[ProdigalMarine]

i goofed on the china thread, so this one should be more interesting

....what should we do with them.....let them reactivate their nuclear program and goto war with them or just let them be?

 

[bobme]

oh great, its back again.
I say its a very hard thing to deal with. I know some Korens and you know ... If korea where to fire a ICBM into LA and it worked, and then we fired on back, and some how even killed them all, we still lost, and in their eyes they won. Its all about to them, he saved face.
They are still pissed at us over what we did to the ( I.E. North vrs. the south ) and they are still at war, we just put a wall up.

Its very sad to see this all unfold, and now we have to people with huge egos, and we are at a stale mate, i belive war is a big no, and we should give them their food and oil back, and in return we REMOVE all of these buildings and rods and fuel and papers, take it all. or let them starve, thats it.

 

[Judazzz]

War is always a bad thing, no matter what the reason for it is. And I think that a war against North korea could have even more terrible consequences (for the entire world, since it might be a truely global conflict, as opposed to a war against Iraq, which is "merely" a war against the Islamic world) than a war against Iraq will have...

I'm just wondering why of all countries it's the USA that decides for the rest of the world who's bad (belonging to the axis of evil), and who's not. I mean, from a different point of view, the USA may be the worst thing that ever happened to planet Earth, and why do those countries not decide who should be allowed to own nuclear weapons and who should not...? I think that's on of the main reasons why so many countries do not follow the US blindly: it's the US's arrogance of power, and their never-ending quest to force other countries into submission (everyone knows that Iraq won't be the last to suffer the wrath of the US...)

Sorry, going off-topic again... I guess I can't help myself

 

[ProdigalMarine]

oh great, its back again.

the hell does that mean?

 

[bobme]

oh great, its back again.

the hell does that mean?

Nothing jsut you seem to like thse off the wall topics,
anyway...
I just dont think its up to only the usa to make up its mind on some thing this large scale, however N. isnt helping at all by only wanting to talk to us and no one else.

 

[ProdigalMarine]

War is always a bad thing, no matter what the reason for it is. And I think that a war against North korea could have even more terrible consequences (for the entire world, since it might be a truely global conflict)

....hence the reason why i brought up china in one of my other worthles threads......

opposed to a war against Iraq, which is "merely" a war against the Islamic world

i don't think the US is waging war on the islamic world itself, cuz if we did, there would be a greater war....the US is just waging war on saddam, not the people of iraq.....and i think it'd be alright if we invaded france too, what good have they done for the world since the end of WW2, besides provide the world with feminie beauty products, yogurt and some of the aeronautical industries

I'm just wondering why of all countries it's the USA that decides for the rest of the world who's bad (belonging to the axis of evil), and who's not. I mean, from a different point of view, the USA may be the worst thing that ever happened to planet Earth, and why do those countries not decide who should be allowed to own nuclear weapons and who should not...? I think that's on of the main reasons why so many countries do not follow the US blindly: it's the US's arrogance of power, and their never-ending quest to force other countries into submission (everyone knows that Iraq won't be the last to suffer the wrath of the US...)

because unlike the rest of the world, the US does not like to be threatened....we got threatened twice in our history (9/11 and pearl harbor), so the US does what every paranoid country does, take out its opposition....as for the nuclear weapons arguement, the US and russia was once in that predicament, almost started world war 3 and a nuclear holocaust. besides, would you think it's better to let rogue countries have nuclear capabilities in terms of weapons?.....the US is not attacking other countries, the US is mainly attacking the 'regimes of evil' that are currently running that country.....

They are still pissed at us over what we did to the ( I.E. North vrs. the south ) and they are still at war, we just put a wall up.

name one country that has flourished under a communist government and regime....and i'll name you three that hasn't flourished

(1) vietnam
(2) russia
(3) cuba, sort of

 

[ProdigalMarine]

Nothing jsut you seem to like thse off the wall topics,

would you rather me post topics like "do you like anal?" or "would you blow the president for a cigar?"

 

[JEARBEAR]

Blow the whole country up, any volenteers, They are pieces of trash Just joking, They are a messed up country.

 

[Judazzz]

opposed to a war against Iraq, which is "merely" a war against the Islamic worldthe US is just waging war on saddam, not the people of iraq

i don't think the US is waging war on the islamic world itself, cuz if we did, there would be a greater war....

Well, the problem is that many in the Middle East think otherwise (and imo. you can't completely blame them for doing so...).

and i think it'd be alright if we invaded france too, what good have they done for the world since the end of WW2, besides provide the world with feminie beauty products, yogurt and some of the aeronautical industries

I would applaud a US invasion in France: that would shut up those pendantic nimwits.....

because unlike the rest of the world, the US does not like to be threatened....we got threatened twice in our history (9/11 and pearl harbor), so the US does what every paranoid country does, take out its opposition....as for the nuclear weapons arguement, the US and russia was once in that predicament, almost started world war 3 and a nuclear holocaust. besides, would you think it's better to let rogue countries have nuclear capabilities in terms of weapons?.....the US is not attacking other countries, the US is mainly attacking the 'regimes of evil' that are currently running that country.....

Yeah, I heard that before (CNN, Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld and many more). But still my question stands: what gives the US its legimity to decide for the rest of the world who should be allowed to own nuclear weapons.
We have official organisations for that (and I know they're not very efficient, but the US rather wants to deal with problems itself, than to promote and invest time in grand scale reorganisations to maximize those organisations' efficiency - and other countries are obliged do the same, btw).

The whole structure of the US is based on fear and keeping its civilians in a constant state of fear: that's one of the main reasons why so many Americans choose to own guns (the media keep repeating that the US as well as the world are scary and dangerous places, in which you need to defend yourself), and it's also visible, on a much grander scale, with the US government - fear leads to unpredictable, agressive and stereotyped behaviour...

 

[bobme]

China, they are still doing good.

 

[ProdigalMarine]

China, they are still doing good.

hm...good point, but i dont think the chinese are still running under the communistic idea though....i think they're leaning towards a democratic-republic government

Well, the problem is that many in the Middle East think otherwise (and imo. you can't completely blame them for doing so...).

they're being brainwashed by saddam and al-queda

I would applaud a US invasion in France: that would shut up those pendantic nimwits.....
[/Quote}

at least we all agree on one thing from this current event....that france should not be allowed to have its own country

But still my question stands: what gives the US its legimity to decide for the rest of the world who should be allowed to own nuclear weapons.
We have official organisations for that (and I know they're not very efficient, but the US rather wants to deal with problems itself, than to promote and invest time in grand scale reorganisations to maximize those organisations' efficiency - and other countries are obliged do the same, btw).

....because the US and me, personally feel that the UN has completely stopped function, and that security council is a pure joke and insult to what the UN did stand for....in my opinon, the security council should've been ran by the french, at least then we'd be laughin instead of bickering....as to your question, juda....the US has every right to believe that a certain country may or may not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. the US has every right to say (for example) "holland, you do not have the right to posses nuclear weapons because we, the US, on behalf of the world, feel that you pose a greater threat to our nation as well as the entire world"....i mean, if you had all this power and influence, wouldn't you want to step up and take charge?

The whole structure of the US is based on fear and keeping its civilians in a constant state of fear: that's one of the main reasons why so many Americans choose to own guns (the media keep repeating that the US as well as the world are scary and dangerous places, in which you need to defend yourself), and it's also visible, on a much grander scale, with the US government - fear leads to unpredictable, agressive and stereotyped behaviour...

its actually also stated in our 2nd amendment...the right to bear arms....and plus, we don't want the PM of britian to walk into our houses and demand that we give shelter to his royal troops

:

:

 

[bobme]

Maybe, but i think a word your looking for is a " Controlled demarcery" and controled republic.

 

[ProdigalMarine]

Maybe, but i think a word your looking for is a " Controlled demarcery" and controled republic.

which comes back to my point, how can N. Korea be pissed off at us when they are the one who chose to be in a communistic government? communism only works under small conditions, (ie cuba)

 

[bobme]

Maybe, but i think a word your looking for is a " Controlled demarcery" and controled republic.

which comes back to my point, how can N. Korea be pissed off at us when they are the one who chose to be in a communistic government? communism only works under small conditions, (ie cuba)

Maybe, but once again, China dosnt seem to be small either.

 

[Poseidon X]

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinkgs that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important that his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

The U.S. is using Iraq as a example to North Korea. They will be next, and will have had their oil supply cut off by our middle east occupation.

 

[SteelGluer]

FatMan and LittleBoy ring a bell ?

 

[lopingas]

dont trust what you , dont know!
excuse the bad gramer!

 

[bobme]

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinkgs that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important that his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

The U.S. is using Iraq as a example to North Korea. They will be next, and will have had their oil supply cut off by our middle east occupation.

I dont know if i belive they are next. And if they are next, i belive get ready for the draft to kick in becuase .. well holy ****. they out number us

 

[lopingas]

l think Iran, will should expect a vist!!

 

[bobme]

l think Iran, will should expect a vist!!

they where stamped the axies of evil

also