|
| Thread: North Korea-war? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · NEXT» |
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
posted January 17, 2003 06:19 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 17 Jan 2003
|
North Korea-war?
North Korea…this is a thread that has been begging to be initiated for a while, but I wanted to wait as I was undecided and wanted to accrue more information. Well I have been hearing more and more information…as I learn more about the situation the more disgusted I become with North Korea (or more specifically its government)…but I remain undecided.
Bush’s first stance I think was the right one…refuse to dialogue until they gave up their WMD and/or building WMD. Bush stood on a tall platform of virtue as who could rightly give into nuclear blackmail. Since then the administration has slackened their stand and reached out more to NK as the world has not wanted confrontation, but the more the USA reaches out the louder the NK government lashes out in venom, threats, and aggressive behavior.
The more I learn about NK, the more I see how correct Bush was a year ago in labeling them part of the axis of evil. Here we have a dictator… Kim Jong-il who has amassed the 5th strongest military in the world while his people literally starve. Kim Jong-il is reported to be a extravagant womanizer (some reports indicate a kidnapper and rapist) with a string of luxury villas. With a population of about 21 million, some 2 million have died from natural disasters and starvation since the 1990’s. There are valid reports of NK actually kidnapping Japanese citizens. The leader actually has used monies from foreign nations for food provisions and bought about 100 Mercedes cars at an equivalent of 100,000 USA dollars each.
In NK there is no freedom as the communist hand is strong and vicious. Political prisoners die by the hand fold in their work camps as it is estimated 25% of the prisoners die each year. They lie to their people and revise history to no end. There is absolutely no freedom of press and listening/reading foreign media is a crime for which you are sent to a concentration camp. The people of NK actually are taught that America started the NK war and invaded NK. The common people it is reported know Americans not as “Americans” but “USA imperialistic aggressors”. One English visitor/documentarian stated that when he visited NK (which is rare with apparently an average of 150 tourists a year) that NK children actually ran away from him as they saw he was white and therefore an American.
So we know that Kim Jong-il is evil…but is that a reason to invade? I think that there are many evil leaders and that basis alone does not justify war.
I lean towards thinking an attack on NK is right if they threaten the peace of the world and the overall interests of free countries. So if they are amassing WMD that might push me towards thinking that war is justified. But then there is the other question….if other countries (USA, Russia, India, etc.) are allowed to have WMD then why is NK not allowed? I lean towards the reason is that NK has proven to be dangerous government that not only sells weapons to other countires (and possible terrorists) but also may be willing to use those weapons against other free countries.
While I remain undecided I lean towards this policy. No talks till NK backs down from its aggressive politics and action. Setting up an embargo where no trade occurs till NK backs down.
So what are your thoughts? How should the world handle this situation?
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 17, 2003 06:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The more I learn about NK, the more I see how correct Bush was a year ago in labeling them part of the axis of evil.
Labeling North Korea so certainly did not lower Kim-Jong´s wish to have nuclear weapons, to say the least.
I also do not see why Iraq, Iran and North Korea are an "axis". They have nothing at all to do with each others.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 17, 2003 08:07 AM |
|
|
Quote
“Labeling North Korea so certainly did not lower Kim-Jong´s wish to have nuclear weapons, to say the least. I also do not see why Iraq, Iran and North Korea are an "axis". They have nothing at all to do with each others.”
So if you call a bad man a bad man you therefore aggrevated him and make him do more bad things? For an example….if you call a rapist… evil…you therefore encourage him to rape more? Or maybe he was a bad man and was/will continue to do evil things? One statment assumes victim mentality, the other statment assumes personal responsibility and accountability.
As for axis…you are most likely right they don’t have any ally stance…but he was using an abstract term “evil” …thus I took “axis” not as a concrete statement, but more of an abstract statement meaning “of the same mindset/inclination”.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 17, 2003 08:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So if you call a bad man a bad man you therefore aggrevated him and make him do more bad things?
No, it´s absolutely right to criticize and isolate dictatorships like the ones in Iraq, North Korea or Pakistan. But declaring them to be part of an "axis" during a time of war, during a time when also preparations for a war against another member of this axis, Iraq, are on their way, is like asking them to develop the atom bomb. It´s very close to a threat in this context.
It´s likely that Kim Jong was aiming to get nuclear weapons anyway, but you do not have to encourage him.
Besides, using the word "evil" in a political context IMO is stupid anyway, a leader of a western democracy should not talk like a muslim fanatic. But we have already discussed this point alot.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 18, 2003 03:40 AM |
|
|
I find myself agreeing with lews' second post here. Perhaps the NK leader would of, but as Lews says, Bush has telegraphed both the possibility and likelyhood of action against NK, so perhaps he more lacks the understanding that this is both a bad political move more than being wrong to say it as such. There's a time and a place to declare someone evil and whilst you're expending your entire effort in fighting one country it's definately not wise to antagonise or seem to antagonise another country.
NK is evil, It's more than likely to be dangerous, as it's a dictatorship. (yes NOT a communist state, I suspect this is used more often as an insult in the west than used as a fact) The question comes down to what the hell to do about it. NK is a hell of a lot bigger than Iraq in terms of millitary power and geographical size and if Iraq is going to prove difficult you can rest assured it will be a walk in the park compared to NK. Can the west or specifically america and UK (since lets face it 90% of europe won't wish to be involved) afford to fight NK whilst policing Afghanistan and Iraq? The british for one already have a stretched armed forces, another operation of this scale is going to require major mobilisation and maybe even conscription to enable the army to field a realistic force in NK and still maintain it's other committments in Seirra Leone, Ireland, Kossovo etc.
Quote:
I lean towards the reason is that NK has proven to be dangerous government that not only sells weapons to other countires (and possible terrorists) but also may be willing to use those weapons against other free countries.
With respect this I do find most interesting. If this is the criteria then we would be hypocritical doing so. Both the UK and US sell weapons to less than stable countries (ie Israel, The Phillipines, Saudi Arabia, all of which are either unstable in terms of political situation or government). Having done so both countries are more than aware that these weapons will be used often to supress civilians esp in the phillipines (we sold them hawk "trainer" jets knowing full well they were being adapted to use as ground attack planes to kill east timor civilians, so much for our "ethical foreign policy" blair bangs on about!).
No I think it has to come down to the danger posed by NK standing against the ability to actually do anything. I suppose america should do something about the danger, but realistically what can it do when it's most fervent ally is stretched close to the limit and it's own forces are tied down over the globe policing areas already fought over. I'm not completely sure of what american troops they could muster for an invasion or strike on NK, but I somehow doubt that they can provide enough until either Afghanistan or Iraq is dealt with. Either that or the US is going to have to call up more troops and also enter a more dragged out war than either of Iraq or Afghanistan. I somehow doubt Bush is going to wish to start a war which may stretch towards his re-election campaign personally as it might damage his chances of winning.
Edit: I also noticed this:
Quote:
The people of NK actually are taught that America started the NK war and invaded NK
Personally I would suggest the reasons for the korean war are more varied than the simple ones suggested by your tone of this statement. The world could not decide on the fate of Korea so it came up with the solution of division, an insane idea that suited neither country really. NK sure invaded the south, but I would lay some blame at the door of the diplomats of the west and east for compromising over someone else's country without considering the potential consequences of that action.
As for the invasion statement, that is at least in part more than true. With the Inchon landings and the arrival of McArthur the UN forces were more than able to push NK's army back out of SK. The trouble came with the invasion of NK by McArthur against the common sense that would tell you that China would not allow NK to fall into capitalist hands. Despite warnings, this invasion of NK was not halted and the chinese struck back, driving the UN forces back to the original borders. So yes, unessecarily america and the UN invaded NK instead of being satisfied with restoring the status quo, because by then it was inevitable that the country would be divided. Frankly they should have stayed in SK and not bothered. As a side note McArthur also was rabidly anti-communist and was quoted as wishing to "saturate NK with nuclear waste to deny it to the enemy" or drop nuclear bombs on them and/or china!
So basically I don't think NK were not the agressors, but laying the blame entirely to them or saying that america and the UN did not go beyond what was sensible or what they were probably mandated to do is also wrong. Unfortunately I doubt NK schoolkids hear the UN side of the story......
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted January 18, 2003 04:05 AM |
|
|
I tend agree with PH and Lews on this one, and in addition I would like to say that it's not such a sure thing that NK is evil: of course it is more likley than not but on the other hand the US also declared the USSR as evil (with lots of proof, propaganda, and false or misleading information) during the cold war and it wasn't all that evil (well, Stalin was, but as a country they were about as "evil" as the US).
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 18, 2003 04:41 AM |
|
|
I'd just like to point out, the world is coming to an end. I predict this because in 1 thread, Lews, me and IYY all agreed on something, which is apparently the precursor of the global holocaust! 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2003 05:28 AM |
|
|
Quote
“No, it´s absolutely right to criticize and isolate dictatorships like the ones in Iraq, North Korea or Pakistan. But declaring them to be part of an "axis" during a time of war, during a time when also preparations for a war against another member of this axis, Iraq, are on their way, is like asking them to develop the atom bomb. It´s very close to a threat in this context.”
To my recollection they were called part of the axis right after 9/11 long before anyone was making proclamations of war against Iraq. The only war that was going on at that time to my knowledge the “war on terrorism”.
It might have been taken as a threat….or it could of served as a warning. How something is received is often determined by the hearer.
I think the warning could of had many positive benefits. One, it is only is fair and just to warn others instead of just attacking them without notice. Two, a warning brings the subject up for world wide awareness and discourse. Three, a warning serves to avoid painful consequences which most rational people will respond by sitting up and taking notice. For example, if a police officer pulls me over and gives me a warning about speeding…you can bet your bottom dollar I am going to watch my speed for a very long time as the police officer has brought to my awareness that there are consequences for my actions.
Quote
“It´s likely that Kim Jong was aiming to get nuclear weapons anyway, but you do not have to encourage him. “
Or he could of done the mature and self enlightened move and explored why he is being perceived as evil…asked himself what are the possible consequences for him if he continues to act evil…and asked himself “what can I do to change my behavior?”.
Quote
”(yes NOT a communist state, I suspect this is used more often as an insult in the west than used as a fact)”
How do you define communism? What differentiates a communist country that is flirting with some capitalistic ideas different than NK to you? Where is the line for you between a socialist country and a communist country for you?
Quote
“ Both the UK and US sell weapons to less than stable countries (i.e. Israel, The Phillipines, Saudi Arabia, all of which are either unstable in terms of political situation or government).”
Are you saying that USA and UK sell WMD to all those countries? Moreover, do any of those countries sell WMD to terrorists? I find it very plausable that NK would.
Quote
“I suppose america should do something about the danger, but realistically what can it do when it's most fervent ally is stretched close to the limit and it's own forces are tied down over the globe policing areas already fought over. I'm not completely sure of what american troops they could muster for an invasion or strike on NK”
At this time I concur….that is why I think an embargo is about the best thing we can do.
quote:
”As for the invasion statement, that is at least in part more than true.”
Maybe I wasn’t clear…they teach their children that we started the war by invading NK first.
Quote
“ Frankly they should have stayed in SK and not bothered.”
That is interesting….what do you make of this statement compared with our earlier agreement in a different thread that in 91 we shouldn’t of stopped at Kuwait but taken Saddam out?
Quote
“I'd just like to point out, the world is coming to an end. I predict this because in 1 thread, Lews, me and IYY all agreed on something, which is apparently the precursor of the global holocaust!”
That is pretty frieghtening…but I would have to say the end would be at our doorstep if Lews, PH, IYY, and me agreed upon anything Which we know will never happen so all is safe…lol.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 18, 2003 04:26 PM |
|
|
There has never been a communist state that has come close to the ideals laid down originally. All "communist" states are dictatorships but by another name. It's kinda like referring to the likes of Pinochet, Hitler and Mussolini as democrats....... therefore it is an insult to the term of communism to liken NK or China to the term.
Quote:
Are you saying that USA and UK sell WMD to all those countries?
Yes actually I am, there is some evidence that both USA and the UK either sold or ingoring the selling of WMD to these countries. Take Israel as a sample, a country only in existence because of western arms sales in the past. I find it very unlikely that we could not have prevented them from gaining WMD without us knowing and at least not caring as we continued right on supporting them. We even sold weapons to Iraq and there was some evidence that western countries or companies based in western nations were involved in the setting up of chemical plants in Iraq. Then you've yet to prove exactly whether NK would actually sell WMD or the ability to make them to other nations/terrorists. Frankly I find that a bit of a non-starter as NK would be inviting invasion straight after they do it.
And as for the invasion, well here we are taught that NK is solely responsible for the war. Neither side is taught right frankly. To lay the blame of that war entirely on NK when the UN forces continued it beyond reason or even the west/east rivalry caused the split and therefore war is as wrong as saying America began the war.
Quote:
That is interesting….what do you make of this statement compared with our earlier agreement in a different thread that in 91 we shouldn’t of stopped at Kuwait but taken Saddam out?
I'm going to assume since you missed the statement when you quoted that you failed to read "against the common sense that would tell you that China would not allow NK to fall into capitalist hands". By that stage allowing korea to go totally capitalist would not be allowed by a reborn china. Besides this there's precious little evidence that in 1950 odd the NK were an evil or dangerous nation, especially not compared to their southern neighbours. Forced back into their own nation I doubt they would have tried anything similar for some time. Forcing China's hand pushed NK even closer to china and set North/South relations back completely by showing that given half a chance America, SK and the UN had no intention of allowing NK to exist, giving the NK leadership even more reason to spark hatred amongst their people for you.
91 was the right time to invade Iraq, McArthur picked entirely the wrong time to invade Korea KNOWING the consequences. That is the difference.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 19, 2003 07:40 AM |
|
|
Quote
“There has never been a communist state that has come close to the ideals laid down originally. All "communist" states are dictatorships but by another name.”
Here I think you are technically correct but on a practical level incorrect.
In technical language of communism as a form of government where people redistribute wealth without the strong arm of the government…a type of commune of sorts you are correct.
But on practical terms and as used in modern vocabulary I would put forth that communism is basically a form of government which is socialism without democracy. Marx saw socialism as the intermediate step to reach the ideal of communism…which will never occur as he obscured the historically documented fact that human nature is self centered to put it nicely (so basically communism by definition is not a political theory but a fairy tale utopia that can never occur in reality). So in practical language NK is a communist country. Even if you look up communism and socialism in a say the Cambridge dictionary you will find the definitions of socialism and communism are basically the same concept. The only difference I can discern is one of degree and government (dictator) control.
Quote
“Then you've yet to prove exactly whether NK would actually sell WMD or the ability to make them to other nations/terrorists.”
I have never stated that NK has sold weapons of WMD to other nations/terrorists….I said that it is a possible/probable event to which we have to consider when we are determing how we respond to NK. Remember this is a government that without any remorse starves millions at the cost of building up their military might….selling WMD to make a profit to further develop their military is not a far stretch to imagine.
Quote
“Yes actually I am, there is some evidence that both USA and the UK either sold or ignoring the selling of WMD to these countries. Take Israel as a sample, a country only in existence because of western arms sales in the past.”
I really think it very unfair to include Israel in any comparison as far as unstable and/or terrorist nations. Israel is a responsible nation fighting for self preservation. They had more terrorists attacks inflicted upon them then possibly any other nation in modern history. I know you think that the IRA was handled in a more responsible fashion, but overall I think the situation in Israel is much more intense then things ever were in the UK (not to diminish what you guys experienced). Here you have a nation that since its re-creation has been surrounded by hostile neighbors who teach their children that Jews are basically Satan and that killing them will give you the highest reward in heaven. Since its re-creation Israel has been an island in a sea of hate.
Quote
“I'm going to assume since you missed the statement when you quoted that you failed to read "against the common sense that would tell you that China would not allow NK to fall into capitalist hands". “
So if I understand you …you are basing your decision upon the pragmatism of being able to win a war or not versus the neededness of a war? I am not saying that is wrong…I am just trying to understand your view. Pragmatism is one of the reasons I currently don’t support a war with NK.
Lews I am awaiting your prescription or ideas about what the world should do or not do about the NK situation?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted January 19, 2003 01:39 PM |
|
|
ohhhh, PH got his facts mixed up!
Quote:
91 was the right time to invade Iraq, McArthur picked entirely the wrong time to invade Korea KNOWING the consequences. That is the difference.
Truman didn't want MacArthur to go into China, But MacArthur had some dilusion that he could beat the communists out of the whole world, so he did anyway and Truman fired him. NK would have surrendered if MacArthur didn't push them back to the border with the Chinese. Because of that they attacked and beat us back present day boarders.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 19, 2003 03:34 PM |
|
|
Wolf - Tell me how I'm wrong? I can't work that one out there........ I said McArthur screwed up, you said McArthur screwed up....... Trueman also fired him because mentally, McArthur was about as stable as modern day NK ( ). If you're suggesting NK was beaten before China threatened war then you're wrong because china had been hinting for some time that the threat was there. Both McArthur, and (for he is in complete charge and therefore to blame) Trueman disbelieved this until it was too late. Net result, the allies screwed up by attempting to turn NK into a capitalist state.
Dargon - It's terminology, you likening the theory of communist utopia with stalinism is like me likening Capitalism with Facism. Dictatorships are simply a perverted form of government linked to nothing but personal power hatred and fear. If you looked into the methods of stalin and Hitler the differences are slight, all that changes is the form of rhetoric they spouted to justify themselves. But in the west we seperate monsters like Hitler from ourselves by calling them Facists, but the Communists, good or bad are simply "communists" like it's an insult or swearword. We do not wish to define the difference because it's easier to lump the ideology of marx right up there with the evils of stalin. This makes it easier to promote all communists as evil because we haven't bothered to call them what they are, Dictators.
It is difficult to imagine NK selling these things if you work out that right now america is paying pretty much constant attention to their activities. Any such sale would be insane because it would immediately invite a repirsal war, which if launched right would have the possibility to wipe NK as a country off the map, or at least the communist power there. Rule one of a dictator is to remain in and gain more power. Somehow I think that will affect their decision. Selling SAM's etc is one thing, selling WMD's is something I doubt they will be doing anytime soon.
As for Israel, if you leave aside the whole argument about right/wrong to create the place knowing that would be the situation, you then have to look into the argument about how stable a situation exists there. You permit or sell WMD's to a country in a "sea of hate" and what do you imagine might happen? If there is a major war there soon and Israel (for whatever reason) is loosing badly, you are left in a no-win situation. The WMD's are either used by Israel in defence of their country or they are captured by the enemy, which are even more unstable. So the logic of allowing or selling WMD's to a country such as Israel defies me. Whether it needs them for self preservation is irrelevant, I'm sure NK or Iraq would use the same excuse, the point is how stable politically and millitarily is the country and those weapons.
FINALLY! Not only do I object to Iraq/NK on some smaller moral grounds (the whole notion of toppling leaders is interesting to say the least) you have to look at the situation and say that in 1991 it was the right time to invade Iraq. Now it isn't and with respect unless GWB is prepared to finish what his daddy left undone back then war now is an idiotic idea also. If we are to go back to finish what we only half did can we please make sure that this time we do ALL the job? Or do we have to come back in 10 or 12 years when GWB's brother is in charge?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted January 19, 2003 07:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Marx saw socialism as the intermediate step to reach the ideal of communism…which will never occur as he obscured the historically documented fact that human nature is self centered to put it nicely
The problem with society today is, among other things, that it refuses to trust human nature. But if human nature cannot be trusted it will never be given a chance to prove itself. I for one, trust that humans can live in a communist society! One example is in Israel, where the Kibutz communities demonstrate excelent cooperation between people and complete sharing without a dictator (not to deny that those communities are in economic trouble right now, much due to war and other factors). Also, the Russian communism with all its faults, still had many advantages over the American capitalism. For example, it had a great education system avaliable for every person who wanted to be educated. People were not rich, but also not too poor for it to be unbearable. When couples got married, money was not an issue.
You say that communism can't work because of human nature? Well I say that Capitalsim can't work because of human nature. People use money for strength, never share it with each other, many become greedy, the rich become richer while the poor are stuck forever with no hope to live a normal life. To get a good education you either have to be born rich or get perfects on every single report card. Does that sound like a system that works? Well, it works for the rich guys, that's for sure!
Quote:
I really think it very unfair to include Israel in any comparison as far as unstable and/or terrorist nations. Israel is a responsible nation fighting for self preservation. They had more terrorists attacks inflicted upon them then possibly any other nation in modern history. I know you think that the IRA was handled in a more responsible fashion, but overall I think the situation in Israel is much more intense then things ever were in the UK (not to diminish what you guys experienced). Here you have a nation that since its re-creation has been surrounded by hostile neighbors who teach their children that Jews are basically Satan and that killing them will give you the highest reward in heaven. Since its re-creation Israel has been an island in a sea of hate.
I think you all know my opinion on this one: of course I agree. Israel is a very responsible country that cannot be compared to unstable countries like Iraq.
Quote:
Whether it needs them for self preservation is irrelevant, I'm sure NK or Iraq would use the same excuse, the point is how stable politically and millitarily is the country and those weapons.
As I said, Israel's military is very stable even though they are in constant war. Plus - was the US very stable during the cold war? I mean, they got to make all those nukes and nobody minded while it was known that they could very easily use it against the USSR first, or use them as a counter attack if the USSR attacked first.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 20, 2003 12:39 AM |
|
|
I'm pretty sure you could have read what I said in the second post on that matter IYY, but since you ignored it entirely I'll repeat it for you.
I clarified my point by saying that Israel is in an unstable position due to the notion that any WMD could fall into the wrong hands in the event that the numerous arab nations actually co-ordinated an assault on your country rather than the happhazard cock-ups that marr their attempts of the past. I did not compare them directly through leadership, I compared them as a danger because there is a danger in letting them have such weapons. In the event of Israel being overrun there is a very strong possibility of the government using the weapons, or the arabs capturing them, neither is what you might call stable.
Whether Israel itself as a nation is particularly stable or not is a matter for some discussion, especially when a man sitting on the leadership is prone to acts of severe violence when pushed by terrorists or assaults on Israel. It would be frightening to see the response Sharon would give to an attack on Israel by sadam in the event of a war. Personally I wouldn't wish an ex general known for his hatred of arabs and possibly guilty of war crimes in charge of nuclear weapons on the eve of a war in which chemical weapons may or may not be used, but that's just me.
Agreed, overall there are pleanty of responsible Israelis, but to be fair I don't consider Sharon one of them and at the end of the day, it's sharon and his party, backed and influenced by the right wing who make the decisions in Israel, not the more moderate part of the population. It therefore makes little difference how many moderates you have in your country, he has power and in states of emergency I know damn well I would not want him there making the choice on how to respond to any threat.
As for america no-one complained because the only ones able to do so were russia and that would spark a MAD situation. Pleanty of people minded, but no-one ever takes notice of peace protestors and left wing "communists" (that was the usual charge whenever anyone suggested disarming) because they're all "traitors" apparently
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 20, 2003 02:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Lews I am awaiting your prescription or ideas about what the world should do or not do about the NK situation?
I´m sure you are. Mostly agree with PH here.
____________
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted January 20, 2003 10:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I clarified my point by saying that Israel is in an unstable position due to the notion that any WMD could fall into the wrong hands in the event that the numerous arab nations actually co-ordinated an assault on your country rather than the happhazard cock-ups that marr their attempts of the past. I did not compare them directly through leadership, I compared them as a danger because there is a danger in letting them have such weapons. In the event of Israel being overrun there is a very strong possibility of the government using the weapons, or the arabs capturing them, neither is what you might call stable.
I read what you posted and didn't ignore it, plus I already know your stand on this one from some previous debate. That's why I mentioned the US, saying that there was also danger in letting the US have those weapons. Sorry if I was misunderstood.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 21, 2003 12:33 AM |
|
|
The USA is not surrounded by nations outnumbering it heavily all hell-bent on it's destruction though is it? Nukes left in a country like Israel are one hell of a lot less safe than those residing in the depths of nevada if you ask me............
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 21, 2003 06:10 AM |
|
|
North Korea
Quote
“I´m sure you are. Mostly agree with PH here.”
All I can discern from PH is that invasion is not a good idea…which is what I stated to begin with…so are you saying you agree with me…lol
Quote
“It is difficult to imagine NK selling these things if you work out that right now America is paying pretty much constant attention to their activities.”
Well along that line of logic it would be hard to imagine NK creating Nukes with the USA and UN monitoring them and knowing of the consequences…but nonetheless NK has admitted (and then recanted) that they did do just that. So they don’t seem to be very rational or make wise choices do they?
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 21, 2003 06:14 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 21 Jan 2003
|
Quote
“ you likening the theory of communist utopia with stalinism is like me likening Capitalism with Facism.”
First Stalin was a communist and strived to practice communism through a dictatorship.
Second what in the world does facism have anything remotely close to capitalism. Talk about one of the most misused terms in political theory and you used it. You point to a misuse of the word communism…but then go onto distort facism beyond recognition.
Facism is “ any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that exalts nation and often race above the individual and uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition, engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and espouses violent nationalism and racism (ethnic nationalism).”
You mention Hitler as a fascist, while in fact he may have been, but he was also a big time socialist…he tried to redistribute wealth continually (particularly from the Jews) and believed in the extreme regulation to control industry. “the German Nazi party's full name was National Socialist German Workers' Party, and the word "Nazi" is in fact a contraction of the first syllables of the German words for "National Socialist". Similarly, Mussolini was originally a member of the Italian Socialist party, and when he broke with that party to form the fascist party, he contended that he was still a socialist, despite his deep disagreements with his old socialist party.”
Now I am not saying that Stalin was the ideal communist as elaborated upon by Marx…but he was an adherent to the philosophy.
The fact remains that there never has been a communist country by your definition and Marx’s idealism. But there have been many countries that have practiced extreme redistribution of income in the name of equality (but in the end they were hypocrites and gave themselves special privileges).
Quote
“ This makes it easier to promote all communists as evil because we haven't bothered to call them what they are, Dictators.”
I guess what I would say to that is that many communists have been dictators, but not all communists are dictators.
Quote
“Not only do I object to Iraq/NK on some smaller moral grounds (the whole notion of toppling leaders is interesting to say the least) you have to look at the situation and say that in 1991 it was the right time to invade Iraq. Now it isn't and with respect unless GWB is prepared to finish what his daddy left undone back then war now is an idiotic idea also. If we are to go back to finish what we only half did can we please make sure that this time we do ALL the job? Or do we have to come back in 10 or 12 years when GWB's brother is in charge?”
As mentioned before we agree that we should of finished the job….but you really are being quite irrational laying this on the Bush families feet. That is ludicrous to the extreme…here both of them have led the charge against Iraq and yet somehow they are to blame for the whole world and the UN specifically binding their hands in the gulf war? Your hatred for Bush betrays you….if anything you should of entered the word UN in the place of Bush and then your statement might have been reasoned.
Quote
“The problem with society today is, among other things, that it refuses to trust human nature. But if human nature cannot be trusted it will never be given a chance to prove itself.”
Huh? Have you ever heard of the enlightenment period? Which is ironic because history has shown that at the least they had their heads in the sand about human nature. It really wasn’t till the world wars that people woke up to the fact that human nature is not to be trusted. Still the practice continues in many schools of secularism and humanism, but the fact remains that people have over and over and over shown that human nature is anything but to be trusted. Our wars prove that…our families who beat their young prove that…our individuals prove that when they literally kill someone to get steal their name brand shoes…etc. etc. I could obviously go on for pages about this one.
Quote
“I for one, trust that humans can live in a communist society! One example is in Israel, where the Kibutz communities demonstrate excellent cooperation between people and complete sharing without a dictator (not to deny that those communities are in economic trouble right now, much due to war and other factors).”
Also not to mention all the huge amount of money Israel gets from America’s government and private citizens. Israel is a great country but they are on national welfare to say least!
Quote
“Russian communism with all its faults, still had many advantages over the American capitalism. For example, it had a great education system available for every person who wanted to be educated.”
Most countries have free education…that is a non-point. Also please name for me all the great inventions, poetry, philosophy, psychology that came out of communist Russia say compared to the USA…there is absolutely no comparison…so it would appear for all the education you mention it didn’t seem to do them or the world much good.
Quote
“ not too poor for it to be unbearable.”
Ummm in the USA people who are poor definitely also don’t have it unbearable. Also I don’t know about unbearable when the USSR had technology that bordered on backwards, food lines were commonplace, food shortage was a regular companion, etc.
Quote
“never share it with each other”
Hmm maybe you haven’t heard about all the money American’s give out of their own pocketbook to help the less fortunate
Quote
“ the rich become richer while the poor are stuck forever with no hope to live a normal life.”
Hmm guess you didn’t know that most of Americas millionaires were not born into rich families…the examples are endless. And who on God’s green earth are you to judge that because they are poor they can’t live a normal life??? Good grief….I would argue that there are many poor who actually live a more normal life then the rich because they know the real value of life…love, family, connection, etc….they aren’t enslaved to the consumerism of the rich…they can live a simple and happy life. History is replete with examples of poor people who lived very rich lives. Money does not and never will equate into happiness.
Your ideas about capitalism are skewed and basically lacking knowledge…whereever capitalism has arrived…the standard of living for everyone has increased ten fold…the inventions, prosperity, medical care, etc has thrived. Look at North Korea versus South Korea…same culture..two different political systems…one people starving by the millions the other succeeding. Or why don’t you compare West Germany versus East Germany before the fall of the wall…again one prosperous the other floundering. Why on earth would the USA…one of the strongest examples of capitalism also be the most successful nation in the world?…the nation that gives more to other countries then any country in history…the nation that feeds it poor….gives medical care to its poor. Is this coincidence??? I think not.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 21, 2003 07:19 PM |
|
|
I blame Bush senior for not doing the blatantly obvious and finishing what he started, especially since at least Britain wished to (but couldn't alone with the small numbers of troops they had on the ground). Bush represented america, america has enforced it's will on the UN in the past when it believed itself right, this time, through it's leader and the government he was responsible for, they failed to. The blame lies with the UN, the countries who did not agree to continue and Bush himself for not seeing sense at the time.
If clinton's government screwed up, you're clear in blaming clinton personally, I just added the same thought to the conclusion that Bush Snr screwed up the gulf war. He takes the blame because that goes with running the country. When you lead a coalition of nations that you KNOW will be unable to act without you, you should make damn sure you make the right decisions for the right reasons and not leave it to the next generation.
As for GWB I blame him for this war because I doubt that without him and his supporters no-one would be bothering to try this farce of a war on "terror". I also blame Blair for being stupid enough to be blair's little poodle and dragging us into a largely american war at the wrong time.
For that matter, hell go the whole hog and blame the turks for subjecting these people before WWI, the british and french for creating the political situation and the Israelis for being the major reason for the arab world's hatred.
But it still comes down to Bush Senior screwed up when he had the power not to. Whether his son and the allies he gathers has more balls or not is entirely down to wait and see and this time, since let's face it war is inevitable hope.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
| |
|
|
