|
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: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The article answers the question. The rest of your question might be answer below.
This is the mindset of the Iranian government or at many in it.
| 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... |
http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/04/18/specials/rushdie-translator.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cheeseface wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| cheeseface wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
If a UN resolution is selective and one sided why is it good? |
It's not one sided though is it? Just because it goes against the US or Israel doesn't mean it is one sided. That is your mind set. You have to forget the "You're with us or against us" crap. That's when the US went down the toilet in most of the world's eyes.
Time to change the record and step up and play fairly with the global community. |
It is one sided when only one side is condemned.
Like when the UN wanted to condemn Israel for killing the leader of Hamas but refused to add in language that condemed Hamas for sucide bombings and or the option of a second resolution against Hamas.
What Bush meant by you are either with us or against us was that if nations of the world want to have normal trade or diplomatic ties with the US then they have to help out in the war on terror. The US is under no obligation to have trade or diplomatic ties with any nation it doesn't want to.
anyway here is the UN in action
| Quote: |
Zimbabwe retains human rights role
From CNN Producer Liz Neisloss
Thursday, April 28, 2005 Posted: 0136 GMT (0936 HKT)
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Over U.S. opposition that branded Zimbabwe an "entirely inappropriate" choice, Zimbabwe was re-elected Wednesday to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights |
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/04/27/zimbawe.un/index.html |
So the world votes to re-instate a evil man on to the UN human rights commission. Democracy. The US are the ones who want to spread democracy around the world, you are just not happy when democracy goes against what the US wants.
I'm not happy with Zimbabwe being re-elected, but I was not happy with Bush being elected.
Your just a no good commie aren't you? As long as everyone agrees with the US's paradigm you are happy, if not you don't like it. Tough. |
Cheeseface,
The UN General Assembly is not a democracy in any sense of the word.
Just go to the UN Charter. What is the purpose of the UN? (the following is paraphrased)
| Quote: |
Art 1: Purpose of the UN
○ To maintain int'l peace and security
○ To develop friendly relations
○ To achieve int'l co-opreation in solving int'l problems
○ To be a centre for harmonizing actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends
Art 2(1): The UN is based on principle of the sovereign equality of all its members |
No democracy there.
Moreover, unless a nation is on the UN Security Council, there's the principal of one nation, one vote. Is that democratic? So Japan's vote is equal to . . . Libya's? 130million people in a democracy gets one vote. An autocrat governing 6million people gets . . . one vote.
Oh, that's representative.
Face it, cheeseface, there's nothing democratic about your 'global community.' The UN is a forum for various nations to settle their differences and resolve common problems (on which they can come to some kind of consensus). When anyone tries to make it more than that, they are vastly overstepping the purpose and capabilities of the UN. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheeseface
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Location: Ssyangnyeon Shi
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So you're not capable of explaining why Iran has been so against the US and Israel for the last 30 years or so?
Your link needs a subscription. And it still does not come anywhere near addressing the question.
Last edited by cheeseface on Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheeseface
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Location: Ssyangnyeon Shi
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Face it, cheeseface, there's nothing democratic about your 'global community.' The UN is a forum for various nations to settle their differences and resolve common problems (on which they can come to some kind of consensus). When anyone tries to make it more than that, they are vastly overstepping the purpose and capabilities of the UN. |
Every country gets to vote on issues.
Having a veto (which is held by only a few nations) is less democratic, isn't?
Are you suggesting that China should have more sway because they have a grater population.
Fine, lets allow a certain number of votes for each country based on their population.
The US would still be unhappy at not getting it's own way and Israel would still be condemned for its actions for it's actions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cheeseface wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Face it, cheeseface, there's nothing democratic about your 'global community.' The UN is a forum for various nations to settle their differences and resolve common problems (on which they can come to some kind of consensus). When anyone tries to make it more than that, they are vastly overstepping the purpose and capabilities of the UN. |
Every country gets to vote on issues.
Having a veto (which is held by only a few nations) is less democratic, isn't? |
Democracy: one person one vote.
Choracracy: one country one vote.
Here's a map of the world. All the grey countries are non-democratic countries. So their UN representatives represent a closed or one-party regime or perhaps only an autocrat.
And yes, the veto system makes it a less democratic system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cheeseface wrote: |
So you're not capable of explaining why Iran has been so against the US and Israel for the last 30 years or so?
Your link needs a subscription. And it still does not come anywhere near addressing the question. |
no subscribtion needed.
and it did answer the question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheeseface
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Location: Ssyangnyeon Shi
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| cheeseface wrote: |
So you're not capable of explaining why Iran has been so against the US and Israel for the last 30 years or so?
Your link needs a subscription. And it still does not come anywhere near addressing the question. |
no subscribtion needed.
and it did answer the question. |
No, it didn't. Didn't come anywhere near to the Iranian revolution and the US's meddling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheeseface
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Location: Ssyangnyeon Shi
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| cheeseface wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Face it, cheeseface, there's nothing democratic about your 'global community.' The UN is a forum for various nations to settle their differences and resolve common problems (on which they can come to some kind of consensus). When anyone tries to make it more than that, they are vastly overstepping the purpose and capabilities of the UN. |
Every country gets to vote on issues.
Having a veto (which is held by only a few nations) is less democratic, isn't? |
Democracy: one person one vote.
Choracracy: one country one vote.
Here's a map of the world. All the grey countries are non-democratic countries. So their UN representatives represent a closed or one-party regime or perhaps only an autocrat.
And yes, the veto system makes it a less democratic system. |
So your alternative is?
US say jump and everyone else says "How high?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cheeseface wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| cheeseface wrote: |
So you're not capable of explaining why Iran has been so against the US and Israel for the last 30 years or so?
Your link needs a subscription. And it still does not come anywhere near addressing the question. |
no subscribtion needed.
and it did answer the question. |
No, it didn't. Didn't come anywhere near to the Iranian revolution and the US's meddling. |
You mean cause the US helped the Shah in 1953 it justifies Iran going after the US 30 -40 years later? It justifies all the other stuff they do in nations as far away as Japan? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cheeseface wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| cheeseface wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Face it, cheeseface, there's nothing democratic about your 'global community.' The UN is a forum for various nations to settle their differences and resolve common problems (on which they can come to some kind of consensus). When anyone tries to make it more than that, they are vastly overstepping the purpose and capabilities of the UN. |
Every country gets to vote on issues.
Having a veto (which is held by only a few nations) is less democratic, isn't? |
Democracy: one person one vote.
Choracracy: one country one vote.
Here's a map of the world. All the grey countries are non-democratic countries. So their UN representatives represent a closed or one-party regime or perhaps only an autocrat.
And yes, the veto system makes it a less democratic system. |
So your alternative is?
US say jump and everyone else says "How high?" |
ROFL.
Bashing America is your go-to argument, isn't it?
I don't have an alternative. The UN is what it is. Its an assembly of nations. People simply should recognize its not a representative body meant to govern nations in any way. The UN Charter principle upholding the sovereignty of member-states comes well before democracy: which means that the UN will not lift a finger against internal repression in nations like Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, etc.
America and Israel very well may need to be condemned, and the UN provides a forum to do so. But the UN is not synonomous with a democratic global community, certainly not any more than the 50 governors convening together could effectively represent Americans' interests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cheeseface wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| cheeseface wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
If a UN resolution is selective and one sided why is it good? |
It's not one sided though is it? Just because it goes against the US or Israel doesn't mean it is one sided. That is your mind set. You have to forget the "You're with us or against us" crap. That's when the US went down the toilet in most of the world's eyes.
Time to change the record and step up and play fairly with the global community. |
It is one sided when only one side is condemned.
Like when the UN wanted to condemn Israel for killing the leader of Hamas but refused to add in language that condemed Hamas for sucide bombings and or the option of a second resolution against Hamas.
What Bush meant by you are either with us or against us was that if nations of the world want to have normal trade or diplomatic ties with the US then they have to help out in the war on terror. The US is under no obligation to have trade or diplomatic ties with any nation it doesn't want to.
anyway here is the UN in action
| Quote: |
Zimbabwe retains human rights role
From CNN Producer Liz Neisloss
Thursday, April 28, 2005 Posted: 0136 GMT (0936 HKT)
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Over U.S. opposition that branded Zimbabwe an "entirely inappropriate" choice, Zimbabwe was re-elected Wednesday to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights |
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/04/27/zimbawe.un/index.html |
So the world votes to re-instate a evil man on to the UN human rights commission. Democracy. The US are the ones who want to spread democracy around the world, you are just not happy when democracy goes against what the US wants.
I'm not happy with Zimbabwe being re-elected, but I was not happy with Bush being elected.
Your just a no good commie aren't you? As long as everyone agrees with the US's paradigm you are happy, if not you don't like it. Tough. |
No it just goes to show that the UN is selective , corrupt and doesn't do things out of any moral concern. Now why ought the US bet its security on something like that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheeseface
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Location: Ssyangnyeon Shi
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| cheeseface wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| cheeseface wrote: |
So you're not capable of explaining why Iran has been so against the US and Israel for the last 30 years or so?
Your link needs a subscription. And it still does not come anywhere near addressing the question. |
no subscribtion needed.
and it did answer the question. |
No, it didn't. Didn't come anywhere near to the Iranian revolution and the US's meddling. |
You mean cause the US helped the Shah in 1953 it justifies Iran going after the US 30 -40 years later? It justifies all the other stuff they do in nations as far away as Japan? |
I originally asked why Iran is against the US and Israel, you failed to address why.
You could have mentioned the Iran contra affair.......... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cheeseface, the free world exists thanks to the US. You should admit that freedom and democracy should rule the world. It is us against them: the free world vs the islamists.
Unfortunately because of lazy scandinavian left-wingers such as yourself, who never had to fight for the freedoms they enjoy, the clash of civilizations may or may not favour the west; ie: freedom, democracy, and humanity's highest potential. Here's another intriguing map:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Median_age.png
Iran along with its friends hates the west. This is a clash of civilizations (read this book) and they will use nukes against us.
You ask why Iran hates the US and Isreal; perhaps it is for the same reasons as Sayid Qutb? Are you a fan of his as well? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cheeseface wrote: |
| You could have mentioned the Iran contra affair... |
What, pray tell, does Iran-Contra have to do with Tehran's bill of particulars against the Great Satan?
It is not merely your conflating the Security Council with the General Assembly, or your uncritically embracing the "America-opposes-the-rest-of-the-world" nonsense. But if you think that Iran-Contra has something to do with justifying Tehran's extremist antiAmericanism, not to mention its posture against Israel, and its developing these strategic missiles in the context of an up-and-coming nuclear-weapons program, then I hereby deem you half-educated.
Cheeseface, Iran has been actively building a sphere-of-influence in the Middle East, primarily ideological, built around Islamic fundamentalism and intolerant of Zionism, but also, as all empires, built around political power-projection and commercial interests as well, since 1979. This puts Terhan at odds with the United States and its regional allies -- and they include more locals than merely Israel, Cheeseface. In any case, as many anti-Western empires have done, from Imperial Japan to Fidel Castro's attempts to construct one via rural guerrilla warfare in the 1960s, the Iranians have cloaked their interests and imperialism in an antiimperialist rhetoric -- as has their accomplice today, Venezuela's H. Chavez.
These American crimes you, and admitedly, many others here, seem so intent on articulating show me nothing more than you have taken Tehran and H. Chavez's propaganda at face-value and swallowed it whole. You now repeat it here. You even claim that you merely represent an objective point of view.
Nonsense, Cheeseface. You have internalized the enemy's propaganda line. No more, no less. Congratulations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheeseface
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Location: Ssyangnyeon Shi
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| cheeseface wrote: |
| You could have mentioned the Iran contra affair... |
What, pray tell, does Iran-Contra have to do with Tehran's bill of particulars against the Great Satan?
It is not merely your conflating the Security Council with the General Assembly, or your uncritically embracing the "America-opposes-the-rest-of-the-world" nonsense. But if you think that Iran-Contra has something to do with justifying Tehran's extremist antiAmericanism, not to mention its posture against Israel, and its developing these strategic missiles in the context of an up-and-coming nuclear-weapons program, then I hereby deem you half-educated.
Cheeseface, Iran has been actively building a sphere-of-influence in the Middle East, primarily ideological, built around Islamic fundamentalism and intolerant of Zionism, but also, as all empires, built around political power-projection and commercial interests as well, since 1979. This puts Terhan at odds with the United States and its regional allies -- and they include more locals than merely Israel, Cheeseface. In any case, as many anti-Western empires have done, from Imperial Japan to Fidel Castro's attempts to construct one via rural guerrilla warfare in the 1960s, the Iranians have cloaked their interests and imperialism in an antiimperialist rhetoric -- as has their accomplice today, Venezuela's H. Chavez.
These American crimes you, and admitedly, many others here, seem so intent on articulating show me nothing more than you have taken Tehran and H. Chavez's propaganda at face-value and swallowed it whole. You now repeat it here. You even claim that you merely represent an objective point of view.
Nonsense, Cheeseface. You have internalized the enemy's propaganda line. No more, no less. Congratulations. |
Enemy? What the you mean someone actually stepping up and taking a stance at US hegemony?
I'm neither with or against the US or your percived ememies.
Iran has been actively building a sphere-of-influence in the Middle East
The US has been doing the same, what's your problem with Iran, the US actually put Iran into the position of power it is now in thanks to the invasion of Iraq. You boosted Iran's political clout ten fold in the region.
As for the contra affair, the US pissed off the hard liners who now rule Iran. |
|
| 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
