|
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 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
[b]thiophene"][.
| Quote: |
| lol so it's because someone signed a paper that they don't deserve nuclear energy? peopel deserve to be bombed and their lives destroyed because of this paper? And fyi, USA and Russia are in breach as well since they're not taking the disarmament seriously (second pillar). |
Iran is out to get Israel and not the other way around.
Iran and Israel used to have good relations.
Iran opposes any peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Why?
Simple.
Because Israel is good ... & Iran is baaaaaaaaaad.
Case closed. |
Nope cause Iran is out to destroy Israel. Not the otherway around |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgeezer wrote: |
It's just simple old American hypocrisy;
-America used a bomb
-America has thousands of bombs
-America threatens to use bombs against Iran
-America let's other countries off the hook (Pakistan, India)
By no way, shape or form am i saying that Iran having a nuclear bomb is good for the region, but the double standards are exactly what is ticking off the Iranians pure and simple....and so it should |
If Iran was like Pakistan then the US would not care about Iran's bomb.
Iran wants a bomb to be able to more forcefully support Hizzbollah or worse. That is the difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dome Vans"
| Quote: |
Israel poses no threat to anyone, except when they launch a pre-emptive strike on whichever neighbouring country they want to and get backed up by their poodle, America. Iran on the otherhand hasn't launched an attack on anyone, and is full of hot air, as it is with most middle eastern countries, the leaders like to look powerful when they are not. Saddam was a good case in point.
I'll let you work out who is the most dangerous here. |
| Quote: |
Shipment of high explosives intercepted in Iraq
Most sophisticated of roadside bombs reportedly coming from Iran |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8829929/
9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
| Quote: |
| Senior U.S. officials have told TIME that the 9/11 Commission's report will cite evidence suggesting that the 9/11 hijackers had previously passed through Iran |
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html
| Quote: |
| The American military said Tuesday that it had credible evidence linking Iranians and their Iraqi associates, detained here in raids last week, to criminal activities, including attacks against American forces. Evidence also emerged that some detainees had been involved in shipments of weapons to illegal armed groups in Iraq. |
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F0061EF635550C748EDDAB0994DE404482
| Quote: |
| On June 25, 1996, Iran again attacked America at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, exploding a huge truck bomb that devastated Khobar Towers and murdered 19 U.S. airmen as they rested in their dormitory. These young heroes spent every day risking their lives enforcing the no-fly zone over southern Iraq; that is, protecting Iraqi Shiites from their own murderous tyrant. When I visited this horrific scene soon after the attack, I watched dozens of dedicated FBI agents combing through the wreckage in 120-degree heat, reverently handling the human remains of our brave young men. More than 400 of our Air Force men and women were wounded in this well-planned attack, and I was humbled by their courage and spirit. I later met with the families of our lost Khobar heroes and promised that we would do whatever was necessary to bring these terrorists to American justice. The courage and dignity these wonderful families have consistently exemplified has been one of the most powerful experiences of my 26 years of public service. |
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003518
Quote:
Iran responsible for 1983 Marine barracks bombing, judge rules
Friday, May 30, 2003 Posted: 11:14 PM EDT (0314 GMT)
Marines search through the rubble for their missing comrades after the 1983 barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon.
| Quote: |
| WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iran is responsible for the 1983 suicide bombing of a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 241 American servicemen, a U.S. District Court judge ruled Friday. |
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/
Amir Taheri: Khomeinists hammering new strategy to oust 'Great Satan'
| Quote: |
But at almost exactly the same time, militants from some 40 countries spread across the globe were trekking to Tehran for a 10-day "revolutionary jamboree" in which "a new strategy to confront the American Great Satan" will be hammered out. The event is scheduled to start on February 1 to mark the 25th anniversary of the return to Iran from exile of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the "Islamic Revolution".
It is not clear how many militants will attend, but the official media promise a massive turnout to underline the Islamic Republic's position as the "throbbing heart of world resistance to American arrogance."
The guest list reads like a who-is-who of global terror.
In fact, most of the organisations attending the event, labelled "Ten-Days of Dawn", are branded by the US and some European Union members as terrorist outfits. For more than two decades, Tehran has been a magnet for militant groups from many different national and ideological backgrounds.
The Islamic Republic's hospitality cuts across even religious divides. Militant Sunni organisations, including two linked to Al Qaida, Ansar al-Islam (Companions of Islam) and Hizb Islami (The Islamic Party), enjoy Iranian hospitality.
They are joined by Latin American guerrilla outfits, clandestine Irish organisations, Basque and Corsican separatists, and a variety of leftist groups from Spartacists to Trotskyites and Guevarists. Tehran is the only capital where all the Palestinian militant movements have offices and, in some cases, training and financial facilities. |
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/04/01/28/109235.html
| Quote: |
U.S.: Top Iran officials ordering bombs to Iraq
Orders to send armor-piercing bombs came from highest levels, official says |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17097658/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
We have not even begun to get into Iranian-sponsored covert action and terrorism in and beyond the Middle East -- partly because Tehran is consciously an opaque and not a transparent government; and partly because most people in fora like these remain only interested in discussing American-sponsored covert action and other forms of unofficial diplomacy and aggression.
|
I have to agree with Gophers above post. He also made a good point about the use of Nuclear weapons against Japan. The military leaders of Japan weren't even willing to surrender after the use of two of them according to a documentary I saw and it was only because of the Emperor that the war ended without more casulties.
Therefore it is difficult to believe with hindsight that the use of conventional weapons against Japan would have resulted in less casulties.
In regards to the ownership of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, Israel has never stated (officially) that they wish to see the destruction of any surrounding state, while most other Middle Eastern states have been less coy about thier views of Israel with Iran simply being the most recent.
Therefore as someone without any personal issue in this fight, which country should I believe is the greater danger? A country whose leader states quite clearly that he wishes to seek the utter destruction of a state while seeking nuclear power and its benefits or a country that simply does not wish to be sent into that good night. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let Iran go ahead and do what they want.
At the same time all you people who advocate letting Iran do what they want ought to not complain if the US goes ahead with and does what it wants.
PROJECT THOR (RODS FROM GOD) is the answer for Iran's nuclear program.
I like our chances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cerulean808
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Conservative
| Quote: |
| I was not defending it at all. I was making another point all together. Like I said and you agree it was not my point, therefore I would not defend it. Read more carefully next time. |
Like the American Crazies hell bent on supporting Israel you have missed the point of non proliferation - to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and eventually achieve the goal of complete disarmament.
Your response is to say Israel never signed the NPT and so its nuclear weapons program is not illegal.
But right there is the obvious problem. Universal adherence is needed, having some states cheerfully acquiring and running nuclear weapons programs severely undermines the efforts to stop proliferation.
Which is why it is not alright for Israel to run a nuclear weapons program.
| Quote: |
| That is why Iran should not have them (regardless of whether they subsequently withdraw or not) as they have shown by this illegal action (not to mention all the others) that they can not be trusted with nuclear weapons. Israel on the other hand is supposed to have had nuclear weapons from '67 or '68 and has never used them. It has demonstrated responsibility in that matter. And unlike Iran, such development was not illegal. |
Iran should not have nuclear weapons for the same reason Israel should not have them.
As for your ridiculous assertion about 'demonstrating responsibility', it underlines you have missed the point of non-proliferation.
For a character who so strenuously distances themselves from the argument put forward by the American Crazies, you sure act a lot like them.
Roo
| Quote: |
Let Iran go ahead and do what they want.
At the same time all you people who advocate letting Iran do what they want ought to not complain if the US goes ahead with and does what it wants. |
You talking to me Crazy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MissSeoul
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere in America
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| Meegook wrote: |
| So, if you don't say you're wanting to eliminate a problem in the neighborhood, it's okay to have nukes? |
You know in the US, criminal cannot own guns, but the citizens without any criminal record can own one or as many as they like to own. |
Well, the criminal who can't own guns now was once without any criminal record. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
="cerulean808"]
| Quote: |
| You talking to me Crazy? |
Israel's enemies are out to destroy Israel and not the other way around when they give up their goal then Israel ought to give up their nuclear weapons.
cerulean808 anyone who considers Israel to be a colonial project and demands that it must be destroyed without demanding that Israels enemies first become liberal democracies is an apologist for ethnic cleasing and persection of minorties.
That kind of sounds like you.
You have don't seem to have much problem with ethnic cleansing , attempted ethnic cleanising or persecution of minorities just as long as it is against the right groups.
John Pilger is a left wing fascist.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Sep 29, 2007 12:00 am; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why is it ok for Iran to have nuclear weapons which would be used for mass murder and destruction?
If Iran does it again the they lose their whole nuclear program. Iran's nuclear program will no longer be something that give them security rather it will be a hostage. The system is non nuclear so it doesn't have the problems of nuclear weapons. No fall out and and none of the political problems of the use of nuclear weapons.
Of course If Iran does't do anything like Khobar then they have nothing to worry about.
If Iran won't give up their war then what happens to them is their problem. If they can't help themselves then that is their problem.
Iran can have nuclear weapons but they must not be allowed to have the strategic benefits of their possession.
They can't not be allowed to use nuclear weapons as a shield to protect them from retaliation for terror attacks.
They want nuclear weapons okay congratulations to them , Iran gets an arms race in return. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
But right there is the obvious problem. Universal adherence is needed, having some states cheerfully acquiring and running nuclear weapons programs severely undermines the efforts to stop proliferation.
|
Cerumen808...you are the most unread mofo on this entire board..yet you comment with such authority about nuclear matters...puhhlease |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cerulean808
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Self appointed Islam 'expert' postfundie
| Quote: |
| you are the most unread mofo on this entire board |
How would you know?
You're just another American Crazy with no come back. 
Roo
| Quote: |
| you have don't seem to have much problem with ethnic cleansing , attempted ethnic cleanising or persecution of minorities just as long as it is against the right groups. |
Same old baseless, hysterical accusations from you.
But then what can be expected from a bunch of crazies who sponge up propaganda like Iraq's WMD hook line and sinker?
| Quote: |
| John Pilger is a left wing fascist. |
John Pilger:
Honours
D. Litt, Staffordshire University
D. Phil, Dublin City University
D. Arts, Oxford Brookes University
D. Laws, St.Andrew's University
D. Phil, Kingston University
D. Univ, The Open University
1995 Edward Wilson Fellow, Deakin University, Melbourne
Frank H.T. Rhodes Professor, Cornell University, USA
Awards include
1966: Descriptive Writer of the Year
1967: Reporter of the Year
1967: Journalist of the Year
1970: International Reporter of the Year
1974: News Reporter of the Year
1977: Campaigning Journalist of the Year
1979: Journalist of the Year
1979-80: UN Media Peace Prize, Australia
1980-81: UN Media Peace Prize, Gold Medal, Australia
1979: TV Times Readers' Award
1990: The George Foster Peabody Award, USA
1991: American Television Academy Award ('Emmy')
1991: British Academy of Film and Television Arts - The Richard Dimbleby Award
1990: Reporters San Frontiers Award, France
1995: International de Television Geneve Award
2001: The Monismanien Prize (Sweden)
2003: The Sophie Prize for Human Rights (Norway)
2003: EMMA Media Personality of the Year
2004: Royal Television Society Best Documentary, 'Stealing a Nation'
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cerulean808"]
| Quote: |
But then what can be expected from a bunch of crazies who sponge up propaganda like Iraq's WMD hook line and sinker? |
The US invaded Iraq to force other nations in the mideast to quit their war but there is no doubt that Saddam would rearm if he got free.
Any case the real reason for the war.
Because We Could
Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times Op-Ed Columnist
Wednesday, June 4, 2003 Posted: 7:02 AM EDT (1102 GMT)
| Quote: |
The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.
Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.
The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there ?a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.
The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government ?and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen ?got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about. |
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman/
Anyway
| Quote: |
The Guardian carries a letter from John Pilger depicting Egypt as a wronged party in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. There's a time and a place for everything, and Pilger's eccentric historical interpretations are not the subject of this post. But one of the statements within the letter makes a curious juxtaposition with a story elsewhere in the same edition of the paper. Pilger writes:
According to [Jonathan] Freedland, the present Israeli regime is merely "a clumsy prizefighter driven to fury by a fly buzzing around its ears". His description of the entire Palestinian resistance as buzzing flies would be shocking if it did not accurately reflect Israeli racism, itself a virulent form of anti-semitism.
You read that last clause right: Pilger is making an accusation not only of Israeli racism - a standard trope of the extreme Left - but also of Israeli anti-semitism. It's not a misprint: it's a libel he fully intends.
The reasoning behind Pilger's bizarre accusation is pure sophistry. It is common on the extreme Left, and it runs like this. Israelis complain about the prejudiced character of parts of the popular culture of the Arab world (for example, a television drama assuming the truth of the notorious Tsarist forgery the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion; Palestinian textbooks retailing venerable anti-Jewish libels). They are, according to the anti-Israel campaigners, being disingenuous however in levelling accusations of anti-semitism, because the Arabs themselves are a semitic people. How then could it possibly be true to describe the Palestinian Authority and other Arab groups as guilty of anti-semitism, when they are themselves semites? (This is presented as a rhetorical question and conversation-stopper, but it's generally followed, as in Pilger's letter, by accusations of Israeli racism, colonialism and manifold other sins of commission and omission.)
I'm no fan of Pilger's, but I think this calumny is the most egregious remark I've come across even from that source. What's wrong with it is that it reduces the suffering of the Jewish people - most obviously the attempt in the last century to kill every Jew in Europe, but a Judaeophobia that has lasted literally millennia - by means of semantic trickery. It is a historical accident that the term 'anti-semitism' exists at all, let alone is the common term for anti-Jewish prejudice. The term was coined only in the second half of the nineteenth century by a German anti-Jewish polemicist, Wilhelm Marr. Marr argued that western civilisation had been infiltrated by a pernicious Jewish influence, and he established his own Anti-Semitic League in 1871 to further his anti-Jewish demagoguery.
Ironically Marr, an extremist Jew-baiter, thereby invented a term that became standard as a label for anti-Jewish prejudice. Yet it's an intellectually idle and vacuous word as well as a euphemism. There is, after all, no such phenomenon as 'Semitism' to which one can be opposed. The destructive effect of the very term anti-Semitism can be discerned in Pilger's casual insults. If 'anti-semitism' doesn't mean prejudice specifically against Jews, then we have no immediately recognised term for that particular prejudice. Because the language we use about politics is crucial to the clarity of our thinking about a subject (I don't entirely endorse Orwell's views on language and politics, but I do this one), this softening of the specificity of anti-Jewish prejudice serves to anaesthetise our moral defences. It's a process that marked the history of the so-called German Democratic Republic, a prison-state that not only refused to accept any historical guilt for the Holocaust but was also a relentless source of anti-Jewish propaganda and anti-Israel agitation.
We are stuck with the term 'anti-semitism', but it is as well to note its historical lineage and the ease with which it can be manipulated to harm the Jews further. It was for that reason that the philosopher and rabbi Emil Fackenheim, who having escaped Nazi Germany in 1940 studied under Leo Strauss and served many years as Professor of Philosophy at Toronto University, urged that the word 'anti-semitism' be written, without a hyphen, as 'antisemitism'. It may seem a small point, but I hope the example of John Pilger's letter will indicate that Fackenheim's pratice is in fact a means of defence against political obscurantism. I consequently always spell the word as 'antisemitism', and I recommend adopting this practice: it simply makes it marginally more difficult for those who wish deliberately to misapply the term. (An alternative practice is worth noting: the Irish statesman, historian and polymath Conor Cruise O'Brien has suggested, on similar grounds, adopting the term 'anti-Jewism'. Its merit is that no one could possibly fail to miss what it means, and its ugliness is appropriate to the phenomenon it describes.) |
He is still a left wing fascist.
| Quote: |
| you have don't seem to have much problem with ethnic cleansing , attempted ethnic cleanising or persecution of minorities just as long as it is against the right groups. |
| Quote: |
| Same old baseless, hysterical accusations from you. |
No cause we saw it in the Iran threat and all the other threads.
I guess I can say it again.
Cerulean808 anyone who considers Israel to be a colonial project and demands that it must be abolished without demanding that Israel's enemies first become liberal democracies is an apologist for ethnic cleansing and persecution of minorities.
That kind of sounds like you.
You have don't seem to have much problem with ethnic cleansing , attempted ethnic cleansing or persecution of minorities just as long as it is against the right groups.
Cause Bathists , Khomeni followers and Al Qaedists and all those who share a similar ideology can't be trusted to protect their minorities or govern.
We have seen it in the history of the middle east.
Rings true! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Look at Saddam. Got lots of help from your government with his WMD program when they were in bed together, then of course the relationship soured, and suddenly he was the dangerous enemy. |
He was always a dangeorus enemy
|
You, my friend, are an utter fucking idiot. |
|
| 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
