Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Jimmy Carter: Gatsby's Type of President

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Jimmy Carter: Gatsby's Type of President
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:35 am Post subject:

"huffdaddy"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Sure but from but Khomeni coming to power was on par with the Soviet Revolution

Quote:

Again with the hyperbole. As bad as you may assess radical Islam to be, Khomeini was only a small part of the problem. The most visible part, but really, only the tip of the iceberg. Take a look and the root causes and processes leading up to him and since then. It didn't just happen in the 4 years of Carter's Presidency.

He was a huge part of it. the first regime of its kind. A true enemy of the US with a revolutionary agenda. Not to mention that he replaced the #1 US ally in the region. Khomeni never meant just to stay at home.

In 1978 there was one strategic map and in 1979 there was another.

If a building falls, or bridge collapses you think of when it fell as when it happened . While it maybe a good idea to look at the history and the circumstances . When it happened is when it did.

Besides Carter had no business weakening the Shah ,

Worse than that Khomeni was easy to get to while he was outside of Iran and when he was on his way to Iran.

You would have thought that Carter would have at least had the sense to ask France to hold Khomeni. But Carter and his people thought that Khomeni was a saint. a holy man and someone like Gahndi. But that is the way liberal democrats operate.

Quote:

Khomeni and his followers crush resistance .

Quote:

I guess 2% is easier than 98%.

Everyone was whipped up into a frenzy.

Not 98% of the people who voted wanted someone like Khomeni moreover Iranian elections aren't free.

Quote:

Yes, and it was a foreign policy failure to not recognize its importance. Reagan left Afghanistan a failed state and we paid for it on 9/11.

I think it was Bush and Clinton who left Afghanistan.

But killing Khomeni was easier than taking care of Afghanistan and their was no good reason for Carter to pressure the Shah.

Quote:

Sure Joo. So what your saying is that Carter was the only liberal President of the 20th century. Righto. FDR not a liberal. That's blasphemy were I come from.

Exactly,FDR built the atomic bomb. Kennedy challenged the Soviets.

Jimmy Carter wimped out with Iran and the Soviets.

Nowadays the peace movement is against the US investing in game changing weapons.

FDR and Kennedy weren't against game changing weapons.

Liberals are against game changing weapons -which is stupid since Iran is investing in them.

They think the US can just talk to Iran w/o having leverage.

Nothing wrong with talking words are free but with no leverage Iran is going to keep doing what they have been.

Quote:

I see the problem. You don't believe in free will. You think there's a consortium of liberals pulling everyone along on strings. I guess it's better than the New World Order believers, or the Jewish Zionist conspiracists. On second though, it's pretty much just as crazy

.

No I think religious authorities can be misled . I don't think they have any particular foreign policy expertise. Despite the fact that they don't have any expertise they can influence a lot of people.

US culture isn't the main reason for 9-11 but it is somewhere among the reasons why Bin Laden hates the US[/quote][/quote]

Quote:

So you're blaming the media for what bin Laden did? Does the other side of your mouth know about that?

Uh no - but I bet American pop culture is somewhere among his reasons for hating the US.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:56 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

If a building falls, or bridge collapses you think of when it fell as when it happened . While it maybe a good idea to look at the history and the circumstances . When it happened is when it did.

Good analogy. The blame lies as much, or more, on the engineer who built the bridge as it does on the engineer who maintained it.

Quote:

Besides Carter had no business weakening the Shah

,

Yeah, it was a terrible loss. Those rubber bullets and water cannons. What good king can survive without them.

Quote:

You would have thought that Carter would have at least had the sense to ask France to hold Khomeni.

Under what charges?

Quote:

Yes, and it was a foreign policy failure to not recognize its importance. Reagan left Afghanistan a failed state and we paid for it on 9/11.

I think it was Bush and Clinton who left Afghanistan.

Whatever. You like both of them too. That's were 9-11 was fermented. Not in Iran.

Quote:

But killing Khomeni was easier than taking care of Afghanistan and their was no good reason for Carter to pressure the Shah.

What was so easy about cleaning up Iran? There was more than just one person resistant to the Shah and US hegemony. As I've said before, Khomeini was just the tip of the iceberg.

Quote:

FDR and Kennedy weren't against game changing weapons.

They were still liberals.

Quote:

Liberals are against game changing weapons -which is stupid since Iran is investing in them.

We can already nuke Iran 100x's over. What more do you need?

Quote:

No I think religious authorities can be misled . I don't think they have any particular foreign policy expertise. Despite the fact that they don't have any expertise they can influence a lot of people.

I suspect the Catholic bishops oppose war on religious grounds, not on foreign policy grounds.

Quote:

So you're blaming the media for what bin Laden did? Does the other side of your mouth know about that?

Uh no - but I bet American pop culture is somewhere among his reasons for hating the US.

[/quote]

BFD. Stop blaming the victim.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:48 am Post subject:

[quote="huffdaddy"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

If a building falls, or bridge collapses you think of when it fell as when it happened . While it maybe a good idea to look at the history and the circumstances . When it happened is when it did.

Quote:

Good analogy. The blame lies as much, or more, on the engineer who built the bridge as it does on the engineer who maintained it.

Except that Carter helped bust it by pulling pins for no good reason.

Quote:

Yeah, it was a terrible loss. Those rubber bullets and water cannons. What good king can survive without them.

it was a terrible loss because an aggressive enemy of the US came to power in place of an ally/

Quote:

Under what charges?

Find away to do it . or if that doesn't work kidnap him or kill him.

[quote][quote]

Quote:

Whatever. You like both of them too. That's were 9-11 was fermented. Not in Iran.

No that is where you miss the point. 9-11 happened cause the mideast is the way it is and Carter screw up played a big role.

NONE of the 9-11 hijackers was from Afghanistan

The real cause of terror is cause mideast regimes incite violence and encourage terror.

and then there was the issue of US troops in Saudi Arabia related Iraqs invasion of Kuwait and Iran falling.

Quote:

What was so easy about cleaning up Iran? There was more than just one person resistant to the Shah and US hegemony. As I've said before, Khomeini was just the tip of the iceberg.

Khomenis ideology was difference. Iran was tough but Khomeni was the most radical and cruel of them. His ideology and his tactics and his ruthlessness. He even talked about what he was going. It is sort of like killing Hitler before WW II there were problems but it likely not have been the same.

Quote:

FDR and Kennedy weren't against game changing weapons.

Quote:

They were still liberals.

Not on foreign policy. Not like Carter.

Quote:

We can already nuke Iran 100x's over. What more do you need?

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=MWJw8Wn3jpk

. Nuclear weapons didn't stop Iran from doing what it did .

US nuclear weapons don't stop North Korea from blackmailing South Korea

IF the US can nuke Iran 100x over then why does Iran want nuclear weapons? They are looking for a game changer but the US can change the game back.

Iran knows the US won't use them against Iran in retaliation for terror .

The US needs something with the destructive force and lethality of nuclear weapons without the fallout. Something that the enemy will be afraid that the US might really use.

Iran wants a game changer , the US needs to match them. Give Iran and arms race . The pressure will break them like it broke the Soviets.

What the US has had up to now hasn't deterred Iran. The US needs better deterrence.

If Iran behaves themselves then there will be no problem. However if worse comes to worse then this is how it works.

Saddam is gone. One enemy down.

Talk to Iran but if Iran wants nuclear weapons AND also wants to continue low level war against the US .

Then use this

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=MWJw8Wn3jpk

to disarm a nuclear Iran once and for all.

It is up to Iran but no more low level war against the US by Iran. Especially by a nuclear Iran.

Saddam is gone , Iran can either quit their war or they can face the same fate. No US invasion this time. . This time, unlike Iraq the US gets to impose its preferred method of war on the enemy,

Again all Iran has to do is give up their war.

Quote:

I suspect the Catholic bishops oppose war on religious grounds, not on foreign policy grounds.

Doesn't mean they know the facts , doesn't mean they can't be misled.

Quote:

BFD. Stop blaming the victim.

Just talking about one of Bin Laden's motivations. Doesn't mean the US is wrong.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Except that Carter helped bust it by pulling pins for no good reason.

Cause it was a bad bridge. Blame the architect.

Quote:

No that is where you miss the point. 9-11 happened cause the mideast is the way it is and Carter screw up played a big role.

You miss the point. Other Presidents helped create the situation. From Ike to Bush Jr. No one is faultless.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0809/S00177.htm

Quote:

Iranians� hatred of America dates back to the CIA�s violent 1953 overthrow of democratic Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh�s government in order to arrange sweetheart contracts for western oil companies, author Stephen Kinzer writes in �Overthrow: America�s Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq.�

The CIA�s installation of despot Shah Mohammed Reza Palevi on a throne, Kinzer writes, �ultimately set off a revolution that brought radical fundamentalists to power� in Iran and led to the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

How would things have turned out differently if Mossadegh hadn't been overthrown? Why are you an apologist for Ike, Reagan and the rest? They certainly didn't help the situation. They in fact made it worse.

Quote:

NONE of the 9-11 hijackers was from Afghanistan

Where were they from? And where were they trained?

Quote:

Khomenis ideology was difference. Iran was tough but Khomeni was the most radical and cruel of them.

And you know this because?

Quote:

They were still liberals.

Not on foreign policy. Not like Carter.

You don't get to pick and choose which Presidents are "liberals." Your theory has been proven wrong.

Quote:

Iran knows the US won't use them against Iran in retaliation for terror .

We have the conventional superiority to take them out as well. Between That and the nukes we have the means of militarily dealing with Iran. That's not the problem.

Quote:

BFD. Stop blaming the victim.

Just talking about one of Bin Laden's motivations. Doesn't mean the US is wrong.

[/quote]

According to D'Souza it is.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 4:36 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Except that Carter helped bust it by pulling pins for no good reason.

Quote:

Cause it was a bad bridge. Blame the architect.

He was wrong to pull the pins for no good reason . That shows his incompetence.

Quote:

You miss the point. Other Presidents helped create the situation. From Ike to Bush Jr. No one is faultless

.

They deserve some criticism , but there is no excuse for Bathism, Khomenism and Al Qaedism. That is like blaming the Union army for the KKK

Quote:

Reagan wasn't in power when the Shah was overthrown.

While mistakes were made the cold war was justified. There was no good reason undermine the Shah the way Carter did

Quote:

Where were they from? And where were they trained?

Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Yemen.

Quote:

And you know this because?

His record. Not too many are worse.

Quote:

You don't get to pick and choose which Presidents are "liberals." Your theory has been proven wrong.

They weren't Jimmy Carter Liberals. You can see from their records.
]

Quote:

We have the conventional superiority to take them out as well. Between That and the nukes we have the means of militarily dealing with Iran. That's not the problem.

We don't need Jimmy Carter views on national security.

Then why has the US not been able to deter Iran from engaging in a low level war against the US?

Why is Iran then looking for nuclear weapons and a game changer.

The US ought to be looking to force Iran to quit their war once and for all.

Convention bombing didn't work for Israel in Lebanon and it won't knock Iran out quickly. The US needs a game changer , especially if Iran has nuclear weapons.

Quote:

According to D'Souza it is.

It is probably one of Bin Laden's motivations. Not the main one . But the only thing you got on D'Souza is something he did more than 25 years ago.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

He was wrong to pull the pins for no good reason . That shows his incompetence.

The bridge was collapsing. With or without his interference. He may not have helped it, but you've got to lay some of the blame on the architects of the bridge.

Quote:

They deserve some criticism , but there is no excuse for Bathism, Khomenism and Al Qaedism. That is like blaming the Union army for the KKK

Since when did the Union Army supply the KKK with weapons and training? Bad analogy Joo.

Quote:

Reagan wasn't in power when the Shah was overthrown.

No, but he made other mistake along the way.

Quote:

While mistakes were made the cold war was justified. There was no good reason undermine the Shah the way Carter did

So providing arms and training to training and squashing human rights in the name of "freedom" is okay. But actually freeing people from an autocratic dictator in the name of "freedom" isn't. It's so Catch-22. Only by being enslaved can you have freedom. Freedom means enslavement. Right?

Quote:

Where were they from? And where were they trained?

Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Yemen.

Don't see Iran on that list. Isn't Bush good friends with the House of Saud? Hmmmm.

Quote:

You don't get to pick and choose which Presidents are "liberals." Your theory has been proven wrong.

They weren't Jimmy Carter Liberals. You can see from their records.

They weren't Jimmy Carter. Stop. Your attempts to slander all liberals with guilt by association has failed.

Quote:

Then why has the US not been able to deter Iran from engaging in a low level war against the US?

Because the costs out weigh the benefits.

Quote:

Convention bombing didn't work for Israel in Lebanon and it won't knock Iran out quickly. The US needs a game changer , especially if Iran has nuclear weapons.

Outside of eliminating every single Irani, and then every single Muslim, and then every one else in the world, there's not going to be a "game over." Sorry. Reality check.

Quote:

According to D'Souza it is.

It is probably one of Bin Laden's motivations. Not the main one . But the only thing you got on D'Souza is something he did more than 25 years ago.

[/quote]

He blames the liberals for 9/11. He blames the liberal for the Catholic Church's views. He's a partisan nutter. The conservative version of counterpunch.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject:

[quote="huffdaddy"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

He was wrong to pull the pins for no good reason . That shows his incompetence.

Quote:

The bridge was collapsing. With or without his interference. He may not have helped it, but you've got to lay some of the blame on the architects of the bridge.

Sure I lay some blame but Carters actions made it worse

[

Quote:

Since when did the Union Army supply the KKK with weapons and training? Bad analogy Joo.

Nevertheless nothing the US does justifies what the Bathists , the Khomeni followers or the Al Qaeidsts do.

Quote:

No, but he made other mistake along the way.

Sure but at least he wasn't passive like Carter.

Quote:

The result when Khomeni followers or Bathists or Al Qaedist get what they want is less freedom. The result is more important than the principles. They usually are.

Quote:

Don't see Iran on that list. Isn't Bush good friends with the House of Saud? Hmmmm.

No but Iran is part of the strategic situation that led to 9-11.

Maybe no invasion of Afghanistan/
No Iran / Iraq war
No invasion of Kuwait
No troops in Saudi
No 9-11

Quote:

They weren't Jimmy Carter. Stop. Your attempts to slander all liberals with guilt by association has failed.

They weren't Jimmy Carter liberals. Jimmy Carter liberalism is bad for the US .

Quote:

Because the costs out weigh the benefits.

So Iran ought to be allowed its low level war?

Besides 9-11 was the price the US paid for letting thing go on in the mideast the way they were.

Quote:

Convention bombing didn't work for Israel in Lebanon and it won't knock Iran out quickly. The US needs a game changer , especially if Iran has nuclear weapons.

Quote:

Outside of eliminating every single Irani, and then every single Muslim, and then every one else in the world, there's not going to be a "game over." Sorry. Reality check.

Reality check , such a system would bust up Iran's military and its infrastructure .

It is a lot more powerful than shock and awe. and it will deter Iran or it will crush Iran.

The US ought not have to tolerate Iran's low level war against the US. Especially by a nuclear Iran. If Iran wants a game changer then the US ought to have one too.

Iran's low level war against the US needs to end.

Quote:

He blames the liberals for 9/11. He blames the liberal for the Catholic Church's views. He's a partisan nutter. The conservative version of counterpunch.

US pop culture is one of the reasons that Bin Laden hates the US. Not the main reason but it is one of the reasons.

Also it is very possible that religious people can be misled . There is no reason to think that they have any expertise on foreign policy. No problem with that statement.

This is his statement:

Quote:

Interviews with these bishops suggest that they know little or nothing about the ideas and proposals to which they are putting their signature and lending their religious authority. The bishops are unfamiliar with existing defense and economic programs, unable to identify even in general terms the Soviet military capability, ignorant of roughly how much of the budget currently goes to defense, unclear about how much should be reallocated to social programs, and innocent of the most basic concepts underlying the intelligent layman's discussion of these questions.[7]

I think religious authorities are experts on religion but not other stuff.

and I think they can be misled and be wrong. You don't think so?

You got one thing on him something he did more than 25 years ago.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:31 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Sure I lay some blame but Carters actions made it worse

What would have happened if they hadn't overthrown Mosaddeq? Carter may have never been in that position to begin with.

Quote:

Nevertheless nothing the US does justifies what the Bathists , the Khomeni followers or the Al Qaeidsts do.

And what they do doesn't justify anything and everything we do.

Quote:

No, but he made other mistake along the way.

Sure but at least he wasn't passive like Carter.

Error in action versus error of inaction. I'm no sure one is worse than the other. I guess most people prefer someone who just looks busy doing something.

Quote:

Don't see Iran on that list. Isn't Bush good friends with the House of Saud? Hmmmm.

No but Iran is part of the strategic situation that led to 9-11.

A part. Not the sole or main reason. Despite all the conservative pundits wish to pin it on Carter. Do you really think millions of Mideasterners hate America just because of Carter?

Quote:

Maybe

Maybe is right.

Quote:

They weren't Jimmy Carter. Stop. Your attempts to slander all liberals with guilt by association has failed.

They weren't Jimmy Carter liberals. Jimmy Carter liberalism is bad for the US .

[/quote]
And George Bush conservatism is equally as bad for the US. Maybe worse by the time January rolls around.

Quote:

Because the costs out weigh the benefits.

So Iran ought to be allowed its low level war?

It seems that the last several Presidents have chosen that route. I doubt many Americans, despite all their big talk, would choose otherwise.

Quote:

Outside of eliminating every single Irani, and then every single Muslim, and then every one else in the world, there's not going to be a "game over." Sorry. Reality check.

Reality check , such a system would bust up Iran's military and its infrastructure .

You think Iran is alone in this world? You don't think they have any friends?

Quote:

The US ought not have to tolerate Iran's low level war against the US. Especially by a nuclear Iran. If Iran wants a game changer then the US ought to have one too.

The US could take care of Iran if they wanted. But no one is prepared to accept the costs.

Quote:

He blames the liberals for 9/11. He blames the liberal for the Catholic Church's views. He's a partisan nutter. The conservative version of counterpunch.

US pop culture is one of the reasons that Bin Laden hates the US. Not the main reason but it is one of the reasons.

So? They aren't responsbile for bin Laden's behavior. Why would you blame the victim? He's a certifiable moonbat.

Quote:

and I think they can be misled and be wrong. You don't think so?

Sure, but there's no indication the liberals are doing it. Else the Catholic Church would have women priests, perform gay marriages, and distribute birth control in Africa. Blaming the liberals and not the religion. Moonbat.

Quote:

one thing on him something he did more than 25 years ago.

He blames the liberals for everything. Anyone who sees the world in such good guy-bad guy terms and is so adament about it is a moonbat.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:07 pm Post subject:

"huffdaddy"][q

Quote:

What would have happened if they hadn't overthrown Mosaddeq? Carter may have never been in that position to begin with.

the US made mistakes in 1953 but the cold war was right.

Carters actions in Iran served no purpose.

Quote:

And what they do doesn't justify anything and everything we do.

No pretty much anything to force the Bathists, the Khomeni followers or the Al Qaeidsts is justified.

Quote:

Error in action versus error of inaction. I'm no sure one is worse than the other. I guess most people prefer someone who just looks busy doing something.

Carters' policies didn't leave the US in a better postion. Reagan helped bring down the Soviet Union. Now it is time to do a Reagan on Iran. Give Iran an arms race.

A part. Not the sole or main reason. Despite all the conservative pundits wish to pin it on Carter. Do you really think millions of Mideasterners hate America just because of Carter? [/quote]

No but 1979 is the pivot point where the security situation in the mideast changes.

Quote:

Maybe

Maybe is right.

Quote:

And George Bush conservatism is equally as bad for the US. Maybe worse by the time January rolls around.

No cause at least he took down an enemy of the US. At least he faced two US enemies.

Quote:

It seems that the last several Presidents have chosen that route. I doubt many Americans, despite all their big talk, would choose otherwise

.

Well Iran ought not to be allowed their low level war.

And two game changers alternative energy / and RFG will make Iran's war go away.

If the case against Iran is presented game changers will be supported.

Quote:

You think Iran is alone in this world? You don't think they have any friends?

Who is going to fight for them? Besided all Iran has to do is give up their war.

Get the game changer and give Iran a choice.

Quote:

The US could take care of Iran if they wanted. But no one is prepared to accept the costs.

The US doesn't have a good strategy for Iran. Conventional bombing is not enough. And invasion is too costly. Nuclear weapons are unusable.

So the US needs the right game changer for Iran.

Quote:

So? They aren't responsbile for bin Laden's behavior. Why would you blame the victim? He's a certifiable moonbat.

So he is talking about one of the reasons that Bin Laden hates the US. It is probably one of the reasons. Not that it is justified but it is probably a reason,

Quote:

.

I think liberals misled a lot of people . I saw his statement . I have never felt that religious people are experts on anything but religion.

Quote:

He blames the liberals for everything. Anyone who sees the world in such good guy-bad guy terms and is so adament about it is a moonbat.

Well liberals of the Jimmy Carter sort don't have good ideas for US security.

and Bathists , Khomeni followers and Al Qaedists are criminals and what they demand is sinister. Anyone who can't see that is in denial.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:04 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

the US made mistakes in 1953 but the cold war was right.

The 1953 coup had nothing to with the cold war. It was about protecting oil profits.

Quote:

Carters actions in Iran served no purpose.

Maybe he was trying to diffuse the situation. Bring closure and peace to the country. Obviously it didn't work. But as you say, intentions are good enough.

Quote:

Carters' policies didn't leave the US in a better postion. Reagan helped bring down the Soviet Union. Now it is time to do a Reagan on Iran. Give Iran an arms race.

So now you're saying let them build a bomb. Gotcha.

Quote:

No but 1979 is the pivot point where the security situation in the mideast changes.

It wasn't an instantaneous change. It was a gradual process that culminated in one defining moment. Historical events don't happen in a vacuum Joo. It'd be like saying the assassination of Ferdinand was the only thing responsible for WWI.

Quote:

No cause at least he took down an enemy of the US. At least he faced two US enemies.

He also allowed the NORKs to join the nuclear club. At least Carter didn't allow anyone to do that.

Quote:

Well Iran ought not to be allowed their low level war.

And the stock market shouldn't be allowed to crash.

Quote:

You think Iran is alone in this world? You don't think they have any friends?

Who is going to fight for them?

Russia and China oppose sanctions. It'd be a good guess that they'd oppose an invasion.

Quote:

Besided all Iran has to do is give up their war.

Bow down to America! We are your masters! Yeah, that'll happen.

Quote:

The US doesn't have a good strategy for Iran. Conventional bombing is not enough. And invasion is too costly. Nuclear weapons are unusable.

And what happens when Russia or China develop the same weapons?

Quote:

So he is talking about one of the reasons that Bin Laden hates the US. It is probably one of the reasons. Not that it is justified but it is probably a reason,

He says social liberals are responsible for 9/11. Moonbat.

Quote:

I think liberals misled a lot of people . I saw his statement . I have never felt that religious people are experts on anything but religion.

Conservatives have misled a lot of people too. You're getting as moonbatty as D'Souza. Did you ever stop to consider that the Catholic bishops opposed war on religious reasons?

Quote:

He blames the liberals for everything. Anyone who sees the world in such good guy-bad guy terms and is so adament about it is a moonbat.

Well liberals of the Jimmy Carter sort don't have good ideas for US security.

Maybe if the Republicans stopped screwing up so bad the Jimmy Carter liberals wouldn't get elected President. When you boil it down, G. Gordon Libby is responsible for 9/11.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:52 am Post subject:

[quote="huffdaddy"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

the US made mistakes in 1953 but the cold war was right.

Quote:

The 1953 coup had nothing to with the cold war. It was about protecting oil profits.

Really I heard it was to keep communists out of power

Quote:

Maybe he was trying to diffuse the situation. Bring closure and peace to the country. Obviously it didn't work. But as you say, intentions are good enough.

Was he or was he just beating up on a US ally that wasn't any worse than the enemies of the region.

Quote:

So now you're saying let them build a bomb. Gotcha.

I don't think the US can stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb. So the next step is to take away the benefits from building a nuclear bomb.

The US has tried talking to Iran in the past it didn't do any good. Iran isn't interested in making a deal.

So eventually the US is going to have to try something different.

Quote:

It was too an momentous change , anyone can look at a strategic map and see 1978 versus 1979.

Quote:

He also allowed the NORKs to join the nuclear club. At least Carter didn't allow anyone to do that.

The North Koreans were working on nukes for years.

And North Korea with nukes is terrible but Saddam or Iran with nukes would be even worse.

North Korea is in a tough neighborhood and they are poor and can't get rich no matter what they do.

Iran and Iraq are in a weak rich neighborhood.

Unlike North Korea they have oil and are close to a lot more of it.

Quote:

And the stock market shouldn't be allowed to crash.

You got that right. But what is the point. I think the US ought to fix its economy I even agree with the Democrats a little more than the Republicans on that issue. I voted for Al Gore in 2000 cause I thought Bush's tax cuts were risky.

But Jimmy Carter's recond on the economy isn't any better than Bush.

[quote][quote]

Quote:

Russia and China oppose sanctions. It'd be a good guess that they'd oppose an invasion.

Not going invade Iran . This time the US would impose its prefered method of war on the enemy.

Does this look like a plan for invasion? .

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=MWJw8Wn3jpk

the real problem with the Iraq war was the US let the enemy impose its prefered method of war. That ought never happen again.

Quote:

Bow down to America! We are your masters! Yeah, that'll happen.

No giving up a low level war is not bowing down to the US. Iran doesn't have a right to its war.

Quote:

And what happens when Russia or China develop the same weapons?

so what ? It doesn't alter the strategic balance between Russia , China and the US.

The US still has nuclear weapons.

Besides Russia and China are way , way behind in this.

It is almost the smae deal with missile defense. They complain about it but they can't really match it.

Quote:

He says social liberals are responsible for 9/11. Moonbat.

Responsible no, is one of Bin Ladens reasons for hating the US probably. It is a silly exageration but the only serious thing you got on him is what he did more than 25 years ago

Quote:

Conservatives have misled a lot of people too. You're getting as moonbatty as D'Souza. Did you ever stop to consider that the Catholic bishops opposed war on religious reasons?

I think he was talking about the cold war . And history shows getting up in the face of the USSR was the right course of action , not the wrong course of action.

Quote:

Maybe if the Republicans stopped screwing up so bad the Jimmy Carter liberals wouldn't get elected President. When you boil it down, G. Gordon Libby is responsible for 9/11.[

Well you are correct there except for the Gordon Libgby part.

it doesn't change that Jimmy Carter type of polices are terrible for US national security.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:52 am Post subject:

[quote="huffdaddy"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

the US made mistakes in 1953 but the cold war was right.

Quote:

The 1953 coup had nothing to with the cold war. It was about protecting oil profits.

Really I heard it was to keep communists out of power

Quote:

Maybe he was trying to diffuse the situation. Bring closure and peace to the country. Obviously it didn't work. But as you say, intentions are good enough.

Was he or was he just beating up on a US ally that wasn't any worse than the enemies of the region.

Quote:

So now you're saying let them build a bomb. Gotcha.

Quote:

It was too an momentous change , anyone can look at a strategic map and see 1978 versus 1979.

Quote:

He also allowed the NORKs to join the nuclear club. At least Carter didn't allow anyone to do that.

Quote:

And the stock market shouldn't be allowed to crash.

Quote:

Russia and China oppose sanctions. It'd be a good guess that they'd oppose an invasion.

Quote:

Bow down to America! We are your masters! Yeah, that'll happen.

No giving up a low level war is not bowing down to the US. Iran doesn't have a right to its war.

Quote:

And what happens when Russia or China develop the same weapons?

Quote:

He says social liberals are responsible for 9/11. Moonbat.

Responsible no, is one of Bin Ladens reasons for hating the US probably. It is a silly exageration but the only serious thing you got on him is what he did more than 25 years ago

Quote:

Conservatives have misled a lot of people too. You're getting as moonbatty as D'Souza. Did you ever stop to consider that the Catholic bishops opposed war on religious reasons?

I think he was talking about the cold war . And history shows getting up in the face of the USSR was the right course of action , not the wrong course of action.

Quote:

Maybe if the Republicans stopped screwing up so bad the Jimmy Carter liberals wouldn't get elected President. When you boil it down, G. Gordon Libby is responsible for 9/11.[

Well you are correct there except for the Gordon Libgby part.

it doesn't change that Jimmy Carter type of polices are terrible for US national security.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:56 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

The 1953 coup had nothing to with the cold war. It was about protecting oil profits.

Really I heard it was to keep communists out of power

Oh gullible Joo. How naive of you. I already posted an article that showed that was wrong.

Quote:

Maybe he was trying to diffuse the situation. Bring closure and peace to the country. Obviously it didn't work. But as you say, intentions are good enough.

Was he or was he just beating up on a US ally that wasn't any worse than the enemies of the region.

I think he was really interested in human rights and freedom. You can't really influence your enemies, so you start with your friends. It didn't work out so well. But like you say, as long as the intentions are good, that's all that matters.

Quote:

So now you're saying let them build a bomb. Gotcha.

I don't think the US can stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb. So the next step is to take away the benefits from building a nuclear bomb.

If they develop a nuke and you make it obsolete they will find a way to put it back in play. It's a chess game. You've got to think ahead before a move that will put you in mate.

Quote:

It was too an momentous change , anyone can look at a strategic map and see 1978 versus 1979.

If all you do is look at a map then sure. If you study and understand the undercurrents at work, than you'd realize changes were occurring well before that.

Quote:

He also allowed the NORKs to join the nuclear club. At least Carter didn't allow anyone to do that.

The North Koreans were working on nukes for years.

Just like the anti-Shah movement was in the works for years. But in that case, Carter is at fault for his inaction. While you excuse Bush. Double standard.

Quote:

North Korea is in a tough neighborhood and they are poor and can't get rich no matter what they do.

That situation would seem to make them more dangerous. They have less to lose.

Quote:

Unlike North Korea they have oil and are close to a lot more of it.

And thus have more to lose. Why would Khameini threaten his cash cow?

Quote:

But Jimmy Carter's recond on the economy isn't any better than Bush.

Carter faced the same problems Bush did. High oil prices and inflationary pressures and a bursting bubble that was built up before they came into office. But you missed the point. With all the billions being thrown at the problem, it's not working. Some things are unpleasant realities.

Quote:

the real problem with the Iraq war was the US let the enemy impose its prefered method of war. That ought never happen again.

You change your method and they change theirs. The enemy is smarter and more flexible than the behemoth armies of the early 20th century.

Quote:

Bow down to America! We are your masters! Yeah, that'll happen.

No giving up a low level war is not bowing down to the US. Iran doesn't have a right to its war.

In your eyes or theirs?

Quote:

And what happens when Russia or China develop the same weapons?

so what ? It doesn't alter the strategic balance between Russia , China and the US.

It most certainly does.

Quote:

Besides Russia and China are way , way behind in this.

It is almost the smae deal with missile defense. They complain about it but they can't really match it.

Technology spreads faster than you think. Once the US proves something can be done it will soon be copied.

Quote:

He says social liberals are responsible for 9/11. Moonbat.

Responsible no, is one of Bin Ladens reasons for hating the US probably. It is a silly exageration but the only serious thing you got on him is what he did more than 25 years ago

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/01/20/d_souza/

Quote:

In his new book, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11," D'Souza argues that "The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11 ... the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the non-profit sector and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world."

His general "blame the liberals" pov makes him a conservative moonbat.

Quote:

Conservatives have misled a lot of people too. You're getting as moonbatty as D'Souza. Did you ever stop to consider that the Catholic bishops opposed war on religious reasons?

I think he was talking about the cold war . And history shows getting up in the face of the USSR was the right course of action , not the wrong course of action.

Regardless, the opposition to military spending is just as easily explained by religious reasoning. Just because the Catholics don't fall lock stock and barrel into Conservative ideology doesn't mean they're being manipulated by the left.

BTW, he also blames FDR for the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.

Quote:

Maybe if the Republicans stopped screwing up so bad the Jimmy Carter liberals wouldn't get elected President. When you boil it down, G. Gordon Libby is responsible for 9/11.[

Well you are correct there except for the Gordon Libgby part.

it doesn't change that Jimmy Carter type of polices are terrible for US national security.

Damn that democracy.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:07 am Post subject:

[quote="huffdaddy"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

The 1953 coup had nothing to with the cold war. It was about protecting oil profits.

Really I heard it was to keep communists out of power

Quote:

Oh gullible Joo. How naive of you. I already posted an article that showed that was wrong.

Well I will dispute you on that

Quote:

Reasons given for why the coup occurred include significant domestic dissatisfaction with the Mossadegh government (especially within the Iranian military) and a CIA propaganda campaign. Motivations given for the foreign coup planners include desire to control Iranian oil fields and more benign concerns over Iran's coming under the control of the Soviet bloc of Iran's traditional enemy Russia.[6][7][8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

Quote:

The first way to do it is to bring down your enemies - not beat up on your firends.

[

Quote:

If they develop a nuke and you make it obsolete they will find a way to put it back in play. It's a chess game. You've got to think ahead before a move that will put you in mate.

How exactly will Iran do that? Somethings are just to far ahead of the game. Let Iran try. This is a game that the US will win.

Quote:

If all you do is look at a map then sure. If you study and understand the undercurrents at work, than you'd realize changes were occurring well before that.

The mideast after 1979 was way different than it was in 1978.

Quote:

Just like the anti-Shah movement was in the works for years. But in that case, Carter is at fault for his inaction. While you excuse Bush. Double standard.

It was easier to get Khomeni when he was living in France than to stop NK.

Besides NK nuclear program hasn't turned out to be a huge game changer. The map of Asia is the same.

Quote:

That situation would seem to make them more dangerous. They have less to lose.

Less dangerous cause they are less powerful.

[

Quote:

And thus have more to lose. Why would Khameini threaten his cash cow?

Cause Khamani is that way. He already had turned down great benefits to keep Irans low level war going. That is the problem with Khamani he is not interested in just money. He wants his revolution.

Kind of like Al Qaeda.

Quote:

Sure I won't defend Bush's eco policies but at least Bush goes after enemies instead of calling them saints and Ghandi and holy man.

He messes up a lot but he sees the enemy for what they are.

Quote:

You change your method and they change theirs. The enemy is smarter and more flexible than the behemoth armies of the early 20th century.

This is a game that favors the US. What counter measure could Iran come up with. There is none. Iran doesn't have that kind of technological base to win an arms race with the US.

Quote:

In your eyes or theirs?

Well if they are that crazy -near Al Qaeda then they ought to be taken down. That means the US really does need RFG.

I mean if they are that aggressive and crazy then they ought to be allowed nukes without a US game changer?

That is Jimmy Carter thinking.

Quote:

It most certainly does.

Both sides have nukes. It doesn't change the game. Please tell how it does.

Quote:

Technology spreads faster than you think. Once the US proves something can be done it will soon be copied.

Well when China and Russia do you you can let me know about it.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/01/20/d_souza/

Quote:

His general "blame the liberals" pov makes him a conservative moonbat.

That doesn't make him a moonbat though it is silly. And it is probably so that one of the reasons that Bin Laden hates the US is us pop culture.

Quote:

Well if someone is that off then it is not a reach to say that perhaps they are .

Quote:

BTW, he also blames FDR for the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.

FDR was a great president but Stalin out foxed him in Europe. It doesn't take away from his other sucesses.

Quote:

Damn that democracy.[

Your right Jimmy Carter and his liberal views on national security are above crticism.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:13 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

The 1953 coup had nothing to with the cold war. It was about protecting oil profits.

Really I heard it was to keep communists out of power

Quote:

Oh gullible Joo. How naive of you. I already posted an article that showed that was wrong.

Well I will dispute you on that

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

Just because someone says it's a reason doesn't mean it's true.

Stephen Kinzer:

Quote:

Iranian President Mohammad Mosaddeq moves to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in order to ensure that more oil profits remain in Iran. His efforts to democratize Iran had already earned him being named Time Magazine�s Man of the Year for 1951. After he nationalizes it, Mosaddeq realizes that Britain may want to overthrow his government, so he closes the British Embassy and sends all British civilians, including its intelligence operatives, out of the country. Britain finds itself with no way to stage the coup it desires, so it approaches the American intelligence community for help. Their first approach results in abject failure when Harry Truman throws the British representatives out of his office, stating that "We don�t overthrow governments; the United States has never done this before, and we�re not going to start now." After Eisenhower is elected in November 1952, the British have a much more receptive audience, and plans for overthrowing Mosaddeq are produced. The British intelligence operative who presents the idea to the Eisenhower administration later will write in his memoirs, "If I ask the Americans to overthrow Mosaddeq in order to rescue a British oil company, they are not going to respond. This is not an argument that�s going to cut much mustard in Washington. I�ve got to have a different argument.�I�m going to tell the Americans that Mosaddeq is leading Iran towards Communism." This argument wins over the Eisenhower administration, who promptly decides to organize a coup in Iran (see August 19, 1953). [Stephen Kinzer, 7/29/2003]

I may or may not get around to addressing the rest of your post this weekend.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 4 of 6

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe