Newest Members
SiegmundNYC, TheGreatWhat, MyNameIsPaul, serenity38, vivo
12486 Registered Users
Today's Birthdays
Can-tex (45), cbchorn (41)
Who's Online
2 registered (Banjo596, 1 invisible), 11 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
12486 Members
74 Forums
64149 Topics
447593 Posts

Max Online: 418 @ 07/02/12 07:29 AM
Twitter
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#289517 - 05/30/09 03:30 PM On North Korea:
Hauser Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/12/05
Posts: 2962
Loc: United States
So utters the words of our great puppet-in-chief Mr. Obama; “The world will not stand for a Nuclear-Armed North Korea”.

Let me translate that for you;

“American politicians know that we can’t do a damned thing to a country that is willing and able to defend itself with Nuclear Weapons and the 4th largest Army in the world, and since we won’t change our interventionist\dictator-propping foreign policy, we have to worry about NK selling the weapons or technology aboard to countries or terrorists who might eventually use them against us”.

Isn’t it ironic that, say, Sweden and Switzerland don’t seem the least bit worried about who has nuclear weapons? Can you think of a terrorist that has the slightest notion of blowing up Helsinki, or Zurich? Have you ever thought of why that is? Might that have something to do with these countries minding their own damned business and not meddling in the affairs of far-away countries by propping up foreign dictators and policing the world and invading and occupying sovereign countries and taking sides in every petty little dispute between 3rd world countries?

Golly gee Mr. Obama, maybe if you stopped pissing off everyone around the world like your predecessors, our country could stop worrying about who has what weapons? But no, you won’t change your foreign policy, you’ll keep occupying Iraq, you’ll keep bombing innocent people in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and you’ll keep telling Isreal and Palestinians what to do and where to live and how to live, you’ll keep policing the world (except Africa of course, nobody cares what happens there).

Wait! I have an idea! Let’s start a war by interdicting the shipping of a sovereign country called North Korea!!! Let’s call their bluff!!!! They have 20 thousand guns trained on Seoul, and they promised there would be a “Sea of Fire” if we interdicted their export ships. Let’s call their bluff!!!!



Top
#289520 - 05/30/09 04:04 PM Re: On North Korea: [Re: Hauser]
pufferfish Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 02/26/08
Posts: 6875
Loc: USA
The day after N. Korea had its tests, our U.S. Air Force was conducting strategic rehearsals in the air

Allen

pufferfish whistle





Edited by pufferfish (05/30/09 11:53 PM)
Edit Reason: changed games to rehearsals

Top
#289536 - 05/30/09 05:34 PM Re: On North Korea: [Re: pufferfish]
Jaifian Offline


Registered: 05/26/09
Posts: 220
Loc: washington state, USA
I'm just not so sure we're in a position to say that we are fit to have nuclear weapons and other countries aren't when we are the only country to have ever actually used them against another country.

I think it won't be long at all before everyone's finger will be on the doomsday button no matter how things play out and then we will either have to destroy ourselves and become just another species that didn't work or become a species that does work somehow.

I'm not placing any bets either way.. just crossing my fingers I guess.




Top
#289546 - 05/30/09 07:34 PM Re: On North Korea: [Re: Jaifian]
michael banks Offline


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

Sorry to inform you but president Obama didn't create this foreign policy mess only inherited it from Harry S Truman. Who should have allowed Gen. Mccarthur to finish the Korean War. We would not still be exposing our troops their dangers to this day.
Have to ever talked to a So.Korean who lives near the dmz about how they feel about our government policy towards No.Korea. Or the fact our troops are there to deferr the No. Koreans from attacking. I have and they are DAMN glad we are there.
Also if I remember my facts right it was the No.Koreans who invaded So Korea. and not us invading No. Korea.
Alot of this posturing is in regards to Kim jong's ill health.
And this guy does not have all his marbles to begin with just look at the conditions that the No. Koreans are living under.
The only ace in the hole that No. Korea has is it's nuclear and missile program. To threaten the world to help them out.
And if they conitue to take this couarse of action and ill rational behavior. I feel we and our allise should take whatever action is necessary to take out their capabilities and silence this threat once and for all.

If Hilter taught us one thing, it is that madmen don't stop till their stopped. Madmen only respect strenght.

And if Kim Jong and the No.Koreans won't stop playing this game of brinkmanship. I feel that we should nuke them back into the stone age (if necessary) before they can actually deliver a nuclear warhead into my backyard. And the conditions they now living under that would not be a very big step back.

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
#289593 - 05/30/09 10:33 PM Re: On North Korea: [Re: michael banks]
king tut Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 02/13/08
Posts: 2469
Loc: UK
.



Edited by king tut (05/30/09 11:35 PM)
_________________________
"...until lambs become lions"

I love you, little lewis, and i will never leave you. We are the same. You brighten my day, and i will make sure that i brighten yours. Hugs and kisses.


Top
#289597 - 05/30/09 10:42 PM Re: On North Korea: [Re: michael banks]
Hauser Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

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

Let me get this right, ok?

You're advocating attacking them first? Wow......ummm ok. But under what pretense though? Why are they not allowed to have Nukes, where as the Israelis or the Pakistanis or the Chinese can have them? Where is the moral basis of that, or more importantly, what is the PRACTICAL basis of that?

Take China for instance, Back in the 50's and early 60's, we could have taken the same hard line stance with China, we could have said "You're bad evil commie bastards and the world won't stand for a Nuclear-armed China." But we didn't take that route. No. Instead, we TRADED with them. We peacfully traded with them even though we knew Mao Tse Tung and his friends were killing millions of his own people!

And look at China now.........they're becoming more and more capitalistic as time goes on, where as our country is rocketing straight into fascism and socialistic policies. How ironic.

I mean, COME ON you guys, do you REALLY think NK would be stupid enough to "start a war" with one of their immediate neighbors? The pinheads leading that country are many things, but they're not suicidal.

I don't know HOW our "leaders" can be so upset and intimidated by a country that can't even feed itself.


Top
#289604 - 05/30/09 11:17 PM Re: On North Korea: [Re: Hauser]
michael banks Offline


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

I know my view is hardline because those guys in no. Korea don't understand anything else. But the time for playing footsie with these idiots is over.

I don't think that the U.S, or anybody else has the right to dictate what technology any country may have. But when said country is doing it to intimidate and threaten their neightbors and the rest of the world. Then there behaviors can no longer be ignored.

Just ask British Prime Ministry Chamberlain if if you can placate madmen who do only what is in their best intersted. Or bury our heads in the sand to the threat posed by No. Korea as Chamberlain did with Hilter so many years ago. And what was the result of that policy was it not WWII.

Alan, the No.Koreans did start a war and invade it's closes neightbor. Is that not why americans such as myself have been serving and maintaining peace over there since the 50's.

The no.korean military has even more outdated equipment and weapons then the iraqis had. And how long did it take the U.S. military too take them out. Plus the no.korean ecomony is not even capable to sustain any type of conflict.

We don't even have to have war with them why not just remove their ability to produce nuclear fuel and their missle producing capacity. I am sure the Air force has the conventional weapons to do so without using nuclear weapons. We all ready have a nuclear naval task force and stealth bombers stationed in japan capable of taking out these sites.

Maybe if these idiots knew we are serious in our intent they may give more sreious thought to their behavior.

Or do we wait till a nuclear missile is on the way to Seattle, San fransico, or L.A.


Lewis,

There is alot of ugly people doing alot of ugly things to each other.
and too many people just turning and looking the other way.
I agree with your point that something needs to be done.

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
#289612 - 05/30/09 11:49 PM Re: On North Korea: [Re: michael banks]
JustScott Offline
Greeter Emeritus
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 01/27/08
Posts: 2590
Quote:
Or do we wait till a nuclear missile is on the way to Seattle, San Fransisco, or L.A.


Actually... for some that would be an absolutely wonderful and favorable thing to do.

The US people would be scared shitless, and then they'll agree to any "fascist/commie" policy that is suggested if it means they'l be "safe" from whatever it is their afraid of at the time.

After all, it was recently said by quite a few in power in our country, "Never let a good crisis go to waste!!"

Call me a conspiracy theorist. >:)


Top
#289616 - 05/31/09 12:03 AM Re: On North Korea: [Re: JustScott]
michael banks Offline


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

Maybe you and Alan should move over to China for a few years and see how horrible you actually have it here.
I perfer to live in a country where you are allow to speak your mind and have opinions. To believe in conspiracies if you so choose.
I have been on that side of the world.

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
#289617 - 05/31/09 12:05 AM Re: On North Korea: [Re: michael banks]
JustScott Offline
Greeter Emeritus
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 01/27/08
Posts: 2590
Oh I've never said that I have it horrible here. Never would I dain to say such a thing. I've been to various countries in order to help and assist and I've seen how bad it is in others places.

I was just saying that when it comes to doing something or not doing.... there are those who would wait to do anything so that THEY could benefit from the situation.


Top
#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: 2590
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 1 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.