|
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 |
jaj
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 5:30 am Post subject: South Korea & Iran |
 |
|
OK, lots and lots of finger wagging at me over the pressure the US is putting on Korea to make Iran "honor their international obligations." I'm getting lots of attitude about this from my adult students who seem to consider Iran a peaceful country being pushed around by America.
While I don't buy the axis of evil talk wholeheartedly, Ahmedinejad does seem pretty volatile as heads-of-state go. I don't understand Korea's laissez-faire attitude towards him.
It's obvious that Asia is a rising economic force in the world but SK and China seem to distrust the idea of global leadership and insist on their right to remain silent regarding issues in the larger world so much so that they come across like political amateurs only interested in trade.
I also find it a funny contradiction that this region prides itself on Confucian teamwork but lacks the teamwork that Western countries have.
Is power in Asia just going to be economic? Is that enough? Is SK's alliance with Iran wise or shady? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:01 am Post subject: Re: South Korea & Iran |
|
|
| jaj wrote: |
| It's obvious that Asia is a rising economic force in the world but SK and China seem to distrust the idea of global leadership and insist on their right to remain silent regarding issues in the larger world so much so that they come across like political amateurs only interested in trade. |
| George Washington, 'political amateur' wrote: |
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
...
In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated. |
It always amazes me how a man can be so widely respected and broadly ignored. Does China know U.S. history better than Americans? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:18 am Post subject: Re: South Korea & Iran |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| jaj wrote: |
| It's obvious that Asia is a rising economic force in the world but SK and China seem to distrust the idea of global leadership and insist on their right to remain silent regarding issues in the larger world so much so that they come across like political amateurs only interested in trade. |
| George Washington, 'political amateur' wrote: |
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
...
In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated. |
It always amazes me how a man can be so widely respected and broadly ignored. Does China know U.S. history better than Americans? |
I realize you are addressing China, and not South Korea. But this isn't some binational territorial dispute over an island and commercial fishing/mineral extraction rights. The complaints against Iran are international, and pertain to their obligations under the NPT. For an international agreement, the Non-Proliferation Treaty carries a great deal of weight. Iran and South Korea are both signatories, indeed the only non-signatories are Israel, India, and Pakistan. Notably, North Korea is the only state that has abandoned its obligations under the treaty and has withdrawn. The NPT is no joke:
| Quote: |
| At the time the NPT was proposed, there were predictions of 25-30 nuclear weapon states within 20 years. Instead, over forty years later, only four states are not parties to the NPT, and they are the only additional states believed to possess nuclear weapons. |
South Korea and China should take the NPT more seriously, not least because they have each benefitted from the effects of international non-proliferation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:25 pm Post subject: Re: South Korea & Iran |
|
|
| jaj wrote: |
OK, lots and lots of finger wagging at me over the pressure the US is putting on Korea to make Iran "honor their international obligations." I'm getting lots of attitude about this from my adult students who seem to consider Iran a peaceful country being pushed around by America.
While I don't buy the axis of evil talk wholeheartedly, Ahmedinejad does seem pretty volatile as heads-of-state go. I don't understand Korea's laissez-faire attitude towards him.
It's obvious that Asia is a rising economic force in the world but SK and China seem to distrust the idea of global leadership and insist on their right to remain silent regarding issues in the larger world so much so that they come across like political amateurs only interested in trade.
I also find it a funny contradiction that this region prides itself on Confucian teamwork but lacks the teamwork that Western countries have.
Is power in Asia just going to be economic? Is that enough? Is SK's alliance with Iran wise or shady? |
Everybody does realize that Ahmedinejad isn't the center of power in Iran right? That would be the supreme leader. Also everyone realizes that Iran hasn't attacked another country anytime in its recent history.
It is bad domestically, and it funds terrorism. Just like Saudi Arabi, who don't officially fund terrorism, but many of its elite do, and it certainly exports and teaches the fundamental brand of Islam the terrorists follow. Sure its terrorists attack Israel, but Israel has a long history of funding terrorists in Iran and pretending to be the C.I.A while it does it. The largest terrorist group in Iran has lobbyists in the United States, which include Democrat Howard Dean.
The evidence of them being able to build a nuclear weapon isn't any more, and in some ways seems less, convincing than it was in Iraq. So maybe Korea has the right idea in some ways on this issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why should we be concerned about nuclear arms being in the possession of a state that has threatened to wipe another country off the face of the map? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| Why should we be concerned about nuclear arms being in the possession of a state that has threatened to wipe another country off the face of the map? |
Because the country never said that, it was a result of mistranslation.
Many news sources repeated the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting statement by Ahmadinejad that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop existing",[7] or to "obliterate totally",[8] or "destroy completely".[9]
Ahmadinejad's phrase was "بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود" according to the text published on the President's Office's website.[10]
The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."[14]
Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."
and this
Ahmadinejad stated his speech had been exaggerated and misinterpreted.[25] "There is no new policy, they created a lot of hue and cry over that. It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want." Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, he denied that his country would ever instigate military action. Instead he claimed that "the Zionist regime" in Israel would eventually collapse on its own.[26][27]
Asked if he objected to the government of Israel or Jewish people, he said that "creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish". He added that Jews lived in Iran and were represented in the country's parliament.[26]
In a September 2008 interview Ahmadinejad was asked: "If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?" He replied:
If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.[28]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
Where as Israel has the Samson option where if they feel existentially threatened they would wreck massive massive nuclear retribution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
Now tell me what I should be concerned about, a nation that goes to war constantly that has nuclear weapons or a nation that hasn't started a war in its recent history, might someday have the capacity for a weapon, but isn't close anyways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unimpressive. Anyone who understands the linguistic construct of idiom would realize that idioms rarely translate accurately. Without mincing words let's look at the matter bluntly: what we have is a theocratic state that wants to see the violent destruction of a democratic state, where "Death to Israel" is commonly chanted at religious and political gatherings as a matter of routine, and if unopposed will do anything in its power to develop nuclear weaponry. So I don't think it's at all unreasonable for the US and the EU to try to forestall that eventuality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| Unimpressive. Anyone who understands the linguistic construct of idiom would realize that idioms rarely translate accurately. Without mincing words let's look at the matter bluntly: what we have is a theocratic state that wants to see the violent destruction of a democratic state, where "Death to Israel" is commonly chanted at religious and political gatherings as a matter of routine, and if unopposed will do anything in its power to develop nuclear weaponry. So I don't think it's at all unreasonable for the US and the EU to try to forestall that eventuality. |
Of course they should try to forestall it, but at what cost. Israel wants a violent destruction of Iran every bit as much. The lead up to this is very similar to Iraq.
If we aren't mincing words while we're at it, what do you call a country where almost half of the people within it's borders can't move freely or vote.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| Unimpressive. Anyone who understands the linguistic construct of idiom would realize that idioms rarely translate accurately. Without mincing words let's look at the matter bluntly: what we have is a theocratic state that wants to see the violent destruction of a democratic state, where "Death to Israel" is commonly chanted at religious and political gatherings as a matter of routine, and if unopposed will do anything in its power to develop nuclear weaponry. So I don't think it's at all unreasonable for the US and the EU to try to forestall that eventuality. |
Of course they should try to forestall it, but at what cost. Israel wants a violent destruction of Iran every bit as much. The lead up to this is very similar to Iraq.
If we aren't mincing words while we're at it, what do you call a country where almost half of the people within it's borders can't move freely or vote.... |
No, it is nothing like the lead up to Iraq. The Obama administration does not want to attack or invade Iran. It is not pressuring the CIA (or any government agency) to come up with "evidence" that Iran has a nuclear program. The entire world agrees Iran has a nuke program and has supported sanctions against Iran (minus China and russia, who merely abstained in UN votes if memory serves).
On another note, describing the ROK having an alliance with Iran seems a bit peculiar. Jaj, what makes you think they have some kind of alliance?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Going to go out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that Koreans have experience with a nutball nation having a dozen nukes and making bombastic claims about drowning its neighbors in a sea of fire.
Maybe they're suggesting that such a country might be more bark than bite and triggering a war that would send shocks throughout the world and skyrocket the price of oil and potentially trigger a regional war might not be the best outcome.
I mean, from their perspective, if they had gone to war in the 90s before the Norks got the bomb then Korea would still be recovering and all the prosperity of the previous 10-15 years would have been lost. China might not have gotten as close to SKorea as it is now. And signs are that sooner or later NKorea will just collapse on its own.
That and what those Founding Father dudes said about "no foreign entanglements". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Maybe they're suggesting that such a country might be more bark than bite and triggering a war that would send shocks throughout the world and skyrocket the price of oil and potentially trigger a regional war might not be the best outcome.
|
War? We are talking about respecting international sanctions.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929
| Quote: |
Acting under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Council determined that the Iranian government had yet to meet the requirements of previous Security Council resolutions and IAEA requirements. It affirmed that Iran should immediately co-operate with the IAEA on all outstanding issues, particularly with regards to activity at Qom, clarifications on a possible military use of the nuclear program and granting unrestricted access to all sites, persons, equipment and documents requested by the IAEA. The Council also decided that Iran should comply with the Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, not undertake any further reprocessing, heavy water-related or enrichment-related activities or acquire commercial interests in other states involving uranium mining or use of nuclear materials and technology.
Further provisions of the resolution included:[4]
Iran could not participate in any activities related to ballistic missiles.
A ban on all countries providing military vehicles, aircraft or warships and missiles or missile systems and related materiel to Iran;
A ban on training, financing or assistance related to such arms and materiel and restraint over the sale of other arms and material to Iran;
A travel ban on individuals listed in the annexes of the resolution, with exceptions decided by the Committee established in Resolution 1737;
The freezing of funds and assets of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines.
All states were furthermore recommended to undertake the following:[4]
Inspect all cargo to and from Iran in accordance with the Convention on the Law of the Sea and civil aviation agreements for prohibited items and report within five days explanations for the search and the findings from such inspections;
The seizure and disposal of prohibited items;
Prevent the provision of fuel, supplies and servicing of Iranian vessels if they are involved in prohibited activities;
Provide information to the Committee concerning attempts to evade the sanctions by Iran Air or Iran Shipping Lines to other companies;
Prevent the provision of financial services that may be used for sensitive nuclear activities;
Exercise vigilance when dealing with Iranian individuals or entities if such business could contribute to Iran's sensitive nuclear activities;
Prohibit the opening of Iranian banks in their territory and prevent Iranian banks from entering into relationships with banks in their jurisdiction if there is reason to suspect the activities could contribute to sensitive proliferation activities in Iran;
Prevent financial institutions operating in their territories from opening offices and accounts in Iran if they would contribute to Iran's proliferation sensitive activities.
Throughout the imposition of the aforementioned measures, exceptions were made for humanitarian purposes and legal economic activities.[3]
The Security Council deplored the transfer of arms by Iran to other countries in violation of Resolution 1747 and directed the Committee to respond to violations and promote the implementation of previous resolutions. The Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was requested to establish a panel consisting of up to eight experts for an initial period of one year to assist the Committee in its mandate; examine information presented by countries, particularly with regards to instances of non-compliance; make recommendations to the Council and report on its findings and recommendations. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| Unimpressive. Anyone who understands the linguistic construct of idiom would realize that idioms rarely translate accurately. Without mincing words let's look at the matter bluntly: what we have is a theocratic state that wants to see the violent destruction of a democratic state, where "Death to Israel" is commonly chanted at religious and political gatherings as a matter of routine, and if unopposed will do anything in its power to develop nuclear weaponry. So I don't think it's at all unreasonable for the US and the EU to try to forestall that eventuality. |
Of course they should try to forestall it, but at what cost. Israel wants a violent destruction of Iran every bit as much. The lead up to this is very similar to Iraq.
If we aren't mincing words while we're at it, what do you call a country where almost half of the people within it's borders can't move freely or vote.... |
No, it is nothing like the lead up to Iraq. The Obama administration does not want to attack or invade Iran. It is not pressuring the CIA (or any government agency) to come up with "evidence" that Iran has a nuclear program. The entire world agrees Iran has a nuke program and has supported sanctions against Iran (minus China and russia, who merely abstained in UN votes if memory serves).
On another note, describing the ROK having an alliance with Iran seems a bit peculiar. Jaj, what makes you think they have some kind of alliance?? |
I should have clarified, not the administration, but rather the media and the right wing talking heads. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spartacist
Joined: 18 Feb 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
US intelligence agencies have repeatedly said that there is no evidence that Iran is moving towards making a nuclear weapon
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
As for any alliance between South Korea and Iran, the two have historic ties dated back to when both were ruled by U.S. backed dictators - Park Chung Hee and the Shah of Iran. Evidence for these close ties can still be seen, as one of the main thoroughfares in Gangnam is called the Teheranno or 'Teheran St'. Because of this possibly Korea still buys a lot of oil from Iran, but no doubt now to placate the US and their military presence here Korea will begin looking for alternatives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
everything-is-everything
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| Why should we be concerned about nuclear arms being in the possession of a state that has threatened to wipe another country off the face of the map? |
Like Israel who also has nuclear weapons and has already wiped another nation off the map (albeit more figuratively than literally)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| everything-is-everything wrote: |
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| Why should we be concerned about nuclear arms being in the possession of a state that has threatened to wipe another country off the face of the map? |
Like Israel who also has nuclear weapons and has already wiped another nation off the map (albeit more figuratively than literally)? |
And which nation would that be? |
|
| 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
