|
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 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Soviet Man implicitly takes the usual one-sided, ahistorical route to criticize U.S. military superiority as if said superiority somehow explains all that has gone wrong in the world since 1945.
Why did the U.S. first develop and then why did the U.S. get into an arms race with respect to nuclear weapons, Soviet Man? For no reason than simply to bully everyone else? How about other powers like the British and the Soviets -- all of whom had very legitimate and very understandable security concerns?
Now, look at the late-comers (India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, and whoever else is hiding out there), who seem to be using nuclear weapons to validate themselves and their Third-World-style nationalism, to try to force themselves onto the world scene as "equals."
Do you not note any differences at all between those in the first group (and there were more than I mentioned, of course) and the second?
Compare the somber, reflective statements that came out of the U.S., for example, from the likes of Einstein and Oppenheimer with the flag-waving, nationalistic cheers we saw in India, Pakistan, and in North Korea's official announcements.
Where is all of this heading? Unbelievably, you seem to be defending the second group's insane worldview.
In any case, my answer to the question the OP raises: probably. It is probably inevitable. The more people that have nuclear weapons, the more chance there is that, sooner or later, one hothead or another will nuke someone else. Unfortunately, this is just one genie that will never be forced back into her bottle... |
You got all that from a list of how many nukes two countries have?
Trolling.
Irrelevant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is no future in attacking the U.S.
KJI knows that sending a missile to the USA, South Korea, China or Japan, would only ensure his own instant destruction.
Unless he wants to commit a mass suicide, this will not happen. His threat to bomb the US unless they agree to bilateral talks is meaningless.
He has played his last card and now he and his country will suffer even more for his foolishness.
Case closed. You may get on with your lives now... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hyalucent wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Am I the only one who's old enough here to have been taught in school to hide under tables in the event of a nuclear attack? ... |
Nope. We had the same drills. I was a base brat, once up on a time, in my elementary years. |
Who also remembers The Day After, the little girl who wrote to Gorbachev about WWIII, staying up at night, worrying that the world might end before the next morning, and songs like these...? Are those days coming back again?
| Quote: |
In Europe and America, theres a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mr. Khrushchev said we will bury you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too
How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy
There is no monopoly in common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too
There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the president
Theres no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie that we dont believe anymore
Mr. Reagan says we will protect you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too |
| Quote: |
Fifty million years ago
You walked upon the planet so,
Lord of all that you could see
Just a little bit like me,
Walking in your footsteps...
Hey there mighty brontosaurus
Don't you have a message for us.
You thought your rule would always last
There were no lessons in your past.
You were built three stories high
They say you would not hurt a fly
If we explode the atom bomb,
Would they say that we were dumb.
Walking in your footsteps...
Fifty million years ago
They walked upon the planet so
They live in a museum
It's the only place you'll see 'em.
Walking in your footsteps
They say the meek shall inherit the earth... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vexed wrote: |
It's down to the current nuclear club to solve this problem. They have to lead by example and disarm. Nuclear weaponry can only be a bad thing, no one wins a nuclear war (aside from the co ckroaches - maybe it's their turn to be the dominant species!).
If America truly wants a peaceful and stable world, it has to act by agreeing to disarm it's nuclear weapons. If it doesn't, then it can't argue against other countries having nuclear weapons.
America, take a stand and disarm... it's the path to peace. |
ROFL, another poster who thinks international power politics should look like sharing time at kindergarten. Maybe as the US disarms it can lead the world in fingerpainting on the old NPT while cheese, crackers, and fruit juice are passed out to all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| vexed wrote: |
America, take a stand and disarm... it's the path to peace. |
ROFL, another poster who thinks international power politics should look like sharing time at kindergarten. |
If America disarmed... peace would be a distant memory, for most of the planet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zoobot
Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:05 am Post subject: WHAT?????!!!! |
|
|
"Somber, reflective statements from Oppenheimer and Einstein" Are you MAD?!
Einstein frequently expressed regret that his ideas eventually led to the development of nuclear weapons, and Oppenheimer's ethical sense was about as solid as say, the entire U.N. during the genocide in Rwanda.
Gopher... you need to consult some primary historical sources! Japan was in the middle of surrender negotiations with Russia (who was still an ally at the time, however precarious) when the US nuked them. Can anyone say "living laboratory with human specimens" or maybe you like the ring of "revenge tragedy gone terribly awry" a little better?
I would probably put Oppenheimer in my top fifty list for most evil man of the past century.
I find it curious how all the criticisms of George Bush are about his stupidity, and all the criticisms of Kim Jong-Il are about his insanity.
You can check your "pop psychology glocks" at the door please...
Vexed has probably said the most perspicacious thing on this board, although there are some pragmatic uses for nukes (such as blowing up the aforementioned asteroid).
Here's an idea: why don't US diplomats take some North Korean diplomats out for some beer and soju, and I don't know, maybe talk?
That's all they're asking for. Is that so hard? To me, if you aren't willing to talk to people who have nothing to lose, you are signing many people's death certificates.
*beep* anyone who thinks they have any idea about Jong-IL's intentions or thoughts. I mean, we are reading newspapers (journalists whose sources are "unspecified N.K. diplomats") Where is the accountability for their information? It has already been confirmed that C.I.A. agents from the "Psy-op" department work at C.N.N. for chrissake. Everyone takes news so freaking serious, when at least some of it is fabricated.
But you know what... I'm scared to say shit like this. I'm still saying it, even though I'm scared. I'm scared because all of a sudden, just because I don't think Jong-IL is NECESSARILY a madman (he might be, I don't know), someone is going to think I'm a terrorist. Yay freedom of speech, isn't it great? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Hyalucent wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| Am I the only one who's old enough here to have been taught in school to hide under tables in the event of a nuclear attack? ... |
Nope. We had the same drills. I was a base brat, once up on a time, in my elementary years. |
Who also remembers The Day After, the little girl who wrote to Gorbachev about WWIII, staying up at night, worrying that the world might end before the next morning, and songs like these...? Are those days coming back again?
| Quote: |
In Europe and America, theres a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mr. Khrushchev said we will bury you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too
How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy
There is no monopoly in common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too
There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the president
Theres no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie that we dont believe anymore
Mr. Reagan says we will protect you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too |
| Quote: |
Fifty million years ago
You walked upon the planet so,
Lord of all that you could see
Just a little bit like me,
Walking in your footsteps...
Hey there mighty brontosaurus
Don't you have a message for us.
You thought your rule would always last
There were no lessons in your past.
You were built three stories high
They say you would not hurt a fly
If we explode the atom bomb,
Would they say that we were dumb.
Walking in your footsteps...
Fifty million years ago
They walked upon the planet so
They live in a museum
It's the only place you'll see 'em.
Walking in your footsteps
They say the meek shall inherit the earth... |
|
Man... It does bring back memories. Didn't that girl die in a plane crash or something? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zoobot wrote: |
| I would probably put Oppenheimer in my top fifty list for most evil man of the past century. |
| Oppenheimer wrote: |
| I have become death, the destroyer of worlds. |
Listen, based on statements like yours, above, not to mention your extremely reductionistic and simplistic approach to explaining why Washington nuked Japan at the end of the Second World War, and that sutble Kim Jong Il apologia, it seems clear that you and I are even further apart than BLT No-Brainer and I are.
Why do you think Eisenhower and the Pentagon moved against Oppenheimer, revoked his security clearance, and removed the hydrogen bomb project from his directorship, placing it firmly under military control? What was he saying and doing that caused this to happen? You talk of "primary historical sources" but you show no indication at all of even a fundamental grasp of some of the basic facts involved.
In any case, there would be no point in attempting to exchange views with you on any of the issues you addressed and the allegations that you made.
Best of luck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vexed
Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| vexed wrote: |
It's down to the current nuclear club to solve this problem. They have to lead by example and disarm. Nuclear weaponry can only be a bad thing, no one wins a nuclear war (aside from the co ckroaches - maybe it's their turn to be the dominant species!).
If America truly wants a peaceful and stable world, it has to act by agreeing to disarm it's nuclear weapons. If it doesn't, then it can't argue against other countries having nuclear weapons.
America, take a stand and disarm... it's the path to peace. |
ROFL, another poster who thinks international power politics should look like sharing time at kindergarten. Maybe as the US disarms it can lead the world in fingerpainting on the old NPT while cheese, crackers, and fruit juice are passed out to all. |
It is the same principle. Just because you want to apply it to kindergarten doesn't detract from the fact that it a viable solution. Or perhaps you want to offer a different idea?
America is the big bully at school... 'I'm allowed to have all these weapons but anyone I dislike isn't!'
Is it any wonder other countries want to join the nuclear club? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vexed wrote: |
| America is the big bully at school... |
You provide an opportunity to clarify and restate the Chomsky-Chavez position in clear and succinct language.
Here is what you are saying:
America has the world's most powerful military and I do not like it. In fact, I think it is America's fault that there even are militaries and violence in the world.
I am going to ignore ten thousand years or more of world-system economics and military conflict and I am going to put my hands over my ears and not even care to understand why America got into its current position, how much of it was inherited from an insane world, or how much of it was an original contribution (even if it may be very clear that it was much more the former than the latter).
Indeed, I just do not understand why America does not unilaterally disarm and leave the world in peace...
By the way, I once read an editorial in a Chilean magazine that said exactly this, nearly word for word.
In any case, Vexed, this is what you sound like. Is this what you want to sound like? If not, please clarify your position... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vexed
Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| vexed wrote: |
| America is the big bully at school... |
You provide an opportunity to clarify and restate the Chomsky-Chavez position in clear and succinct language.
Here is what you are saying:
America has the world's most powerful military and I do not like it. In fact, I think it is America's fault that there even are militaries and violence in the world.
I am going to ignore ten thousand years or more of world-system economics and military conflict and I am going to put my hands over my ears and not even care to understand why America got into its current position, how much of it was inherited from an insane world, or how much of it was an original contribution (even if it may be very clear that it was much more the former than the latter).
Indeed, I just do not understand why America does not unilaterally disarm and leave the world in peace...
By the way, I once read an editorial in a Chilean magazine that said exactly this, nearly word for word.
In any case, Vexed, this is what you sound like. Is this what you want to sound like? If not, please clarify your position... |
Hmm... These words you so kindly put into my mouth taste bitter! 
I do, indeed, refute the exact words you so aptly formed from my short statement. Let me clarify what I agree with from your interpretation of my words:
"America has the world's most powerful military and I do not like it" Yes
"I just do not understand why America does not unilaterally disarm and leave the world in peace... " Yes
The rest... no. I don't blame America for everything, but it does have a lot to answer for.
But your post did raise an interesting question. You mention understanding how and why America got into it's current position...what's your take on it?
NB: I am genuinely interested in yours and others opinions on the matter, and am not looking for something to 'bite back' at you on. I don't profess to know the entire score (heck, no one ever will), but I am interested in sharing/exploring each others opinions.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vexed wrote: |
| Hmm... These words you so kindly put into my mouth taste bitter! |
That is why I tried to take pains to say "this is what [I think] you are saying" and "this is what you sound like" rather than "this is what you just said."
| vexed wrote: |
| "I just do not understand why America does not unilaterally disarm and leave the world in peace... " Yes |
Take a good, long look at world affairs.
If you want to find and identify who is not "leaving the world in peace," and if you are sincere in this, then you have far bigger fish to fry than the United States, a nation which has indeed furthered world peace, even if not always consistently and even if it has also contributed war and violence best described as "other-than-war."
| vexed wrote: |
| The rest... no. I don't blame America for everything, but it does have a lot to answer for. |
Yes it does.
| vexed wrote: |
| You mention understanding how and why America got into it's current position...what's your take on it? |
On U.S. hegemony in the Americas (just one small part of the answer to the question you ask): after the Latin American republics declared independence, and after Napoleon's influence waned, conservative autocracies and other forces in Russia, Austria, and Spain moved to reconquer the Americas to reestablish traditional authority and order.
The British and the U.S. did not want this. They wanted free markets and liberal democracy in the Americas, mostly for self-interest, but also for idealistic concerns. Washington did not want to enter alliance with any European. Thus the Monroe Doctrine emerged as a unilateral declaration.
By the late-nineteenth century, American commerce and military power had grown to immense proportions (third-largest naval power in the world, for example). European intervention in the Americas continued, particularly in Chile (the British), Venezuela (the British), and Cuba (the Spanish). In 1895, the United States saw the Spanish govt brutally move to suppress Cuban nationalists who were declaring independence. The Spanish established concentration camps (and that is exactly what they were called, and the policy was "reconcentracion.") and over four-hundred thousand Cubans died miserable deaths.
Also, imperial powers like Britain, France, Germany, Japan, and others were busily seizing vast parts of the globe ("the scramble for Africa," for example, or the French in Vietnam or the Japanese in Korea). Americans looked around and saw themselves being excluded from important markets and trade routes, namely those in East Asia, where all eyes had turned.
For these and other reasons the U.S. moved against Spain in Cuba and the Philippines. In quick naval actions, the modern U.S. Navy destroyed the decaying Spanish forces. In the aftermath, the U.S. seized all former colonial possessions from Spain, reserved the right to intervene in Cuban affairs, as, and this was fully explained by regnant racist beliefs all over the world at the time, no one believed the Cubans, the Filipinos, or the Puertoricenos capable of self-rule (just like the Beligians in the Congo, Spain had not ever fostered this in its colonies), and finally, the U.S. claimed the Caribbean Basin as its "sphere of influence."
It had a far-reaching system of naval bases and coaling stations, stretching from the China coast, through Hawaii, the Panama Canal, and Cuba.
The objective, was to avoid being shut out of global markets by imperial European powers and Japan and to influence world affairs, shaping them in its own image, things that all of us want not only as individuals but as nation-states as well.
It was not the simplistic "U.S.A. wants to control the world!" that so many of the antiAmerican mindset childishly allege...
For more on this, see, for example, Thomas McCormick, China Market.
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vexed
Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the very informative reply. I shall certainly look into the matter in more depth.
BTW, I'm glad to see you have been civil and polite in your replies, I was a bit worried that a discussion on this subject could get out of hand! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vexed wrote: |
| I shall certainly look into the matter in more depth. |
McCormick, by the way, is probably the best historian to look into on this "economic model" as a means of interpreting and explaining U.S. foreign policy.
In addition to his China Market, I also strongly recommend checking out his America's Half-Century, which treats the Cold War and nuclear diplomacy, etc.
McCormick is critical and disapproves (I think) but his works are not diatribes and he never resorts to the "Great Satan" garbage... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JeJuJitsu
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Location: McDonald's
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vexed wrote: |
It's down to the current nuclear club to solve this problem. They have to lead by example and disarm. Nuclear weaponry can only be a bad thing, no one wins a nuclear war (aside from the co ckroaches - maybe it's their turn to be the dominant species!).
If America truly wants a peaceful and stable world, it has to act by agreeing to disarm it's nuclear weapons. If it doesn't, then it can't argue against other countries having nuclear weapons.
America, take a stand and disarm... it's the path to peace. |
Yes, KJI has just brought the world to it's knees. Resistance is Futile, America.
People like you ACTUALLY exist. Wow. Not even the most pot-addled, uneducated hippy I know would say something this dumb. Are you Kim Jong Il's propaganda minister, assigned to troll Dave's? |
|
| 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
