|
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: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:17 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Empires conquer and annex nations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Am I to infer that you think the German attitude unreasonable or unrealistic? Why? How many wars has the United States started in the last hundred years? How many has Iran started? |
Well consider this:
What does each side fight for?
Iran if they could might very well use nuclear weapons on Israel if they could be sure Israel would not get them with nuclear weapons.
| Quote: |
July 13, 1991
Japanese Translator of Rushdie Book Found Slain
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
OKYO, July 12 -- The Japanese translator of "The Satanic Verses," by Salman Rushdie, was found slain today at a university northeast of Tokyo.
The translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, 44 years old, was an assistant professor of comparative culture who reportedly studied in Iran in the 1970's. The police said he was stabbed several times on Thursday night and left in the hallway outside his office at Tsukuba University.
It is the second time this month that someone involved with the production of the novel by Mr. Rushdie, the Indian-born author condemned to death by the Iranian authorities two years ago, has been assaulted. On July 3, Ettore Capriolo, 61, the Italian translator of "The Satanic Verses," was stabbed in his apartment in Milan. He survived the attack with what were described as superficial wounds. |
| Quote: |
Assassination attempt
On April 12, 1989 Aschehoug and William Nygaard was responsible for publishing the Norwegian edition of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses.[4] This was two months after Ayatollah Khomeini issued the following fatwa against Salman Rushdie and his publishers:
I inform all zealous Muslims of the world that the author of the book entitled The Satanic Verses � which has been compiled, printed and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet, and the Qur'an � and all those involved in its publication who were aware of its content, are sentenced to death. I call on all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, wherever they may be found, so that no one else will dare to insult the Muslim sanctities. God Willing, whoever is killed on this path is a martyr.[5]
Owing to the fatwa, direct threats against William Nygaard and translator Kari Risvik, and the resulting controversy, Nygaard was given police protection for a period.
Nevertheless, on the morning of October 11, 1993 he was shot three times and left for dead outside his home in Dagaliveien in Oslo.[6] The ammunition used was of the type Federal Hydrashok constructed to expand when hitting tissue, indicating that the shooter intended to kill.[7] Although the crime has never been solved, most people � including Nygaard[8] � link the incident to the fatwa. After several months of hospitalization, most of the time at Sunnaas hospital, Nygaard slowly recovered.[8] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nygaard
Oh one of the translators who survived the attacks is in a wheel chair cause of the attack.
Iran denies Argentina blast role (of course they do)
| Quote: |
It was Argentina's worst terror attack
Iran has denied that any of its officials were involved in a deadly bomb attack on a Jewish centre in Buenos Aires in 1994.
Its foreign ministry said it would seek talks with Argentina in coming days after a judge there asked Interpol to arrest four Iranian officials accused of involvement in the attack.
Judge Juan Jose Galeano ordered their arrest after Argentine intelligence services linked the officials to the bombing, which killed 85 people.
But Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi warned that if Argentina did not "make up for its mistake", Tehran would take action |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2832169.stm
Ever wonder what Iran would do IF it had the military power of the US? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stillnotking: part of the reason antiAmericanism exists is that the United States stands as the world's only high-profile superpower and necessarily attracts criticism from all sides. In a word and in part, a scapegoat. Politicians all over the Third-World, starting with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, have cultivated antiAmericanism to justify their own governments. I would like you to acknowledge that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Stillnotking: part of the reason antiAmericanism exists is that the United States stands as the world's only high-profile superpower and necessarily attracts criticism from all sides. In a word and in part, a scapegoat. Politicians all over the Third-World, starting with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, have cultivated antiAmericanism to justify their own governments. I would like you to acknowledge that. |
Acknowledged. Now I would like you to acknowledge that anti-Americanism works as a means of justifying those governments because the people of those countries are, in fact, anti-American, and have valid and rational reasons for being that way. "Scapegoat" is a misleading and overused word: the United States is not a scapegoat for the ills of Cuba, but the direct author of at least some of those ills. Cubans would be stupid indeed not to recognize that. The fact that Fidel has played on and inflamed the animosities of his people -- as politicians are wont to do, American politicians hardly excepted -- does not alter the basic fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Well consider this:
What does each side fight for? |
Itself, its interests, and to a (much) lesser extent, its ideals.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Iran if they could might very well use nuclear weapons on Israel if they could be sure Israel would not get them with nuclear weapons. |
There is only one country in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons. We used them against civilian populations. Twice.
Now, I know that in American history books the Empire of Japan was Absolute Evil Incarnate Upon the Earth, but American history books are not the world's history books. From their point of view, we have demonstrated a willingness to nuke people. They are not terribly concerned about whether our Cause is Just; they are terribly concerned about the nuking part. This, I think, is understandable, especially in light of our subsequent feckless imperial blunderings.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Ever wonder what Iran would do IF it had the military power of the US? |
I don't think I have to wonder, but I don't think I have to worry either. Iran is what it is; we are what we are.
You are very fond of the implication that a nation's character is defined by its enemies. This is not the case, and it is the kind of simplistic reasoning that has had catastrophic consequences when implemented as US policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Empires conquer and annex nations. |
Not inevitably, and not eternally (at least not the annexation part). The United States mostly finished its annexation in the late nineteenth century, and since that time has concentrated on expanding its economic and political sphere of influence, often through military means. Close parallels can be found in the empires of ancient Rome and ancient China. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stillnotking: you acknowledged my point pro forma. Then you ignored it and returned to your hard-and-fast position on antiAmericanism and its origins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Stillnotking: you acknowledged my point pro forma. Then you ignored it and returned to your hard-and-fast position on antiAmericanism and its origins. |
I acknowledged your point as perfectly valid -- Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro would not be where they are today had they not been vehement anti-Americans. I am simply asking you to take the next step and understand that this is the equivalent of saying Kennedy and Nixon would never have been President had they not been vehement anti-Communists. The animosities of nations do not spring from the speeches made by politicians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
Thomas Friedman? Really? He of the endless "Friedman units" and "well-on-the-one-hand-but-then-again-on-the-other" pablum? The man was a pretty good journalist but is a terrible columnist. His knowledge of the Middle East is a mile wide and an inch deep; his columns alternate between rah-rah American boosterism of the Hallmark card/high school pep rally variety, and facile pseudo-solutions in the style of "ruler X just needs to say Y and all will be well". Friedman is emblematic of the deepest problems in our political dialogue: |
No, Michael Moore is emblematic of the deepest problems in our political dialogue. Friedman is not perfect, but Lexus and the Olive Tree > Fahrenheit 9-11.
I'm pretty certain you've only read Friedman on Israel and Iraq if you hold these views. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="stillnotking"]
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Well consider this:
What does each side fight for? |
| Quote: |
| Itself, its interests, and to a (much) lesser extent, its ideals. |
when Iran kills translators or blows up a Jewish community center with the help of Hizzbollah? They are fighting for themselves , and their interests? If those are their ideals then you just helped me
Usually your answers are pretty good but but in this case I think that is just a cop out. I am going to protest that answer as not being enough.
Stillnotking
There is no moral equivalence between :
WWII Japan and the US.
the communists of the cold war and the US
between the Bathists , and the US
the Khomeni followers and the US
between : the Al Qaedists and the US -.
None at all.
Those who think there is some moral equvalence between the US and enemies don't know the enemies of the US for what they are.
| Quote: |
There is only one country in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons. We used them against civilian populations. Twice.
Now, I know that in American history books the Empire of Japan was Absolute Evil Incarnate Upon the Earth, but American history books are not the world's history books. From their point of view, we have demonstrated a willingness to nuke people. They are not terribly concerned about whether our Cause is Just; they are terribly concerned about the nuking part. This, I think, is understandable, especially in light of our subsequent feckless imperial blunderings. |
The US did not use it to wipe Japan from the face of the earth . Iran might very well have that in mind with its possession of nuclear weapons. nyway the most probable reason that Iran wants nukes is to use them to from facing the consequences for acts of terror. Iran wants to have the threat of nuking other nations near it in order to prevent the US attacking Iran in response to an act of terror. But that is another subject.
More important that if the US used nuclear weapons on Japan is what the US did with Japan after WW II.
Iran according to their own words wants to expel all the Israelis except the ones that were there. I wonder what their opinion is on Israelis that were expelled from muslim lands?
Anyway:
World War II was justified.
The cold war was justified
and the War on terror is justified.
They were not imperialism.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Ever wonder what Iran would do IF it had the military power of the US? |
| Quote: |
| I don't think I have to wonder, but I don't think I have to worry either. Iran is what it is; we are what we are. |
Well I think that ought to figure on to who is most dangerous. There is no moral equivalence between the US and Iran. None at all.
| Quote: |
| You are very fond of the implication that a nation's character is defined by its enemies. This is not the case, and it is the kind of simplistic reasoning that has had catastrophic consequences when implemented as US policy. |
Well I think one of the things that defines whether a nation is on the right side of history . is who are its enemies. It would be silly to say it was the only thing but it counts too.
The US doesn't have any liberal democratic enemies. Now why is that?
Stilltheking with all due respect IMHO your answers on this thread are not as good as they usually are.
Please check out the video clip it will only take 45 seconds to a minute.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeHF8UBLi68
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:08 am; edited 9 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Empires conquer and annex nations. |
Not inevitably, and not eternally (at least not the annexation part). The United States mostly finished its annexation in the late nineteenth century, and since that time has concentrated on expanding its economic and political sphere of influence, often through military means. Close parallels can be found in the empires of ancient Rome and ancient China. |
Just cause to items have some things in common do not make them the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
Thomas Friedman? Really? He of the endless "Friedman units" and "well-on-the-one-hand-but-then-again-on-the-other" pablum? The man was a pretty good journalist but is a terrible columnist. His knowledge of the Middle East is a mile wide and an inch deep; his columns alternate between rah-rah American boosterism of the Hallmark card/high school pep rally variety, and facile pseudo-solutions in the style of "ruler X just needs to say Y and all will be well". Friedman is emblematic of the deepest problems in our political dialogue: |
No, Michael Moore is emblematic of the deepest problems in our political dialogue. Friedman is not perfect, but Lexus and the Olive Tree > Fahrenheit 9-11.
I'm pretty certain you've only read Friedman on Israel and Iraq if you hold these views. |
Friedman is good on the mideast too.
and he is still correct about the war and teror and Iraq. 9-11 showed that the mideast was a threat to the US. To ignore that is to ignore reality.
He is also correct that terror happens in the mideast cause regimes there permit it to happen or even encourage it. Threats don't go away by pretending they are not there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Those who think there is some moral equvalence between the US and enemies don't know the enemies of the US for what they are. |
What I have been trying to say in this debate -- and this will likely be my final word, in this thread at least -- is that the statement you just made is a red herring. No one thinks Iran and the US are equivalent, morally or in any other way. Obviously liberals don't -- the repressive theocracy of Iran is about as far from liberal ideals as one can imagine.
But so what? Is our understanding of our nation and what it stands for so impoverished that we can only appreciate ourselves by contrast with Iran? Even ten years ago I would never have believed this to be the case, but today I know otherwise. America is deeply, fundamentally screwed up. We are not screwed up in the same ways Iran is screwed up, but pointing to your enemies as a vindication of your own foibles is not an excuse.
The ideal version of the USA that we are taught in civics class is not, in fact, a real country. This should be apparent to any reasonably well-traveled and educated adult. America is not an unalloyed force for good in the world, less so than ever these days, and it has directly created many of the evils that it now decries. Why did it do that? Precisely because it believed it could do no wrong, and refused to engage in any serious reflection on its imperial policies. You say the Cold War was justified. Did the Cold War justify the School of the Americas? Did the Cold War justify Operation Ajax? Did the Cold War justify Vietnam? No. It did not. And not only were those things moral horrors in and of themselves, they served to destabilize the world and undermine the ideals of democracy, justice, sovereignty, and the rule of law, creating many of the problems we face today.
America did those things. Now, America is using the War on Terror -- which would be the most absurd euphemism in our history if we didn't already have the War on Drugs -- as a justification for further crimes. And they are crimes, Joo. The President suborning telecom companies to obtain confidential American communications was a crime. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a crime. The detention and torture of Maher Arar was a crime. Whoever our enemies are, and whatever they have done, we have violated our own laws and repudiated our own ideals in pursuing them, and that is not right.
We are on the wrong road. If we continue down it, we will not be solving the world's problems or our own. We will be multiplying them. What I want is not for America to give up, or to dissolve in a fog of relativism and navel-gazing, but to remember who we are. In the long run, this will serve our national interest far more than any number of confessions obtained through torture.
The first step is to stop taking our moral superiority for granted. That's my primary focus in politics: to elect politicians who are willing to repudiate the national mythology and urge a return to the national ideals. To those who are overfond of the mythology -- the faux patriotism, the pageantry, the "with-us-or-against-us" snarling against our allies when they criticize us -- this probably looks like "America hatred". Ironically, nothing could be further from the truth. I love America, but I love it the way you love a parent who is an alcoholic. For America to be functional and strong again, a lot of things need to change. Whether they can change at this point, I don't know, but all I can do is try. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1)Yes the cold war was justified; The US didn�t and doesn�t use worse tactics than a nation at war. You ask "was Vietnam justified?." I will answer with two questions - was Korea justified? And what is the difference between the two? I don�t think the US engaged in imperial policies. More than that, I see Monday morning quarterbacking the cold war here.
2) If one doesn�t like the term war on terror :You can call it a war to force Bathists , Khomeni followers and Al Qaedists to give up their war. You could also call it a war on fascism. And The US can gain the decisive strategic advantage in it. The US ought to do what it takes to force them to give up their war. The US doesn�t have to tolerate a war against it.
3) I don�t think what the president did with the telcom companies was wrong. And I am not too bothered by it. IF the US hadn�t had the rules it had before 9-11 the CIA and the FBI could have talked to each other and maybe stopped 9-11. I don�t know if it was against the law but the law ought to be changed to make it as easy as possible for the govt to get info on the terrorists - at least for a while.
4) The invasion of Iraq and occupation was not a crime. The US Saddam Hussein who was worse than Idi Amin and he refused to give up his war. Many lives were saved by stopping Saddam. Whether it was a good idea is one debate (what is the alternative) . But it certainly was not a crime.
5) The US did not toture Arar - Syria did . It was a mistake. He ought to be compensated. It is not great to say that - but mistakes happen. On the other had rendition is something that Bill Clintons own national security advisor seemed to favor when it came to Al Qaeda so it isn�t just a Republican idea. It is also more evidence that there was a recognition that the US legal system isn�t up to dealing with Al Qaeda. Let me add that the US doesn�t behave worse in this war than it has during other wars. Events my be better documented now but it doesn�t mean what happens now didn� t happen in other wars
6) �with-us-or-against-us"� Means if a nations wants to enjoy normal trade and diplomatic ties with the US then they have to help the US in the war on terror . Nothing wrong with that. The US can trade and have diplomatic ties with whoever it wants to for any reason.
7) The US was not perfect during the cold war but the US was on the right side of history then.The US has made some mistakes during this war too, nevertheless the US is on the right side of history now as well. |
|
| 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
