|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Jul 1, 2009 3:43:52 GMT -5
Ah well thats ok then if they are already starving. Silly me. ah, and I forgot to ask for you to offer a solution to the problem, rather than the usual liberal M.O. of bitching about the problem, bitching about any solutions offered by a conservative and never really offering anything resembling a reasonable solution.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jul 1, 2009 4:12:06 GMT -5
Ah well thats ok then if they are already starving. Silly me. ah, and I forgot to ask for you to offer a solution to the problem, rather than the usual liberal M.O. of bitching about the problem, bitching about any solutions offered by a conservative and never really offering anything resembling a reasonable solution. Well, any solution I would put forward certainly wouldn't involve starving innocent people to death.
|
|
|
Post by Moorish on Jul 1, 2009 4:23:17 GMT -5
Ah well thats ok then if they are already starving. Silly me. ah, and I forgot to ask for you to offer a solution to the problem, rather than the usual liberal M.O. of bitching about the problem, bitching about any solutions offered by a conservative and never really offering anything resembling a reasonable solution. Like the right don't do this with Obama! (See almost any post by NL4E or thechemist).
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Jul 2, 2009 8:09:34 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]STILL WAITING[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Jul 2, 2009 9:42:20 GMT -5
Ah well thats ok then if they are already starving. Silly me. ah, and I forgot to ask for you to offer a solution to the problem, rather than the usual liberal M.O. of bitching about the problem, bitching about any solutions offered by a conservative and never really offering anything resembling a reasonable solution. oh meanstreak, you are better than that. "to prevent the finanacial system from going nuts again, i propose we kill all bankers." "but that's unethical and it certainly won't solve the problem!" "but at least i propose something - all you do is moan!"
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jul 2, 2009 10:42:33 GMT -5
Ah well thats ok then if they are already starving. Silly me. ah, and I forgot to ask for you to offer a solution to the problem, rather than the usual liberal M.O. of bitching about the problem, bitching about any solutions offered by a conservative and never really offering anything resembling a reasonable solution. will you please cut out the ad hominem attacks? they get us nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 2, 2009 11:19:58 GMT -5
On this whole starving issue: You don't punish the citizens of a nation because of their leader. Simple as.
|
|
|
Post by thechemist on Jul 2, 2009 11:49:10 GMT -5
On this whole starving issue: You don't punish the citizens of a nation because of their leader. Simple as. Why not?
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jul 2, 2009 12:49:05 GMT -5
On this whole starving issue: You don't punish the citizens of a nation because of their leader. Simple as. explain iraq.
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Jul 2, 2009 13:56:54 GMT -5
ah, and I forgot to ask for you to offer a solution to the problem, rather than the usual liberal M.O. of bitching about the problem, bitching about any solutions offered by a conservative and never really offering anything resembling a reasonable solution. oh meanstreak, you are better than that. "to prevent the finanacial system from going nuts again, i propose we kill all bankers." "but that's unethical and it certainly won't solve the problem!" "but at least i propose something - all you do is moan!" lol good example! I'm just a very pragmatic person, I don't like a bunch of time spent talking and moaning about a problem, I like to get out there, find a solution and make it work. When it comes to NK, we've spent over a decade talking and offering concessions to get them to agree not to pursue nukes, then out of the blue we find out they have in fact been building them all along. So if their word is worthless, what choice do we have other than sanctions or armed conflict? If none, why do people sit around moaning about it? I don't want to starve a bunch of innocent people either, but the food shortage problem is the fault of the NK govt, not anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jul 2, 2009 15:23:22 GMT -5
i think a punishment should be that we hijack their tv stations and force them to watch team america: world police, 24/7.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 2, 2009 21:09:01 GMT -5
On this whole starving issue: You don't punish the citizens of a nation because of their leader. Simple as. Why not? Because it's not the citizens fault how the government governs. For dictators - they weren't elected by the people, and if they were it was corrupt. For democracies - even if the people elected the government, who the hell knows how the leader will actually rule? Furthermore, your rational, The Chemist, is dangerously close to Osama Bin Ladens: "The people elected Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama so I'm gonna punish them by killing thousands of Americans in the slight hope that the government changes its policy" Come on now. While I'd never vindicate an attack on the US, 9/11 would have been more acceptable if it only focused on government officials. To kill or punish innocent civilians is wrong, I can't believe I have to tell you that, Chemist. What would you say to the North Korean civilians who you want to starve (even more)? "Oh sorry, your government is acting like dicks, and I know you're not directly responsible but until they change their behavior you're gonna suffer." For fucks sake. Furthermore, a government who already starves their citizens and who doesn't give a fuck about world order won't give a fuck about sanctions placed upon their own people. Your logic is flawed in every possible way, my man. I could go on rambling about how idiotic that view is, but I won't. On this whole starving issue: You don't punish the citizens of a nation because of their leader. Simple as. explain iraq. FFS. Come on now. YOU KNOW Bush never wanted to hurt any innocent Iraqi citizen (before you bring it up, Abu Grhaib wasn't US policy, it was the fault of sick individuals who I hope have been duly punished by now) YOU KNOW Saddam was a brutal dictator who needed ousting regardless if he had WMD or not. YOU KNOW the war has been mismanaged Post-Saddam's regime. YOU KNOW that it's looked better since the 2007/2008 surge and that there's a decent chance of true victory now. YOU KNOW that if we manage the coming years better, Iraqis will have a good life one in which they could only dream of under Saddam. AND YOU KNOW that no matter what the real underlying goal of the war was - Redemption for 1991, Oil, true belief he had WMD, a message to our other enemies in the region, etc - Bush/the US had good intentions there. So please don't give me that crap. It truly is a shame that the Iraqis had to suffer during the war (although, to be frank and honest, who doesn't suffer during a regime changing war? Again, get over yourself), but if we're successful it's most def. worth it and I don't think you, nor any liberal, republican, nor Iraqi would disagree. To bring everything back full circle: The Chemist wants to DIRECTLY punish those in NK for the actions of the government, while you asked how is it different to Iraq. Well, it's different to Iraq because we dont, nor never have sought to punish the Iraqis. Sadly, the mistakes have yielded collateral damage, but that's NOT intentional.
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Jul 3, 2009 0:58:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jul 3, 2009 0:58:33 GMT -5
FFS. Come on now. YOU KNOW Bush never wanted to hurt any innocent Iraqi citizen (before you bring it up, Abu Grhaib wasn't US policy, it was the fault of sick individuals who I hope have been duly punished by now) YOU KNOW Saddam was a brutal dictator who needed ousting regardless if he had WMD or not. YOU KNOW the war has been mismanaged Post-Saddam's regime. YOU KNOW that it's looked better since the 2007/2008 surge and that there's a decent chance of true victory now. YOU KNOW that if we manage the coming years better, Iraqis will have a good life one in which they could only dream of under Saddam. AND YOU KNOW that no matter what the real underlying goal of the war was - Redemption for 1991, Oil, true belief he had WMD, a message to our other enemies in the region, etc - Bush/the US had good intentions there. So please don't give me that crap. It truly is a shame that the Iraqis had to suffer during the war (although, to be frank and honest, who doesn't suffer during a regime changing war? Again, get over yourself), but if we're successful it's most def. worth it and I don't think you, nor any liberal, republican, nor Iraqi would disagree. To bring everything back full circle: The Chemist wants to DIRECTLY punish those in NK for the actions of the government, while you asked how is it different to Iraq. Well, it's different to Iraq because we dont, nor never have sought to punish the Iraqis. Sadly, the mistakes have yielded collateral damage, but that's NOT intentional. i don't know if things are going to be better. i've become a bit disenchanted with speak of "it's going to get better." we've been hearing it for ages. "we're in the last throes of the insurgency" comes to mind. obama's certainly not going to win the war. as for abu ghraib, former general janis karinski stated that the tortures was given the green light by rumsfeld. of course he was a brutal dictator. does that mean that we need to attack venezuela, cuba, iran and north korea because they are run by brutal dictators? collateral damage, while it may be part of war, should be happening less often than it is. we have spent trillions of dollars on how to directly hit a target.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jul 3, 2009 2:48:24 GMT -5
^ I take it these snide still waiting things are aimed at me?
Unlike you, I don't claim to know all the answers, all I know is starving innocent people who are oppressed by leaders such as they are in N Korea is a completley inhuman way of dealing with the situation.
You are the one who once said on here that the US should drop a nuclear bomb on Iran, so I think that says it all really.
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Jul 3, 2009 4:34:28 GMT -5
...the waaiiiiiiiiiting is the haaaardest part... ;D you gotta love tom petty. 1st (unreal) proposal: embrace kim jong il til death. make this countries economy florish: living standard rises, education get's better and so on and on. people seem to care a bit more about their freedom when they don't have to care about how to get something to eat the next day. not so realistic... but if you think one can solve everything with a smoking gun, i can dream a bit, too 2nd (rather realistic) one will have involve china (wich we already do...). china has influence on nk (wich we don't have - sanctions don't work cause nk hardly does business with us anyway) and they are defenitely not interested in a second superpower in that region. even under mao when they supported ho chi minh, china was interested in influence on this country but not in a rival! they want to control nk. that's why they also have problems with kims latest stunts. so a little bit less hysteria will not kill us... our politicians have to emphazise that nk going nuts is not chinas interests. and believe me, a military strike will not happen against chinas will. it simply won't.
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Jul 3, 2009 6:43:40 GMT -5
^ I take it these snide still waiting things are aimed at me? Unlike you, I don't claim to know all the answers, all I know is starving innocent people who are oppressed by leaders such as they are in N Korea is a completley inhuman way of dealing with the situation. You are the one who once said on here that the US should drop a nuclear bomb on Iran, so I think that says it all really. When did I calim to know all the answers? I did say that it would appear the only two choices we have are further sanctions or invasion, as we've tried everything else with North Korea already and look where it got us. As for the Iranian regime ya, it is in our long term interest to deal the regime a fatal blow. Now that so many people have risen up it would appear that while being far from a fatal blow now, the cracks this has put in the regime will be fatal in the long run so there ya go, problem will be solved internally eventually. Pretty impressive, now what are the North Koreans waiting for?
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Jul 3, 2009 6:54:20 GMT -5
...the waaiiiiiiiiiting is the haaaardest part... ;D you gotta love tom petty. 1st (unreal) proposal: embrace kim jong il til death. make this countries economy florish: living standard rises, education get's better and so on and on. people seem to care a bit more about their freedom when they don't have to care about how to get something to eat the next day. not so realistic... but if you think one can solve everything with a smoking gun, i can dream a bit, too 2nd (rather realistic) one will have involve china (wich we already do...). china has influence on nk (wich we don't have - sanctions don't work cause nk hardly does business with us anyway) and they are defenitely not interested in a second superpower in that region. even under mao when they supported ho chi minh, china was interested in influence on this country but not in a rival! they want to control nk. that's why they also have problems with kims latest stunts. so a little bit less hysteria will not kill us... our politicians have to emphazise that nk going nuts is not chinas interests. and believe me, a military strike will not happen against chinas will. it simply won't. cool man, I didn't know you liked Tom Petty! I've been a fan of his forever! Anyway not one but TWO possible scenarios? It would seem you are a bit more of a centrist than you like to let on man! You're right it needs to be a lot more China's problem than it is right now. I'm not sure what they are doing in this stupid waiting game but it would be nice if they woudl step up and take care of the problem. Only problem for the bleeding hearts of the world with that though, I have a feeling China is capable of being a hell of a lot more harsh and heavy handed than any western nation.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jul 3, 2009 7:29:59 GMT -5
^ I take it these snide still waiting things are aimed at me? Unlike you, I don't claim to know all the answers, all I know is starving innocent people who are oppressed by leaders such as they are in N Korea is a completley inhuman way of dealing with the situation. You are the one who once said on here that the US should drop a nuclear bomb on Iran, so I think that says it all really. When did I calim to know all the answers? I did say that it would appear the only two choices we have are further sanctions or invasion, as we've tried everything else with North Korea already and look where it got us. As for the Iranian regime ya, it is in our long term interest to deal the regime a fatal blow. Now that so many people have risen up it would appear that while being far from a fatal blow now, the cracks this has put in the regime will be fatal in the long run so there ya go, problem will be solved internally eventually. Pretty impressive, now what are the North Koreans waiting for? I'm sorry, but why is there only two choices? What is it about you Americans who think you have some divine rule over the world and have to be some kind of policeman for the rest of us? Fuck off man.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 3, 2009 11:00:25 GMT -5
When did I calim to know all the answers? I did say that it would appear the only two choices we have are further sanctions or invasion, as we've tried everything else with North Korea already and look where it got us. As for the Iranian regime ya, it is in our long term interest to deal the regime a fatal blow. Now that so many people have risen up it would appear that while being far from a fatal blow now, the cracks this has put in the regime will be fatal in the long run so there ya go, problem will be solved internally eventually. Pretty impressive, now what are the North Koreans waiting for? I'm sorry, but why is there only two choices? What is it about you Americans who think you have some divine rule over the world and have to be some kind of policeman for the rest of us? Fuck off man. Because we're the super power.You take the US out of the equation, and the world in general becomes much more unstable. You should be thankful for the US' good intentions.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jul 3, 2009 11:28:22 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but why is there only two choices? What is it about you Americans who think you have some divine rule over the world and have to be some kind of policeman for the rest of us? Fuck off man. Because we're the super power.You take the US out of the equation, and the world in general becomes much more unstable. You should be thankful for the US' good intentions. We? I thought you were British? Yes I am so thankful, so so thankful, in fact if you were here right now, I'd get right down on my knees in front of you and give you right good hummer. Prick.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 3, 2009 12:14:12 GMT -5
Because we're the super power.You take the US out of the equation, and the world in general becomes much more unstable. You should be thankful for the US' good intentions. We? I thought you were British? Yes I am so thankful, so so thankful, in fact if you were here right now, I'd get right down on my knees in front of you and give you right good hummer. Prick.
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Jul 3, 2009 18:09:32 GMT -5
cool man, I didn't know you liked Tom Petty! I've been a fan of his forever! Anyway not one but TWO possible scenarios? It would seem you are a bit more of a centrist than you like to let on man! You're right it needs to be a lot more China's problem than it is right now. I'm not sure what they are doing in this stupid waiting game but it would be nice if they woudl step up and take care of the problem. Only problem for the bleeding hearts of the world with that though, I have a feeling China is capable of being a hell of a lot more harsh and heavy handed than any western nation. centrist? me? no no no no noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!! hey, i have always been centrist and realistic. but of course, to the very right wing i am still radically left i agree with you on china. but you have to understand, that they don't really have an interest wether nk becomes democratic or wether people starve to death. i think they want to have kim yong il in power cause they can control him. so it is not very likely, they will publicly doom his actions. the decisions take place behind closed doors anyway. foreign politicy isn't something that happens accidentally - don't get fooled by those ridiculous comparisons to hitler or something. even nk leaders are not dumb. and they are defenitely not willing to commit suicide. all we can do is watch closely and interpret all their actions because everything is important and everything is a sign. that's diplomacy - it's not something weak but something strong! by the way: the recent incidents in iran pretty much proove my point 1. look at the people who protested there: it's the educated people who went to the streets! educated women who are going to university! and believe me: these people are proud of their culture (and their persian culture is definitely something to be proud about). look, mussawi will defenitely not stop the nuclear programm - it's part of their understanding of being a modern country. and fact is: all this axis of evil rhetoric only helped ahmadinedschad to unite all iranians behind him! that's something you really got to understand when dealing with that iran problem. that's doplomacy, too. diplomacy is information advantage. sooo, back to topic: diplomacy is something strong! and not a weaker stage of exercising power.
|
|
|
Post by quellophant on Jul 3, 2009 21:21:25 GMT -5
When did I calim to know all the answers? I did say that it would appear the only two choices we have are further sanctions or invasion, as we've tried everything else with North Korea already and look where it got us. As for the Iranian regime ya, it is in our long term interest to deal the regime a fatal blow. Now that so many people have risen up it would appear that while being far from a fatal blow now, the cracks this has put in the regime will be fatal in the long run so there ya go, problem will be solved internally eventually. Pretty impressive, now what are the North Koreans waiting for? I'm sorry, but why is there only two choices? What is it about you Americans who think you have some divine rule over the world and have to be some kind of policeman for the rest of us? Fuck off man. Britain's actually the worst country in the world for trying to police and impose their culture on others historically. You can't criticise america for assuming our role unless you admit the two countries are actually very similar..
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jul 3, 2009 22:33:02 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but why is there only two choices? What is it about you Americans who think you have some divine rule over the world and have to be some kind of policeman for the rest of us? Fuck off man. Britain's actually the worst country in the world for trying to police and impose their culture on others historically. You can't criticise america for assuming our role unless you admit the two countries are actually very similar.. +k for that.
|
|