Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Black Wolf on August 03, 2004, 01:19:21 pm
-
Will he attack North Korea?
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3289790
With stuff like this, and their continually increasing nuclear capability, as well as his apparently gung ho habvit of invading people he's not a big fan of, with four more years to work with, will he push the button?
-
I did not even click on the link. He won't win the election. His popularity and support fell down.
-
If not Bush I hope someone does somthing about them, spending all their money on nukes while their people starve to death, there is somthing not right about that
-
Don't be so sure, TA. Polls are inherintly innacurate. He may win.
And should he attack North Korea (Or South korea by mistake) I'm packing my things and going to Oz.
-
He may win it, but I wouldn't consider his chances favourable.
-
Oh boy, not another arms race. Whoever becomes president, HE BETTER PREVENT another 9/11. Personally, I prefer the US to take the fight to the enemy instead of watching it happen outside my apartment window. It would be nice for the United Nations would get more proactive with their investigations and responses so that the US is not the only one to lift a finger about potential Hitlers or worse.
-
So how do you compare Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden to Hitler? Marked difference in scale there.
-
Well, someone needs to get rid of North Korea's psychotic ruler. I hope you people know what goes on over there.
Give me a sniper rifle and I'll assassinate him myself.
-
Actually, I'm for disarming North Korea. Not sure if Kerry would do it. Most likely he won't do anything at all.
-
Originally posted by JR2000Z
Actually, I'm for disarming North Korea. Not sure if Kerry would do it. Most likely he won't do anything at all.
He won't do anything at all because of..?
-
Will he attack North Korea?
IF he is Very stupid then he might, Okey many peoples say's that USA can win easily but they wont they get their ass kicked until end because NK is not like IRAQ was USA could lose in that war over 100,000 soldiers and if NK use mass-Destruction weapons then there will be lot more casulties
and IF NK gets Chinas help somehow well I would not want to be in american shoes
-
Because then he's just like Bush. If anything gets done, it'll either be in Bush's secind term, or not at all.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Oh boy, not another arms race. Whoever becomes president, HE BETTER PREVENT another 9/11. Personally, I prefer the US to take the fight to the enemy instead of watching it happen outside my apartment window. It would be nice for the United Nations would get more proactive with their investigations and responses so that the US is not the only one to lift a finger about potential Hitlers or worse.
oh please. The US has created and supported more Hitlers than I can keep track of.
The only solution is to work towards peaceful re-integration for North Korea. They're too well armed and too proud to be conquered militarily. North-South relations are already improving, and increased cooperation and trade relations are well on the way to finally ending the bull****.
And for ****s sake, they are not a ****ing threat to the US. Why is it that anyone who doesn't to as they're told suddenly become this great boogeyman lurking outside your window. My God, 9/11 happened once, and if it happened a hundred more times, its still not comparable to the losses sustained by most nations from foreign attack, not least of all from US initiateves. Sure, the North Korean leadership may be assholes and tyrants, but they have never ever threatened the US.
-
Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
IF he is Very stupid then he might, Okey many peoples say's that USA can win easily but they wont they get their ass kicked until end because NK is not like IRAQ was USA could lose in that war over 100,000 soldiers and if NK use mass-Destruction weapons then there will be lot more casulties
and IF NK gets Chinas help somehow well I would not want to be in american shoes
Its funny that you mention North Korea using WMD, since a)They do not posses them and b)they're not stupid enough to use them even if they did, but fail even to aknowledge the merest possibility of the US, which both posses and has used WMD, doing so.
-
On a side note, Stalin's purges in the USSR make the casualties on 9/11 look like nothing.
-
a)They do not posses them
And where is proof fot that? are you sure that they don't have them?
-
Stalin's purges, Mao's purges, Hitler & Co, Japanese atrocities in Asia before and during WW2, European colonialism, Russian and US foreign policy during the Cold War...historically speaking, 9/11 was tiny.
The thing is, I would venture to guess that the most devastating atrocities were and still are economic in nature, not military. Both Stalin and Mao inflicted the most damage via their failed agricultural policies, during the closing moments of the Korean War, the US devestated North Korean irrigation systems, which caused massive famines...I mean, this persists even today. A single word from the WTO et al can mean life or death for more people than the entire US military.
Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
And where is proof fot that? are you sure that they don't have them?
No, I'm not. But if even US sources say that NK does not posses them, thats an assumption I'm willing to make. And now the question is, why should they be prohibited from having them? By what right does the US say who can and cannot posses nukes? They have no authority to decide that. Its a very powerful detterant, since no nuclear power has ever (since developing nukes of course) been invaded. And these days, thats seem the only safeguard against US agression.
-
Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
And where is proof fot that? are you sure that they don't have them?
"Absence of proof is not proof of absence", :rolleyes:
Ps. I believe that at this moment NK has at least active nuclear program.
-
Escalation is what'll happen - Violence begets violence, and it'll only get worse until everyone is dead.
Damn I'm pessimistic today ;)
Okay I'll give some thought to people that try and educate others on alternatives to fighting and insincere negotiation, but they're a dying breed...
-
Maybe if all the world leaders would just take up painting and puff the magic dragon, then perhaps the world would be a calmer place. =)
-
Ya know, when you think about it, all we would have to do is get rid of their nukes and everything is fine. Once their long-range striking capability is gone then there really isnt any reason to be there now is there?
However, if Bush was to ever start saying "We need to free the people too!" then I will just loose my support for him completely. We are there to destroy the nuclear missile capability and thats it. In fact, get some seals to just swim up to the ship and sink it. :p We can use explosive Chinese Food.
But the world will never be devoid of conquers, madmen, jackasses, cruel monsters, or dictators. Which is why we have to get rid of them first. I've noticed a lot of people go for the "Not Now But Later" plan, when they dont want to dick around with it NOW, just wait for something to happen first and THEN take care of it.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Will he attack North Korea?
hell no. Hes got to much of a problem fixing iraq. THe only thing North Korea has done is actually build the weapons, not actually use them or threaten with them. If NK started posturing against SK with WMDs im sure the UN would be much more envolved, since the war their isnt official over (and IIRC still under UN jursdiction).
EDITL
Originally posted by Holy Imperial Gloriano
IF he is Very stupid then he might, Okey many peoples say's that USA can win easily but they wont they get their ass kicked until end because NK is not like IRAQ was USA could lose in that war over 100,000 soldiers and if NK use mass-Destruction weapons then there will be lot more casulties
and IF NK gets Chinas help somehow well I would not want to be in american shoes
NK has over 1,000,000 armed troops. Maybe one nuclear weapon. IF NK gave the slightest hint that they would actually use that one nuclear weapon on our 100,000, the US would turn all 1,000,000 of those armed troops into atoms in a heartbeat. So yeah, there would be alot more casualties. And nukes probably wouldnt be used offensivly again.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
But the world will never be devoid of conquers, madmen, jackasses, cruel monsters, or dictators. Which is why we have to get rid of them first.
uh, do you read what you write?
No one has yet asnwered me, what give the US the right to deny any country weapons developments that they themselves have. America has no authority over a sovereign nation like North Korea
-
And no other nation has the right to tell American what the **** it cant do. No collection of nations either.
-
Originally posted by Drew
And no other nation has the right to tell American what the **** it cant do. No collection of nations either.
Do I sense a double standard here? :p
-
Your rights stop where another's begin. America has no right to invade or attack another country if they do not pose a direct theat. No one is trying to take that right away, because you don't have it in the first place. Furthermore, its hyproctical, since America not only possess WMD, but is also the only country to ever use nukes. Face it, you have no authority to decide on the internal affairs of other nations.
Unless you just want to agree that might makes right, and in that case we can stop talking about all this morality, rule of law, freedom and so forth, cause its just tyranny.
-
I wonder in if in an alternate timeline universe, the US got word wind of some crazy coup leader in Germany building a massive war machine, which intel says are likely to invade Poland. And they got involved and went in to dearmed his army. And all of the sudden the US is attacked in the media for violating a sovereign nation's rights and takes all sorts of European flak for taking that action. US is EVIL!!! The US is EVIL!!! The US is EVIL!!!
::sigh::
Sometimes I wish the US did not get involved in WWII (if Pearl Harbor didn't happen of course). It wasn't our problem, we should have let Europe handle this Hitler dude on their own, he's not invading, he's just expanding his assets and territories. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE CARED.
You know what, one day the US will only tend to itself and stay out of world affairs in amidst of GLOBALIZATION. And when the s h i t hits the fan over ther, I wonder how flak we will get for being IGNORANT and selfish (sounds familiar... hmmmm)
All you people who keep suggesting that no diplomatic effort was made, when it WAS and was proven useless against tyranical psychos who's massing weapons and troops or showed a history of neighbor invasion and to give UN inspectors a hard time.
THE UN BAND NK from starting a nuclear program. And now that its happening with an added bonus of longrange capabilities, and where's the UN's response. The US will do everything in its power to stop this if nobody else does (dejavu). I guess everyone else is just gonna sit back and watch American blood be spilled, then like vultures, reap the benefits of someone else's work.
Im' sorry folks, I know the US is not perfect. Hell its FAR from perfect. I'm just getting sick of this America bashing.
-
The problem is the US does tend to itself.... it takes decisions based on its own national security which affect sovereign nations in a negative way.
It's the age-old problem of a superpower which has sufficient hegemony to force its national interests on those of smaller but still democratic nations, and which abuses that power.
And as a second point, US involvment in WW2 has absolutely no relevance to the current global / political situation. Especially when the complaint is the US starting wars. It's true that US isolationist polices were a key reason for the failure of the League Of Nations (amongst many) - but by the same token, the Bush 'pub fight' strategy is clearly having a negative impact on global stability.
-
Omniscaper, in WWII, if the US hadn't done a thing, and all Asia/Africa/Europe was under Axis control where do you think they would strike next?
As for vultures... well... I don't have to remind you of certain... "liberations" the US has performed in many countries across the globe.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Omniscaper, in WWII, if the US hadn't done a thing, and all Asia/Africa/Europe was under Axis control where do you think they would strike next?
As for vultures... well... I don't have to remind you of certain... "liberations" the US has performed in many countries across the globe.
More likely under Communist control, though. Wonder how the US would have liked an entirely commie europe?
-
The US wouldn't have to make these types of decisions if the UN actually did its job in enforcement. I hate the fact that the US is acting like a world police when its the UN's job to keep the peace.
I will not disreguard HISTORY and the fact that history DOES repeat itself.
So Ghostavo, did Amerca get involved for national security issues or geniune concern for the invaded. Its Both. Thats my point.
-
Its not America bashing
a) North Korea is not expanding its territory, nor does it show any signs of wanting to do so. Hitler invaded 3 nations befoer war was declared, North Korea has invaded none.
b )Don't talk about broken UN resolutions, the US has a fair number of those, and would have tons more if it wasn't able to block those critical of US policy via its seat on the Security Council.
c) The UN has (traditionally) been subordinate to the US, and even so, they have no authority to impose a double standard. If the US wants a world without nukes, fine, but they have to disarm as well.
d) Take a guess how many people would class Bush as a "tyranical psychos who's massing weapons and troops "?
You seem to think that the US going isolationist would be a bad thing.
If the UN ordered America to get rid of all its nukes and nuclear programs, you'de laugh, right? They have no authority to do that. So, why do you think they have the authority to do so with NK?
You can't selectively apply one standard to a certain group, and another to another group. The US does not get to decide who may or may not have WMD, neither does the UN.
-
You know, blaming Europe today for not 'paying the US back' for what they did 50 years back is just p[lain stupid for multiple reasons;
1). They did it mostly for their own interests. They don't want to face a vast warmachine full of Nazi's to face.
2). They didn't want the Commies to somehow win and take over Europe.
3). They got involved after Pearl Harbor had been hit. They feared more attacks but now from the Germans as they grew more powerful by the day.
3). IT HAPPENED 50 YEARS AGO. GET OVER YOUR F*CKING SELVES.
4). Europe should not just do whatever the US feels is right. We're not your lapdog. If you're angry because we don't agree with you, stick it up your self-rightious butt.
Seriously, it pisses me off immensely when Americans give me this argument.
I don't bash America, I bash the American government. Because no mattger what you say, its a ****ty ass government for what's supposed to be 'the supreme power' of the world.
We have a right to say **** about them as long as they interfere with international affairs because they don't just involve America. No they involve us as well.
Sorry, but you are NOT the only ones on this damned planet and not everyone has to agree with YOU without a reason. Period.
-
Has the US used nukes to invade and permanently occupy a country?
In what way did the US act like vultures with Iraq? What did we get out of it? Oh dead US soldiers!!! We like that. Thats must have been what we wanted. Oh Let me guess the obvious, OIL thats the reason. Mr. Bush must have already established his own personal oil line that leads straight to his back yard as Michael Moore would suggest. Funny how many European companies now want pieces of Iraqi assets... interesting,
NK has a history. NK has a history with an added bonus of modern weaponry. Concern for NK is both valid and wise.
-
Tiara, your funny. =)
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
The US wouldn't have to make these types of decisions if the UN actually did its job in enforcement. I hate the fact that the US is acting like a world police when its the UN's job to keep the peace.
I will not disreguard HISTORY and the fact that history DOES repeat itself.
So Ghostavo, did Amerca get involved for national security issues or geniune concern for the invaded. Its Both. Thats my point.
Or oil? Or revenge?
But I'm not going to get into another one of these arguments....my point always is, to be brief. that America is a great nation, but one which has a history of abusing its power. At present, this is something whihch concerns me - as a British citizen - because US foreign policy appears to be of an antagonistic, imperialistic nature which has only served to destabilise global security.
I also have concerns that the man in charge of the US has the intelligence of a baked potato. Blair might be a facetious, smarmy, arrogant, lying bastard, but at least he appears to be capable of swallowing a baked snack without incapacitating himself*.
*not to be interpreted as an endorsement.
-
If the UN ordered America to get rid of all its nukes and nuclear programs, you'de laugh, right? They have no authority to do that. So, why do you think they have the authority to do so with NK?
I have yet to hear an answer, from anyone.
NK has a history
Are you even remotely aware that the US also has a history, one far bloodier and more agressive than NK?
-
My view of why the US invaded Iraq is two-fold
1) To establish a permanent and strong military base of operations in the Middle-East, and to take out an enemy of Israel.
2) To provide American businessnes with a new and adundant market, with little to no laws and low competition. Oil is also part of this, but not the only part. This is within the framework of shotgun capitalism that has been around for a while now. Traditionally, this has been accomplish via a coup, but invasion also works.
-
The US also have a history. The US have a history with an added bonus of an insane leader that is out to conquer the globe. And the US is concerned about NK? Hell, NK more concerned about the US than the other way around.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Tiara, your funny. =)
That, and you are wrong.
Goodbye, and have a nice day.
-
:=): nope, I'm not wrong. That is how I see it.
Ghostavo, its Islamic fundamentalists that are out to take over the world not the US.
-
damnit, answer my question. Its hard to miss, being in big bold letters...twice.
Islamic fundamentalists may (or may not) be out to take over the world, but the US doesn't have to try, they already have.
Military bases in 132 (out of a total of 192) nations, control over the WTO, IMF, World Bank, NATO, the Hague, and partial control over the UN (and various offshoots such as UNCTAD) and the ICJ. Thats closer to world domination than anyone has ever come before. Politically, certainly economically and militarily, and probably culturally, the US rules the world. But I guess that OK since they're the good guys, right?
-
I'm not wrong, 'cause I say so.... Yeesch, you're for Bush, that's for sure. "If you're not with us, you're against us."
BTW, ever find those WMDs that were the reason for invading Irak in the first place ?
Edit : And I suppose that the Christian Evangelist (aka christian fundamentalist) are not trying to do the same with Bush at their helm/under the thumbs ?
-
Yeah right... I've seen a lot of Islamic fundamentalists taking invading other countries... when was the last invasion? 9th century?
-
Ghostavo, tell that to your Spanish neighbor, whose polls were controlled by them.
-
Plus, has the Islamist ever tried to do something on the order of the Crusade in their entire history ? or like the Inquisition ? If I must feel afraid of a religion, Islam is not the first one that would make me afraid...
-
Oh please, the Socialists were in a close race, and over 90% of the population was opposed to the war. Not to mention that Aznar brings back bad memories from Franco's era. And Zapatero had been for months promising to pull troops out if elected. Spain witnessed true democracy, the people making their will heard.
and kindly anwer my question, cause I'll not shut up until you do.
-
Whoa, I didn't know the Crusades was the US's fault. I guess I should blame Bush for that too.
-
Errrr... It wasn't the bombing which made the elector change their opinions. it was the fact that Aznar's governement tried to use the bombing for their own end by blaming this on the ETA, when, for once, they had nothing to do with this.
-
Lets think about it this way:
Who would you trust more with nukes?
Osama, or America?
North Korea, or America?
Sadaam, or America? <--This is no longer a factor, but its a question to be used
The point is we have had nuclear capability for 60 years and only used it twice inside of war-time premisises. The reason we dont like other people using them is because:
A) Everyone hates America. Dont deny it, a lot of you foreign folks hate America and the American's in it, or at least at one point you did. America doesnt have a qualm with anyone, since we basically have proven ourselves to be an already sucessful society. No real reason for us to nuke anyone, every reason for them to nuke us.
-
think you can ignore me, eh? We'll see about that.
-
Never said the crusade were the US fault, only said that you seem afraid of islam fanatics where the christian already proved that they're able to do much worse than the islamists are doing.
-
Afraid of Islamic extremists? I SAW THE FREAKIN PLANES SMASH INTO THE TOWERS. You BET they are a major concern to me.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
and kindly anwer my question, cause I'll not shut up until you do.
Fine. I'll say it. I'm about as patriotic as a animal anyway.
Nothing gives us the right to disarm other nations unprovoked. America was wrong. It has happened before, and I'll be damned if it won't happen again.
Happy? Or does it have to be from one of them?
(BTW; I'm not bashing America. I happen to be American [If that wasn't obvious from my utter butchering of the english language]. I have the right to disagree with my country. Often.)
-
Rictor, you're yacking so much that anyone with an IQ > 80 basically ignore you.
Tin Can, ever thought about the fact that there's a reason for nearly every country on earth allegedly hating you ? Odd thing, it only seemed to really grow like that during the last 4 years...
-
Originally posted by Genryu
Rictor, you're yacking so much that anyone with an IQ > 80 basically ignore you.
Thanks. :p
-
I keep yacking so much, because that is the central question of the issue. Either you admit that they have no right to seek disarmement, and the arguement collapses right there, or you admit that they have the right to do whatever they damn well want because they have the might, and peace, justice and so forth doesn't enter into it, in which case you end up looking like an asshole.
Whats the point in even discussing specifics if it is clear that unless NK poses a direct threat, which they don't, not any more of a threat than America poses to two dozen other countries, the US and UN have no right to force NK to disarm.
So thanks Raa, and no thanks Omni and Genryu.
-
Omniscraper, if you go back to 1995, you'll see that we had our share of terrorist attack in 1995. Did we invade or attack Algeria, which was the country where the terrorist came from ? Nope, we improved interior security, and managed to solve the situation diplomatically. And one thing that tell me that we beat them is that, 3 years after the fact, the average citizen wasn't concerned by the terrorists anymore. As the name said it, terrorist win when they inspire terror. IMO, they already won in the US.
-
Omniscaper, look at the past event this way...
Western world point of view: Terrorist attacks happening with increased numbers.
Islamic world point of view: Coalition of western nations invading Afghanistan, Iraq, and god knows what else.
It is going to be another long cold war...
-
Rictor, they have the right to seek nuclear disarmement because nearly everybody agree on the fact that the NK leaders are dangerous. What they don't have the right is to invade the country.
-
Over and over and over... nothing new under the sun. Yet we're still fascinated. *raised eyebrow*
-
Bring back the Empire.
That'll learn yas.
-
Going for the Mr Spock/Teal'c impression, Setekh ? :p
-
Wow, Tealc IS like Spock isn't he?
-
*sighs*
So, lets give every country in the world the capability of launching a nuclear missle. Sounds good eh? No. The fact of the matter is that there are countries out there I would trust with nukes, and ones that might launch it because the guy across the border pissed him off. Countries like the UK, America, France, Japan, even Canada, can have nukes if they want. We can have cutbacks on them, but just give them the capability. If we got rid of nukes altogether then it would solve a lot of problems.
No, if you want to eliminate problems, try NOT giving nukes to EVERYONE, otherwise you will just have MORE problems. You give everyone a chance to rain some hell on the ecosystem and a country, you have created your own deathbed for the world. Its a bad idea. :no:
-
Genryu, Tin Can:
Ah, you are wise and all-knowing indeed, if you think that can decide who is "reliable" and who is not. If anyone can have nukes, everyone can have nukes. No one has the right to deny them what you (the US) already has, because as I said, that would be adoublt standard. You can think what you want, but you have to ackowledge that your opinion, the US's opinion, and the UN's opinion counts for exactly ****, unless you yourselves diasrm.
I'm not in favour of everyone having nukes, I am in favour of everyone having the right to have nukes. I would think that it would be obvious by now that I am anti-nuke, and favour total disarmament. But until that happens, you have no right to take the moral highground.
But lets just say, for the sake of conversation, that only "trustworthy" countries can posses nukes. Lets take a look at the record, in the past 60 or so years:
North Korea -
0 invasions (well 1, if you count the Korean War as being NK's fault). never used nukes.
America:
Nearly a dozen invasions of foreign nations, countless coups, meddling in foreign affairs and generally undermining sovereignty. Only country to ever use nukes.
So tell me, who is more trustworthy?
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Sometimes I wish the US did not get involved in WWII (if Pearl Harbor didn't happen of course).
From Wikipedia:
With the United States and other countries cutting exports to Japan, Japan decided to bomb Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 without warning or declaration of war.
The USA wasn't formally at war but it was quite involved, it forced Japan to attack.
-
Rictor, despite our past, lets look at it in this frame:
Do we really have a reason to nuke Korea?
No, not at all...
Does Korea have a reason to nuke us?
You bet ya...
Its like saying "Osama, since your country hasnt really done anything bad in the past, I guess I'll give you these nuclear weapons!
What do you think would happen?
Rictor, your argument is strictly built on the bad things in the past. Its not about whats happened, its about intent. What do you PLAN to use those nukes for?
-
NK has a reason to nuke the US and the US doesn't has a reason to nuke NK?
*laughs at the irony*
-
Which country WOULDNT want to take a crack at the US?
-
*sigh*
You have truly gone paranoid haven't you?
-
Well, after you've been through what we have then yes, we are a paranoid bunch of mother ****ers arent we? :lol:
-
Originally posted by TopAce
I did not even click on the link. He won't win the election. His popularity and support fell down.
Bush is going to get reelected, if he doesn't, we're screwed over here IMO. I don't wanna pay more taxes, I already have enough.
-
Not all of us. :doubt:
I don't know where you are in the country, TC, but I live in NY. Just outside the city. We live our lives as usual. And we're not as scared as the media leads you to believe.
-
:lol:
One terrorist attack and look at what has happened...
I wonder what would happen if Spain, France, all other countries that have suffered a terrorist attack, reacted the same way the US is reacting now... I mean 3 years after the attack and they are still pushing at full force :lol:
-
If the regular American people were asked, should we nuke so-and-so...
This is certainly the answer you would get
"Yes! Kill the bastards, they did this and the done this..."
The Government says...
"They are a "potential" threat to the safety to the U.S."
This is "why " I'm paranoid and have no hope for this world
The govenment uses us in anyway they can convice us and then people (who don't know what they want) act patriot (a certain kind of patriotical) and "must" agree with their nation
-
You have to remember the average intelligence level of the 'avarage American.' I swear I meet so many plain dumb people. But the thing is, the dumber they are, the stronger their opinion. They make the rest of us sensible people look reeeal bad.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Which country WOULDNT want to take a crack at the US?
Australia mate. ;)
-
I worship Australians, just so you know. :nod:
Yes, the intelligence level of the "Average American" seem to have declined in the last 50 years. You know what I think took the cake? Social reconstruction. We did NOT need that. We used it to seperate the rich from the poor and define class. Social reconstruction just about did it for us.
But, I know that there is NO way all of us would say "Nuke the bastards!" In fact, we have so many damn liberals we would actually argue about how we should respect that country and think about their feelings and how they feel about getting nuked! :doubt:
You see, back in the day, it wasnt about "Freedom" and "Feelings", it was about morals, decency, what was right and wrong, and where you drew the line. You cross the line, you get punished. There was no sidetrack out of punishment through misinterpretation.
If every American finished High School, EVERY one who was old enough had gone and finished high school, you would see an increase in intelligence almost significantly.
-
Originally posted by Raa
You have to remember the average intelligence level of the 'avarage American.' I swear I meet so many plain dumb people. But the thing is, the dumber they are, the stronger their opinion. They make the rest of us sensible people look reeeal bad.
But really that's the effect you get in today's society...
BTW, its IMHO
The American influence today is clear that drugs are not bad, I'll live my life irresposibly, ect...
The most music is angry and confused and what people doesn't understand that it CAN have an ifluence, we are a gullable people...
Plus, America is so big...
And there confusion of what is "real" and what is "not
What is "right" and what is "wrong"
Cost dearly when they don't care anymore, "Kill other people, it's not affecting me in any way!"
-
The point is the dumber populace has more opinion than the smarter ones.
-
Excactly :nod:
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Rictor, despite our past, lets look at it in this frame:
Do we really have a reason to nuke Korea?
No, not at all...
Does Korea have a reason to nuke us?
You bet ya...
Its like saying "Osama, since your country hasnt really done anything bad in the past, I guess I'll give you these nuclear weapons!
What do you think would happen?
Rictor, your argument is strictly built on the bad things in the past. Its not about whats happened, its about intent. What do you PLAN to use those nukes for?
1) I think the positions are exactly the reverse. The US has threatened, and is actively developing mini-nukes. But I think the likelyhood of *any* country, no matter how much you mistrust them, firing nukes, is minimal. If Bush thinks thats the world is going to end any minute now, and Rapture is just around the corner, which he does, than whats a few nukes here and there?
2) As I said, the point is moot, since no one has the right to enforce a double standard. If anyone can have WMD, everyone can have them. You may not like it, but its only fair.
3) Quit being so paranoid. Jesus, if every country reacted to agression the way America reacted, you'de have a third of the world knocking on your door. I mean, you don't see Cuba going all ape****, and they have plenty of reason to be pissed at the US.
No offence, but quit your whining. If you want to look at this analytically, on 9/11 America got back 1/1000th of what it inflicted on various peoples over the years. You are not the all important center of the universe, your tragedy is no greater than any of the tragedies for which US foreign policy has been responsible, and continues to be responsbile.
-
Rictor please read my post :)
I'm interested in your comments
-
Rictor, you opts for the entirely equal entirely everyone gets what everyone else has world. This means:
"Well if they get it, we get it too!"
No, this isnt how it works.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I worship Australians, just so you know. :nod:
Yes, the intelligence level of the "Average American" seem to have declined in the last 50 years. You know what I think took the cake? Social reconstruction. We did NOT need that. We used it to seperate the rich from the poor and define class. Social reconstruction just about did it for us.
But, I know that there is NO way all of us would say "Nuke the bastards!" In fact, we have so many damn liberals we would actually argue about how we should respect that country and think about their feelings and how they feel about getting nuked! :doubt:
You see, back in the day, it wasnt about "Freedom" and "Feelings", it was about morals, decency, what was right and wrong, and where you drew the line. You cross the line, you get punished. There was no sidetrack out of punishment through misinterpretation.
If every American finished High School, EVERY one who was old enough had gone and finished high school, you would see an increase in intelligence almost significantly.
Pray tell, where was that line that could not be crossed? For ****s sake, no country has ever directly meddled in US affairs the way the US meddled in foreign affairs. Indirectly too.
So tell me, what was the line?
"Do not challenge our domincance" seem like a plaubile one. If the line was, as I assume you think "Don't meddle in our affairs", then you yourselves crossed it about a hundred times. But I guess it doesn't matter when the other guy gets it, only America is important.
For my money, the public is FAR more aware than it was 50 years ago. The level of social consciousness is not even comparable anyomore. For all those without hope, I say you have pletny to be hopeful about. There is an ever growing segment of the US population which is quite aware of the world political situtation, and not just polititcal, economic too. There is an access to information like never before. With the Cold War over, even old allies no longer feel obliged to tote the party line. Sure, the flag-waving, CNN watching population still outnumbers this politically-conscious chunk of the population, but one is growing and the other is shrinking.
-
When I say "The Line" i mean a decent 100 years ago. Not 50. It was back when moral standards were still at a very good present.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Rictor, you opts for the entirely equal entirely everyone gets what everyone else has world. This means:
"Well if they get it, we get it too!"
No, this isnt how it works.
I see. All animals (people, nations, whatever) are equal, but some are more equal than others (Animal Farm). Its funny how whenever there is inequality, America always gets the sweet end of that deal. Quite a coincidence, no?
If we can't adhere even to the prinicpal of equality, than what use is there is talking about law, human rights, freedom and so on. Kind of like how blacks were equal, but not quite so equal, so they had to sit at the back of the bus. Well, this persists today, only with nations. The South (not literally, the South means the poor, Third World nations, whereas the North means the industrial, First World nations) is sitting at the back of the bus, and yet you insist on talking about justice.
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
But really that's the effect you get in today's society...
BTW, its IMHO
The American influence today is clear that drugs are not bad, I'll live my life irresposibly, ect...
The most music is angry and confused and what people doesn't understand that it CAN have an ifluence, we are a gullable people...
Plus, America is so big...
And there confusion of what is "real" and what is "not
What is "right" and what is "wrong"
Cost dearly when they don't care anymore, "Kill other people, it's not affecting me in any way!"
I don't think you ought to be so pessimistic. In my humble opinion, never has the world been so well informed and politically conscious as it is today. I understand where you're coming from, you feel disheartened because critical debate and dissenting voices is getting almost no media attention. But you should realize, thats only in the US, and other Western Nations. Even European media is vastly more critical than most US media outlets. And the further you get from the First World, the louder and more widespear the dissent gets. Even East Europe, which is relatively well off, has such coverage that is rarely seen in the US. Even more so if you read (which due to language barriers, you understandably don't, neither do I) South American or Asian media.
This image of the dumb, flag-waving, slogan shouting citizen is not as true as you might imagine. The US has a huge anti-war, global justice (loosely defined as anti-globalization, pro-environment, anti-corporate) contingent, and its only bigger and stronger once you step outside the US.
So, don't loose hope, if ever there was a time for optimism, that is now. Its more widespread than you can imagine.
-
Hmmmm...
I hope your right Rictor, I realy hope you are :)
But would you agree that we don't "really" have a choice in the way our government is ran?
I mean, when our Presidents is chosen, we have no say in what they do and who they hate, and the media "can" make a majority people believe what they want you to believe
Democracy, we have little that we can control and the things we can our constantly chosen by people who don't know what they want...
-
Or who are too stupid to figure out what they want.
And Rictor, its not about ONLY America getting the long end of the stick. When you are dealing with something like nuclear weapons, you dont just hand them out like candy.
"Well since America has such crappy history, I deem all of you candidates for a nuke!"
Yes, lets have a session where we fork out nukes to every country in the world. They all get one. Not a lot, but at least one. We can give em to Saudi Arabia, Brazil, South Africa, Spain, and lets not forget a large, HEALTHY dose of a contribution of 20 more ICBM warheads to North Korea. What harm could they POSSIBLY do? :sigh:
Let me ask you something, if I may. If you lived in England, Italy, Spain, Germany, Egypt, Mexico, whatever country like that, whatever. Are you afraid of America attacking you? Knocking on your door with ICBM warheads? Do you think we would fire a nuke at Europe, Africa, whatever?
Do you realise what America has to LOOSE if we shoot off a nuke? What does North Korea have to loose? You seem to lack an understanding of what is going on NOW. Im sure what has happened 60 years ago from there, not to mention a change in society, presidents, enemies, etc, have had quite an impact on todays economics. Yep, World War II's bomb drops make us hate everyone and want to invade every country in the world with nukes.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Or who are too stupid to figure out what they want.
And Rictor, its not about ONLY America getting the long end of the stick. When you are dealing with something like nuclear weapons, you dont just hand them out like candy.
"Well since America has such crappy history, I deem all of you candidates for a nuke!"
Yes, lets have a session where we fork out nukes to every country in the world. They all get one. Not a lot, but at least one. We can give em to Saudi Arabia, Brazil, South Africa, Spain, and lets not forget a large, HEALTHY dose of a contribution of 20 more ICBM warheads to North Korea. What harm could they POSSIBLY do? :sigh:
Let me ask you something, if I may. If you lived in England, Italy, Spain, Germany, Egypt, Mexico, whatever country like that, whatever. Are you afraid of America attacking you? Knocking on your door with ICBM warheads? Do you think we would fire a nuke at Europe, Africa, whatever?
Do you realise what America has to LOOSE if we shoot off a nuke? What does North Korea have to loose? You seem to lack an understanding of what is going on NOW. Im sure what has happened 60 years ago from there, not to mention a change in society, presidents, enemies, etc, have had quite an impact on todays economics. Yep, World War II's bomb drops make us hate everyone and want to invade every country in the world with nukes.
Well, currently I live in Canada, an no, I'm not afraid of a US attack. Not unless they want the White House torched again :devil: :devil:
But face facts, most of the world does NOT live in any of the countries you mentioned, first world nations and US allies. Most of the world lives is poor, defenceless countries, which are at the US's mercy. For example, Serbia. Got bombed, for two and a half months it did. Do I fear a US attack? No, personally I don't, but most of the world does. Or if not a direct attack, than at least political and economic meddling which can be just a lethal.
As I said, I am an advocate of nuclear disarmament. But I believe that it is unfair to restrict weapons development in other countries when you yourselves posses such weapons. Any decision the Security Council reaches regarding such measures is worthless because they all posses nukes. Or do you think thats just a coincidence, that all the permanent Security Council nations are nuclear powers? Its serves as a wonderful detterant. Do you think the US would have invaded Iraq if it has nukes? (well, they did claim at the time that it dd have nukes, but that was BS they knew it.)
I am very much against nuclear proliferation, but I don't see how I have a right, or anyone else for that matter, to tell a sovereign nation what to do. Does the UN have the authority to order the US to get rid of its nukes? Answer me that.
And while I may look unkindly on the US record since WW2, don't think that I am ignoring the situation now. For my money its not much different. I mean, you have a US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, a NATO (but lets be clear, the initiative was US-German) force occupying Kosovo and Bosnia, an American puppet sitting in Georgia, a US embargo against Cuba which is one of the worst atrocities in the region, US backed death-squads in Columbia, US support for Israel in the Occupied Territories, a US sponsored coup in Haiti, an attempt at one in Venezuela (and maybe they will yet suscceed, we'll see). There is probably more, I can't remember. Thats all now, I mean in the past year or two, or ongoing.
If you ask me who I trust with nukes, my answer is probablt Sweden and Holland and thats about it. Not literally, but you get the point. I'm not disagreeing that the North Korean leadership is brutal and repressive, but they're not crazy. You throw the word madman around too much. Stalin was madman, Saddam was madman, Kim Jong Il is a madman. They may be evil, but they're not stupid. Not stupid enough to launch nukes. Iran wouldn't either, they know it means the end of them.
All I'm saying is, no, I don't trust North Korea with WMD, but I don't really trust anyone with them, Especially now that Bush is developing mini-nukes, which are designed to be used. The big bombs, the ICBMs, they were designed not to be used, but the new mini nukes are actually made to be used.
Whats the problem with disarming? I mean, if you claim you're never going to use them anyway, and the Cold War is over, whats the use? Bush actually backed out of some Non-Proliferation treaty signed years ago, because he wanted to develop the mini nukes. And, whats more, he's not letting inspectors into US nuclear weapons facilties. I mean, don't you see the irony? Iraq let inspectors in, and they got attacked, but meanwhile, the US is telling Iran and North Korea to let in inspectors while they themselves do not.
I think that the best way is peaceful re-integration between the Nort and the South. I mean, they're going to loosen up a little, because they know Communism is done for. Thats the same thing China is doing, they're slowly releaasing the grip on their people. Now, it not ideal, but its a lot better than could be achieved through force.
-
If you ask me who I trust with nukes, my answer is probablt Sweden and Holland and thats about it.
Aww, you'd give us nukes? We'd bomb people just to see the pretty flash when we're all high and stuff. :D
"Dude, that big red button is not an ashtray..."
-
:lol:
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Hmmmm...
I hope your right Rictor, I realy hope you are :)
But would you agree that we don't "really" have a choice in the way our government is ran?
I mean, when our Presidents is chosen, we have no say in what they do and who they hate, and the media "can" make a majority people believe what they want you to believe
Democracy, we have little that we can control and the things we can our constantly chosen by people who don't know what they want...
Hey, I indulge in a little pessimism now and then, and sure, why not, but the more you learn about history, the more you have an appreciation for just how free are. When you talk about how the US doesn't have a free media and all that, remember, in alot of places, its much worse. We are living in perhaps the period in history which is characterized by the greatest freedom, of thought, of press, os asscosiation and so on. Until very recently, most of the world was either a monarchy or a theocracy, or somewhere in between. We complain about corporate media and all that because, quite frankly, we're used to having it good, veryy good. Can you imagine the amount of press freedom in say, ancient Rome or feudal Japan?
Yeah, its great to work to make the system even better, in more free , but I don't think you should take it too hard, because if new ideas and dissenting voices could smask through the barriers imposed on it throughout most of history, what we have now is a cake-walk compared to that. Give it a few years, and you'll see what I mean.
The media may be moving on to more subtle ways of manipulation, but the people are moving faster. And journalistic integrity is not completely gone. Even the Uk media, the closest US ally, is vastly critical of Bush and Blair. Check out the websites for the Independent, Guardian or Observer, and you will see that there is still a fair bit a moral decency in the media.
Call me an optimist, but I see a bright future ahead. How long it will take to get here, and how hard it will be, thats unknown, but its coming, and at this point, there's nothing that can stop it. Becuase the more people know, the harder it is to fool them, and they know more now than ever before.
edit: whats your email addy, I've got something to send you, its a .pdf, but your email isn't in your profile.
-
scuse me but if i where president i would have looked at the internet and if there was a switch that cut off all the connections to the states i would have tossed it and began a new age of isolationism. with that in affect the only way i could be contacted by foreigners would be by phone, or by their ambassadors. then at the end of my term as president i'd switch it on, hopefully i would have fixed the education and economy by then...if you consider me a dictator while i'm in office so be it...
while at the end of my term: whatever hotspots of the future if i had the Big Red Button i would press it twice...and whatever you say i don't give a rats ass about it...It will either Glow Green or will just be a crater when i'm through with it. so it has been written so will it be done...
-President of the Demonic Lands of Hermecles-NeoHermes (Bringer of Death)
p.s. oh and sry for bringing up an old post that looked like it wanted to be forgotten!!
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Aww, you'd give us nukes? We'd bomb people just to see the pretty flash when we're all high and stuff. :D
"Dude, that big red button is not an ashtray..."
If you weren't already married, I think I'd move to your country and propose to you :p
-
Originally posted by neo_hermes
scuse me but if i where president i would have looked at the internet and if there was a switch that cut off all the connections to the states i would have tossed it and began a new age of isolationism.
i heard there's porn in this internet confirm/deny
-
Originally posted by Rictor
edit: whats your email addy, I've got something to send you, its a .pdf, but your email isn't in your profile.
Me? I thought it was, anyway it's [email protected] :)
-
*sells your email to spam companies*
-
Go ahead and try to get pass my defences! :drevil:
-
... "wins"?