Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Will capitalism free North Korea?

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

Will capitalism free North Korea?
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

Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 7:14 pm Post subject:

EFLtrainer wrote:

It doesn't matter. This is not what "brought down" the USSR. First, it hasn't been brought down or destroyed, it has adapted. Second, it has already been stated - though you have ignored it and not responded to the point - that social forces were the primary factor, particularly when you look at the Soviet Bloc as opposed to the Soviet Union and the "dominoe effect" that occurred.

Hey, Dan Quayle, there's no "e" on dominoe.

Anyway, the USSR hasn't been brought down? Oh, my bad. I guess you must have missed the last 15 years. That had got to be the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. And, social forces might have been important factors. However, economic forces were the major factor that created the social factors behind the fall of the Soviet Union.

EFLtrainer wrote:

Jesus, is that the best you can do? Your sole defense against me is to claim I am a sock or taking on someone else's argument. Idiotic. More so: sad.

Even more so: true. And everyone knows it. Also, it's not my sole defense against you. The facts are my sole defense against you. You just refuse to see the facts becasue it doesn't fit into your "everything the US does is incompetant" routine. And don't call me "Jesus."

EFLtrainer wrote:

Bull. Read your own posts. You mentioned those factors not at all. That's not emphasizing, it is, as I stated, ignoring.

Pligganease, on the first page of this thread, wrote:

Maybe it was the constant fighting that (The United States of America) did to prevent Soviet expansion into every corner of the globe. Had (The United States of America) not stood up to the Soviets every time they became belligerant we might have lost the whole of Europe to communism and, potentially, the world. Thanks, (The United States of America)!

Maybe it was the luxurious and free way of life that Britain and (The United States of America) helped spread throughout the world. When (The United States of America) began to show the world the life of freedom that their citizens enjoyed, the Soviet citizens saw something that they wanted. Thanks (The United States of America)!

Maybe it was (The United States of America)'s constant military improvement that prevented the Soviets from being the premier superpower in the world. Had (The United States of America) not kept ahead of the Soviets in the arms race, they might have tried to actually take over the world. Thanks, (The United States of America)!

Maybe it was the success of capitalism, anchored by the powerful economy of (The United States of America), that showed the communist Soviets that maybe communism wasn't the way to go. When the economy of (The United States of America) began to dominate the world's economy back in the 1980's and drive the world into a succesful period while the Soviet economy went in the crapper, the Soviets realized that their government wasn't doing everything to make sure that they were all truly equal. Thanks, (The United States of America)!

Pligganease, on the second page of this thread, wrote:

So, if the US had absolutely nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union, what did? We all know that the USSR wanted and tried to spread communism to all the corners of the globe. They didn't, however. Why? Of course, that had nothing to do with the U.S...

Of course it had nothing to do with the 1980's being rockin' years economically, socially, and technologically. But, God forbid, you people give any of that credit to he US.

Pligganease, on the second page of this thread, wrote:

Why is it that when you guys say the word "pressure," you think only of people with guns saying "Give up communism!"

I think that I have made it abundantly clear that it was not only military pressure that made the USSR fall, but total pressure by many countries, especially and primarily the United States.

EFLtrainer wrote:

No, YOU ignored the very facts YOU had posted. And it is ALL a matter of opinion. Why you and others continue to ignore this very basic FACT is beyond me. Do a search of the literature. What will you find? Books, articles, papers on BOTH sides of the issues. Criminy...

Good. Do some research and find more papers supporting your side. Why is it that if I don't agree with your opinion, I'm a conservative nut job, but if I support my opinion, I'm stifling your ability to disagree?

EFLtrainer wrote:

Most people!!! Who gives a flying monkey's arse what MOST people think??? Is this really how you decide whether what YOU think is relevant?? My god, man....

Let me guess... This is one of those "I'm correct, and the other 90% of you are wrong!" Is this really how I decide what I think is relevant? Are you completely cut off from reality? Maybe the reason more people feel this way is because there is more evidence to support that side of the argument? Nope. It has to be that everyone else is stupid and EFLtrainer is the last bastion of correct human thought in the world.

EFLtrainer wrote:

Was the Boston Tea Party about tea? No!

But it was about a bunch of rich men refusing to pay taxes. That is completely economic. What about the Germans before WWII? Hitler was great at blaming the economic troubles of Germany on the Jews. The reason that they were so eager to adopt those policies was because they were economically desperate.

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:56 pm Post subject:

Pligganease wrote:

Actually, if you read a little more into what I'm saying, I said...bla bla bla

I don't give a good Goddam what you said or what you think. I didn't address my original comments to you, I adressed them to Hater Depot. Which you would see if you look at the top of the message. I didn't ask for your Goddam opinion, I expressed my opinion to him. It was you who butted in, shoving your BS opinions down the throats of people who didn't ask for them.

Quote:

Also, why are you always asking for Bob?

Because that's who I was talking to. I didn't ask for your opinion, I didn't express a desire to "debate" you.

So *beep* you and your opinions about my debating skills. The thread, the forum, and the world doesn't revolve around your opinions. You have opinions? Go tell someone who cares, asshole.

Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:04 am Post subject:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

If you don't care, why are you so upset? Seriously, man... Relax.

Manner of Speaking wrote:

If US military spending alone was responsible for bringing down the USSR, as some have alleged, then one would have to explain how the US is currently outspending China to a far greater extent than it did to the US, yet the Chinese regime shows no sign of imminent collapse.

This wasn't intended to be a rebuttal to my remarks? Don't I have the right to defend my position when you directly attack it?

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:34 am Post subject:

[quote="Pligganease"]

EFLtrainer wrote:

Pligganease wrote:

Hey, Dan Quayle, there's no "e" on dominoe.

Jesus, you are petty. Trust me, I'll put my spelling up against your spelling any day. That said, I have no idea how that e got in there. Embarassed

Maybe I should go back and correct your grammar?? Rolling Eyes

Pligganease wrote:

Anyway, the USSR hasn't been brought down? Oh, my bad. I guess you must have missed the last 15 years.

Guess it depends on how picky you want to be. If the South had seceded would we be able to claim the United States of America had been brought down? The Union replaced by a Federation. Hmmm... I've not done any reading or research into the current form of the government and whether it is or is not just a front for what was. So, I don't really care about this distinction. Regardless of WHAT it has become, it is all a matter of opinion as to WHY. And that is the topic here.

EFLtrainer wrote:

Jesus, is that the best you can do? Your sole defense against me is to claim I am a sock or taking on someone else's argument. Idiotic. More so: sad.

Quote:

Even more so: true. And everyone knows it.

So, if you keep repeating a lie it becomes the truth?? Fact is, you know I am not, but think this childish jibe means something. It doesn't. Feel free to post all the facts proving my sockness. Should be entertaining. Ping me all you want. Whois. Whatever. Want my SS #??

Quote:

The facts are my sole defense against you. You just refuse to see the facts becasue it doesn't fit into your "everything the US does is incompetant" routine. And don't call me "Jesus."

The US? Who said the US? I've said the Bush cabal, not the US. Past mistakes exist, but that is history, not claims. The current situation is disgusting and dire. There are treasonous acts going on, and I object to them.

EFLtrainer wrote:

Bull. Read your own posts. You mentioned those factors not at all. That's not emphasizing, it is, as I stated, ignoring.

Quote:

Pligganease, on the first page of this thread, wrote:

Pligganease, on the second page of this thread, wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

The problem here is that in place you say it was all economics, in others you spread it a bit to include the grwoing awareness. At no point do you attribute it to the basic desire for freedom, the fall of the Eastern European countries first (which, again, I think it is American ego to say it happened pr,arily because of us because it happened because of THEM and their desire for freedom) nor the simple reality of conquered people not wanting to be conquered. Witness Chechnya, for cryin' out loud.

Quote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Most people!!! Who gives a flying monkey's arse what MOST people think??? Is this really how you decide whether what YOU think is relevant?? My god, man....

The comment has nothing to do with stupidity, it has everything to do with you using the argument of majority think to lend credence to your opinion. Whether something is a fact or not, right or wrong has nothing to do with how many people agree with that position. A majority being incorrect is just that: a majority being incorrect.

Quote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Was the Boston Tea Party about tea? No!

But it was about a bunch of rich men refusing to pay taxes. That is completely economic.

BS. It was about participation in government. Jesus...

Quote:

What about the Germans before WWII? Hitler was great at blaming the economic troubles of Germany on the Jews. The reason that they were so eager to adopt those policies was because they were economically desperate.

Irrelevant. Has nothign to do with the overthrow of regime. But we have already acknowledged economics is a factor.

Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:03 am Post subject:

I hereby renounce my claims that EFLtrainer is a sock or is in anyway related to Daechidong Waygookin.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:07 am Post subject:

Pligganease wrote:

I hereby renounce my claims that EFLtrainer is a sock or is in anyway related to Daechidong Waygookin.

Ah. Thanks. At the very least I would have spelled wei/waegookin differently. Smile

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:38 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Oh, pliggy... yes, I realize that in your small world - the one inside your label-loving brain - life is simple: America beat Soviet Union! Me Rocky!!! But out here in the real world, we realize that internal change doesn't come primarily from economic sources, but social changes. And those of us that are really smart Shocked

realize it is a pretty complex thing, but that American pressure wasn't really the primary mover in bringing down the Communist governments. After all, if that were the case, would China not have fallen, too? And tiny little Cuba? What is keeping that tiny, tiny, tiny nation safe from the US savior?

The Soviet Empire was out to destroy the US. If the US hadn't challenged them then well the Russians they would have gotten much farther than they did. They would probably still be around. Competition with and from the US was a major drain on the Soviet Union , it also prevented the Soviet Empire from gaining many strategic and economic victories.

Without force would South Korea be democratic or communist today?

Force wasn't the only thing that brought down the Soviet Empire but it along with the collapse in oil prices in the 1980's. was a significant part of it.

Bee Positive

Joined: 27 Oct 2005

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 8:12 am Post subject:

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. We seem to have so much trouble looking at the world rationally. North Korea is the only part of the peninsula NOT under foreign military occupation. Hence, it is the only truly FREE, self-determining, self-governing part of Korea. What more is there to be said? (I could say a few more things, to be sure, but wouldn't want to be the target of SK's repressive National Security law. So I'm sticking strictly to facts.) BEE POSITIVE

Hater Depot

Joined: 29 Mar 2005

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 8:25 am Post subject:

Bee Positive wrote:

North Korea is the only part of the peninsula NOT under foreign military occupation.

The presence of foreign troops does not, prima facie, mean military occupation. US troops have no law enforcement powers, and don't have anything to do with the political process.

Quote:

Hence, it is the only truly FREE, self-determining, self-governing part of Korea.

I think being truly free and self-determining requires democracy and human rights first. Kim Jong il, of course, has plenty of self-determination.

Bee Positive

Joined: 27 Oct 2005

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 8:51 am Post subject:

Hater Depot wrote:

The presence of foreign troops does not, prima facie, mean military occupation. US troops have no law enforcement powers, and don't have anything to do with the political process.

You're kidding me, right?

You CAN'T be so naive--I truly hope.

A phone call from the US President would not have averted, or stopped in its tracks, the Kwangju massacre?

The US just sits back and lets the South Korean people do whatever they want, politically? The way they've done . . . ah . . . in Latin America, Western Europe, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, America itself?

If war breaks out here, under prearranged agreements, USFK takes command of the Korean military.

Think about that.

Think about it really, really hard, if you must.

Who is commander-in-chief of SK's military?

Roh Mu-Hyun?

Not a chance--and he knows it.

Objectively considered, South Korea is a US-dominated outpost with a fair degree of autonomy in DOMESTIC AFFAIRS.

It's NOT, however, a fully sovereign and independent state.

Now about those Iraqi "elections" . . .

Heh, heh, heh!

BEE POSITIVE

Alias

Joined: 24 Jan 2003

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:12 am Post subject:

South Korea is an independent nation. The US never forced Roh to send Korean troops to Iraq. I blame the Blue House for that decision not the White House. He went to Washington to kiss Bush's butt after rising to power on a wave of anti-American nationalism. Which brings up this point. The South Korean government wants US troops to stay. When the US recently reduced its troops here many politicians gripped about the decision. As much as I detest the current administration in Washington I would be eager to know how they have dictated Korean domestic or international policy in the past 5 years.

Bee Positive

Joined: 27 Oct 2005

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:46 am Post subject:

Alias wrote:

South Korea is an independent nation. The US never forced Roh to send Korean troops to Iraq. I blame the Blue House for that decision not the White House. He went to Washington to kiss Bush's butt after rising to power on a wave of anti-American nationalism. Which brings up this point. The South Korean government wants US troops to stay. When the US recently reduced its troops here many politicians gripped about the decision.

As much as I detest the current administration in Washington I would be eager to know how they have dictated Korean domestic or international policy in the past 5 years. Confused

I suppose you think that Britain is also independent?

Did you ever read a book called _The Wilson Plot_?

If the CIA can bring down a British government, then who runs Britain?

Or Italy, for that matter?

Or . . . South Korea?

BEE POSITIVE

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:17 pm Post subject:

A joo sock?? Naw... can spell and use English grammatically.

Hater Depot

Joined: 29 Mar 2005

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:05 pm Post subject:

Joo and Bee are about as different as different can be.

Alias

Joined: 24 Jan 2003

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:39 pm Post subject:

Bee Positive wrote:

I suppose you think that Britain is also independent?

Um...yeah. Confused

Quote:

If the CIA can bring down a British government, then who runs Britain?

Or Italy, for that matter?

Or . . . South Korea?

The Jews? Masons? illuminati?

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