Nulear deal K&W

The article deals with the nuclear deal involving Iran , which is an Arabic country, and USA on the other hand. When something is to be agreed upon, co operation should exist between the two parties which is clearly lacking in this case. Iran has offered to engage in discussion regarding other issues except for the nuclear issue, which is USA’s key concern. There exists a communication gap between the two sides which in turn is giving birth to suspicion. Both these countries evidently have different motives and views on this issue and are thus unable to come to a consensus. There is clearly a point of difference between the two countries as USA has “made clear to the Iranians that any talks we participate in must address the nuclear issue head on, while the Iranians offered "comprehensive" talks, but did not mention its nuclear programme. As the discussion between the two countries has not been very successful the USA has now involved the P5+1 countries in this matter. They have already formed a preconceived notion towards the Iranians and believe that they are secretly developing nuclear weapons although Iran denies the fact. These countries, which consist of the UK, China, France, Russia , the US and Germany have been declared as countries having their own nuclear weapon resources and share the same ideas about managing them. They expect to have serious and factual discussion with Iran regarding the nuclear issue and believe they can come to terms “in that face-to-face venue.” There is vast difference in the ideologies of the nations and as the P5=1 countries share similar views; they have already formed a negative opinion about Iran while forming a collaboration amongst themselves. They have adopted an attitude of hypocrisy by stating that Iran has no rights to nuclear weapons and that it may use it for wrong purposes, while they themselves refuse to discard their nuclear weapons. This is their biased perspective, but when viewed from a neutral point of view it is wrong to assume that Iran may misuse the weapons while the other countries may not. Although the opinion of the Western countries is not justified, the fact still remains that Iran is noncommittal and refuses to talk about the nuclear issues, which at this time, is of their prime concern. Looking at it from Iran’s point of view, America is a danger to other countries as earlier it has previously attacked Iraq due to its oil monopoly issues, and thus it fears that it could do something same in case of Iran. Thus, the countries share totally different perspectives and refuse to co operate. The past histories they have shared, and reputations they have acquired globally also stand as an obstacle, preventing them from instilling faith and trust in each other. The countries lack transparency and open mindedness. Iran has to be more open and co operative while US and the P5+1 should abstain from prejudice and bias to enable a smooth progress of this issue.

nuclear issue article

The article deals with the nuclear deal between Iran on one hand and USA on the other. There is a problem of miscommunication which is an obstacle between the countries. For a deal to take place there has to be contact so that there are no loop holes and transparency prevails; but in this case language which plays a vital role is not prevalent as US only wants to talk about the nuclear deal while Iran on the other hand has other issues which it wants to discuss. Language is a way of knowing and unless both the countries do not communicate about the issues they have in hand, there will always be a sense of suspicion and uncertainty. The USA has adopted a self-centered attitude and the person who makes the claim appears to be biased towards it as Iran is portrayed as a country hiding important information, whereas this claim may not hold entirely true as the person making it may be under pressure from a higher authority who is trying to bring out the positive side of one country while hiding the points which may bring out some negativity. The evidence provided in the article may not be entirely true as it is a recollection of facts, using memory, which can be biased to what it wants to portray and what appears to please it. The claim creates a negative opinion about Tehran by adding “The West fears that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons - a claim denied by Tehran” which cannot be entirely trusted as no evidence is provided. There is a mention of ‘last week’ in the article which adds mathematics to it but the duration could also be manipulated which could cause another misunderstanding in the situation. there is a sense of selfishness on part of both Iran and the US as they chose to overlook other issues and refuse to be flexible and co-operative: “Iran has always defended its right to continue its nuclear programme”. Emotions somewhere play a role in the matter but should not overpower logic as it is a professional issue and personal enmity between the countries, or other issues, should not intrude. The article brings out how there is miscommunication and issues are being avoided by Iran, which is disrupting the flow of the nuclear issue that needs to be resolved.

reflection

In class, we read about an article that stated that history is not entirely true and that there are some facts that are hidden from us. History is actually a selection of selections and it is usually impossible to deal with it in its entirety. This effectively means that it is twice removed from what actually happened. Although it is a reconstruction of the past and the study of it, it involves social bias and also since most governments take a great interest in the way history is taught in schools, it is easy for national pride to dictate a one sided interpretation in which a particular country’s achievements are highlighted and its mistakes are overlooked. For example, in schools which teach American history, they do not mention the Vietnam War as America lost it.
We discussed facts that we previously believed or thought were true, but after a certain period of time; we realized that there is much more to it than what is presented to us. We learn something, and later realize that either it is untrue or that the information we learned of was not complete. Theatre arts is which such subject that I was interested in, and had a brief idea of what it is, but my knowledge was incomplete. In my opinion, the plays I watched were what they were in front of my eyes. I did not think of the fact that a production itself was divided into three stages: the pre-production, show day and post production, especially about the post production or post show day, I was completely unaware. Only after learning the subject in the IB, did I realize that after the show, the actor is still in process, that is, he is till in character, and approaching him is not advisable as he needs his space. It was told to me, that meeting the actor immediately after a play would help me in extracting information out of him, but I was wrong, as it is against the theatre etiquette.
Another fact that I believed was true, was that the legendary film star, Heath Ledger, died due to an over consumption of drugs after acting in the movie, ‘the dark knight’. We studied Method acting in theatre arts, in which an actor completely gets into the role of the actor in such a way, that he starts living and thinking like the character. It is difficult to draw a line between the actual life and the life of the character. This is exactly what happened to Heath Ledger, when he completely got into the character of the joker, that it traumatized him which led to his death. Facts are presented in front of us, but hey may or may not hold true. Information given to is cannot necessarily be taken at face value as al the sources are not reliable. There is a bias involved be it a higher authority or government propaganda or a personal bias. History is a recreation of memory, and memory cannot entirely be trusted. What I initially thought was true, is an alteration of the same truth, and as time passes we become aware of more facts and more truths, and start looking at things differently.

what is history, but a fable agreed upon:)

History is a subject we have been learning in school ever since we reached that stage of understanding what “past” is. Reading about what happened million of years before we were born astounds us, and interests us. History recreates the significant events that took place in the past; be it a war, a movement, an assassination or a person who contributed to changing the world or at least affecting it in some way or the other. While studying about history in class, one quote that struck me, said by Napoleon Bonaparte, is “What is history, but a fable agreed upon”. This gave me a chance to think, as I have viewed history with only one perspective, and that is that all that I have read is entirely true and un biased. The facts presented to us are no different from what they were at that time, but what we fail to consider is that the authors writing the text books, are under pressure of the higher authorities and the history they write should be appealing and not against a particular sect of society or country. This level of pressure must have always remained and what is passed on to us is some what fabricated. Although it is passed on through generations, it is obviously an account of someone’s memory, as someone has to start it. There has to be a person who has witnessed the event that took place, or lived during that era and memory cannot be trusted upon entirely because consciously or subconsciously it absorbs what actually appeals to it. Similarly, history, in which memory plays a crucial role, is an account of what is appealing to a particular section or country, and at some level, is selective. It cannot be termed as a fable, as there is evidence that certain events did take place; but if thought, it is a story, an account but agreed upon by generations, historians, and supported by evidence. While reflecting upon this quote, I put myself in this situation to understand it better. If I write an account of an incident that took place, and generations read and agree upon it, as I have backed it up with evidence it is similar to history although it is not as the event that took place is of no importance to anyone in this world accept for me, but it has been agreed upon and thus that it how history actually is. One macro history is created by combining several micro histories and that is what is presented for us to read and learn. It is actually sort of a fable as it cannot be entirely relied upon, but the fact remains that we believe and agree to what we know. We agree upon the fact that Woodrow Wilson was a legendary President, but are unaware of the fact that he was a tyrannical racist. The first war of independence, the Vietnam War, WW1 and 2 are undoubtedly history but what is presented before us may not be entirely what it actually was, and there may be certain facts that may not be disclosed to us, for the mere sake of appealing some authority or presenting only what may be accepted. I have never thought about history to be untrue or facts that could be hidden, and learning about that has been interesting in its own. Calling history a fable is demeaning to the subject but if viewed or thought upon with another perspective, it is actually a story or account agreed upon.