|
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 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: Bush and Ahmadinejad - 2 peas in a pod? |
 |
|
| Quote: |
There is a striking likeness in the expressions of George W Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran as they confront each other over the issues of uranium enrichment and dominance in the Middle East. It falls somewhere between the chastened and defiant playground bully.
This is unsurprising: though not political equivalents, the two are really quite similar. Both had little experience of government or international affairs before being carried to power on a tide of populist, religious conservatism. Neither travelled abroad much, but they both had certain views about the world and the destiny of their nations. They had all the answers, yet there was also a dangerous lack of seriousness in them which has now earned them both the scorn of their people and rebuffs from their elders.
We think of Bush as being the more unpopular of the two. His approval ratings are at the level of Nixon's just before he left the White House. After an unconvincing performance in the State of the Union Address, his plans for the troop surge in Iraq were rejected by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and may now be voted down by the entire Senate. Senior Republican senators such as Chuck Hagel and John Warner are furious that sensible suggestions contained in the Iraq Study Group Report have been ignored. Although the President looked receptive when the report was delivered to him by James Baker, there has been no progress in policy, no evidence of any kind of deeper thinking in the White House. Nothing except that familiar foggy, narrow-eyed truculence of Bush Junior in a tight spot.
This would be a depressing but for similar difficulties experienced by Ahmadinejad over the last few weeks. Just as the senior Republican elders have turned on Bush, so Iran's religious leaders are moving to restrain their President. They criticise his bellicose foreign policy and the exceptionally poor record on promised reforms at home. There is a sense of embarrassment among sophisticated Iranians about their President's pronouncements, which surely rings a bell with Americans. |
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2000375,00.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
More crapola from the guardian eh?? Yes let's try to make Bush out ot be as bad as Ahmadinejad.
Yeah remember when Bush encouraged a meeting to question the Holocaust. Oh also remember those times where President Bush talked directly aobut Jesus' return...
yeah typical guardian crap.. the .Evangelicals are as bad as radical Muslims
Maybe for fun you could throw Clinton's name in there....he had about as much experience of government as Bush and other than Europe how much travel experience did he really have....You could accuse me of generalizing here but I'd do the same for your posted article... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| postfundie wrote: |
More crapola from the guardian eh?? Yes let's try to make Bush out ot be as bad as Ahmadinejad.
Yeah remember when Bush encouraged a meeting to question the Holocaust. Oh also remember those times where President Bush talked directly aobut Jesus' return...
yeah typical guardian crap.. the .Evangelicals are as bad as radical Muslims
Maybe for fun you could throw Clinton's name in there....he had about as much experience of government as Bush and other than Europe how much travel experience did he really have....You could accuse me of generalizing here but I'd do the same for your posted article... |
It is worth reading the whole article though, postfundie - it's not saying that Bush is as "bad" as Ahmadinejad, just that both men are politically compromised 'second-raters' and that steps should be taken to prevent either from goading the other into war. Here's the final paragraph:
| Quote: |
| What can the British government do about Ahmadinejad? The first thing to is to recognise his failing support at home is an advantage that will be lost if the drumbeat to war is allowed to continue. There is no reason why Tony Blair should not add to the call from the head of UN inspectors, Mohamed ElBaradei, for a time out in which sanctions would be suspended. Blair still has a voice that is heard in the US. He should consider making a speech which insists that Bush initiates direct diplomatic relations with Tehran as well as a renewed effort to create the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. He owes something to the cause of peaceful resolution and, besides, these are hardly controversial views: both have already been expressed by James Baker's Iraq Study Group. |
The comparison between Bush and Ahmadinejad is perhaps a bit of a cheapshot, but it's not the main focus of the article. I think Big_Bird is trying to stir things up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
BigBird:
Squaking again, eh? You do realize that The Guardian is a leftist rag with neo-Marxist leanings on its editorial board?
That aside, to even begin to equate these two leaders demonstrates just how ridiculous the Far Left's obsession with Bush has become. Aside from being grossly unfair to the point of being laughable, it is just another example of demonizing those who chase the demons.
One can disapprove of Bush and his policies, but Bush doesn't go around talking about annihilating other nations from the face of the earth. Nor is he blind to the Holocaust, nor has he tried to stir up the masses in a hateful way.
Please tell me your joking or else I've lost any remnant of hope for you to see the light of day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| One can disapprove of Bush and his policies, but Bush doesn't go around talking about annihilating other nations from the face of the earth. Nor is he blind to the Holocaust, nor has he tried to stir up the masses in a hateful way. |
I can see you get your informed opinion from your doctor's waiting room.
Bush doesn't talk, he does....note Iraq and also the 3 times his administration has seriously broken the NPA by using the threat of nuclear weapons to "annihilate". Not to mention that other comment regarding Pakistan.
Bush is not blind to the holocaust, it simply doesn't exist to him. Like for the most part, all of history and other cultures. This has been proven time and time again. Do I have to cite examples???? of this dumby???
Not stirred up the masses in a hateful way???? What planet are you on.... The basic failing of post 9/11 policy was in "an educated response". Bush and gang took the "whip up the masses route." Revenge, pure and simple. Moralistic, old testament, revenge, on an invisible enemy. No he didn't rally the crowd for war....no no no.........again I ask, what planet are you on????
Please go back to your doctor's office and Newsweek, you need a good bowel movement . You know the appropriate treatment.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
ddeubel:
| Quote: |
| I can see you get your informed opinion from your doctor's waiting room. |
Uh, what was that you were saying about cheap shots?
| Quote: |
| This has been proven time and time again |
Whenever I read this cliche I know that the poster is insecure and/or unable to mount a real argument.
| Quote: |
| Bush is not blind to the holocaust, it simply doesn't exist to him. |
Really? And what, pray tell is your evidence for that?
Time for a histrionicrectomy at your ddoctor's office. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Quote: |
| One can disapprove of Bush and his policies, but Bush doesn't go around talking about annihilating other nations from the face of the earth. Nor is he blind to the Holocaust, nor has he tried to stir up the masses in a hateful way. |
I can see you get your informed opinion from your doctor's waiting room.
Bush doesn't talk, he does....note Iraq and also the 3 times his administration has seriously broken the NPA by using the threat of nuclear weapons to "annihilate". Not to mention that other comment regarding Pakistan.
Bush is not blind to the holocaust, it simply doesn't exist to him. Like for the most part, all of history and other cultures. This has been proven time and time again. Do I have to cite examples???? of this dumby???
Not stirred up the masses in a hateful way???? What planet are you on.... The basic failing of post 9/11 policy was in "an educated response". Bush and gang took the "whip up the masses route." Revenge, pure and simple. Moralistic, old testament, revenge, on an invisible enemy. No he didn't rally the crowd for war....no no no.........again I ask, what planet are you on????
Please go back to your doctor's office and Newsweek, you need a good bowel movement . You know the appropriate treatment.
DD |
Your telling people to have bowel movements? Your so full of shit Itt's oozing out your eyes. When did the US ever directly and to the point threaten to annihilate another country using nuclear weapons?
Neve rheard it. Only time's I have heard it discussed are 1. In 1991 during the first Gulf War, a "terrible response" was threatened if our troops were gasssed. No nukes mentioned. People just assumed.
2nd. Bush re did the nuclear posture and stated if it was detected that a WMD attack was going to be launched against the US, a first strike nuke would be used to stop said WMD attack. I see nothign wrong with that.
But never has annihilation been tossed around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Your telling people to have bowel movements? Your so full of *beep* Itt's oozing out your eyes. When did the US ever directly and to the point threaten to annihilate another country using nuclear weapons?
Neve rheard it. Only time's I have heard it discussed are 1. In 1991 during the first Gulf War, a "terrible response" was threatened if our troops were gasssed. No nukes mentioned. People just assumed.
2nd. Bush re did the nuclear posture and stated if it was detected that a WMD attack was going to be launched against the US, a first strike nuke would be used to stop said WMD attack. I see nothign wrong with that.
But never has annihilation been tossed around. |
I used "annihilate" in quotes to highlight it as NOT verbatim. Higher level reading skills required I guess.....
But I am glad you brought up these instances of nuclear aggression which transgress the NPT. I just shake my head at the U.S. policy towards nuclear weapons. I believe they were sincere at the time of the treaty's signing but since, have talked out of the side of their mouth. In particular of late, is the "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" which is affirmed U.S. policy now. It calls for pre-emptive nuclear strikes. Yet in the same document, they reaffirm their commitment to NPT.???? What????
I highlighted "annihilation" because one of , if not the only founding principal and reason for the NPT was that of "never again". Meaning that with modern nuclear technology, it was unthinkable to ever even consider launching one. Annihilation is the only result, of all and everyone.
Your thinking of "tactical" strikes and that of so many others, is really fanatical and fantastical. I just rewatched Herzog's "Lessons of Darkness". I suggest you watch it and see the waste of war. I find when I've shown this to others I get one of two responses ..... WOW! what awesome killing capacity, destruction!!! Like some kid using a hammer on his crackers. The other response, more humane is just numbness......and this wasn't even nuclear war.
| Quote: |
| Bush re did the nuclear posture and stated if it was detected that a WMD attack was going to be launched against the US, a first strike nuke would be used to stop said WMD attack. I see nothign wrong with that. |
I see everything wrong with that. Bush should have stated (in order to abide by the articles of the NPT.), If a WMD attack was launched. This whole new age of "nuclear preemption is just evil. Really and truly, the devil is hiding in the White House...
In short, the U.S. has its own hypocricy and its own problems regarding nuclear weapons and endangering the world. They would do better to hold human life in high regard and work towards a less confrontational world, a world where they've truly accepted the NPT's doctrine of "never again".
And let's not forget, the NPT does allow for peaceful nuclear capacity.......
I won't even mention all the other transgressions of the treaty by the U.S. including testing on their own soil and poisoning her own people....including the present testing of higher grade missles, including not destroying excess capacity, including the sharing of nuclear technology within NATO, including.....
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
ddeubel:
Are you married to BigBird, or otherwise flock together? Just wondering. |
|
| 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
