|
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 |
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 2:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Yep, good job guys....
| New York Times wrote: |
| At least two of the Iranians were in this country on an invitation extended by Iraq�s president, Jalal Talabani, during a visit to Tehran earlier this month. It was particularly awkward for the Iraqis that one of the raids took place in the Baghdad compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq�s most powerful Shiite leaders, who traveled to Washington three weeks ago to meet President Bush. |
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
U.S. Forces Net 4 Top Iranian Officials After Series of Raids in Iraq
------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, my god. You mean to tell me that there are foreigners meddling in the affairs of the sovereign Iraqi state?
I am SHOCKED!!! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I'm sure the half million or so US-produced Iraqi corpses would be EQUALLY SHOCKED if only their nervous systems were still functioning and capable of such reactions.
Thanks for alerting us all to this atrocious, dangerous situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Oh, my god. You mean to tell me that there are foreigners meddling in the affairs of the sovereign Iraqi state? |
The issue is whether or not these men were involved in supplying insurgents with weapons, particularly the kinds of weapons used to blow up buses of Iraqis.
Yes, we understand you think the US is meddling in Iraq's affairs, thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| . . . we understand you think the US is meddling in Iraq's affairs, thank you. |
And you don't? (Remember, smoking that stuff will get you kicked out of Korea.)
Last edited by R. S. Refugee on Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| R. S. Refugee wrote: |
| I am SHOCKED...! |
For once, I think agree with your sarcasm -- at least partly. Most governments employ espionage and engage in unofficial diplomacy to realize their politically-problematic objectives. We should not be surprised at all when we catch a glimpse of others' maneuverings here or there. After all, everyone needs to look after their own interests and take care of business.
I only wish Tehran and its numerous apologists here would only recognize that it does not occupy the moral high ground -- not in Iraq, not in Lebanon, and not anywhere else in the Middle East...or even Argentina for that matter.
And I should think that Amnesty's recent allegations against Hezbollah's attacking civilian targets coupled with Ahmadinejad's recent Holocaust-denial "conference" might have established just how far from the moral high ground Tehran has strayed in recent months.
Indeed, R.S. Perhaps you should be shocked after all...
Last edited by Gopher on Tue Dec 26, 2006 12:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And how many Canadians would we find in Buffalo?
The point is not who is on moral high ground. The point is what is right. I think R.S. was correct in pointing out that it is incredibly shortsighted and idiotic to think of this as "news" ..... Only reflects badly on Americans who would (and still) keep farmers in prison in Guatanemo and who elect to see a bomb under every BUSH. They want crisis and bogeymen, this alone is their rationale for acting and not "intelligence".
I am not an apologist for Iran and have also condemned them for their abuse of human rights, women's rights, slow paced reform and corruption. But that is for them to resolve internally and for all good people to help those Iranians who would try. I am against Ahmandinejad's dense rhetoric and stand on the holocaust. But U.S. policy vis a vis Iran is only creating a new enemy, only making reform next to impossible within Iran. American policy is totally illegitimate in that it doesn't seek peace at all.
I will still call war mongering , war mongering and in all its Iranian diplomacy, the only effort has been confrontation on the part of the United States, not talks, engagement, words of constraint and respect. All this while they prepare for further troops in the region and send further naval support. Scary, damn scary and I don't know why the American people don't cry louder. Scary when a govt operates on ideological puffery, we saw that throughout the 20th century and Bush is reinventing this wheel.
As for Hizbollah, I don't see any shame defending their right to arm themselves and bear arms, given the aggression of Israel. Point blank, it is acceptable. So I'm not even apologizing for them, the facts of that war speak for themselves.......that Americans don't understand the simple fact of protecting your homeland, is a pity.
DD
PS> I would also add how bloody hypocriphal the U.S. is regarding nuclear testing and proliferation. They'd never make it through any pearly gates based on their nuclear policy , at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| ...that Americans don't understand the simple fact of protecting your homeland, is a pity. |
No. The real pity here is that you continue to serve as Tehran and Hezbollah's propaganda minister and that, most pathetic of all, you speak of "denseness" while stubbornly refusing to concede that Hezhollah neither speaks for the government of Lebanon nor is charged with its defense.
Indeed, Hezbollah continues to operate at Tehran and Damascus's behest, using the threat of force against the legitimate govt of Lebanon, and, moreover, in open defiance of Geneva Conventions and at least two UN Security Council Resolutions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| ...that Americans don't understand the simple fact of protecting your homeland, is a pity. |
Something that defenders of Hezbollah often gloss over, DDeubel, is that Hezbollah is an organization of outsiders who have 'ingratiated' themselves with the natives.
They built hospitals for the locals, with supply bunkers for weapons under them. As a local who might need medical care, I would find myself in a poor position to raise my concerns about some of the ulterior motives at play.
But, perhaps, DDeubel, you would care to explain how executing a raid inside Israeli territory that killed a half-dozen Israeli soldiers to kidnap two of them is a viable way of defending Lebanon?
I will align myself with this man in condeming Hezbollah for an action which you seem to label as 'protecting one's homeland.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I will align myself with this man in condeming Hezbollah for an action which you seem to label as 'protecting one's homeland.' |
Honestly, I was more than a bit surprised (though definitely pleased) to see you aligning yourself with someone of Juan Cole's intelligence in the analysis of ME politics.
So, that means you agree with this quote from the article on his website that you linked to?
Juan Cole: "Rejectionists on both sides are to blame. The Oslo Peace Process could have forestalled all this violence, as Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin understood. But on the Israeli side, the then Likud Party of Bibi Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert derailed it. On the Palestinian side, Hamas rejected it. Had there been a peace process, prisoners would have been released in return for a cessation of hostilities, and there would have been no motivation to capture Israeli soldiers.
The lesson is that if you refuse to negotiate a peace, then you are likely to have to go on fighting a war."
And can one be so optimistic about you as to also think you might agree with his analysis of 10 Myths About Iraq 2006 from another page on that site?
Juan Cole's 10 Myths about Iraq 2006:
1. Myth number 1: The United States "can still win" in Iraq.
2. Myth number 2: "US military sweeps of neighborhoods can drive the guerrillas out."
3. Myth number 3: The United States is best off throwing all its support behind the Iraqi Shiites.
4. Myth number 4: "Iraq is not in a civil war," as paleo-conservative Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly insists.
5. Myth number 5: "The second Lancet study showing 600,000 excess deaths from political and criminal violence since the US invasion is somehow flawed."
6. Myth number 6: "Most deaths in Iraq are from bombings."
7. Myth number 7: "Baghdad and environs are especially violent but the death rate is lower in the rest of the country."
8. Myth number 8: "Iraq is the central front in the war on terror."
9. Myth number 9: "The Sunni Arab guerrillas in places like Ramadi will follow the US home to the American mainland and commit terrorism if we leave Iraq."
10. Myth number 10: "Setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is a bad idea."
For the rest of Cole's analysis . . .
http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/top-ten-myths-about-iraq-2006-1.html
----------------------------------
If so, I'd have to say that you seem to be getting over a certain Kool-Aid addiction. Congratulations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| R. S. Refugee wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I will align myself with this man in condeming Hezbollah for an action which you seem to label as 'protecting one's homeland.' |
Honestly, I was more than a bit surprised (though definitely pleased) to see you aligning yourself with someone of Juan Cole's intelligence in the analysis of ME politics.
So, that means you agree with this quote from the article on his website that you linked to?
Juan Cole: "Rejectionists on both sides are to blame. The Oslo Peace Process could have forestalled all this violence, as Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin understood. But on the Israeli side, the then Likud Party of Bibi Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert derailed it. On the Palestinian side, Hamas rejected it. Had there been a peace process, prisoners would have been released in return for a cessation of hostilities, and there would have been no motivation to capture Israeli soldiers.
The lesson is that if you refuse to negotiate a peace, then you are likely to have to go on fighting a war." |
Of course I am for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, should each side be serious about it! For whom in this world, besides a very few in power in certain ME gov'ts, and even fewer in Palestine, is the conflict in that region beneficial?
I would blame rejectionists on both sides as Juan Cole did, but not as harshly or as easily as Juan Cole has. Because I believe what he is asking for, a lasting peace between these two sides, while entirely desirable, is extremely improbable.
| Quote: |
And can one be so optimistic about you as to also think you might agree with his analysis of 10 Myths About Iraq 2006 from another page on that site?
Juan Cole's 10 Myths about Iraq 2006:
1. Myth number 1: The United States "can still win" in Iraq.
2. Myth number 2: "US military sweeps of neighborhoods can drive the guerrillas out."
3. Myth number 3: The United States is best off throwing all its support behind the Iraqi Shiites.
4. Myth number 4: "Iraq is not in a civil war," as paleo-conservative Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly insists.
5. Myth number 5: "The second Lancet study showing 600,000 excess deaths from political and criminal violence since the US invasion is somehow flawed."
6. Myth number 6: "Most deaths in Iraq are from bombings."
7. Myth number 7: "Baghdad and environs are especially violent but the death rate is lower in the rest of the country."
8. Myth number 8: "Iraq is the central front in the war on terror."
9. Myth number 9: "The Sunni Arab guerrillas in places like Ramadi will follow the US home to the American mainland and commit terrorism if we leave Iraq."
10. Myth number 10: "Setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is a bad idea."
For the rest of Cole's analysis . . .
http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/top-ten-myths-about-iraq-2006-1.html |
1) The United States is very unlikely to win in Iraq at this point, especially given some of its objectives (establishing democracy?).
2) Military sweeps can drive guerillas out, temporarily. They come back soon after. I think Juan and I are on the same page, here.
3) This is Cheney's nonsense. I don't think I've ever professed agreement with almost anything Cheney has advocated.
4) Iraq is in a civil war.
5) The Lancet study isn't so much flawed as it is 'liberal.' I don't mean to suggest political bias as much as a high result following rather controversial practices. There are a great many demographers who have taken issue with this study, and there are other figures out there. I don't see the point over arguing here over this point however.
6) What kind of bombings? Suicide bombings or coalition bombings? I assume the former. I would not be surprised if many more deaths occurred at the end of a barrel of a gun.
7) There are four provinces that are particularly violent. Baghdad is as well. Baghdad is a hot spot. Does that mean the rest of Iraq isn't burning? No.
 The two central fronts in the war on terror aren't even fronts yet. One is in the middle of a nuclear power that begins with the letter 'P.' The other is in the middle of an aspiring nuclear power that ends with the letter 'n.'
9) I don't believe this. But I do believe that if the US leaves Iraq, they will participate in a new 30 years' war. This gives me a lot of sympathy for the position of people who don't want the US to withdraw.
10) Setting a timetable for Iraq has its advantages and disadvantages. It might be a good idea or a bad idea depending on what else we do.
| Quote: |
| If so, I'd have to say that you seem to be getting over a certain Kool-Aid addiction. Congratulations. |
What Kool-Aid addiction? I suppose you missed my flurry of postings bashing Bush for his detention policies.
Here's a myth I'd like to dispel for you: being an opponent of the Left does not mean one supports Bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Here's a myth I'd like to dispel for you: being an opponent of the Left does not mean one supports Bush. |
Well said  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Here's a myth I'd like to dispel for you: being an opponent of the Left does not mean one supports Bush. |
I think I understand that.
But there are many, many posters on this board who seem to think that opposing the US's arrogant, imperialist foreign policy is a sure sign that one is a leftist. There are obviously many conservatives (esp. of the libertarian persuasion) who are strongly opposed to this monstruous, anti-humanitarian foreign policy that primarily serves the interests of the wealthy, big-business socialists under the phony guise of protecting US citizens from all the evils of the world while actually making US citizens ever-more despised by the survivors of its foreign policy.
Or, at least, they pretend that only leftists would oppose the US's sick foreign policy.
(What is a leftist anyway? Does that mean you're in favor of universal health coverage? If so, I guess maybe I am one along with most of the industrialized world.)   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| US's arrogant, imperialist foreign policy is a sure sign that one is a leftist. |
Well accept for Kyoto what are you taking about?
As for me I support affirmative action and Kyoto. On the othe hand I don't have a pathological hatred for my own government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Here's a myth I'd like to dispel for you: being an opponent of the Left does not mean one supports Bush. |
And here's a myth I'd like to dispel for you: being an opponent of the left does not mean that you are freedom loving.
If I look at history, I have to laugh how the term "leftist" is used. So often, culture after culture, it refers to anyone outside the political mainstream. It is derogatory and deriding anyone who would have a thought towards freedom and what is right and just for people in general.
Was used that way by the Jacobins, also by fascist govts themselves. Just reading a book I highly recommend, "Colours of the Mountain" by Da Chen. He comments in chapter 3 of this autobiography how the communist authorities would outlaw and make untouchable, anyone who was a "landowner, bourgeoise, nationalist or leftist. It was a term for anyone who wanted basic, decent rights for ALL humans. Not just the selected and flavour of the powerful month.
So if that is "leftist", I'll gladly wear the label of Jefferson and Voltaire and Socrates, Paine, Bolivar and Kennedy (Robert). Also Da Chen.
DD |
|
| 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
