North Korea likely to carry out nuclear test

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

Okay, time to wade through the absolute nonsense of this post. I'm going to make this as succinct at possible.

- Ironically, you're talking about giving NK a 'free hand'. This isn't a playground game, and isn't simply about taking sides. US authorities are feckless in their desire to invade any hole that meets their interests. It's rather simple, the world needs a deterrent.

- Yep, a 'weapon-of-mass-destruction' aimed at a nation armed with almost more 'weapons-of-mass-destruction' than any other nation that is armed to the teeth and willing to invade any foreign nation so long as it meets their interests be it in the form of military assisted coups or full blown land invasion.

- The US will only respond to the tactical reality of war. As iterated previously, I hope they're used to keep the US in check. The point isn't for them to be used, but yes - if aiming them at US civilians is what will keep the world safe, then so be it. So far, the United States is the only nation to have detonated an atomic bomb on civilians.

This is nonsense. Your entire argument is predicated on schoolboy critiques of American foreign policy - notably the charge "if they can do it why can't I?!" Furthermore, you are invoking the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (its acronym is not unironic) which assumes that the leaders of North Korea are rational beings, despite the fact that they still believe in the type of Stalinist economic planning that has only been efficient at systematically starving millions of people, and they do this at the behest of an Eternal President who has been dead for decades.

You may believe (and I disagree) that the world's superpower needs a deterrent, but North Korea simply is not it.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 142

VeniViciVidi

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

I didn't address you because you responded with a wall of text. If that makes you feel like you've 'won', that's your thing.

If you really need sources to know about US involvement in the Congo, Venezuela, Chile, Cuba, Pakistan etc. you probably don't belong in this thread.

Concurrently, I don't read print media (i.e. the Guardian) and consume news from a variety of sources. Not that I care what your opinion of my habits are, you're the kind of person that goes around telling people to 'get out of threads'. What next? Are you going to make a crack about my mum? :colondollar:

I did paragraph it. If a long wall of text is somehow out your mental capacity, I apologize. :colondollar:

Comparing Cold War US foreign policy to modern US foreign policy. It's changed quite drastically since then. Let's keep the discussion in real time please. :colondollar:

None of those countries you addressed were invaded by the US and 'bombed out of the living daylights' as you assert. :colondollar:

I didn't say you read the guardian, your views are just guardian-esque. :colondollar:

I'm glad you don't care about my opinion, thick skin mate. :colondollar:

No

I won't make a crack about your mum, I'll just urge you to read my post as you might learn a thing or two. :colondollar:

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 143

Not particularly. It's predicated by the reality of the US's foreign policy, which consists of feckless US authorities - and I repeat myself - bombing the **** out of any desert hole they can find so long as it meets their interests.

Furthermore, you are invoking the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (its acronym is not unironic) which assumes that the leaders of North Korea are rational beings, despite the fact that they still believe in Stalinist economic planning at the behest of the Eternal President who has been dead for decades.

And how exactly does their reverence for a former president have any bearing on whether M.A.D. applies to them. As much as it is in your vested interest to make any 'enemy' of the US appear vicious animals determined to kill every innocent American at the behest of their own existence, you're simply being unrealistic. Nothing but straw-man fallacies.

You may believe that the world's superpower needs a deterrent, but North Korea simply is not it.

As iterated before, NK is in good mind to have existential fears, especially given that international condemnation of any and all NK policies are spearheaded by US demands with the EU jumping on the bandwagon. Here's the funny thing, I want NK to become as stable and 'internationally normalised' as you do - but as long as the US is going to threaten world peace with its military power, the east and those who the US comes into conflict with must protect themselves.

Reply 144

Original post by VeniViciVidi

I did paragraph it. If a long wall of text is somehow out your mental capacity, I apologize. :colondollar:

Not out of my mental capacity, but more than I care to read. I've got other things going on and if I'm going to have ongoing discussions with more than 5 people, I generally tend to stick to conversations that don't feature multiple paragraphs. Sounds pretty simple to me.

Comparing Cold War US foreign policy to modern US foreign policy. It's changed quite drastically since then. Let's keep the discussion in real time please. :colondollar:

My mistake, add Iraq, Afghanistan and collusion with multiple contemporary dictators to the list. I wasn't aware I had to do that for you.

None of those countries you addressed were invaded by the US and 'bombed out of the living daylights' as you assert. :colondollar:

Assisted coups backed by a foreign power with all the military might of the rest of the nations combined? Sounds like a day in the park!

I didn't say you read the guardian, your views are just guardian-esque. :colondollar:

Fair enough. Don't really see the point you're making though.

I'm glad you don't care about my opinion, thick skin mate. :colondollar:

Please don't feign nonchalance by adding 'mate' and repeated emoticons to your posts. It comes off looking really desperate.

No

I won't make a crack about your mum, I'll just urge you to read my post as you might learn a thing or two. :colondollar:

If you say so. For someone posts under the air of intelligence you make an awful point of producing really bad one line insults.

Reply 145

TheHansa

11

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

Not particularly. It's predicated by the reality of the US's foreign policy, which consists of feckless US authorities - and I repeat myself - bombing the **** out of any desert hole they can find so long as it meets their interests.

It's already been explained to you that they don't have the military capabilities to hit US mainland this is all irrelevant bull****, the Chinese are able to ensure a nuclear free NK her safety and if they could make their retarded brat of a little brother give up weapons which are more likely to kill Chinese, Japanese or Koreans themselves than Americans, they would.

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

And how exactly does their reverence for a former president have any bearing on whether M.A.D. applies to them. As much as it is in your vested interest to make any 'enemy' of the US appear vicious animals determined to kill every innocent American at the behest of their own existence, you're simply being unrealistic. Nothing but straw-man fallacies.

They worship their leader's family like gods, so they don't act in a rational way. If the USA wanted them wiped out they could because they have ICBM's able to roast Pyongyang NK couldn't do the same to Washington.

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

As iterated before, NK is in good mind to have existential fears, especially given that international condemnation of any and all NK policies are spearheaded by US demands with the EU jumping on the bandwagon. Here's the funny thing, I want NK to become as stable and 'internationally normalised' as you do - but as long as the US is going to threaten world peace with its military power, the east and those who the US comes into conflict with must protect themselves.

China would look after them, not every country in America's sphere has nuclear weapons.

Reply 146

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

And how exactly does their reverence for a former president have any bearing on whether M.A.D. applies to them. As much as it is in your vested interest to make any 'enemy' of the US appear vicious animals determined to kill every innocent American at the behest of their own existence, you're simply being unrealistic. Nothing but straw-man fallacies.

I don't think you quite understand. They are not displaying "reverence for a former president." Kim Il-Sung, who has been dead for nearly twenty years, is still the president of North Korea. He is the Eternal President of the Republic, irreplacable and unquestionable. This is not a rational dictatorship. MAD implies rationality.

As iterated before, NK is in good mind to have existential fears, especially given that international condemnation of any and all NK policies are spearheaded by US demands with the EU jumping on the bandwagon. Here's the funny thing, I want NK to become as stable and 'internationally normalised' as you do - but as long as the US is going to threaten world peace with its military power, the east and those who the US comes into conflict with must protect themselves.

I don't concern myself with this. I have no desire for North Korea to become internationally normalised. I desire peace on the Korean Penninsula and freedom for the North Korean people, and this means the total uncompromising destruction of the communist system and the Kim tyranny, not some cop-out deal that sees a necrocratic maniac continue to starve people and threaten war with the USA but with the added benefit of a bit of dialogue with the Chinese every now and again. (Of course, you'll probably read this as a desire on my part to see the US "bomb the ****" out of North Korea. If so, you'd be mistaken.)

Reply 147

VeniViciVidi

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

Not out of my mental capacity, but more than I care to read. I've got other things going on and if I'm going to have ongoing discussions with more than 5 people, I generally tend to stick to conversations that don't feature multiple paragraphs. Sounds pretty simple to me.

Hence, if you're not going to bother reading material that may change your perception of US foreign policy and perhaps tone down that hyperbole of the United States being a figure of evil.

My mistake, add Iraq, Afghanistan and collusion with multiple contemporary dictators to the list. I wasn't aware I had to do that for you.

Okay, I would say this about these two engagements. Firstly, in the long-term, these countries are far better off for the United States and their own nations without a Hussein/Taliban regime. Secondly, a bridge we would probably meet as is the conduct and strategy of these two conflicts, Iraq in particular. In Afghanistan, uber-blitzkrieg was seen for the ISAF (I say ISAF, because it is not to your belief, a US exclusive operation) to be doing something on the world stage to react to takfirism. Conventional warfare doesn't work in asymmetrical warfare. Thirdly, what has the US gained from these two conflicts in terms of greed and profit? Because it certainly isn't oil. So I ask, what is intrinsically wrong about dismantling the takfiri ideology that spreads the Asian and middle-eastern regions? This, in my opinion, is our equivalent to the threat of communism in the 50s and we're pursuing a 'containment policy'.

Assisted coups backed by a foreign power with all the military might of the rest of the nations combined? Sounds like a day in the park!

The CIA are not all the military might of the nations combined. As the aforementioned policy, it is was a reaction to the threat of communism through 'containment'. The perceived threat of communism was the forefront of US decision making in the Cold War, this isn't difficult to understand. It is neither morally condemnable nor condonable.

Fair enough. Don't really see the point you're making though.

Point is that the Guardian have a long track record of asserting abstract rhetoric on any Western conflict is presumed to be 'war-for-profit', which is factually incorrect.

Please don't feign nonchalance by adding 'mate' and repeated emoticons to your posts. It comes off looking really desperate.

I'm glad you picked up on that because it is similar to the repeated abstract points that you are making that come across as being idiotic and really uninformed.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 148

Original post by VeniViciVidi

Hence, if you're not going to bother reading material that may change your perception of US foreign policy and perhaps tone down that hyperbole of the United States being a figure of evil.

I've read enough to have an informed opinion of the situation. I wouldn't view the actions of the United States as evil if their foreign policy wasn't so...well, evil. If they want to change that perception I have, they full well have the ability to turn the vessel around and actually give some humanitarian thought into what they do as opposed to blindly ploughing into any foreign nation on US interests.

Okay, I would say this about these two engagements. Firstly, in the long-term, these countries are far better off for the United States and their own nations without a Hussein/Taliban regime.

Ah yes, the rebranding of the Mujahideen, who the US was only too keen to support until they changed their minds. I'll say that I agree with you, but will note that the Taliban was easily uprooted in 2001. Going on to conclude that it's pointless anyway. As even the simplest of minds can conclude that all any self-respecting taliban member has to do is wait out a while until the US has finished sniffing around and prop back up. Ultimately, the people of Afghanistan will make their choice.

Secondly, a bridge we would probably meet as is the conduct and strategy of these two conflicts, Iraq in particular. In Afghanistan, uber-blitzkrieg was seen for the ISAF (I say ISAF, because it is not to your belief, a US exclusive operation) to be doing something on the world stage to react to takfirism. Conventional warfare doesn't work in asymmetrical warfare. Thirdly, what has the US gained from these two conflicts in terms of greed and profit? Because it certainly isn't oil.

Just about every respected voice on the Iraq war has concluded that oil played a major role in the invasion of Iraq. Now yes, yes..I know it's the hip cool thing for neocons to go against the trend and claim it 'wasn't about the oil'. Sadly, it just isn't true. Even key spokesmen for the top of Washington have admitted it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/17/iraq.oil
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/06/i_ins.01.html

So I ask, what is intrinsically wrong about dismantling the takfiri ideology that spreads the Asian and middle-eastern regions? This, in my opinion, is our equivalent to the threat of communism in the 50s and we're pursuing a 'containment policy'.

The same argument that you would use against the idea that if in an alternative world, Afghanistan was a major power, they decided they wanted to dismantle the British or American political system by placing Afghan troops on the ground on British soil. They are a sovereign nation. And besides, this is perhaps the biggest straw-man fallacy I've witnessed in a while. We're talking about the military conduct which US uses. Sheer and utter inability to tell civilian apart from combatant. Why on earth you feel 'Takfirism' is a threat to Britain and its western allies, or how putting troops on the ground and a rifle in the door of every home is going to help that situation is beyond me.

The CIA are not all the military might of the nations combined. As the aforementioned policy, it is was a reaction to the threat of communism through 'containment'. The perceived threat of communism was the forefront of US decision making in the Cold War, this isn't difficult to understand. It is neither morally condemnable nor condonable.

Pretty sure assisting the Pakistani rape of Bangladesh in 1971 through military aid wasn't 'containment'.

No respect for democracy.
No respect for human rights.
No respect for international law.

Just US interests.

Point is that the Guardian have a long track record of asserting abstract rhetoric on any Western conflict is presumed to be 'war-for-profit', which is factually incorrect.

Criticism of US foreign policy =/= Criticism of any and all 'western' conflict.

:facepalm:

I'm glad you picked up on that because it is similar to the repeated abstract points that you are making that come across as being idiotic and really uninformed.

Lol. Seriously? You're coming across like a child now. You're embarrassing yourself.

Reply 149

Unless you're implying that they literally consult his corpse before making key decisions, keep him up to date on the latest news and trends and make sure his hair is nicely combed before interviews, your point is rather moot. He's just an erroneous figurehead. I don't claim that giving him that position is a good idea, but it's nothing more than an eccentricity. Implying that the rules of MAD doesn't apply because of this is as stupid and moronic as implying that the rules of MAD doesn't apply to the US because they're 'caaraayzee eneough to put IN GOD WE TRUST on their money'.

It's arbitrary.

I don't concern myself with this. I have no desire for North Korea to become internationally normalised. I desire peace on the Korean Penninsula and freedom for the North Korean people, and this means the total uncompromising destruction of the communist system and the Kim tyranny, not some cop-out deal that sees a necrocratic maniac continue to starve people and threaten war with the USA but with the added benefit of a bit of dialogue with the Chinese every now and again. (Of course, you'll probably read this as a desire on my part to see the US "bomb the ****" out of North Korea. If so, you'd be mistaken.)

See, you accuse me of short sighted nonsensical idealism-on-steroids, yet do the same thing yourself. In a perfect world, your idea sounds correspondingly perfect (except for perhaps the allowance for democratic communism). That said, it's not going to happen. As a result, I focus on the harsh truth and the reality of it. The North Korean peninsula is under threat by a superpower determined to exert their foreign policy plan and they must protect themselves - or in all actuality, declaw the lion so to speak. If takes a nuclear missile aimed at half US population to make their politicians sit up sharp and act straight, so be it. We would be safer in a world where the US wasn't able to set foot on foreign soil without thinking twice.

Reply 150

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

No respect for democracy.
No respect for human rights.
No respect for international law.

Just US interests.

I love how you assume that the only people to have ever exerted control of US foreign policy are the Realists.

Reply 151

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

Unless you're implying that they literally consult his corpse before making key decisions, keep him up to date on the latest news and trends and make sure his hair is nicely combed before interviews, your point is rather moot. He's just an erroneous figurehead. I don't claim that giving him that position is a good idea, but it's nothing more than an eccentricity. Implying that the rules of MAD doesn't apply because of this is as stupid and moronic as implying that the rules of MAD doesn't apply to the US because they're 'caaraayzee eneough to put IN GOD WE TRUST on their money'.

It's arbitrary.

It's really rather not. If you cannot differentiate between the American republican form of government and the North Korean communistic-totalitarian form, then your decision to comment on issues relating to political science and global affaris is not a well-made one.

See, you accuse me of short sighted nonsensical idealism-on-steroids, yet do the same thing yourself. In a perfect world, your idea sounds correspondingly perfect (except for perhaps the allowance for democratic communism). That said, it's not going to happen. As a result, I focus on the harsh truth and the reality of it. The North Korean peninsula is under threat by a superpower determined to exert their foreign policy plan and they must protect themselves - or in all actuality, declaw the lion so to speak. If takes a nuclear missile aimed at half US population to make their politicians sit up sharp and act straight, so be it. We would be safer in a world where the US wasn't able to set foot on foreign soil without thinking twice.

It is hardly idealistic to assume that the United States can topple dictatorships when it wants to. Your position is that whenever the United States uses force it is acting wrongly due to events that happened well before your birth, even if it uses that force for good. I'm sure that many a Bosnian, Kurd, or Afghan would disagree with your proscription of US power.

Reply 152

'Realists' who have no problem butchering foreign nations?

Pretty sure your grandparents wouldn't agree with that assertion.

Reply 153

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

'Realists' who have no problem butchering foreign nations?

You misunderstood. You said that US foreign policy revolves around US interests, and ignores international law, human rights, and democracy. The school of thought that cares only about US interests is the Realist School. I was merely pointing out that many other theories have dominated the political scene in the US and influenced its foreign policy - from the Wilsonian Idealism of post-WWII to the modern-day neo-conservative movement, both of which place democracy above US interests, which is why people who adhere to these schools of thought advocated US intervention in Kosovo and Rwanda despite the fact that it was not in the US' interests to do so.

Pretty sure your grandparents wouldn't agree with that assertion.

What have my grandparents got to do with anything?

Reply 154

I'm pretty sure a Bosnian would thank Britain considering the UK dragged the US into that conflict (pretty unwillingly as well) and my first hand experience with Afghans is from their own mouths (because yes, unlike you, I've actually spoken with Afghans), they don't particularly like having a foreign power dictate their home office policy alongside the puppet in the presidential palace.

And who said the US was exclusively in the business of 'toppling dictatorships'? Pretty sure Mosadegh, Ayende and Lumumba would disagree with you.

Reply 155

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

I'm pretty sure a Bosnian would thank Britain considering the UK dragged the US into that conflict (pretty unwillingly as well) and my first hand experience with Afghans is from their own mouths (because yes, unlike you, I've actually spoken with Afghans), they don't particularly like having a foreign power dictate their home office policy alongside the puppet in the presidential palace.

I am rather good friends with an Afghan who used to frequent this very forum, but you'll choose to gloss over this since it doesn't quite fit in with your world-view, no doubt. I am resigning from this repetition of points. I think I've made my view on the North Korean issue rather clear and I am not going to continue repeating it, especially if you're going to resort to moot personal points based on faulty and incorrect judgements.

PS, it was precicely because of Clinton's reluctance to act in Kosovo that led many centre-right American politicians and academics, who you'd no doubt brand as 'hawks', to push for a more forceful US foreign policy with regards to advancing humanitarian goals.

Reply 156

VeniViciVidi