 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:26
|
|
Screw it. Innocent people in Iraq are going to die *now* or they're going to die over the *years* as Saddam Hussein remains in power. It's not *if* they're going to die, it's *when* they're going to die, and by whose hands they'll die.
In either case, they'll die at Saddam's hands. In the former case, some will die at U.S. hands. In the latter case, none would die directly from U.S. action, but we'd be blamed by the freakin' "enlightened" world community for causing their deaths anyway, either because we didn't remove Saddam from power or because we enforced the damnable sanctions on that sh*tty tyrant.
Yeah, America the Big Bad Evil Nation. People who have issues with America want to have their cake and eat it, too, it seems.
America the Screwed is more like it.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
PLATO
|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:26
|
|
Urban Ranger:
quote:
When they tried it last time, they got hosed. Next |
So I guess we should just send 250,000 to 500,000 troops every few years to "contain" Iraq and say "please don't attack another one of your neighbors."
quote:
With what? Furthermore, Saddam is not a terrorist. He is not stupid |
I guess gassing large parts of your own population isn't terrorism in your book. It is in mine.
Iraq obtained smallpox cultures 20+ years ago for "medical research". Guess we should just trust that they wouldn't make that into a weapon (Given their great record on not weaponizing anything they can get their hands on).
How do you define stupid??
Yes it is if you really know the facts,
quote:
Based on faulty logic. |
No it is not. Your conclusions are based upon wishful thinking. As long as we are wishing, I'll wish you are correct (but your not).
Not unproven...untested. DPRK states that they have this technology.
quote:
Unproven wrt nuclear weapons. |
No debate here. As you can see my original post said "assumed to have" I have seen no Nation assume they don't. Again I would have to put this in the category of wishful thinking.
Where have you been?
quote:
Caused by the US containment policy and overt hostility. |
Guess they would just disarm and start farming if we left. C'mon, we weren't "containing" them during the first conflict and their forign policy hasn't changed one iota since then. The regularly violate the DMZ and provoke conflict with the South. If they were really peaceful folks do you think the US would go to the expense of keeping all those units at the highest state of battle readiness of any units they posses? North Korea's stated goal is re-unification with Pyongyang in charge. Get them to change that and we'll talk.
quote:
Based on bad assumptions and faulty logic. |
Wrong again, same reason as before.
quote:
By being friends with petty dictators and corrupt regimes. |
Any other kinds in ME?? Still, US puts a lot of diplomatic work into encouraging democratic reform, womens rights, and free markets. This aspect of US policy is very rarely talked about. It is just easier for countries with big mouths to make a big deal out of things they don't like and to say nothing on things they do.
Since always. Quit just listening to biased media and look at facts. Example: 18 resolutions on Iraq so far. How many do you need before diplomacy is exhausted on that one.
quote:
More than willing to take up arms - e.g. Cuba, Grenada. |
Cuba? Grenada is a no brainer. US citizens were being held hostage. Not to mention the fact that Cuban troops were occupying British territory. Guess thats okay in your model of the world also??
quote:
Based on misinformation and faulty logic |
Based on fact. Once again, your arguments are based on wishful thinking and a lack of facts. Perhaps even a lack of understanding of the facts you do present.
Indeed. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
North Korea:
Point 1.) DPRK has developed missile tech that can reach western US. Draw the circle using this distance as a radius.
Point 2.) DPRK has now rejected non-proliferation treaty and is assumed to have 1-2 working Nuclear bombs. N-plants now operational are capable of producing more.
Point 3.) DPRK shows willingness to trade these techs to any country for hard cash.
Point 4.) DPRK maintains over 1 million troops at the expense of feeding its own population (presumably to stop those 37000 really tough Americans??). |
Plato1003:
Point 1. is not quite true. tech is developed, yet untested.
Point 3. is not quite true. the only tech they have been shown to share willingly is rocketry. Rocketry is not nuclear technology.
Point 4. is insulting, patronizing, and also quite absurd. the 1 million troops are not to stop those 37000 american troops. it's to counter the 600000 skorean troops who have another 4million in reserve. while this isn't exactly a pleasant truth, the amis are there only for psychological effect. in any future conflict, the war would be won not with american blood, but with skorean blood.
do you know why skorea is having such trouble with the us? it's this patronizing attitude that the us has to it, ever since the turn of the century. in the first decade of this century, teddy roosevelt thought we couldn't govern ourselves, and so tacitly allowed japan to occupy us for the next 40 years in a state not unlike a brutal concentration camp. when the negotiations for the armistice were being done, the united states didn't even bother to invite a south korean delegation, while the soviets had the decency to invite the north koreans. and for the next 40 years after that, america has viewed korea as incapable of defending itself or even governing its military properly, forcing the 600k+ skorean army to be subordinate not to a korean general, but to the american general, who only has 37k americans under his control. american troops engaging in criminal activities while in korea are not prosecuted under korean law, but sent home and dealt with by american law. north korea isn't driving a wedge between south korea and the us. the us has created the rift, and doesn't seem to realize that south korea is tired of being treated like a second-rate nation when it is a mature and flourishing democracy, fully competent in its ability to survive.
this is not to say that skorea wants america out; far from it. but it wants a relationship more akin to the us-germany or the us-japan alliance: where us and skorea are equal partners, not where us is the "daddy" who "knows best".
quote:
Guess they would just disarm and start farming if we left. C'mon, we weren't "containing" them during the first conflict and their forign policy hasn't changed one iota since then. The regularly violate the DMZ and provoke conflict with the South. If they were really peaceful folks do you think the US would go to the expense of keeping all those units at the highest state of battle readiness of any units they posses? North Korea's stated goal is re-unification with Pyongyang in charge. Get them to change that and we'll talk. |
nkorea is all but contained. china doesn't want to lose one of its largest trading partners in skorea, and would break any supply chain into nkorea should hostilities break out. nkorea is no longer receiving aid from a communist su. japan and skorea treat it as a nation to be held at arms' length. it is all but isolated, with no allies, nobody to turn to. this makes it a volatile nation, but a contained one. besides, their foreign policy has changed. their original goal was reunification with p'yongyang in charge, by any means necessary. they've dropped the military option now. and they no longer claim to be the one and only korea, and are willing to accept that another korea does exist.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-02-2003 13:56
How cares about this silly popularity contest? Next week people will move on to a different subject.
|