|
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 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| By the way, I see direct language and not platitudes. |
I was referring to his proposed solutions, offered at the end of the speech. And I guess maybe "platitudinous" was the wrong word. More like "well, easier said than done at this point, pal." Admittedly, the factors which would compliate implementation of his proposals are not the creation of Mr. Brzezinski. |
I believe there are four central proposals.
| Quote: |
| 1. The United States should reaffirm explicitly and unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq in a reasonably short period of time. |
That seems entirely concrete and within the US' control. The only problem I have with this proposal is what should happen if the situation changes on the ground and we need to stay? US credibility in the ME doesn't need any more damage.
| Quote: |
| 2. The United States should announce that it is undertaking talks with the Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed, and the resulting setting of such a date should be announced as a joint decision. In the meantime, the U.S. should avoid military escalation. |
Again, entirely within American control...basically a timed withdrawal. It has to happen at some time, right? But where will our base in the ME be? I thought America invaded Iraq so it wouldn't have to station forces in Saudi Arabia. Minor quibble, I suppose, at this point.
| Quote: |
| 3. The United States should issue jointly with appropriate Iraqi leaders, or perhaps let the Iraqi leaders issue, an invitation to all neighbors of Iraq (and perhaps some other Muslim countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Pakistan) to engage in a dialogue regarding how best to enhance stability in Iraq in conjunction with U.S. military disengagement and to participate eventually in a conference regarding regional stability. |
Okay, and if we are going to withdraw we'll have to do this. But have we forgotten that the Saudi Arabian gov't, for instance, doesn't want an American withdrawal? (I did for a moment) Brzezinski was right to point out that Iran is beating us to the draw in creating a ME diplomatic forum. By withdrawing, we do in a way put the initiative back in our hands for diplomatic discussions, since it seems a timetable for withdrawal is a prerequisite to discussions with Iran.
| Quote: |
| 4. Concurrently, the United States should activate a credible and energetic effort to finally reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace, making it clear in the process as to what the basic parameters of such a final accommodation ought to involve. |
Ah, ha ha. Okay. There's the 'easier said than done, pal,' moment. This is reminiscient of the 'diplomatic offensive' proposal made by Baker and company a few months back, whereas most of the above proposals are more radical.
One thing that Brzezinski doesn't mention is Iran's development of nuclear weapons. Surely, he must know that various Sunni-majority state governments in the region, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Tunisia, have begun nuclear research programs. This is clearly not in response to Israel having nuclear weapons, or the Palestinians being oppressed. I see it as fundamentally essential that Iran not get nuclear weapons, which will be difficult considering Russian scientists and SAM batteries reside in Natanz. Nuclear weapons development in the region won't stop with Iran.
Brzezinski makes some strong points, however, but I find he's a bit too far in the realist camp for my liking. But what is he supposed to say in public? We should withdraw from Iraq to prepare ourselves against Iran's games?
| Gopher wrote: |
| Gang ah jee and Big_Bird, as you are in a mood to listen: there is a world of difference between (a) a friend who asks you to step aside to give you "a no-*beep*" on how you are going in the wrong direction and ought to mend your ways, or whatever [that is Marine-speak, by the way ]; and (b) a "friend" who resents you, who promotes the enemy's propaganda line in public, and who often and chronically angrily denounces you, etc. |
Gang ah jee looks to me like a strong (a). BB, well... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You may see yourself as (a). But are you sure your rhetoric is not much more (b) than (a)...? This is one of the reasons some of us dislike and mistrust Jane Fonda and Sean Penn's "antiwar" politics, for example.
|
But really, how deep is the divide between A and B? What Brzezinski said was...
| Quote: |
| This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state |
I could easily imagine Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, or some other Hollywood liberal referring to George Bush's rhetoric as "simplistic demagogery".
| Quote: |
| One should note here also that practically no country in the world shares the Manichean delusions that the Administration so passionately articulates. |
Hey America! The whole world knows your prez is delusional! Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!
| Quote: |
| Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. |
How far removed is this from saying "America is on the moral downslide with all these abuses and civilian casualties"?
I take Gopher's point about criticism offered by a genuine friend seeking to help you, vs. that offered by a false friend relishing your downfall. But in this case, the only real difference I see is that the anti-Americans frame their argument in terms of America being immoral, whereas Brzezinski frames his argument in terms of America acquiring a reputation for being immoral. Not sure how much of a difference there really is there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| ...the only real difference I see is that the anti-Americans frame their argument in terms of America being immoral, whereas Brzezinski frames his argument in terms of America acquiring a reputation for being immoral. Not sure how much of a difference there really is there. |
There is a difference, On the Other Hand. Perceptual and psychologically-derived, perhaps, but, ultimately as real as anything else nonetheless. You correctly point out that both (a) and (b) can, and in Brzezinski's case, do voice the same criticisms. But what about intent, On the Other Hand...? Have you accounted for intent?
"Your system is irredeemably corrupt, a police-state-style dictatorship ruled by the Antichrist, and you are a plague upon the Earth." vs. "Your system suffers some corruption, you have chosen a poor leader whose policies fall far short of optimal, and you and others are suffering for it. Change your ways before you make it worse." A world of difference.
And as I said, above...
| Gopher wrote: |
| I do not doubt for a nanosecond that Brzezinski offers such criticism, painful as it may be for some of us to hear, constructively and in order to help set things right, and not merely as a convenience and forceful pretext to ridicule, denounce, and/or pounce on the Great Satan, or better yet: the Great Scapegoat (again). |
Therefore I take no issue with Brzezinski's counsel.
Here is another way to say it: counseling America vs. siding against or taking steps to harm America or persistently and happily emphasizing her negative qualities above the good while doing the reverse for such actors as the Iranian or Venezuelan governments, for example,
And the others do not offer counsel, On the Other Hand. Unfortunate that you cannot see that. They offer something else. Call it what you will. See someone like Blum, Killing Hope, any Michael Moore film, or, better yet, the photos that show Edward W. Said literally throwing rocks at Israel or Cindy Sheehan embracing Hugo Chavez if that might help.
Are you telling me you do not recognize differences in motive and intent between Brzezinski on the one hand and Blum, Moore, Said, Sheehan, or Chavez on the other...? Would you expect to see Brzezinski denouncing W. Bush as 9/11's perpetrator, throwing rocks at Israel, or embracing Chavez? If not, how do you describe the difference...?
(Yes, I know: all of those I reference do not share all of those views uniformly. I think you follow me, however. These disclaimers truly annoy me.)
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah! |
Really, On the other hand, I am shocked and appalled at such language. I thought we only had one resident baby-talker here. What is next from you: "all fall down go boom...?" LOL.
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Feb 04, 2007 6:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:36 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| (Yes, I know: all of those I reference do not share all of those views uniformly. I think you follow me, however. These disclaimers truly annoy me.) |
(Pardon my pile of strawmen) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Few things are as predictable as Nowhere Man's inevitable appearance on a thread where I commment. His purpose: to play prosecutor interrogation games, looking for a slip, even if he must artificially create it, and, of course, to sneer as much as possible.
Nothing more to it than that. He actually has nothing to express here. His posts can mostly be reduced to this recurring thesis: he does not like what I post. Beyond that, he offers nothing to the debate. Been the pattern between he and I since I started posting here. He is not "Nowhere Man," then, inasmuch as "Nothing Man" or "Angry Man" -- another Dave's ESL Cafe rock-thrower. How novel.
By the way, Nothing Man/Angry Man, I did not employ the word "inevitable" randomly, above. Indeed, I just won a bet with another poster that treated the timing of your arrival and "the substance" of your post. Thanks for the $$$, mi amigo. (a) You came on board before I had posted ten posts, and (b) the entire content of your post was an attack against one of mine, shaped by your usual tone of voice. As I said, few things are as predictable...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
Consider:
| Quote: |
| "Your system is irredeemably corrupt, |
The thread where you justified Michael Brown's appointment as head of FEMA by comparing it to JFK appointing RFK Attorney General.
| Quote: |
| a police-state-style dictatorship |
The thread where you defended police tasering a handcuffed student.
| Quote: |
| ruled by the Antichrist |
Added by you for "emotional effect"
| Quote: |
| and you are a plague upon the Earth. |
Just plain pulled out of your ass.
Your view is cynical and shrill. You want people to calmly talk about the US while you sneeringly put words in their mouths and demonize them.
As for the original article, I agree, especially with paragraph two about myth-making in defense of US strategy in the Middle East. Nationalist, militarist types really eat that up.
(Disclaimer: I may or may not have said any part of the above and am free to contradict myself as I see fit.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Per usual, we have goofer trying to deflect the discussion with personal attacks. The hypocrisy pointed out by Nowhere man above should be noted by those that choose to interact with this arrogant idiot.
The hypocrisy is incredible. He whines about being followed onto the thread - as if ANYONE would do so? What an arrogant scumbag! And, yes, liars are scumbags. Trolls are scumbags. This punk is a scumbag. - and yet baits the joining of the thread by me. Fool.
And all he does is spout the same stupid bullshit every time.
Child.
Fall down, go "Boom!", indeed. Making fun of that statement, given its meaning, is idiotic. We ARE headed for a perfect storm: political chaos, economic chaos, ecological chaos, war. But all you can do is try to make fun of a phrase? Idiot.
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Sun Feb 04, 2007 6:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting thread being obscured by the pitter patter of little egos trading about on a message board. Jesus...
Anyway, Brezinski's points are well-taken... and obvious. We all know this already. It's a little pointless to be stating the obvious years after it became obvious. (For some of us it has always been.) Is it not time to actually talk about solutions?
And does it make any difference at all, except as self-absorbed mental gymnastics, to parse the difference between "you suck" and "you have made grave errors? While I once enjoyed such pointless discussion - and is it NOT pointless when the sides are set and are not going to change? - but no longer do. Why bother? There are real issues here: A government out of control and not enough political will, or willingness to take real action, to bring it back under control. Yes, the "new" congress is making some progress by acting as a road bump to the Bush Cadre's plans, but the powers of the presidency, particularly as expanded under this administration, leaves him the power to do as he wishes when it comes right down to it. So, the posturing of this congress will end up being just that if real actions are not taken.
Is there not only one real solution to this possible scenario of the entire Middle East embroiled in Armageddon? Removing this administration is the ONLY way to definitively prevent an attack or invasion of Iran. Given the powers of the presidency, how else can it be prevented, if that is, indeed, the aims of the Cadre?
But that is not going to happen, is it? So, barring that, it's all spitting in the wind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
OK. Gang ah jee and Big_Bird, as you are in a mood to listen: there is a world of difference between (a) a friend who asks you to step aside to give you "a no-*beep*" on how you are going in the wrong direction and ought to mend your ways, or whatever [that is Marine-speak, by the way  ]; and (b) a "friend" who resents you, who promotes the enemy's propaganda line in public, and who often and chronically angrily denounces you, etc.
I would suggest thinking long and hard about this. Probably the true source of our disagreements in this forum.
You may see yourself as (a). But are you sure your rhetoric is not much more (b) than (a)...? This is one of the reasons some of us dislike and mistrust Jane Fonda and Sean Penn's "antiwar" politics, for example.
And as with every other choice, this is merely a crude and simplistic dichotomy. But it serves its purpose. It illuminates my own and other's perspective on how some of this "criticism" is coming in... |
How about I have a friend called Sam. I quite like him, he speaks the same language as me (well, almost) and he has lots of cool CDs and DVDs round his place and is rather good fun to hang out with. At first he seems to have a lot of lofty ideals, which are quite impressive and I quite admire his philosophy. But as I get to know him better, I see that he is a bit of hypocrit, and doesn't always practice what he preaches. And I point it out to him sometimes, even though he doesn't much like to hear it. But I still like him, and have a good lark down the pub with him. Afterall, none of us is perfect, even if he likes to pretend he is. Occasionally there are rumours of him following some of his latino friends (and other aquaintances from various parts of the 3rd world) down back alleys, walloping them over their heads, bending them over and ...er...exploiting their natural resources. He also gets up to a bit of trouble making amongst his middle-eastern associates. I do discuss this scandal a bit with my friends (being the terrible gossip I am) and from time to time I say "come on Sam old chap, that's really not on you know"...but generally I have a bit of a history of being a thug myself, so I find we still get on rather well...especially when there's a good racket to be made out of it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Big_Bird: in the language you use in that analogy, not only does it sound to me like you do not like Sam much at all; but you sound as though you may not even like yourself.
How many friends do you keep who you describe that way (preachy hypocrite, bully, trouble-maker, rapist, thug who does not like what you have to say to him)? I do not understand what you seen in Sam that justifies your continuing to call him "friend." And, as for Sam, I am certain that he would easily pick up your vibes and not consider you much of a friend either.
That is, in my experience, at the end of the day, friends are usually friends because they like each other. If they do not, this does not necessarily make them hard-and-fast enemies so much as "just acquaintences" or "not friends." And, above, I see you protesting that you truly like Sam. But every time you get into specifics, it is clear that you detest him.
I think it is fine if you dislike Sam. Every word you speak about him tells me you want to disassociate yourself from him and his doings (as you see them, at least). Just be honest with yourself about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, sometimes my friend Sam doesn't always appreciate my "Limey humour," but generally after a few beers we're on the right track. And anyway, he's a bit bigger than me so I do my best not to get in any fights with him...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You know, it doesn't make any sense to me to describe individuals as being 'friends' with nation states. The analogy doesn't work at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| ...it doesn't make any sense to me... |
Apparently you missed the day when all of the "friendly critics" protested and disclaimed that they remained allies, theirs was only "friendly criticism," and so forth...
In any case, the analogy works fine. Analogies are not to be taken literally. And have you considered that it just might be that you are closed to it and that is why it makes no sense to you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| ...it doesn't make any sense to me... |
Apparently you missed the day when all of the "friendly critics" protested and disclaimed that they remained allies, theirs was only "friendly criticism," and so forth... |
An individual can't 'be friends' with a social construct, Gopher, which is why the analogy is so awkward. The US is an incredibly complex aggregation of people that as a whole I'm generally positively disposed (i.e. friendly) towards, but it makes no sense for me to describe my relationship with this concept in the binary terms of 'friend/not friend'.
But yeah, it doesn't matter. Rest assured that I spent the weekend searching my soul to discover exactly what kind of friend I am to the United States of America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| An individual can't 'be friends' with a social construct, Gopher, which is why the analogy is so awkward... |
But, generally, the people who use "social construct" reduce most things if not everything, including reality itself, to this description. Taken to its extreme, it would follow that one could not be friends or have a friendly attitude towards anything, then.
In any case, most people, even postmodernists, seem to clearly understand the so-called Special Relationship. I believe W. Bush and not a few of his predecessors have thanked London for its friendship, just as Clinton once thanked Bonn for the same thing.
At one point, at least to minimally function, we ought to consider tentatively accepting, even if only for purposes of practical communication, some conventions, Gang ah jee -- do you not agree?
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| ...it makes no sense for me to describe my relationship with this concept in the binary terms of 'friend/not friend'. |
LOL, Commander Data. That was why I placed a dislaimer in the text, above.
| Gopher wrote: |
| And as with every other choice, this is merely a crude and simplistic dichotomy. But it serves its purpose. It illuminates my own and other's perspective on how some of this "criticism" is coming in... |
|
|
| 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
