|
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 |
GENO123
Joined: 28 Jan 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
actionjackson
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Happened upon this today and thought it made some interesting points in regards to the discussion.
Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
| Quote: |
United States intelligence community and its allies have long assessed that Iran is not and never has been in possession of nuclear weapons, is not building nuclear weapons, and its leadership has not made any decision to build nuclear weapons. Iranian officials have consistently maintained they will never pursue such weapons on religious, strategic, political, moral and legal grounds.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Brigadier General Martin Dempsey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Ronald Burgess, President Barack Obama, his National Security Council, and Vice President Joe Biden have all agreed Iran isn't actively building nuclear weapons.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz, and Military Intelligence Director Aviv Kochavi have also said the same thing. |
Iran has never violated its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
| Quote: |
| Iran is a signatory, and charter member, to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which affirms (not grants, merely acknowledges) the "inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty." |
Iran, by default, already has "nuclear weapons capability.
| Quote: |
| Iran, with its operational enrichment facilities and a functioning power plant, theoretically already has such "capability," as do at least 140 other countries that "currently have the basic technical capacity to produce nuclear weapons.� Additionally,according to Green Peace, "[o]ver 40 countries have the materials and knowhow to build nuclear weapons quickly, a capacity that is referred to as 'rapid break-out.'" |
Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons. It is not a member of the NPT.
| Quote: |
Unlike Iran, which doesn't have a single nuclear bomb, Israel maintains a massive, undeclared and unmonitored arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons. Additionally, Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to do so whenrepeatedly called upon to do so by the international community. The hypocrisy isstaggering.
In May 2010, the 189 member nations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - including Iran - agreed to "the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction." In response, Israel denounced the accord, describing it as "deeply flawed and hypocritical," and declared, "As a nonsignatory state of the NPT, Israel is not obligated by the decisions of this Conference, which has no authority over Israel. Given the distorted nature of this resolution, Israel will not be able to take part in its implementation." |
Sanctions are the West's other weapon of mass destruction.
| Quote: |
Just today, AFP reports, "Some six million patients in Iran are affected by Western economic sanctions as import of medicine is becoming increasingly difficult" because restrictions on Iran's banking sector "severely" curtail "the import of drugs and pharmaceutical devices for treatment of complex illnesses."
But deliberately causing a humanitarian disaster that destroys the lives of an entire civilian population isn't an alternative to war. It is one. |
Attacking Iran is not only immoral, it is uncontrovertibly illegal.
| Quote: |
| All so-called "preemptive" military attacks are illegal and explicitly forbidden by Chapter I, Article 2.4 of the United Nations Charter. The Charter also makes clear that it recognizes the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations," (Chapter VII, Article 51), which undoubtedly rules out any and all "preemptive," "precautionary," "anticipatory self-defense," or "preventative" military actions of one State against another. |
This is really about maintaining unchallenged American and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.
| Quote: |
The scariest thing for proponents of American empire and Israeli impunity is the prospect of the U.S. and Israel not being able to invade, occupy, overthrow bomb, blockade and murder at will. Glenn Greenwald recently pointed out that the real fear over the Iranian program is that "Iranian nuclear weapons would prevent the US from attacking Iran at will, and that is what is intolerable."
In his December 2011 call for the United States to soon launch an unprovoked attack on Iran, Matthew Kroenig wrote in Foreign Affairs that a "nuclear-armed Iran would immediately limit U.S. freedom of action in the Middle East. With atomic power behind it, Iran could threaten any U.S. political or military initiative in the Middle East with nuclear war, forcing Washington to think twice before acting in the region."
The same month, hawkish American Enterprise Institute maven Danielle Pletka admitted, "The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it. It�s Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it." |
http://www.alternet.org/world/what-obama-and-romney-didnt-say-debate-9-things-you-should-know-about-irans-nuclear-program?paging=off |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unibrow
Joined: 20 Aug 2012
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior you believe everything Bill Clinton says? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GENO123
Joined: 28 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The great tragedy is that Yassir Arafat stole during his lifetime several billions of dollars from funds made available by the United States and the Western European countries for the Palestinian people. These billions disappeared into banks in Europe, primarily in Switzerland. These facts were disclosed at the time of Arafat's death in Paris in the unseemly discussions between Arafat's widow and Palestinian leaders while Arafat first lay in a coma and later was dead in his hospital room. His death could not be announced and the body could not be moved until an agreement was reached about the money under the control of Arafat's widow. At this point, it seems clear that most of that money was retained by Arafat's wife.
This unfortunate state of affairs has to be addressed. The Palestinian leadership should use legal process in Europe to obtain for their own people the monies pilfered by Arafat and other Palestinian leaders. That money is badly needed at this critical juncture if the Palestinians are ever to have a chance of developing Gaza and the West Bank into a meaningful political entity. Moreover, the United States and the Europeans should insist that the funds that they contributed be accounted for. To the extent that they have not been spent, but have ended up in Mrs. Arafat's bank accounts, or the accounts of other corrupt Palestinian leaders, they should be returned to the Palestinian people. To the extent that the Palestinians will not pursue these funds, then the United States and the Western Europeans should do so. |
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,86310,00.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Isn't the real question what the next US president will do? Is it more likely that Obama or Romney will attack Iran? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Isn't the real question what the next US president will do? Is it more likely that Obama or Romney will attack Iran? |
Romeny easily. His party is made up of Israel firsters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Isn't the real question what the next US president will do? Is it more likely that Obama or Romney will attack Iran? |
Equally plausible. Obama has been bombing children on a weekly basis since he came into office, so there's no question whatsoever that he has it in him to do so. And regardless, he'll probably gleefully kill a few hundred thousand more innocent Iranian children in the meantime through sanctions (just like Madeline Albright did to Iraqi children under Clinton).
The only likely difference in taking us to war would be the approach and rhetoric. Romney would probably just pull another Iraq, and send in the troops unilaterally if need be (without apologies). Obama, however, would prefer to have some kind of plausible deniability and would first stage a false flag of some sort, or have Israel start the war. He would then take us to war through a UN resolution (and probably win another Nobel Peace prize for his efforts). It's the old cliche: when the Reps take us to war they send troops in green uniforms, when the Dems take us to war they send troops in blue (i.e. UN) uniforms.
Bottom line, both men are ardent supporters of the military industrial complex. At least in Romney's case, he hasn't actually had the chance to commit atrocities (yet). Obama already has the blood of innocent men, women, and children on his hands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Isn't the real question what the next US president will do? Is it more likely that Obama or Romney will attack Iran? |
Equally plausible. Obama has been bombing children on a weekly basis since he came into office, so there's no question whatsoever that he has it in him to do so. And regardless, he'll probably gleefully kill a few hundred thousand more innocent Iranian children in the meantime through sanctions (just like Madeline Albright did to Iraqi children under Clinton).
The only likely difference in taking us to war would be the approach and rhetoric. Romney would probably just pull another Iraq, and send in the troops unilaterally if need be (without apologies). Obama, however, would prefer to have some kind of plausible deniability and would first stage a false flag of some sort, or have Israel start the war. He would then take us to war through a UN resolution (and probably win another Nobel Peace prize for his efforts). It's the old cliche: when the Reps take us to war they send troops in green uniforms, when the Dems take us to war they send troops in blue (i.e. UN) uniforms.
Bottom line, both men are ardent supporters of the military industrial complex. At least in Romney's case, he hasn't actually had the chance to commit atrocities (yet). Obama already has the blood of innocent men, women, and children on his hands. |
While I think that they are both terrible on this regard, to regard them as equal isn't quite accurate. I view Obama as terrible, but not that different than any other modern president, yet Romney is talking about raising military spending. You don't spend more money on something you don't intend to use. Also, given our current spending, more military spending is just a waste/handout to military contractors. I think in this regard Mitt is much worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| While I think that they are both terrible on this regard, to regard them as equal isn't quite accurate. I view Obama as terrible, but not that different than any other modern president, yet Romney is talking about raising military spending. You don't spend more money on something you don't intend to use. Also, given our current spending, more military spending is just a waste/handout to military contractors. I think in this regard Mitt is much worse. |
Whatever. You're a fairly smart guy, but your problem is that you focus too much on rhetoric (i.e. what politicians say). Mitt is lying about half the things he says too. While he would, as a Republican, have a sort of "free pass" to unilaterally take the country to war a la Bush if elected, he in fact seems to me to more pragmatic (and less ideological) than Obama. The reason I think so is that he is a flip-flopper who say whatever it takes to advance his political career, and he was also fairly "liberal" as governor of Mass. I really don't think he is the neo-Con many people make him out to be.
That said, I do think Romney would take us to war against Iran in a heartbeat, but no more or less than Obama would. The only real difference would be the excuse each would use to justify it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| While I think that they are both terrible on this regard, to regard them as equal isn't quite accurate. I view Obama as terrible, but not that different than any other modern president, yet Romney is talking about raising military spending. You don't spend more money on something you don't intend to use. Also, given our current spending, more military spending is just a waste/handout to military contractors. I think in this regard Mitt is much worse. |
Whatever. You're a fairly smart guy, but your problem is that you focus too much on rhetoric (i.e. what politicians say). Mitt is lying about half the things he says too. While he would, as a Republican, have a sort of "free pass" to unilaterally take the country to war a la Bush if elected, he in fact seems to me to more pragmatic (and less ideological) than Obama. The reason I think so is that he is a flip-flopper who say whatever it takes to advance his political career, and he was also fairly "liberal" as governor of Mass. I really don't think he is the neo-Con many people make him out to be.
That said, I do think Romney would take us to war against Iran in a heartbeat, but no more or less than Obama would. The only real difference would be the excuse each would use to justify it. |
Like I said, I believe that they both would do it, but there are also other factors to consider, such as the people Romney has advising him are much more into Iran than the people Obama has, not to mention that Romney's base is more into the idea of invading and killing Muslims than Obama's base. This means that Romney, someone who doesn't really care about foreign policy, will have more people pushing him to do it, and is more likely than Obama to listen to Netanyahu. I know it's mostly rhetoric, but I do kind of like that he doesn't bend over backwards for Netanyahu, but that's not a major point. Also, Obama doesn't have to go up for election again, so if his base pressures him, he can ignore it more easily than Romney can. Again, the military spending thing is something that I see as a red flag, but who knows if he would actually increase spending as much as he claims to want to, or if Obama will follow through and not increase spending like he says. I think, in the case for any president, that the biggest ray of light is the increasing unpopularity with all demographics of foreign adventurism, and can only hope that it continues even after we drawdown from Afghanistan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Like I said, I believe that they both would do it, but there are also other factors to consider, such as the people Romney has advising him are much more into Iran than the people Obama has, not to mention that Romney's base is more into the idea of invading and killing Muslims than Obama's base. This means that Romney, someone who doesn't really care about foreign policy, will have more people pushing him to do it, and is more likely than Obama to listen to Netanyahu. |
I really don't see it this way at all. Who are these different advisors you're talking about? Both parties are equally pro-Israel (to say that Romney is more so is just wrong in my opinion). In fact, there is approximately zero difference in terms of their policy in that regard.
| Quote: |
| I know it's mostly rhetoric, but I do kind of like that he doesn't bend over backwards for Netanyahu, but that's not a major point. |
Who knows what really goes on behind the scenes. There is such a thing as political posturing, you know. Obama has stated in no uncertain terms that "we stand with Israel", meaning that if Israel were to start the war then the US would also be at war. By acting cool towards Netanyahu now it gives Obama the plausible deniability he wants (he gets to pretend that he didn't really want a war, but he was dragged into it). This is all elementary.
| Quote: |
| Also, Obama doesn't have to go up for election again, so if his base pressures him, he can ignore it more easily than Romney can. |
Or much more likely, Obama can just go to war without having to care about his popularity plummeting. Do you think he is more likely to care about pleasing the American public (who will not be able to reelect him in any case) or the special interests he has so obviously been serving all along?
| Quote: |
| and can only hope that it continues even after we drawdown from Afghanistan. |
Mark my words: this will not happen. We are in Afghanistan to stay. There is a $500 billion dollar opium trade at stake, and our troops are there to guard it. Kind of like how we have a billion dollar armored compound in Iraq being guarded by private contract mercenaries (despite Obama lying about having gotten us out of Iraq). We are in these places to stay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Like I said, I believe that they both would do it, but there are also other factors to consider, such as the people Romney has advising him are much more into Iran than the people Obama has, not to mention that Romney's base is more into the idea of invading and killing Muslims than Obama's base. This means that Romney, someone who doesn't really care about foreign policy, will have more people pushing him to do it, and is more likely than Obama to listen to Netanyahu. |
I really don't see it this way at all. Who are these different advisors you're talking about? Both parties are equally pro-Israel (to say that Romney is more so is just wrong in my opinion). In fact, there is approximately zero difference in terms of their policy in that regard. |
People like John Bolton, Dan Senor, Robert Kagan, are worse than the people advising Obama. You say I fall for rhetoric, I will say that you miss out on degrees of difference in your disgust for all of them. Yes they are all bad, but some are relatively worse, such as those I named above.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I know it's mostly rhetoric, but I do kind of like that he doesn't bend over backwards for Netanyahu, but that's not a major point. |
Who knows what really goes on behind the scenes. There is such a thing as political posturing, you know. Obama has stated in no uncertain terms that "we stand with Israel", meaning that if Israel were to start the war then the US would also be at war. By acting cool towards Netanyahu now it gives Obama the plausible deniability he wants (he gets to pretend that he didn't really want a war, but he was dragged into it). This is all elementary. |
I mean none of this is new to me, but unless things are completely different in private, I think it's a good thing. I don't think he has much to gain from appearing to be cool towards Netanyahu, politically, but if he is actually warning Netanyahu against an attack, then I think that's great. Again, this isn't a major point.
[quote="visitorq"]
| Leon wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Also, Obama doesn't have to go up for election again, so if his base pressures him, he can ignore it more easily than Romney can. |
Or much more likely, Obama can just go to war without having to care about his popularity plummeting. Do you think he is more likely to care about pleasing the American public (who will not be able to reelect him in any case) or the special interests he has so obviously been serving all along? |
I don't know, I mean it's not like he'll need the special interest money anymore, and after seeing what the wars did to Bush's legacy, he might try to avoid tarnishing his like that. I think that the (still bad) covert wars will continue, and as much as I don't like them and think they are against our interests and criminal, I prefer that to all out war.
[quote="visitorq"]
| Leon wrote: |
| Quote: |
| and can only hope that it continues even after we drawdown from Afghanistan. |
Mark my words: this will not happen. We are in Afghanistan to stay. There is a $500 billion dollar opium trade at stake, and our troops are there to guard it. Kind of like how we have a billion dollar armored compound in Iraq being guarded by private contract mercenaries (despite Obama lying about having gotten us out of Iraq). We are in these places to stay. |
I agree with this, but I think you missed my point. What I meant was that I hope that the American people's dislike of foreign adventurism continues even after Afghanistan is "officially" over, and out of most peoples minds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree that Romney is more likely than Obama to attack. More likely still is Israel attacking and dragging the USA in or an Israeli false flag. The false flag is extremely likely, I reckon. By way of deception, thou shall make war, and all that. Israel wants war war war war for ever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Isn't the real question what the next US president will do? Is it more likely that Obama or Romney will attack Iran? |
Equally plausible. Obama has been bombing children on a weekly basis since he came into office, so there's no question whatsoever that he has it in him to do so. And regardless, he'll probably gleefully kill a few hundred thousand more innocent Iranian children in the meantime through sanctions (just like Madeline Albright did to Iraqi children under Clinton).
The only likely difference in taking us to war would be the approach and rhetoric. Romney would probably just pull another Iraq, and send in the troops unilaterally if need be (without apologies). Obama, however, would prefer to have some kind of plausible deniability and would first stage a false flag of some sort, or have Israel start the war. He would then take us to war through a UN resolution (and probably win another Nobel Peace prize for his efforts). It's the old cliche: when the Reps take us to war they send troops in green uniforms, when the Dems take us to war they send troops in blue (i.e. UN) uniforms.
Bottom line, both men are ardent supporters of the military industrial complex. At least in Romney's case, he hasn't actually had the chance to commit atrocities (yet). Obama already has the blood of innocent men, women, and children on his hands. |
While I think that they are both terrible on this regard, to regard them as equal isn't quite accurate. I view Obama as terrible, but not that different than any other modern president, yet Romney is talking about raising military spending. You don't spend more money on something you don't intend to use. Also, given our current spending, more military spending is just a waste/handout to military contractors. I think in this regard Mitt is much worse. |
I agree with you.
Romney is atrocious on this, and Obama is marginally better. But I have my money on the 'marginally'.
Obama has proved he isn't a war-monger, but at the same time, he isn't afraid to use US power to further our interests. A good balance. This is about as good as we can expect as long as half the country is insistent on strutting around in a p*****g contest with the rest of the world as to who is tougher. |
|
| 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
