|
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 |
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Prove it. You're making declarative statements unsupported and insulting me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
| I dare you to answer any question I've asked. |
Already answered.
|
[/quote]
Show me.
| Quote: |
And I dare you to ask an honest, open question.
Can you even form one? |
I've asked several. For reference:
| Quote: |
So what makes it okay for us to keep having nuclear weapons, but not okay for people we treat menacingly to not have nuclear weapons?
|
No response except, to ask me to define "menacingly."
Now, would you describe the US's treatment of Iran as cordial?
Would you describe Iran's current capability to even defend itself against the US as anything but laughable?
| Quote: |
Now, was there something specific you wanted to know?
|
You responded by asking questions that nobody on this board except yourself and another specialist could possibly answer, and focusing on an example of a larger claim that is only helpful in passing, if at all, to understanding the discussion.
I have to interpret your response thus far as "I only want to hear questions from people I think are qualified to question my absolute authority on all foreign policy because I have a massive volume of ones and zeroes in my head on an anecdotally-based subfield."
Can anyone except another International Relations Ph.D. have a valid opinion on international relations?
Then you questioned my knowledge of all things about Latin America. This isn't about Latin America, as I have repeated several times now.
You then returned to claiming that one cannot generalize about international relations.
I then asked a question that you refused to answer.
This went back and forth for awhile, which is where we are now.
You refuse to even tell me if you sympathize with fucking Leo Strauss, who I really really hope you have heard of if you have anything to do with political thought after 1950.
You are obviously an incontrovertible fount of Truth.
Please share. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I apologize to the other readers of this thread.
Here is an entire fucking post about my views.
| Quote: |
My views are not Chomsky's views, and vice versa. For example, Chomsky believes that there is an absolute (or at least "natural") morality, as I understand him. This ties into his views about human perception, language acquisition as a result of universal grammar, and so on.
I do not believe in absolute morality. I sometimes assume the voice of someone who does, as Chomsky does, believe there is an absolute morality. It is useful to demonstrate that governments do not rely on morality outside of propaganda. This includes any Socialist government or Western Democracy. And every country around now claims to be one of those two, as far as I can tell.
North Korea and Cuba have dictators because they claim that is the best way to represent the interests of their people, much as the United States claims that dramatically limited popular involvement in foreign policy decisions is in the populace's best interest.
While that sounds a lot like Chomsky in places, I simply argue that these are ineffective governments, rather than Chomsky's argument from moral judgements.
Will you now shut the hell up about me agreeing with Chomsky? Because I don't. He did an excellent job of criticizing Skinner's oversimplification, he is a very good student of Kant, and a very bright man. I happen to disagree with Kant, which means that I am going to disagree with most rationalists.
Now, with regard to the US involvement with the Caribbean and Latin America . . .
Would you prefer we discussed the School of The Americas (i.e. "supporting paramilitary groups, creating military dictatorships, etc.")/funding efforts to meddle in domestic policy in these countries, direct military action against, or economic policy first?
I have no problem sharing my views. The difficulty is volume of material. There are people who spend their entire careers writing papers on the relationship between the US and Latin America, or even one country, within each of those subsets. I've spent a long time developing my views. I have not written them out for myself. I promise you that there is a retarded amount of material to be had here if you really want me to write out my comprehensive worldview along with elements of it that I am still sketching out.
I'm an amateur re: Latin American history, and one who hasn't studied this in a good 4 years. I focused on the relationship between Maoist revolutionary groups (Sendero Luminoso), the US military, and the Catholic Church in Peru when I did study US policy toward Latin America.If you ask a question, I will answer it.
Now, was there something specific you wanted to know?
|
Now, if you could explain to me what context you'd like to speak in, perhaps I could figure out what you want to hear. Because I'm clueless.
Is there anyone besides a Ph.D. in your field whose views you would take seriously? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
| Explain how I'm wrong... |
Again, your views are conditioned by theoretical and propagandistic, U.S.-centric, and antiAmerican assumptions and accounts which fault and indeed scapegoat the United States for, in effect, everything.
Your views on U.S.-Latin American relations fail to take into account any actual, ground-based facts or data. None at all. (Or at least none cited.) Everyone takes one side or another. But your approach is far too unscientific and propagandistic -- not to mention sweeping and grandiose ("There was no Cold War," for example.)
You do little but state your case for the prosecution, then (or in Tehran's case, which I will address in more detail below, the defense).
And in your arguments against American foreign policy's faults and shortcomings (and I have never presented Washington as Mother Teresa, here or elsewhere) you would leave a nuclear-armed Tehran and indeed, by way of Sunni reaction, a nuclear-armed Middle East in your wake. In fact, as I remind you above, you have in effect argued the Iranian government's case. And you show no concern for this or for its probable consequences -- that is, a likely regional nuclear exchange -- whatsoever. |
gopher, honestly. your responses to both nowhere man and sinncinatislink make you look like an arrogant ass who is full of hot air. Stop being a condescending *beep*. If you don't think he is worth answering or responding to, ignore him. instead, you are digging yourself a bigger and bigger hole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
| Show me. |
For the third time:
| Gopher wrote: |
In effect, cummulatively, you have denied the Cold War, repeated the usual "imperialism!" charges, and then asked me to defend "the accused" -- someone you have already convicted by the way. So such a defense would be pointless.
In any case, I will not get into that debate. |
This may not be the answer you would like to hear. But it is my answer nevertheless.
I will address this question (again):
| Quote: |
| So what makes it okay for us to keep having nuclear weapons, but not okay for people we treat menacingly to not have nuclear weapons...? would you describe the US's treatment of Iran as cordial? Would you describe Iran's current capability to even defend itself against the US as anything but laughable? |
I am not interested in whether it is "OK" for one or another nation-state to have nuclear weapons because it is apparently "OK" for those who already have them to keep them. I do not believe that nuclear weapons should exist at all.
Unfortunately, however, they do.
And rather than creating a highly-unstable nuclear world, with nuclear-armed chip-on-their-shoulder nation-states like Tehran, which is where your logic leads, I would like to see no more powers acquire nukes at all. At the same time, those who have them ought to move to disarm -- not the United States unilaterally. But all nuclear powers, in a reasonable, calm, safe, negotiated way.
You link American hostility towards Iran as if what were happening at this very moment suddently appeared with no antecedents. Who did what to whom first? I do not care for that stupid argument. At the moment, the United States is pressing Iran for several reasons: it stands in defiance to several United Nation's resolutions, to cite but one of them.
Why are you pleading Tehran's case, by the way? What makes you so certain that Iran is in the right?
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:11 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| gopher, honestly... |
I do not understand why you could not have said this in a pm.
Thanks for adding an additional gratuitous personal attack on a thread that already has too many of them. You truly stand above the fray, Bucheon. Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To indulge in some sophistry, I have spent well over 3 months in Latin America in two different countries and have read negative accounts of the goings-on at Ft. Benning from both extreme leftist and Catholic sources, 6ish years of formal study in Spanish, and I've read about Honduras and Haiti a fair bit, a good number of my sparring partners on these topics spent time comparable to mine in Honduras . . . you get the idea.
I have also read and discussed an overwhelming mess of political literature formally, and a decent bit of University of Chicago Strauss and/or Bloom types on my own.
So please, tell me I don't know shit about political thought or Central/South American culture. Pretty please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
| So please, tell me I don't know *beep* about political thought or Central/South American culture. Pretty please. |
With this kind of overly-simplistic, grandiose, antiAmerican generalization...?
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
| You seem to forget a large part of 20th century Central and South American, nevermind Caribbean history. |
and from a poster who outright denies the Cold War happened?
Yeah, Sincinnati, you don't know *beep* about Latin America and the Caribbean. You have said nothing here to counter that impression either -- Bucheon's adding his own righteousness to the discussion nothwithstanding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
In effect, cummulatively, you have denied the Cold War, repeated the usual "imperialism!" charges, and then asked me to defend "the accused" -- someone you have already convicted by the way. So such a defense would be pointless.
In any case, I will not get into that debate. |
So you refuse to do anything except claim that I am not worth speaking with because you disagree with me.
I would also like to see you cite a conviction of US foreign policy.
| Quote: |
This may not be the answer you would like to hear. But it is my answer nevertheless.
I will address this question (again):
| Quote: |
| So what makes it okay for us to keep having nuclear weapons, but not okay for people we treat menacingly to not have nuclear weapons...? would you describe the US's treatment of Iran as cordial? Would you describe Iran's current capability to even defend itself against the US as anything but laughable? |
I am not interested in whether it is "OK" for one or another nation-state to have nuclear weapons because it is apparently "OK" for those who already have them to keep them. I do not believe that nuclear weapons should exist at all.
Unfortunately, however, they do.
And rather than creating a highly-unstable nuclear world, with nuclear-armed chip-on-their-shoulder nation-states like Tehran, which is where your logic leads,
|
Wait, so you are describing Iran as a chip-on-their-shoulder nation-state? By comparison to what other nation-state?
| Quote: |
I would like to see no more powers acquire nukes at all. At the same time, those who have them ought to move to disarm -- not the United States unilaterally.
|
Sure. All the countries that have nukes should ditch them. I'm fine with that.
| Quote: |
But all nuclear powers, in a reasonable, calm, safe, negotiated way.
|
Yep.
| Quote: |
You link American hostility towards Iran as if what were happening at this very moment suddently appeared with no antecedents.
|
I thought you cared about reducing nukes unilaterally. Does context matter or not?
| Quote: |
Who did what to whom first?
|
I suspect this all started when Iran started a war with a state neighboring the US and described the US as part of an "Axis of Evil."
| Quote: |
I do not care for that stupid argument.
|
I like getting insulted.
| Quote: |
At the moment, the United States is pressing Iran for several reasons: it stands in defiance to several United Nation's resolutions, to cite but one of them.
|
I have never claimed the UN is a dandy organization.
Furthermore, the US doesn't even pay its membership dues. It is periodically cited to justify wars, and ignored when inconvenient.
Prove me wrong, pretty please.
| Quote: |
Why are you pleading Tehran's case, by the way? What makes you so certain that Iran is in the right? |
I am not pleading Iran's case, and I am very sure that the United States and Iran are in the wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
| I suspect this all started when Iran started a war with a state neighboring the US and described the US as part of an "Axis of Evil." |
Your obvious antiAmerican sarcasm notwithstanding, you do not go back nearly far enough to get to the beginning of this.
But yes, "the Great Satan" called "the Axis of Evil" evil. And it is all aggressive America's doing, huh?
So clearly and unsurprisingly, then, you exclusivley fault the United States for the conflict. "But for U.S. foreign policy..." it always seems to go. Noted. Entirely unoriginal.
And if you plead the case that Iran has the moral right to arm itself with nuclear weapons, then you are in fact pleading Iran's case. Sorry you lack that self-awareness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do not believe in moral right.
Pay attention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You've also ignored the "starting a war with a neighboring state."
Would you buy a gun if your neighbor's house got robbed twice, even if you despised your neighbor? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Note lack of "shoulds." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
You've also ignored the "starting a war with a neighboring state."
Would you buy a gun if your neighbor's house got robbed twice, even if you despised your neighbor? |
Who started the wars that have plagued the Middle East for as long as there's been a Middle East?
Is that the question you are asking? Because there is no answer to that. Every war that occurs there is a response/reaction to a previous war where the issues were never conclusively settled.
America got into the fray, no doubt.
How is America the cause of all of this, though?
And does your analogy say that America "robbed" poor Saddam twice and this frightened innocent, neighborly Iran? If so, that is pretty foolish.
And in any case, you are still arguing Iran's case for nuclear weapons. I thought you were against nuclear weapons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not arguing the case for Iran to have nuclear weapons.
I am offering a partial account that may be useful to prevent further proliferation or even encourage future disarmament.
Next? |
|
| 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
