Newest Members
GKB, MorganWut, myrlin, AaronS, BookHouseBoy
12465 Registered Users
Today's Birthdays
cyrus (44), Dupe1978 (36), James_Is_Talking (36), K-man (58), LordShiningStarr (36), ricky (51), Shawn Hope (29), teresa (42), Warner82 (32)
Who's Online
3 registered (tbkkfile, Sonata1, 1 invisible), 21 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
12465 Members
74 Forums
63998 Topics
446693 Posts

Max Online: 418 @ 07/02/12 07:29 AM
Twitter
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#289618 - 05/31/09 12:11 AM Re: On North Korea: [Re: JustScott]
michael banks Offline


Registered: 06/12/08
Posts: 1755
Loc: Mojave Desert, Ca
Scott,

We are each entitled to our opinion.
Which is what makes our country great.

Wait for what?
I regress till the missiles are coming?
or as Chanberlain did untill Hilter invaded Poland.

I know my opinion may not be a very popular one but as i see it in regards to No. Korea.
Bullies only listens to those whom have the will to stand their ground and back up his words by action if so needed.

My comment about nuking them back to the stone age is more of a figurative one than a literal one.

Semper Fi

Mike

_________________________
To own one's shadow is the highest moral act of a human.
-Robert Johnson-

"IT ought never be forgotten that the past is the parent of the future" John C. Calhoun

WOR Alumni Sequoia 2009

Top
#289634 - 05/31/09 08:37 AM Re: On North Korea: [Re: michael banks]
Hauser Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/12/05
Posts: 2962
Loc: United States
Hi again Mike...............

On Chamberlain and Poland, let us review that period briefly, (not trying to lecture anybody on history per-say, but I DON'T believe the revisionist crap that my public school gave me as "history")

1939, Hitler was insisting on having back the City of Danzig, which was always historically German, but was wrenched away from them in the Treaty of Versailles and given to newly created Poland. WW1 was a war that was about to end in a truce in 1917 because of the years of bloody, nasty, meat-grinder trench warfare that France, England, and Germany were sick of. But OUR MEDDLING in WW1 in 1917 tilted the winning chances towards the Allies’ side and instead of giving Germany reasoned and dignified terms of surrender; we ENABLED the future rise of Hitler. President Wilson, the man who helped create the Federal Reserve, instituted a draft in blatant disregard for the 13th Amendment, among other great deeds, insisted on “Unconditional Surrender”. This “Unconditional Surrender” is what led to the economic turmoil and hyperinflation, which Hitler then used to become popular when the French moved into the Ruhr Valley in 1921.

My point of the preceding paragraph is that our (the U.S.) actions have ALWAYS result in unintended consequences. In the brief synopsis given above, I have demonstrated that it was the U.S. entry into WW1 that directly facilitated the rise of Hitler.

Fast-forward to 1939. Chamberlain and France give Poland a Carte-blanch guarantee that they will go to war if he tries to take Danzig back. Danzig was a city that was predominantly German-speaking and historically always part of Germany-proper. So, instead of reasonable acquiescing back a city that never should have been theirs to begin with, Poland, with France and England’s war guarantee, told Hitler to fuck off. Hitler called their bluff. Enter WWII

My point with the preceding paragraphs is that, yes, Chamberlain was an idiot, but not for trying to avoid war, but for making it INEVITABLE.

On to North Korea…………………………Mike? You REALLY HONESTLY think that NK would blatantly launch a couple of missiles at us and not expect to be ANNIHALETED? Do you REALLY think that they have a death wish? Don’t you think it’s more REASONABLE to assume that they simply love power and, at most, want South Korea? I’m sorry Mike, but I find your contention that they have a death wish by starting a direct act of war with the U.S. to be entirely without merit and laughable.

Mike? If we try to “take out” their nuclear facilities, we would be DIRECTLY responsible for lives of MILLIONS of South Koreans, because, if we attack them, they will most likely lash out with EVERYTHING they have. We’re talking major numbers of deaths here. And all for what? Fear of the unknown? Fear that they’re irrational and have a death wish? It’s time for us to stop policing the world, we’re going broke.

I have to go to work now, lol. More later!!!!


Top
#289658 - 05/31/09 01:27 PM Re: On North Korea: [Re: Hauser]
AndyJB2005 Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/14/06
Posts: 1245
Loc: Saint Paul, Minnesota
Switzerland also allowed millions of Jews, gays, etc. get murdered by Hitler while they just sat on their hands collecting money from all the effected countries into their banks (by which they only RECENTLY paid *some* back).

I wouldn't really call them righteous.

I'm not for war generally, but even *I* would've fought (and given my life) against Hitler.

_________________________
Life's disappointments are harder to take when you don't know any swear words. -- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes)

Top
#289683 - 05/31/09 04:49 PM Re: On North Korea: [Re: AndyJB2005]
JustScott Offline
Greeter Emeritus
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 01/27/08
Posts: 2588
I find this conversation interesting.

Mainly because my statement about what our government will probably do has been taken as my point of view. This is not the case. I rarely ever agree with how our leadership runs things.

I'll be a bit more clear I guess.

I see valid points on both sides. Honestly, I agree with points that both sides make. I think we tend to do one of two things. We either get involved way to quickly, and if we don't get involved, we sit back and do nothing for way too long.

I think the US needs to do something, but what the right something is, is the real question. I don't think we should rush in and crush any/all resistance, but at the same time I don't think we can not do anything, and I don't believe sanctions etc are the answer, because they haven't worked in the past.

Truly I don't know what the answer is. I don't think N.Korea will attack us openly, but I can't say they won't go after the south, and I can't say they won't pass their technology onto terrorists.

Dictators aren't usually stupid. They're usually quick to slaughter anyone in their way that they can reasonably get rid of, and they try other things, like deceptions and hiding etc with those they can't remove(AKA, promising the nuclear experiments are all about nuclear power and not bombs). Dictators like one thing the most... Power... and they'll do what they can to keep that power as long as they can. Launching nukes at the US would be a quick route to be removed from power. BUT if they felt they could reasonably and secretively pass nukes or the technology onto those they don't care about using them or who they hurt.... well that could very well be a whole different ball game.

I've always been one who thought that trying to "negotiate" with terrorists is just a fools game that simply gives the terrorists more time to plan and pre-pare.

Yes, I think we need to do something, but what is the question?

I also don't hold the view that the US is the white knight who is holy and blameless. We're screwed up more than a few times and I think there are times where we've just been flat out wrong. Anyone remember the whole Japanese Detention camp issue? Or how about a little known program that was breifly in place where certain people that were deemed "unfit" were unwilling sterilized?

Two sides to every coin, and yet.... they're all apart of the same coin.


Top
#289721 - 05/31/09 10:40 PM Re: On North Korea: [Re: JustScott]
Hauser Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/12/05
Posts: 2962
Loc: United States
Andy? That may be true, but they also didn't let a raving madman become Head of State of their country.

The people get the government that they deserve. If they vote like idiots, they get leaders like Hitler.

I'm not trying to simplify the significance of your statement Andy, but I really don't have much else to say about it, except perhaps this; It is not the responsibility of foreign governments to intervene on behalf of another country's citizens, especially when their military isn't equipped for forward operations.

They had a DEFENSIVE military doctrine and the appropriate military for it, they weren't equipped to intervene in the affairs of other countries, nor were they morally obligated to do it.


Top
#289745 - 06/01/09 01:38 AM Re: On North Korea: [Re: Hauser]
michael banks Offline


Registered: 06/12/08
Posts: 1755
Loc: Mojave Desert, Ca
Alan,

I find it interesting that Libya's Muammar Qaddafi has change his whole attitude since the invasion of Iraq. The mad man of no.Africa is actually being a good citzen for a change. Think it might be because the U.S. finally stopped playing footsie with saddam and he was afraid his name might come up next.
Not that I was in favor of Little George using the american armed forces to take care of some old family business. He should have kept his focus on Ben ladden and his merry band of regilious idiots. Maybe we could have gotten him by now.

Could we not kill two birds with one stone if we can act in a timely and decisive matter in regards to the No. Koreans. Just may awaken the Iranians to what the stakes maybe for them.

When momma rants and raves no one pays attention but when she pulls out the belt. She has everyones attention. Just how children are.

If not us then who then Alan? The Russians or Chinese.

Without merit and laughtable could be applied to the post that orginated this thread.

Mike

_________________________
To own one's shadow is the highest moral act of a human.
-Robert Johnson-

"IT ought never be forgotten that the past is the parent of the future" John C. Calhoun

WOR Alumni Sequoia 2009

Top
#289764 - 06/01/09 07:35 AM Re: On North Korea: [Re: michael banks]
AndyJB2005 Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/14/06
Posts: 1245
Loc: Saint Paul, Minnesota
I fear a world where we only worry about ourselves and our own.

Just imagine how we would feel or did feel if no one cared about kids being abused because it didn't directly effect us. No one *has* to help kids, but should they because it's the right thing to do?

_________________________
Life's disappointments are harder to take when you don't know any swear words. -- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes)

Top
#289775 - 06/01/09 08:26 AM Re: On North Korea: [Re: AndyJB2005]
Hauser Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/12/05
Posts: 2962
Loc: United States
Mike? You're losing me here.

Why are you assuming that something HAS to be done to NK? They're an isolated and impoverished regime. Why are you assuming that we carry some mantle of responsibility to police the world? China has 5 times our population and a growing economy and NK is totally dependent on them for all of their imports, including coal, food, etc. What part of the Empire of America is broke don't you understand? We don't have any money. All we can do is borrow it from the Chinese and Arabs or simply print more money to pay to "Make the world safe for Democracy" or whatever grandiose dream you're contemplating when you entertain "taking out" NK. Have you ever considered that ANOTHER unintended consequence of our foreign policy is that it now teaches countries like Iran to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible?

It's as simple as this. NK has nukes now, and there's not a damned thing we dare do about it, because NOW they can fight back and inflict losses on us that we now won't dare risk. Another reason we can't do a damn thing about it is because CHINA isn't going to force them to change their ways. So why does our puppet-in-chief talk just like all his predecessors and say stupid things like "A nuclear-armed NK is unacceptable". What an idiot.

Andy? Let me ask you a moral question, ok?

Let's say you're neighbor next door is beating his wife and you want to put a stop to it. Would it be moral for you to FORCE ME to help you stop him from beating his wife? The answer is: no.
Do you have the moral right to voluntarily stop him yourself? Yes. Do you have a right to try to convince me of the just cause of stopping him from hitting her? Yes. Would you have a moral right to point a gun at me and force me to help you in stopping him from beating his wife? No.

The preceding examples are over-simplified, but to extrapolate it to the realm or governments and citizens is not far a stretch. In the case of, for instance, Iraq, we American citizens had a gun pointed at our heads and were FORCED to pay for a war that most people now regret having gotten into. In other words, just try not paying your taxes that you know would be funding the war, and see what happens when you don't comply.


Top
#289841 - 06/01/09 04:18 PM Re: On North Korea: [Re: Hauser]
michael banks Offline


Registered: 06/12/08
Posts: 1755
Loc: Mojave Desert, Ca
.





Edited by michael banks (06/01/09 09:57 PM)
_________________________
To own one's shadow is the highest moral act of a human.
-Robert Johnson-

"IT ought never be forgotten that the past is the parent of the future" John C. Calhoun

WOR Alumni Sequoia 2009

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2


Moderator:  ModTeam, TJ jeff 

I agree that my access and use of the MaleSurvivor discussion forums and chat room is subject to the terms of this Agreement. AND the sole discretion of MaleSurvivor.
I agree that my use of MaleSurvivor resources are AT-WILL, and that my posting privileges may be terminated at any time, and for any reason by MaleSurvivor.