Calling someone's outlook primitive is not an attack?? Looks like I need to take a few more english classes.danmand said:
I hate to admit it, but
YYC has a good point. Iraq and other Mid-east Countries may enjoy throwing their dicks around (talking up WMD) but quite frankly would be farked without customers to sell oil to. And business may trump, or at least temper their war lust.
However NK is in a serious situation where she can't feed her citizens or light the lights.
They have nothing to loose by fighting back with ALL they have.
Someone even mentioned the turn around in Japan after WWII and the large American Investment.Maybe Kim-IL_jong thinks this way?
The "Dear Leader" is quite frankly a Demi-God, (Like the Japanese Emperor) as I understand, the whole country may be ready to fight to the bitter end
for him.
Scary thought!
YYC has a good point. Iraq and other Mid-east Countries may enjoy throwing their dicks around (talking up WMD) but quite frankly would be farked without customers to sell oil to. And business may trump, or at least temper their war lust.
However NK is in a serious situation where she can't feed her citizens or light the lights.
They have nothing to loose by fighting back with ALL they have.
Someone even mentioned the turn around in Japan after WWII and the large American Investment.Maybe Kim-IL_jong thinks this way?
The "Dear Leader" is quite frankly a Demi-God, (Like the Japanese Emperor) as I understand, the whole country may be ready to fight to the bitter end
for him.
Scary thought!
I think that your memory is very mistaken here. Powell did not give that presentation at the Security Council to tell them what they already believed. Moreover, I don't think that even the Bush administration believed Iraq had WMDs and they screeched the definition of WMDs to even include such things as poison gas.langeweile said:
Wait a Minute ...Someone
Is not poision gas, like mustard gas, banned by the Geneva Convention?
Did Dear Sadam not kill a lot of inocent Kurds with this gas?
Pretty bad stuff, if you ask me,
mass destruction, I would suggest.
Is not poision gas, like mustard gas, banned by the Geneva Convention?
Did Dear Sadam not kill a lot of inocent Kurds with this gas?
Pretty bad stuff, if you ask me,
mass destruction, I would suggest.
I can't! You also can't forget that the reason that was passed was based in part on the information the U.S. was feeding the Security Council. When pushed came to shove the U.N. through Hans Blix didn't think there was enough evidence. How can you forget that?langeweile said:
I'm sure the rest of the World already sees this langeweile. But I'm assuming "profit" means bringing democracy to parts of the world and not just the literal sense of the word.langeweile said:
What a wonderfully myopic view of the world you have. You choose to be a citizen of the U.S. rather than a citizen of the human race. Your talk of freedom and democracy only pertain to those ideals that directly affect you. The rest of the world can go to hell. I guess it's about "do as I say and not as I do."langeweile said:
The un resolutions on WMD's are dating back to "Desert Storm" and were reaffirmed by the security council about six month before the attack.someone said:
You mean to tell me that the USA was able to convince the the security council as a whole?
Holy Fark?!! Did I just agree with Fang?
Well, now I have seen everything. As a Rich country we must be responsible somewhat for looking after the world's messes. I guess the question is, who determines what a mess is. And how powerfull a cleaner we use?
Well, now I have seen everything. As a Rich country we must be responsible somewhat for looking after the world's messes. I guess the question is, who determines what a mess is. And how powerfull a cleaner we use?
Myopic? i have to look up that one in the dictionary, but i can guess the meaning of it.Cardinal Fang said:
Anyhow.
American foreign policy for the most part is neither vicious nor mean spirited. Have we always done the right thing? No, but that is easy to judge in retrospect.
We give billions in foreign aid. We are always the first on site, when help is needed. See the Tsunami relief effort as a late example.
what do we get in return? we are characterized as stupid, primitive,gun loving,uneducated and narrwow minded.
Sooner or late i get sick and tired of being hit over the head because I am an American.
Hey you want us to stop meddling in other peoples affairs? No problem here.
All to often we are the cash cow for all the problems in the world.As long as we pay we are allright, but god forbid we have our own opinions or problems. People love our money, but hate our guts.
To those I say, hey get up and take care of your own problems.
You are not being hit over the head for being an american. People are voicing their disagreement with what you are saying- its a freedom that we in Canada enjoy- its called freedom of speech.langeweile said:
People on this board with maybe a few exceptions do not hate the US. But some of your statements cry out for rebuttal - such as the - "take care of your own problems" we do. we take care of our own problems every day. We have also in times of trouble helped out our southern neighbour, and they in return have helped us many times.
langeweile you are not from the US originally, so maybe you do not appreciate the depth of the friendship across the border and the number of ties of both commerce and blood and joint sweat and tears- that bind these two great nations together. But in defending your positions please do not feel the need to lash out in a negative fashion. it doesn't help anyone
cheers
Myopia: Lack of discernment or long-range perspective in thinking or planning: “For Lorca, New York is a symbol of spiritual myopia” (Edwin Honig)langeweile said:
I agree. All countries are guilty of this at some point or another.langeweile said:
Oh come on. When it comes to natural disasters the entire world comes together for the cause. It's not about WHO get's there first. It's about helping those IN NEED.langeweile said:
Langeweile, I'm going to explain this to you as nicely as I possibly can. I don't have a problem with Americans (and by this I mean my issues are not with American people but their government policies) spreading freedom, democracy and safety for that matter throughout the world. I have a problem when the means you use to decide this is through national interests. Unfortunately, that is the nature of politics and governments. They are driven by self-interest. You have to realize that by doing this you alienate those who would support you and lend credence to those that hate you.langeweile said:
You want to be fair? Then be fair to all. You (the American Government) pulled up a “chair” at the table of World Politics. Now I'm challenging you to actually “sit in it.” You are more than entitled to walk away from it. That’s your choice and the choice of your entire nation. But I sincerely doubt that would ever happen because I understand that the U.S. has something to offer the world. They just haven’t found it yet.
Last edited:
Anyone who has studied the history of the Korean peninsula since WWII would understand that North Korea's goals since North Korea was created is to unify North and South Korea under communism and to punish Japan for past aggression. After the US involvement in the Korean War, the USA got added to the list of N.K. public enemy #1 along with Japan. North Korea's quest for a nuke did not begin after they got labeled as a member of the axis of evil by Dubya. It began after the collapse of the Soviet Union brought it's economy down with it and the North relalized it could not hope to defeat a US/UN backed South Korea without the backing of the once mighty USSR. It now needed an equalizer to achieve it's primary goals. They realized that the equalizer are nukes. They also realized that the perception of attempting to create nukes is also a great bargening chip which they used to their advantage in the 90's. There is great speculation that they indeed do not have nukes but are again using the treat as a bargening chip. Anyone who has studied the history of N. Korea's actions at the DMZ the past 50 years can see this.
To blame the current US administration for North Korea's desire to create nukes is ridiculous. They have always attempted to do this. However I do not doubt that the US's hard stance has scared the North Koreans into putting more of an effort to obtain them recently and also to show more bravado and talk big because they realize Bush and Co. aren't going for their B.S. that has served them well in the past.
The US has a part to play in this but looking at events over there in the past 50 years I have no doubt that hardball is the only ball to play with the N.Korean regime.
To blame the current US administration for North Korea's desire to create nukes is ridiculous. They have always attempted to do this. However I do not doubt that the US's hard stance has scared the North Koreans into putting more of an effort to obtain them recently and also to show more bravado and talk big because they realize Bush and Co. aren't going for their B.S. that has served them well in the past.
The US has a part to play in this but looking at events over there in the past 50 years I have no doubt that hardball is the only ball to play with the N.Korean regime.
Good post Don, well summarized assessment of the situation. I differ, as does the administration, on NK pulling a bluff. It is most likely that they do have a few crude devices, untested designs at that, quite possibly too bulky to deliver in any effective manner. But, having said what he did, dear nutcase did bring about a change to the current picture. NK just moved from the Axle to the MAD club and in this club the terms are very much against them. Does dear nutcase understand that now, any attempted missile test may result in NK's nuclear obliteration? What is Japan to think?
So far, no reaction from China. It seems they are the only involved party that might make a difference. The UN, quite characteristically, demonstrated its ultimate futility over the course of this affair.
Dear Leader, look well to your crystal ball.
So far, no reaction from China. It seems they are the only involved party that might make a difference. The UN, quite characteristically, demonstrated its ultimate futility over the course of this affair.
Dear Leader, look well to your crystal ball.
Don said:
I feel that they're preparing us for something. I think that a showdown with N. Korea is coming. I think they wanted to wait until after the election before they take action.
My guess is that it will be an economic showdown of somekind. I feel sorry for the N. Korean people.
There's no chance of a military showdown since both sides have too much to loose.
My guess is that it will be an economic showdown of somekind. I feel sorry for the N. Korean people.
There's no chance of a military showdown since both sides have too much to loose.
The problem I see is that the USA overextend themselves by commiting forces to unworthy causes and are therefore not able to respond to real threats in a reasonable way. Germany and France should start to help out in Iraq so the US can free up resources. The last thing we want is that the US has only one option left to keep North Korea at check...Nucular Missles!langeweile said:You can't have it both ways. You can't complain about Americans being overly agressive and cry about the USA not doing anyhting about Korea....
Don't worry though our missile shield will protect you to.
Maybe the uN could step in and solve the problem......not.
Not exactly...
The real difference is that Korea actually has WMD. It's much more dangerous to attack those guys than it is to attack a relatively defenceless third-world nation.
The US took action in Iraq because there was economic gain on the line for them and because (they thought) it was easy. What is most frustrating about this action is that the stated reasons for the action had nothing to do with the real reasons.
Don't look for the US to walk-the-walk against an opponent that can actually fight back and where there is no economic up-side to the action. Moral considerations are for the press, they are not the real reason this US government takes action.
Flame me if you will but this is not US-bashing. The current government in the United States consistently acts exclusively in the interest of wealthy and powerful Americans without regard for ther rest of th worl or even the majority of their citizens. While many Americans have shown exceedingly poor judgement in re-electing an administration that consistently bends them (and the world) over, many American people do not share their goverment's views and attitudes and I have no quarel with them.
One of the differences between our country and our neighbour to the south is that, in Canada, you can criticise the government without being viewed as anti-Canadian or unpatriotic. For some reason, some people immediately label anyone that disagrees with the Bush administration as anti-american; which I am not.
Every world power has an interest in the Middle East. Actual location is no longer important in this day and age.Shades said:
The real difference is that Korea actually has WMD. It's much more dangerous to attack those guys than it is to attack a relatively defenceless third-world nation.
The US took action in Iraq because there was economic gain on the line for them and because (they thought) it was easy. What is most frustrating about this action is that the stated reasons for the action had nothing to do with the real reasons.
Don't look for the US to walk-the-walk against an opponent that can actually fight back and where there is no economic up-side to the action. Moral considerations are for the press, they are not the real reason this US government takes action.
Flame me if you will but this is not US-bashing. The current government in the United States consistently acts exclusively in the interest of wealthy and powerful Americans without regard for ther rest of th worl or even the majority of their citizens. While many Americans have shown exceedingly poor judgement in re-electing an administration that consistently bends them (and the world) over, many American people do not share their goverment's views and attitudes and I have no quarel with them.
One of the differences between our country and our neighbour to the south is that, in Canada, you can criticise the government without being viewed as anti-Canadian or unpatriotic. For some reason, some people immediately label anyone that disagrees with the Bush administration as anti-american; which I am not.
