Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Why won't SK back US 100%
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
The Happy Warrior



Joined: 10 Feb 2010

PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wintermute wrote:
Turbulent political history due in part to aggressive meddling by western nations? Sure, but coups, sanctions and wars give rise to fanaticsm. The current climate of scaremongering and lingering threats of war empowers the extremists, and makes the need for a nuclear deterrent all the more pressing, thus making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. The worst thing is we will find out too late that it was 95% spin anyway.


That's an airtight ideological narrative. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, it was because they felt threatened. It certainly has nothing to do with any aspirations of regional hegemony or Persian supremacy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
caniff



Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map

PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Happy Warrior wrote:
wintermute wrote:
Turbulent political history due in part to aggressive meddling by western nations? Sure, but coups, sanctions and wars give rise to fanaticsm. The current climate of scaremongering and lingering threats of war empowers the extremists, and makes the need for a nuclear deterrent all the more pressing, thus making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. The worst thing is we will find out too late that it was 95% spin anyway.


That's an airtight ideological narrative. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, it was because they felt threatened. It certainly has nothing to do with any aspirations of regional hegemony or Persian supremacy.


If my psycho neighbor picks up a knife and stabs me because he sees demons everywhere, then there isn't much I can do.

If I know he's a psycho and I see him as he walks over to the knife (and I can glean his intent) then maybe I've got a shot.

(I'm looking at it from Israels' point of view - perhaps. The US needs to stay well out of any pre-emptive attack on Iran)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mises



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gwangjuboy



Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wintermute wrote:
Well, it's in Iran's interest, so that's not quite true. And since they are a sovereign country, that's good enough for them. They probably feel that countries with a nuclear deterrent get raped and pillaged less often.


Well, I wasn't quite including Iran in that statement, but arguably a nuclear weapons programme is not in their best interests either. Iran is a polarized country - the disputed elections leaving it even more so than before, and not all of its citizens would welcome the threat to its country that the pursuit of nuclear weapons will entail. Economically of course, this process has already started, but should they try to develop nukes, quite how the almost inevitable response of an Israeli or a western-backed military strike is of benefit to the country is beyond me.

Incidentally, if you personally believe that every nation has the right to develop nuclear weapons then that's your prerogative, but as I said before, and I reiterate, I vehemently oppose this idea of some international equal opportunities policy on nukes. It is doubly concerning when the nation that is trying to develop them is a brutal theocracy which sponsors terrorists and can boast of a human rights record on par with the 'best' of them.

Quote:
"Wipe israel off the map" - poorly translated out of context remark, used as a slogan rather than a meaningful statement. Do you have any other comments or info which supports the idea that this is a real and plausible policy?


Well, where do you want me to start? I think Iran�s unequivocal support of Hamas � an organisation which has at the heart of its objective the complete destruction of Israel � is a good place. Before even going into to its financial support, look at Ahamdinejad�s boast in 2008 that Iran will support the terrorist group until �the collapse of Israel�. I don�t think he leaves any room for ambiguity here, or do you think the sovereign state of Israel should sit back and wait for Iran�s president to make himself even clearer?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/ahmadinejad-iran-will-support-hamas-until-collapse-of-israel-1.253714

Quote:
"Holocaust denier" = threat to the world? Pfft. That's just a label
.

It�s more than a label. It�s the deliberate distortion of one of the most tragic episodes in recent history, the facts of which are beyond refute amongst established and serious academics. I would equate the �historians� who espouse views to the contrary with �scientists� who back the theory of intelligent design. For his part Ahamdinejad has hosted conferences which aim to reveal �both sides� of the story, as though there was actually any controversy on the issue. Neo-Nazi pseudo-historians are all the rage amongst the Israel-haters in the region, including the Iranian president, who in 2005 said:

�but if somebody denies the myth of the massacre of Jews, the Zionist loudspeakers and the governments in the pay of Zionism will start to scream�.

http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2005/12/200849154418141136.html

Quote:
Turbulent political history due in part to aggressive meddling by western nations? Sure, but coups, sanctions and wars give rise to fanaticsm. The current climate of scaremongering and lingering threats of war empowers the extremists, and makes the need for a nuclear deterrent all the more pressing, thus making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. The worst thing is we will find out too late that it was 95% spin anyway.


You are speaking as though the �moderates� in Iran have any political traction. It is arguable that the extremists are empowered far more by their sustained oppression of the opposition than any �scare mongering� or �lingering threats� exacted by the sections of the international community. It�s also Ahamdinejad�s explicit support of Hamas which is driving this self-fulfilling prophecy you speak of.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/crowds-attack-home-of-iranian-opposition-leader-2069501.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/23/iran-censorship-ban-opposition-leaders

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/02/20102117332284608.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11243683


Quote:
Leave them alone let them conduct their sovereign affairs in peace, even if it is less profitable for certain countries or special interest groups.


I find it frightening that there are people who genuinely believe this.


Last edited by Gwangjuboy on Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:32 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Happy Warrior



Joined: 10 Feb 2010

PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

caniff wrote:
The Happy Warrior wrote:
wintermute wrote:
Turbulent political history due in part to aggressive meddling by western nations? Sure, but coups, sanctions and wars give rise to fanaticsm. The current climate of scaremongering and lingering threats of war empowers the extremists, and makes the need for a nuclear deterrent all the more pressing, thus making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. The worst thing is we will find out too late that it was 95% spin anyway.


That's an airtight ideological narrative. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, it was because they felt threatened. It certainly has nothing to do with any aspirations of regional hegemony or Persian supremacy.


If my psycho neighbor picks up a knife and stabs me because he sees demons everywhere, then there isn't much I can do.

If I know he's a psycho and I see him as he walks over to the knife (and I can glean his intent) then maybe I've got a shot.

(I'm looking at it from Israels' point of view - perhaps. The US needs to stay well out of any pre-emptive attack on Iran)


I'm not arguing for a strike on Iran. I'm arguing against a double standard that excuses nuclear proliferation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wintermute



Joined: 01 Oct 2007

PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gwangjuboy wrote:
wintermute wrote:
Well, it's in Iran's interest, so that's not quite true. And since they are a sovereign country, that's g........
...
...


You are better informed than I, and I appreciate the time you took to respond. I will read those links, and i am happy to concede that a nuclear Iran will cause Israel more difficulty.

However, you still did not address the question of why Iran is a threat to the whole world, one of the premises of the OP's article, and the source of the moral outrage that the world wasn't jumping to impose collective punishment on civilians as quickly as ordered.

It just seems to me that "Iran is a threat to the world" is the product of a "public relations" campaign, rather than an objective truth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Happy Warrior wrote:


I'm not arguing for a strike on Iran. I'm arguing against a double standard that excuses nuclear proliferation.


With respect to the geographical area and issues we are discussing would you care to elaborate on this "double standard"?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Murph



Joined: 31 Dec 2006

PostPosted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is a simple fact that the author is overlooking. Countries do not have friends, countries have interests. Furthermore we must also remember that when it comes down to it, most people are going to serve their self interests. America wants Korea to shut down this bank (as one example.) Sounds simple enough, but what about the bank manager with a family, who is sending two kids to five academies each, and paying off his or her Equus? Do you think that he or she will just happily step down to avoid the possibility of maybe helping terrorsts? People in America use banks to commit crimes, why not shut the banks down there? Furthermore I think it is even more important to prove that allowing this bank in the country is helping terrorist (or the government build a nuclear weapons program.) If this cannot be proven then why should South Korea act?

I don't want to seem anti American with my next point, because I am truly not, however we should all keep in mind that American came into Korea over 60 years ago because it was in America's best interest. It is nice to think that Americans got together and agreed that there was a lot of injustice in Korea, and something had to be done because it was just the right thing to do. I am sorry to burts anyone's bubble but that's just not the way it happened. Truth be known America played a part in handing Korea over to Japan (see below). Beyond that America took no part in stopping The Rwandan genocide. Why not? It wasn't in Americas interest to do so. America and South Korea are allies, and America has done a lot to help South Korea, however that doesn't require submission. Or does it???

The main argument that I am making here is that South Korea is most likely acting in it's own self interest which is exactly what every other country does. Furthermore unless a clear and present threat can be demonstrated South Korea really has no reason to act (in self interest or otherwise) so we shouldn't come down too hard on South Korea.

Negotiations lasted through August. Prior to the beginning of negotiations, the Japanese had allegedly made the Taft-Katsura Agreement with the United States in July 1905, agreeing to Japanese control in Korea in return for American dominance in the Philippines. Also, the Japanese agreed with Britain to extend the Anglo-Japanese treaty to cover all of Eastern Asia, in return for Britain also agreeing to Japanese control over Korea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Portsmouth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Murph wrote:
There is a simple fact that the author is overlooking. Countries do not have friends, countries have interests. Furthermore we must also remember that when it comes down to it, most people are going to serve their self interests. America wants Korea to shut down this bank (as one example.) Sounds simple enough, but what about the bank manager with a family, who is sending two kids to five academies each, and paying off his or her Equus? Do you think that he or she will just happily step down to avoid the possibility of maybe helping terrorsts? People in America use banks to commit crimes, why not shut the banks down there? Furthermore I think it is even more important to prove that allowing this bank in the country is helping terrorist (or the government build a nuclear weapons program.) If this cannot be proven then why should South Korea act?

I don't want to seem anti American with my next point, because I am truly not, however we should all keep in mind that American came into Korea over 60 years ago because it was in America's best interest. It is nice to think that Americans got together and agreed that there was a lot of injustice in Korea, and something had to be done because it was just the right thing to do. I am sorry to burts anyone's bubble but that's just not the way it happened. Truth be known America played a part in handing Korea over to Japan (see below). Beyond that America took no part in stopping The Rwandan genocide. Why not? It wasn't in Americas interest to do so. America and South Korea are allies, and America has done a lot to help South Korea, however that doesn't require submission. Or does it???

The main argument that I am making here is that South Korea is most likely acting in it's own self interest which is exactly what every other country does. Furthermore unless a clear and present threat can be demonstrated South Korea really has no reason to act (in self interest or otherwise) so we shouldn't come down too hard on South Korea.

Negotiations lasted through August. Prior to the beginning of negotiations, the Japanese had allegedly made the Taft-Katsura Agreement with the United States in July 1905, agreeing to Japanese control in Korea in return for American dominance in the Philippines. Also, the Japanese agreed with Britain to extend the Anglo-Japanese treaty to cover all of Eastern Asia, in return for Britain also agreeing to Japanese control over Korea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Portsmouth




Not only did America hand Korea over to the Japanese it also used Korea as a proxy for war between the superpowers (hence the Korean war). Not that America was particularly to blame...China and Russia's meddling played the lion's share.

I'd say Korea has paid its debt in blood and suffering. As for the American troops here...America wouldn't be keeping them here if it didn't benefit their national interests.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Not only did America hand Korea over to the Japanese it also used Korea as a proxy for war between the superpowers (hence the Korean war).


I know, right? It was terrible for America to "use Korea" by losing thousands of American soldiers as North Korea invaded. Shameful...

To put it in the terms of "nations dont have friends, they have interests": if South Korea isn't willing to assist in our interests, why should we be concerned with theirs? I'm sure we'd be covering all of the US national interests with regard to NK by leaving a carrier strike group in the Sea of Japan.

The fact is that American troops are in South Korea for the good of South Korea. With all of its failings (and there are many) the US isn't an entity that can do no good, as some seem to insist on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Not only did America hand Korea over to the Japanese it also used Korea as a proxy for war between the superpowers (hence the Korean war).


I know, right? It was terrible for America to "use Korea" by losing thousands of American soldiers as North Korea invaded. Shameful...

To put it in the terms of "nations dont have friends, they have interests": if South Korea isn't willing to assist in our interests, why should we be concerned with theirs? I'm sure we'd be covering all of the US national interests with regard to NK by leaving a carrier strike group in the Sea of Japan.

The fact is that American troops are in South Korea for the good of South Korea. With all of its failings (and there are many) the US isn't an entity that can do no good, as some seem to insist on.



Korea lost one heck of a lot more in soldiers AND civilians killed. Besides which it was America's decision to put those soldiers in harm's way...not South Korea's.

The fact is that American troops are in South Korea because of national interests. If America was so altruistic where are the American troops in Darfur? Where were the American troops while the Tutsi were being massacred in Rwanda? I could list dozens of instances where American troops were not sent to places where wars or massacres were taking place. And I doubt America's that worried about N.K....it's China they likely want to keep an eye on. South Korea's a pretty good place to do that from.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shinramyun



Joined: 31 Jul 2009

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even though America sacrificed lot of soldiers to stop NK, you are only fooling yourself to believing that America was only fighting for South korea's survival against communism. It was America's interest to keep the communism contained and if South Korea did fall into NK, then Japan would be in harms way and America's position in east asia would be threatened. Not to mention, korea is a good buffer zone against china and Russia in east asia.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Murph



Joined: 31 Dec 2006

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Not only did America hand Korea over to the Japanese it also used Korea as a proxy for war between the superpowers (hence the Korean war).


I know, right? It was terrible for America to "use Korea" by losing thousands of American soldiers as North Korea invaded. Shameful...

To put it in the terms of "nations dont have friends, they have interests": if South Korea isn't willing to assist in our interests, why should we be concerned with theirs? I'm sure we'd be covering all of the US national interests with regard to NK by leaving a carrier strike group in the Sea of Japan.

The fact is that American troops are in South Korea for the good of South Korea. With all of its failings (and there are many) the US isn't an entity that can do no good, as some seem to insist on.


Comm, the loss of American soldiers during the Korean war was a terrible and noteworthy sacrifice for the individual human beings and their families. However the fact still remains that America is in Korea for its own self interest. I am not being anti American here. I like America, and I have liked most Americans that I have known! All nations are alike. This inculdes my country of Canada. Nothing is free, and that's all there is to it.

As far as I can tell America came to Korea to get a foothold on the Asian mainland, to keep communism in check, and to test out the United Nations. It's very idealistic to think that Americans decided to come to the rescue but that just ain't the way it happened. Sigh, if only the world were so black and white!

So back to the original post. The South Korean government did the math and decided that it was in it's best interest to keep the banks. I supposed some 'important' people thought it over, and calculated that keeping the banks wouldn't damage Korea's relationship with America (not too severely) , and from that point of view South Korea stood to gain more than it stood to lose by keeping the banks. Once again this goes back to self interest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skyblue



Joined: 02 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gwangjuboy wrote:
It's in nobody's interests: period. Iran is a brutal theocracy which has strongly intimated in the past that it desires the complete destruction of Israel. If you want a shadowy group of Islamic scholars and a Holocaust denier with a penchant for executing homosexuals, links to terrorism, and a history of political oppression one button away from nuclear chaos that's your prerogative.

Ha ha. Get real. Anti-homosexual? A brutal theocracy? Ha ha. The US just sold 60 billion worth of military hardware to Saudi Arabia, which is much more hardline both politically and socially than Iran. Oh, but they have royals in power who supply the US with most of its oil. All talk of freedom and democracy is propaganda. The US still has sanctions on Cuba -- won't even end the travel ban until democratic reform comes -- yet their top non-North American trading partner is ... Communist China ... And oil-rich auto/kleptocracies like Nigeria are still in business.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Skyblue



Joined: 02 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So why doesn't the US pull out of Korea in a fit of pique? Ha ha. Because they want to be here. And dead bodies don't mean a thing when politicians are thinking about long-term political, military, and economic strategy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
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


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International