to properly have undergraduate education anywhere, all students should be required to take a course in logic.
Higher education would benefit substantially from such a move and you wouldn't find yourself in a master's program where some dumbcluck says he hates Marxism and your prof proves that he needs evidence and a reason for such belief.
I have no evidence that it's not harassment. The evidence here is timing. The day before someone testifies, their clearance is revoked on petty charges. You write this off as puritanical interpretation of sec. clearances and IGNORE the timing.
I haven't proven harassment, but you, in light of damning circumstantial evidence, are suggesting it doesn't exist.
More than that, you are accusing me of bias. You are accusing me of having an agenda.
Whose position does the evidence support?
On the other hand, you treat people on this board as such with forked arguments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Do you have any direct evidence that supports his lawyer's claim that this is harassment or do you just like the way that it sounds because it conforms to your ideological inclinations about the U.S. govt? |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
I strongly believe that, if we are to properly have undergraduate education anywhere, all students should be required to take a course in logic.
Higher education would benefit substantially from such a move and you wouldn't find yourself in a master's program where some dumbcluck says he hates Marxism and your prof proves that he needs evidence and a reason for such belief. |
That's all very nice. But whatever it is you're trying to say here has no bearing on the issue at hand.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| I have no evidence that it's not harassment. |
That is a good sign, since it is impossible to prove a negative.
As you know, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of he who makes a claim. And if someone -- like our officer's lawyer and you -- asset that it is harassment, then the burden is on you to offer direct evidence showing how this is so.
Failing to do that, your claim would be invalid.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| The evidence here is timing. The day before someone testifies, their clearance is revoked on petty charges. |
Also known as "circumstantial evidence." If that is all that there is, it is a very weak argument. At best, it could be harassment. But it could be other things as well.
As I said earlier, they've been subjecting people who need security clearances to this pettiness since the Eisenhower Administration. They didn't invent it for this guy.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| I haven't proven harassment, but you, in light of damning circumstantial evidence, are suggesting it doesn't exist. |
Absolutely not. I'm saying that neither you nor his lawyer have cited sufficient evidence to back up this claim. Saying that your claim is not valid is not the same thing as saying that another claim is valid.
Maybe it is; maybe it isn't. If I'm going to agree that it indeed is, I need to see evidence showing how it is so, particularly needed is evidence that establishes their intent to harass him.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| More than that, you are accusing me of bias. You are accusing me of having an agenda. |
I accused you of nothing. I asked you a question that apparently made you uncomfortable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 8:19 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Cool. Got it.
| Quote: |
| Do you have any direct evidence that supports his lawyer's claim that this is harassment or do you just like the way that it sounds because it conforms to your ideological inclinations about the U.S. govt? |
Have you, Gopher, not accused others of black/white, either/or "ideolology"?
This IS a forked argument.
| Quote: |
| I accused you of nothing. I asked you a question that apparently made you uncomfortable. |
OK. Fair enough. Let us do a bit of rewind:
Did agents of the US government provide small-pox infected blankets to American Indians?
Did agents of the Canadian government do such a thing?
Did the School of the Americas teach torture?
Did the US support Pinochet?
Did Columbus's envoys rape and murder?
Did George Bush joke about his inability to find WMD while people were dying to accomplish hat now appears to have been an empty mission?
Since it's "just a question", no, I have no problem wondering if I make my statements on this board for ideological purposes.
By your own argument, it would be hard to pin someone as ideological. However, we have you, on this forum, :
-defending Bush for Katrina
-defending Bush for joking while he sent people to die
-defending Columbus
-defending "America" against Canadian critics
-defending "America"against internal critics
-defending the Pentagon
-Defending the CIA's behavior in Central and South America
WOW! That is a whole boatload of bananas you're carrying.
BUT, in addition to all of that, you're parading around objectivity as a premise and sew all of your detractors up as "biased" against the US.
Sorry, but anyone so inclined to indulge in such conveniences has been cheated out of a proper MA.
You really have no concept of subjectivity.
You've proven that again and again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Let us do a bit of rewind... |
Your recitation of my "positions" is getting old. "Let us rewind" is your fallback position everytime you cannot present evidence.
Nevertheless, you at least offer an opportunity to review all of my previous positions, so I'll try to set the record straight one more time...
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Did agents of the US government provide small-pox infected blankets to American Indians? |
No. This is myth.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Did agents of the Canadian government do such a thing? |
I don't know.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Did the School of the Americas teach torture? |
Someone asked me what I thought of the School of the Americas in a thead expressly created to seek my views. I answered that this school should be closed and the U.S. should not be associating itself with Latin American military institutions, as this association is a liability more than it is an asset.
This answer somehow provoked a series of emotional attacks against my views that went on for a dozen or so pages.
The School of the Americas emerged in the context of an era of violent revolution and reaction, where Castro-trained and -supported rural and urban guerrilla movements were shaking the foundations of many Latin American states, some of them allies, some of them not. The Soviets, too, were very much involved in events in Chile, Peru, and later, Central America.
Other movements, entirely homegrown, particularly in the '80s and '90s, wedded the guerrillas with the narcotraffickers, particularly in Colombia and Peru, and this made for extremely well-financed military threats in these and other countries.
The U.S. felt its position in the hemisphere was at stake and the School of the Americas was merely one component of an overarching "counterinsurgency" doctrine, which, in turn, was merely one component of Kennedy's Alliance for Progress -- his and Johnson's overall regional response to the Cuban Revolution and its reverberations.
The Alliance (democratization, modernization, economic and military aid, "civic action," and counterinsurgency) aimed to innoculate Latin America against Communist revolution. It was supposed to be Latin America's Marshall Plan. But, as you know, things don't ever go as planned, and this effort failed.
In this context of extreme effort and investment, and dangerous instability, there were heroic deeds and villanous deeds perpetrated by both sides. So yes, the School of the Americas taught controversial and ethically questionable interrogation techniques, as one part of a much larger curriculum, and, between 1960 and 1990, this included torture.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Did the US support Pinochet? |
According to CIA's statement in the 18 Sept. 2000 "Hinchey Report":
"Although CIA did not instigate the coup that ended Allende's government on 11 September 1973, it was aware of coup-plotting by the military, had ongoing intelligence collection relationships with some plotters, and -- because CIA did not discourage the takeover and had sought to instigate a coup in 1970 -- probably appeared to condone it...CIA supported the military Junta�but did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency."
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Did Columbus's envoys rape and murder? |
Who are "Columbus's envoys"?
Regardless, some Spaniards raped and murdered natives -- this is the substance of the so-called Black Legend and related allegations.
However, other Spaniards, namely those associated with Las Casas, protected and defended natives. Likewise, although some natives resisted colonization and related abuse, other natives were stepping all over themselves to sell each other out.
In any case, historians like Steve Stern moved beyond the "language of blame" over twenty-five years ago. And judging this historical time according to today's moral and ethical and politically correct standards is ridiculous -- particularly where much of their behavior was legal, and based on traditions they carried with them from the 700-year Reconquest of Spain. One document that comes immediately to mind was the Requerimiemto.
Here, I found an English-language translation for your perusal...
http://www.dickinson.edu/~borges/Resources-Requerimiento.htm
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Did George Bush joke about his inability to find WMD while people were dying to accomplish hat [sic] now appears to have been an empty mission? |
We saw video of an excerpt of Bush's speech at a roast -- attended by (and laughed at by) leading politicians from both sides of the aisle -- where non-contemporaneous imagery was superimposed over his remarks to manipulate our emotions.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| defending Bush for Katrina |
Not quite. It is unfair to blame Bush for the damage Katrina wrought. This notwithstanding, Bush was part of an overall slow and inadequate response to the disaster and can be faulted for this.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| defending "America" against Canadian critics |
You may like their attacks against the U.S. for not being as morally pure as Canada, but that doesn't mean that many of the Canadians here don't have a pretty obvious (and annoying) chip on their shoulder when it comes to the United States. Indeed, some of them obsess on the comparison.
Pointing out that they carry this chip on their shoulder may make you unhappy, because you apparently carry a similar chip on your shoulder, but there's little I can do about that.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| defending "America"against internal critics |
Pointing out that there is complexity in the conveniently simplistic laundry list of terrible crimes and attrocities that you and other anti-American Americans and anti-American Canadians say the Great Satan has afflicted onto the rest of the world with is not defending America.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| defending the Pentagon |
Pointing out that you are relying on your own cynical anti-govt views and pure circumstantial evidence in this thread is not defending the Pentagon.
So, do you or do you not have any direct evidence to bring to bear on this issue?
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Defending the CIA's behavior in Central and South America |
Not so. Merely echoing Chilean Professor Fermandois's remarks on people like you who hang all of these unfortunate events on the CIA's neck without acknowledging other global actors, regional actors, and local actors and conditions who made at least equal contributions to these outcomes.
The events CIA was involved in were quite complex, then, and, the Agency has simply received a bad rap. It has, among other things, been overestimated in its effectivness, for example. In 1975, the Church Committee concluded and stated that U.S. and CIA officials had exaggerated notions about their abilities to control coup plotters or influence coups in the Congo, Havana, Little Havana, Saigon, Santo Domingo, and Santiago de Chile.
Fermandois sheds additional light on why we have been presented with such a U.S.-centric historiography:
"Anti-imperialism or 'anti-North Americanism' has been a powerful motor of Latin American politics and its vision of the world. In Chile all political forces and ideas have either been pro- or anti-North American at different times during the 20th century. All have asked for North American intervention or something like it at one moment or another, and obviously not at the same time...
Anti-imperialism has been a favourite recurring weapon in public politics in Latin America. Underlying this is the thesis that the United States is the principal culprit for the general problems of societies south of the Rio Grande. This has been the El Dorado of the anti-Establishment forces of the region, although it also has planetary explanations in that the United States arose as the global power during the course of the 20th century. Certainly it is the emotion that dominates every 'conspiracy theory,' at the moment of taking sides, not only regarding inter-American relations but also regarding any type of diagnosis of our societies. We believe we have found the thread of the plot that leads to the culprit, to the puppet master sprawled on his chair in some large North American city...
To reason in this manner is completely puerile: it is also as puerile to maintain that 'the CIA overthrew Allende' as it is to say that the United States had nothing to do with it or that Cuba (and the Soviet Union) did not play a role..."
http://www.cepchile.cl/dms/lang_2/doc_3236.html |
|
| 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
