|
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 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| thiophene wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I really do not understand MoS' or any of the other worldviews which believe that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, how will it better the world, how will it even better Iran? |
And how can the nulear powers not use their nuclear weapons? Are we supposed to just trust these people? the NPT is another way the Big Club has taken advantage of the little. Destroy your weapons, set a deadline, and that'll be fair. |
The CTBT would be the beginning of establishing a regime to set a deadline. But India is holding out.
Again, this concept of 'fairness' is bunk. Fairness does not come into play regarding nuclear weapons. And even if it were, how fair is it to nations like South Africa, Japan, and Brazil that Iran is flouting a treaty they made a shared commitment to? I guess these nations aren't small enough to gain your sympathy?
| Quote: |
Iran has the right as long as some other states have the right. |
No nation has any right regarding nuclear weapons. But some nations do have nuclear weapons from before the establishment of the NPT. A few others developed them anyway. There's a difference between actual possession and having a right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
No nation has any right regarding nuclear weapons. But some nations do have nuclear weapons from before the establishment of the NPT. A few others developed them anyway. There's a difference between actual possession and having a right. |
And some continue to develop them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stop insinuating and be specific, Captain Corea. What is your point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thiophene wrote: |
Don't take that out of context, many in Iran and around the worlddon't htink israel has the right to exist, it doesn't mean they want mushroom clouds over them.
Much of the Israeli army behave like terrorists. I don't htink most of the nation approves of it but they can't control it and it's a shame. Military or not, they feel threatened and they fight to win. Either way it's wrong....imo.
Our histories are different but that doesn't make us enemies. You shit with people arond the world, they're gonna be pissed. stop making grandiose (first time I've used that word  ) excuses for evil, Iran has no intention on attacking the US, they're not fools. freeing Palestine on the other hand...I think they'd like to help out. they're one of the few countries around the world where they hav the balls to say what they think even if it offends the all mighty Jewish lobby.
*to respond to another poster about Israel not signing the NPT...to me that's bullshit, 1) Iran isn't the only one defying the treaty..(un)fortunately they're not privy to a nice cushy seat on the UN. 2) Iran imo has the rigth to leave the stupid treaty (they've seen devestation to their left and right...), and they've been taunted for too long 3) it's just a stupid piece of paper that no one should've signed cause none of the big powers had any intentions of keeping their promises or making it fair and the little guys should've known that. |
Well put. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| First, Kuros wrote: |
| If Iran wishes to develop nuclear weapons, it may withdraw pursuant to Article 10 under the extraordinary events exception. North Korea certainly did so. |
| Then, he wrote: |
| No nation has any right regarding nuclear weapons. But some nations do have nuclear weapons from before the establishment of the NPT. A few others developed them anyway. There's a difference between actual possession and having a right. |
Well then if the NPT is irrelevant, why did you bring it up in the first place?
Whatever the discussion here, Chomsky's analogy is right. If Iran was a world superpower, had invaded and subdued Mexico on the basis of the flimsiest evidence of a theat, placed military bases in Canada and the Bahamas, routinely ignored American concerns about nuclear weapons in Cuba, and regularly conducted intelligence-gathering incursions acros the Rio Grande...the US, REGARDLESS of the nature of its government or its society, would feel itself perfectly justified in developing nuclear weapons as a bulwark -- the ultimate bulwark -- against invasion.
Its curious that China and Russia, nations which are much closer to Iran than the US, do not get anywhere near as exorcised over the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran as the US (Bush et. al.) does. It's obvious what Iran's intentions are: 1) Provide a bulwark against invasion, and 2) bring Israel to the nuclear negotiating table. THAT's why the warhawks are so upset at the prospect of an Iran with nukes. A nuclear-armed Iran and Israel can have only two outcomes: 1)Nuclear war or 2) a negotiated regional arms-control treaty.
Why do I sound so "ridiculous" to the warhawks on this forum? Because a) I can read a map, and b) I don't depend on CNN or Pentagon-published trash to do my thinking for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You ought to recognize that international opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran goes well beyond the W. Bush Administration. It includes Britain, France, Germany, Israel, and virtually the entire Sunni Middle East.
The Obama Administration, for example.
Also see this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| First, Kuros wrote: |
| If Iran wishes to develop nuclear weapons, it may withdraw pursuant to Article 10 under the extraordinary events exception. North Korea certainly did so. |
| Then, he wrote: |
| No nation has any right regarding nuclear weapons. But some nations do have nuclear weapons from before the establishment of the NPT. A few others developed them anyway. There's a difference between actual possession and having a right. |
Well then if the NPT is irrelevant, why did you bring it up in the first place? |
Who said the NPT is irrelevant?
It may indeed become less relevant if Iran gets nuclear weapons. But who cares, because Noam Chomsky made this great analogy using Mexico!
Yeah, I don't really have too much respect for your position on this one, MoS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T-J
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't understand what world some people are living in that they can compare Iran's response to the Western opposition of a nuclear armed Islamic theocracy that has vowed the destruction of a sovereign state, with Nazi Germany occupying France. 
Those that belittle the term "liberator" and fan the flames of RADICAL ISLAMIC opposition through the use of the term "occupying force", need to get a grip on reality. Do you really think that the U.S. is occupying Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, Germany, Turkey, Kuwait or any other country that we have troops forward deployed in? I guess Subic Bay NAS and Clark AFB are conveniently forgotten in your revisionist fantasies. The continued presence in Iraq is at the pleasure of the duly elected Iraqi government.
As long as we are living in a fantasy world where what ifs and second guessing armchair quarterbacks are all fair and good, I'll through out a hypothetical.
Would you have supported an unprovoked preemptive attack on Germany in August of 1939?
If not, why not. If so, on what grounds?
The point is not that the U.S. has never made mistakes, bad calls, and out-and-out F*ck ups, it is however that if we have learned anything in the twentieth century, doing nothing is often times the greatest sin against humanity there is.
This is not a call to quell criticism, far from it. However, keep it real people, there are very bad people in this world that will slit your families throat and let them bleed out in front of you in the name of their religion. Water boarding? Yes, bad call, big mistake, should have never happened. Shame on our side. But we are not even in the same ballpark as our enemies. That is a good thing. Hold our government accountable by all means, that is the true sign of a healthy democracy. Please don't insult the defenders of the freedom you enjoy by equating those defenders with the ones that would take your freedom and lives from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thiophene
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Again, this concept of 'fairness' is bunk. Fairness does not come into play regarding nuclear weapons. And even if it were, how fair is it to nations like South Africa, Japan, and Brazil that Iran is flouting a treaty they made a shared commitment to? I guess these nations aren't small enough to gain your sympathy? |
It isn't fair for SAfrica, Japan, etc that other nations have weapons as we speak. If Japan wants to build weapons, then so be it. If US, UK, Russia hae weapons, then any other nation should freely build theirs. But, Iran does have more reasons to leave the NPT than the nations you've mentioned. I guess Iran should sign the papers and get it over with? Would that make the NPT backers happy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thiophene wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Again, this concept of 'fairness' is bunk. Fairness does not come into play regarding nuclear weapons. And even if it were, how fair is it to nations like South Africa, Japan, and Brazil that Iran is flouting a treaty they made a shared commitment to? I guess these nations aren't small enough to gain your sympathy? |
It isn't fair for SAfrica, Japan, etc that other nations have weapons as we speak. If Japan wants to build weapons, then so be it. If US, UK, Russia hae weapons, then any other nation should freely build theirs. But, Iran does have more reasons to leave the NPT than the nations you've mentioned. I guess Iran should sign the papers and get it over with? Would that make the NPT backers happy? |
The circumstances would have to be extraordinary. I don't think Iran can pass that bar.
Iran won't be like North Korea. North Korea is somewhat insulated from the world's wrath because of the six-party talks regime. But Russia and China won't be able to save Iran: Iran's missiles are almost able to hit Western Europe.
| MoS wrote: |
| A nuclear-armed Iran and Israel can have only two outcomes: 1)Nuclear war or 2) a negotiated regional arms-control treaty. |
I missed this.
So by undermining the NPT, Iran is going to push Israel (also a violator of the NPT, altho not a signatory) into signing a regional arms-control treaty? Would you like some wishful thinking as a side to your heaping helping of naivete?
Last edited by Kuros on Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Two points from Barack Obama's security position that I fully support and that also bear mentioning here...
| Quote: |
Eliminate Iran's and North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Programs Through Tough, Direct Diplomacy: Use tough diplomacy -- backed by real incentives and real pressures -- to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to eliminate fully and verifiably North Korea's nuclear weapons program...
Set the Goal of a Nuclear-Free World: Show the world that America believes in its existing commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to work to ultimately eliminate all nuclear weapons. America will not disarm unilaterally. |
You have mistakenly followed Noam Chomsky's theoretical jiujitsu, Manner of Speaking. Other, better positions exist than his not-so-cleverly-spun antiAmerican one that somehow never takes the OAS and its longstanding mutual-security pacts into account and that, more to the point, seems aimed to justify additional nuclear-armed powers which will make nuclear exchanges more likely in world affairs.
This thread gives me a sick feeling, just as reading William Blum gives me a sick feeling. Some of you would see the world burn just to spite America.
Obama Administration's security agenda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hamlet
Joined: 18 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You can criticise the influence of evangelicals in the US, but to compare the US to Iran and say that both are equally theocracies shows that you are either ignoring quantifiable facts, or are an imbecile. |
I'm no grammar Nazi, but if you are going to call someone an "imbecile," at least do so properly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| I really do not understand MoS' or any of the other worldviews which believe that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, how will it better the world, how will it even better Iran? |
That's because you're drifting way off topic.
The topic is not whether or not Iran has the "right" to have nuclear weapons...the topic is, given the current world system of nation-states and each state being responsible for its own security, is it understandable that a state in the geopolitical position Iran is in now, REGARDLESS of the nature of its political system, its society or its culture, would feel the need to develop nuclear weapons to protect its independence?
Chomsky asks a good question. And sometimes placing yourself in an "adversary's" shoes is a good way to understand its actions.
Suppose that Iran was the nuclear superpower instead of the US. Suppose that this superpower Iran had invaded and subdued Mexico in 2003, participated in a NATO-lead occupation of Afghanistan (which I support, incidentally), was a longtime ally of a nearby nation the size and population of Honduras, the latter of which itself had 100+ nuclear weapons and was not a signatory to the NPT (and had the proven ability to strike the US with IRBMs)...an Iran which had attempted to place military bases in Quebec and other parts of Canuckistan ( ) and which regularly patrolled international waters off the US East Coast with carrier strike groups...
Would that US, regardless of whether it was a liberal democracy or a theocratic state, also feel compelled to develop nuclear weapons as a bulwark against invasion, and to force the undeclared nuclear weapon state in its backyard to the bargaining table? The answer is obviously "yes".
And if the answer is obviously "yes", doesn't this demonstrate that side issues of NPT membership or the nature of Iranian society are merely side issues to the basic strategic issue?
During World War II, the US didn't develop atomic weapons because Hitler and Nazi Germany were bad guys, or because wanted to exterminate the Jews. The US developed atomic weapons because it had serious reason to believe that the Nazis were going to beat them to it. And the US wanted a deterrent against the possiblity of Hitler dropping the bomb on London, Moscow, or the Normandy beaches.
It was deterrence, pure and simple. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| I really do not understand MoS' or any of the other worldviews which believe that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, how will it better the world, how will it even better Iran? |
That's because you're drifting way off topic.
The topic is not whether or not Iran has the "right" to have nuclear weapons...the topic is, given the current world system of nation-states and each state being responsible for its own security, is it understandable that a state in the geopolitical position Iran is in now, REGARDLESS of the nature of its political system, its society or its culture, would feel the need to develop nuclear weapons to protect its independence?
Chomsky asks a good question. And sometimes placing yourself in an "adversary's" shoes is a good way to understand its actions.
Suppose that Iran was the nuclear superpower instead of the US. Suppose that this superpower Iran had invaded and subdued Mexico in 2003, participated in a NATO-lead occupation of Afghanistan (which I support, incidentally), was a longtime ally of a nearby nation the size and population of Honduras, the latter of which itself had 100+ nuclear weapons and was not a signatory to the NPT (and had the proven ability to strike the US with IRBMs)...an Iran which had attempted to place military bases in Quebec and other parts of Canuckistan () and which regularly patrolled international waters off the US East Coast with carrier strike groups...
Would that US, regardless of whether it was a liberal democracy or a theocratic state, also feel compelled to develop nuclear weapons as a bulwark against invasion, and to force the undeclared nuclear weapon state in its backyard to the bargaining table? The answer is obviously "yes".
And if the answer is obviously "yes", doesn't this demonstrate that side issues of NPT membership or the nature of Iranian society are merely side issues to the basic strategic issue?
During World War II, the US didn't develop atomic weapons because Hitler and Nazi Germany were bad guys, or because wanted to exterminate the Jews. The US developed atomic weapons because it had serious reason to believe that the Nazis were going to beat them to it. And the US wanted a deterrent against the possiblity of Hitler dropping the bomb on London, Moscow, or the Normandy beaches.
It was deterrence, pure and simple. |
Iran's nuclear weapons program dates back at least to 1996.
Anyway there is a big difference between a state that is sort of like South Korea having nuclear weapons and a state sort of like North Korea having nuclear weapons. Moreover we don't know the reason why Iran wants nuclear weapons it might or might not be for deterence. And what kind of deterence is in question ? To protect itself from an invasion or deterence so it can avoid the consequences of supporting groups like Hizzbollah or even in engaging attacks itself. Maybe Iran wan't to protect Hizzbollah.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:25 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| 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
