|
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 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
You began by stating that you understood why Iran believed it needed nuclear weapons. Your language suggested that you accepted Iran's faulting the United States in this conflict as well.
You followed up with this...
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
| I believe that the current US foreign policy encourages nuclear proliferation. Nuclear capability is now the only guaranteed path to sovereignty. |
Now you have changed your position to this...
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
| 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. |
It is not clear whether you are arguing for a change in U.S. Middle East policy, that American policy overall is bad (not only in the Middle East but also Latin America and the Caribbean as well), whether you understand why Iran ought to have nuclear weapons ("so that it might achieve sovereignty" or "so that it will not be robbed twice like its poor neighbor was"), or whether you wish to provide constructive criticism on proliferation and disarmament policy.
Which is it?
The fact that you have conflated all of these issues into one -- spiked by your a priori assumption that America is in the wrong -- explains much about your posts.
My issue is a simple and straighforward one: Iran should not develop and arm itself with nuclear weapons. The other issues are exactly that: other issues.
Can you, by the way, simply state your issue in succinct terms like I just did (see ital)? Because I am having a hard time identifying the issue you wish to address here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If that is the only issue, you sure are adding a lot of footnotes.
I am not conflating shit.
It's a bad practical idea to make the leaders of a nation-state feel threatened, assuming one wants to reduce the risk of war.
Do you agree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I find it necessarily to point out that the US is equally guilty because you used the term "antiAmerican" before anyone had a chance to say something "antiAmerican." Does disagreeing with a whole or part of US foreign policy make me "antiAmerican?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
| If that is the only issue... |
That is the only issue.
And you (and far too many others here and elsewhere) have conflated it with all the other issues I just teased out from your posts.
In fact, your issue does not really concern Iran at all, does it? That is the problem in exchanging view with you and those like you. We must untangle all of these things...
You dislike W. Bush? OK, I voted against him twice.
You disagree with the Iraqi War? Me, too. Next?
You do not believe America should war against Iran? Hey, that is great. We were already in agreement before I started this thread. And I am not arguing that Iran should not have nuclear weapons as a pretext to sneak in a war justification; I am arguing that Iran should not have nuclear weapons because plainly and simply I think enough is enough with nuclear weapons in our world.
You exclusively fault American foreign policy for the world's problems (as in twentieth-century Latin America and the Caribbean)? Disagree. This is antiAmericanism. Pervasive here on this board. Set that aside for a moment.
Should Iran develop and arm itself with nuclear weapons? I am attempting to clarify that people arguing against all of the above issues are conflating them with this and, in effect, arguing for a nuclear-armed Tehran.
Amazing how many times and how many different ways I must state and restate this.
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:45 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not "antiAmerican."
I have a problem with hierarchy generally.
I am sure George W. Bush is a nice guy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
| I have a problem with hierarchy generally. |
You mean "authority?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I am attempting to clarify that people arguing against all of the above issues are conflating them with this and, in effect, arguing for a nuclear-armed Tehran. |
If you're against a war with Iran, then aren't you arguing for a nuclear-armed Tehran? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But free-thinking people, people acting in good-faith, can indeed reach conclusions at variance with your worldview. People can take sides, too. Your discourse would stifle such diversity and dismiss honest differences in perspective. |
I think the world is a better place when there is a multitude or even a smattering of "differences of opinion". I don't seek for the world to think like me. My only beef is for those who argue politics / political theory in a facile manner. Meaning, by not asking what is right, beyond their own little bubble and prejudices. Those who would advocate any position/idea based simply on their own existential situation (inherent superiority of nation, race, religion, creed ) and without always checking with the question -- "does it mean more pain and suffering and death?" receive my distane.
If my manner seems pompous, it is only in the passion of my belief and how that shows in my writing style. I am all for debate and pluralism. Also, for my own growth through hearing and listening to the ideas of others.
But I won't suffer those who support inhumane ideas, gladly.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was just looking at this again, because I remember I didn't have time to address it as I wished.
| Gopher wrote: |
| And what we who oppose them think, on the other hand, is merely "Orwellian." This is such a common allegation that I am planning on developing talking points for it in the future. |
First, I was talking about the "Orwellian Memory Hole." I think it is a very apt description of what I see happening again and again in the mainstream press. Inconvenient (yet very pertinant) historical facts are completely ignored. Facts that would put things in an extremely different light. Facts that would give rise to very different view points among the general population than those often created.
| Gopher wrote: |
| I have no problem recognizing their human side, either. And I do not judge them or anyone else by their skin color as you suggest, above. Those of us who are concerned about them are not creating concern as a pretext to articulate latent racism. That is Said talking. I hope you truly do not believe that. There are issues besides race here. And these are the issues I and many others are concerned about. |
I would just like to make clear that you were not necessarily my sole audience as I wrote that post. I know I was responding to your post, so it may have appeared that these things were aimed at you. Perhaps I should have considered that you might think that. But actually you have never struck me as suffering from such deficiencies. I had other people in mind.
| Gopher wrote: |
| There is also the matter of the UN resolutions ordering Hezbollah to disarm and ordering Syria out of Lebanon. What about that? |
This is a very good question. The thing that has always fascinated me with both the Israel/Palestinian conflict and the Israel/Lebanon conflicts is the extraordinary double standard at play. This is probably what brings me back again and again to examine what's going on. It's one of the most interesting and fascinating examples of a double standard that I can think of. It's primarily what drives my curiousity in fact.
One of the resolutions you refer to I presume is UN resolution 1559. At the time I was amused by Israel's outrage at Hezbollah's non-compliance of this resolution. Israel has been the subject of numerous UN resolutions, and has consistently ignored them! Why is Hezbollah expected to comply with UN resolutions, when its opponent never does!?!
The US and Israel: The Hypocrisy of UN Security Council Resolutions
| Quote: |
| Two nations stand out above all others as notorious serial abusers of UN resolutions - the US and Israel. |
| Quote: |
| The Israeli record on UN resolutions over that same period is far worse. With full US support for its actions, it's flagrantly and with little or no pretense routinely ignored over five dozen UN Resolutions condemning or censuring it for its actions against the Palestinians or other Arab people, deploring it for committing them, or demanding, calling on or urging the Jewish state to end them. |
Also see:
Secondly you suggest the resolution orders them to disarm. I understand that it is not a binding resolution:
The UN, Resolution 1559, and Israel
| Quote: |
First, resolution 1559 is merely a guideline. It was not passed under chapter 7, which implies that it has no binding authority. In essence, Israel cannot use that resolution as a cover for its actions. Indeed, the same resolution reaffirms and reiterates the sovereignty of Lebanon, which is now being violated.
Second, Israel�s legal argument does not consider the several UN resolutions that Israel itself is in violation of. By one account, Israel has been the subject of 138 United Nations resolutions against it. This excludes the many resolutions which the US vetoed. |
Lastly, it leaves the Lebanese in a very vulnerable position, and it makes no sense for them to comply with this. Why? Next door is a very powerful military entity, and a very aggressive one at that. One that has repeatedly invaded Lebanon. The Lebanese have never tried to invade Israel, yet they have suffered greatly under Israeli occupation and assault. The Lebanese army is next to useless. It makes no sense for any sane population to disarm in the face of this. Hezbollah are all they've got!
Between the Israeli withdrawal in 2000 (widely accepted as brought about by Hezbollah) and the summer war of 2006, Israel routinely violated the Lebanon border and made regular provocations. Almost daily in fact. And far more than Hezbollah according to UN observers. The UN asked Israel again and again to desist, to no avail. This fact was conveniently tossed down the Orwellian Memory Hole (whose existence you query) and excised from most mainstream reportage and discourse. But this fact must surely disuade the Lebanese that 1559 is in their interests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:49 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Addendum and disclaimer:
| Quote: |
| Nowhere Man: we both know how you came about and what you did to that post. |
Upon further review of this statement, I think it suggests that I in some way doctored/modified/added to Gopher's post.
For the record, I did no such thing. I will take Gopher's silence on the issue as an acknowledgement of just that.
What I did do was reinsert the original (as Gopher posted it) quotation formatting, which was lost in the cut and paste. |
Well, I have to say I read the post in question with interest. I must say that some of the language featured seemed very un-Gopherish:
| Gopher (at least according to Nowhere Man) wrote: |
jackass.
Kiss my ass.
Yeah, that is right: I am calling you a *beep*.
|
While Gopher may at times be rude, I've never yet seen him be crude. He's always struck me as being one of the rather more refined CE regulars, despite being a rightwing capitalist roading imperialist of course. 
Therefore....I find myself querying the posts authenticity... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
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. |
Hohoho! Pot and Kettle alert! bucheon bum you are a fine one to talk about being an 'arrogant ass' and 'condescending *beep*!' I see you regularly sniping away on the forum. "This thread sucks!" (well why read it/post on it then) or making snotty observations/judgements about this or that poster.
When you actually stick to just discussing the topic in hand, I actually enjoy your posts, even if I disagree with your viewpoint. You are quite knowledgeable in some areas and you've often got something worthwhile to contribute. If you'd just stick to that, instead of being an arrogant ass and a condescending so and so, we'd all like you much more! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bigbird:
Your outrage is specious. Your whole argument is a which came first, the chicken or the egg.
It goes right back to what the Arab world calls the catastrophe in 1948/49. The ignored a great deal from the UN and got the butts kicked by a desparate people fresh from the Holocaust.
They remain fromly fixed with the idea of regaining their idiotic pride and driving the Jews into the sea.
Probably 99 times out of 100 when Israel breaches such a resolution and General Assembly resolutions are meaningless, it is because some semi barbarian from the middle ages raids an Israeli settlement, bombs a bus or a pizza place.
The Arabs have become involved in "zero risk" wars and attacks time and again. They try, they lose and then they whine to the UN and the world to be put back into the status quo ante. There is a price for starting something and losing and they will have to pay it.
Yo many the attitude seems to be those darn pesky Israelis (Jews) why don't they just roll over and play dead, so that the rest of us can get along with our comfortable lives.
Pardon my if I say that my sympathy is found only in the dictionary between sh!t and syphyllus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| ...despite being a rightwing capitalist roading imperialist, of course. |
Well. Thank you for noticing.
And if I ever write an autobiography, this will certainly appear as my subtitle (full credit to you).
On the legitimate government of Lebanon and its woes, on Tel Aviv and its complications, problems, and faults, and on Damascus/Tehran/Hezbollah and their ignoring the United Nations' efforts to resolve the region's difficulties (and what I see as their very bad-faith motives in doing so and particularly my strong reservations against Tehran's acquiring nuclear weapons in such an unstable and confrontational context as this), I suggest we agree to disagree and leave it alone.
Rest assured, too, that I do fully understand your position: you stress Hezbollah and the others' human rights and the defensiveness of their actions in the face of a brutal American and Irsaeli aggressiveness. I do not stress the reverse of this, as I hope you know. I would, however, not paint Washington or Tel Aviv as "evil"; I do not believe that Israel has any terrirotial ambitions in Lebanon per se; I would not therefore characterize Hezbollah's motives as "defensive"; nor could I accept your assumption that Hezbollah acts in good faith on behalf of Lebanon; and in no way would I apologize for Iranian nuclear ambitions as "defensive," as many others do on this thread.
But, as Richard Immerman recently told the Society for the History of American Foreign Relations (because of much infighting -- far more sophisticated, of course -- over many of the same issues we see here on this board), "I will write my book; you write yours; and we will read each other," I am inclined to agree with him that d�tente may be the only real solution to these disagreements.
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:14 am; edited 9 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Contrarian: I think if another people had invaded my country, ethnically cleansed us, and sent us to live for generations as refugees, myself and my countrymen might have espoused sentiments like wishing to see our enemy "washed into the sea. " I would say it's quite a normal human reaction. So is violent retaliation. Look at other occupied peoples. There is nothing unique about this response. However, not every Arab these days is dreaming about driving jews into the sea or strapping on a bomb. 1948 cannot be undone and intelligent Arabs know they have to live with this. Israel has had many opportunities to come up with some kind of fair and just resolution, but refuses to because of its designs on the territory and natural resources in the West Bank. This is acknowledged by many Israelis.
Also, don't forget that in 1948, the UN was mostly a club run by former imperialist powers, who would have had little sympathy for a colonised people. Their decisions can be seen as very unfair in hindsight. You also ignore that Israel (or the people about to form it) didn't go along with the UN until it eventually suited them.
Actually, I don't see much point in engaging with you contrarian, as you have already made it very clear that you are informed by religious beliefs and I am atheist. I feel that makes it impossible for us to have meaningful debate. |
|
| 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
