Printable View
It is absolutely outrageous to me that there are entire societies held captive by the small handfull who wish
to impose their sadistic will;
(Former)Sadam Husien's Iraq
Kim Jong II's North Korea
et al
Should we fight every one of them?
Answer.....YES
NO
Kim Jongs got nukes and his people think hes god. if we attack everyone dies :o
ironic how you called this thread "society held captive" and you think like this
You buying?Quote:
Originally posted by clintonesque@31 May 2003 - 13:25
Should we fight every one of them?
Answer.....YES
This may be a simplistic and pessimistic view of history. But, I think people as a whole (anywhere) are basically sheep looking for shepherds. Unfortunately, some shepherds turn out to be wolves leading their sheep to the slaughterhouse. And unfortunately, some sheep are willing to allow this as long as the trip to the slaughterhouse is a reasonably comfortable trip.
WTF. i mean, wow thats deep dude
Most people in North Korea do not think of their ruler as a god, they are too busy looking for their next meal.
If only one small corner of our world is denied it's basic freedoms & needs we all are worse off.
At what point do civilized peoples intervene?
At what point do we justify going to war?
Is war justified?
Sometimes war is necessary, but it is a failing on our part.
We live in dangerous times..still
So how about we start with Africa then? Around 24,000 people a day die of hunger. It's unfortunate that they've been "lost" amongst all these "human rights" dramas.Quote:
Originally posted by clintonesque@31 May 2003 - 21:22
...If only one small corner of our world is denied it's basic freedoms & needs we all are worse off...
:ninja:
Very true(of Africa), so what do we do when despotic governments use and abuse UN shipments of food for their own political goals/agendas?
Do we go to war alittle or alot?
(lol).
Or do we simply ask them to stop.
The trouble with goverment (and I mean governments everywhere) is that there is too much politics.
If we are to get involved with Africa it would require the efforts of the whole world.
whether they are starving or not thats how theyve been brought up, they see him everywhere. if he wants to nuke us theres nothing to stop him,Quote:
Most people in North Korea do not think of their ruler as a god, they are too busy looking for their next meal.
so if people like you provoke him he will
I think you´ll find that it´s the Shepherd that would take the sheep to the slaughterhouse.Quote:
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@31 May 2003 - 19:53
This may be a simplistic and pessimistic view of history. But, I think people as a whole (anywhere) are basically sheep looking for shepherds. Unfortunately, some shepherds turn out to be wolves leading their sheep to the slaughterhouse. And unfortunately, some sheep are willing to allow this as long as the trip to the slaughterhouse is a reasonably comfortable trip.
The wolf is more likely to do what it wants there and then.
I think you´ll find that it´s the Shepherd that would take the sheep to the slaughterhouse.Quote:
Originally posted by PB Montgolfier+31 May 2003 - 20:54--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PB Montgolfier @ 31 May 2003 - 20:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--OlderThanDirt@31 May 2003 - 19:53
This may be a simplistic and pessimistic view of history. But, I think people as a whole (anywhere) are basically sheep looking for shepherds. Unfortunately, some shepherds turn out to be wolves leading their sheep to the slaughterhouse. And unfortunately, some sheep are willing to allow this as long as the trip to the slaughterhouse is a reasonably comfortable trip.
The wolf is more likely to do what it wants there and then. [/b][/quote]
:lol:
"whether they are starving or not thats how theyve been brought up, they see him everywhere. if he wants to nuke us theres nothing to stop him,
so if people like you provoke him he will "
So we will just let him have his way with little or no consequence shall we?
While his people starve.
We are brought up to believe alot of things that are not true.
Sometimes the awakening is hard and sometimes it is enlightening.
For the people of North Korea it will be hard & somebody is going to die.
Stick to the cultural imperialism my American friends. You are much better at it.
Just look at someone in Moscow, eating a Big Mac, with Mikey Mouse ears, on there way to see the latest Hollywood movie.
no, no, no, no, no, no, DICK :angry:
iraq had pee-shooters they couldnt even reach us until we invaded. people didnt believe they had lost even when they could see troops. some where desperate enough to fight to the death.
n.korea has less freedom than that, they do have weapons of mass destruction, they can attack us in the sea.
we are talking about weapons that instantly kill everyone within 10 miles, slowly kills everyone within 30 miles and possibly everyone with 100 miles.
"It is absolutely outrageous to me that there are entire societies held captive by the small handfull who wish
to impose their sadistic will;
(Former)Sadam Husien's Iraq
Kim Jong II's North Korea
et al
Should we fight every one of them?
Answer.....YES"
Probably should have phrased this better.
What I mean by "fight" is to aggressively condem, but not exclude going to war.
Of course some may say; Why should we sacrifice our children for some peoples rights in some far-off place?
1) Those who have the power to effect change should do so for those who cannot.
2) If only one small corner of our world is denied it's basic freedoms & needs we all are worse off.
3) tyranny should never be allowed to flourish anywhere.
My question remains "TheDave" , Do we allow them to do whatever they please with little or no consequence?
Obviously going to war with them (N.Korea) would be disastrous.
yeah, but people see it as interfering and they dont like it. the US cant just govern the world
Oh.Quote:
Originally posted by clintonesque@31 May 2003 - 15:25
Probably should have phrased this better.
What I mean by "fight" is to aggressively condem, but not exclude going to war.
Well that does change things.
What I meant by "You buying?" was "Are you buying?".
Yes that is true & I respect your opinion.
The US can't govern the world.
At what point does our lack of interference make us (the World) an acomplice to the tyranny of others simply by our indifference or lack of action?
What does it take for reasonable/civilized peoples to become involved in the sufferings of others.
If we only act when genocide occurs then we are obviously too late.
And if we do nothing, then what are we?
I don't agree with shipping American culture all over the world, it's repugnant.
I love the diversity of the human condition both cultural & religious.
I may not like some cultures or religions but I respect their right to exist.
Bying what clocker? the American position on international affairs?
I read in the paper today that during our incursion into Iraq the US fired 750 missiles. At a million a pop.
We no longer have the draft.
We have spent a LOT of political currancy in the past 3 months.
When I ask "You buying?", what I mean is how do you propose to finance our new role as World Cop? How do we take on EVERY bad guy out there?
I don't want to pay for all of it!
The world should, or at least the free world should help pay for it's policeing.
Europe could do more!
Europe could do alot more!
They have been sort of reticent lately, don't you think?
Yes, and I wonder why.
..especially the French & Germans.
Perhaps, given that they have a culture more than 25 minutes old, they feel that they must respect others right to be different from them. As opposed to the attitude that, since we have no heritage we must ensure that no-one else has either.
It's an old ploy. Rather than raise yourself to the level of others, simply lower them to your's. It 's the direct result of being a mongrel society.
woof!
now there's the JPaul we all know and love!
Just time here for two (maybe four) cents worth: A plan for the African continent, contingent on a successful conclusion to events in the Mideast.
We should go into Africa (with U.N. help, OF COURSE!) and take out Qaddhafi in Libya, continuing into the Sudan, taking care of "business" along the way. The U.N. can put together a coalition to dog our tracks if they like, so as to begin and sustain the humanitarian effort and conduct the feeding of the poor (I suggest a hearty French cuisine), the fighting of epidemics (German drugs are the best!) and the redevelopment of infrastructure (EVERYBODY-ANTE UP!). These tasks are necessary and should serve to circumscribe the limits and scope of U.N. involvement; as it is not a suitable organ to address any matters beyond those described here.
The U.S., and any concommitant allies, should be solely responsible (that is to say, U.N. should be enjoined) for determination of matters pertaining to the various national interests, war, peace, and human rights of the countries involved.
The benefits of such a campaign would be manifold:
For the first time ever, the twin banes of African existence; disease and starvation, could be comprehensively addressed by the institution(s) best suited; the U.N. and it's designates.
Likewise, the U.S., et.al., could perform those tasks at which they are unexcelled-kicking ass on bad guys.
The U.N. could commence it's rehabilitation, and, once and for all, prove it is more than just an extreme waste of otherwise valuable commercial space on the East River in the Big Apple.
Kofi Annan could "put up" without "shutting up".
The French and Germans could recoup some of the money they "lost" in Iraq.
Without Qaddhafi around, the rampant corruption plaguing north and central Africa would no longer hinder normal positive growth.
The focus of the massed international media could be shifted to Africa, bringing with it the attendant pseudo-tourist dollars (there are enough of them to populate a small country).
To those who wonder about North Korea:
The U.S. should proceed apace with the immediate removal of every last shred of it's existence in South Korea, and let the chips fall where they may; North Korea, if it chose to fight, would be vanquished by the South in a relatively short but very bloody war; if China weighs in at all, it will be with an eye toward disabling any nuclear threat such as exists. Russia would not interfere. Japan would scream bloody murder, but they would be assuaged.
Re-assess the balance of power afterward, and everybody MOVE ON!
Just off the top of my head......
Yes sir PB, you've got a point.Us no-heritage mongrels need an example to look up to and emulate. France? Germany? Belgium? Scotland? Naw...far too young, don't you think? We need someone OLDER.Quote:
Originally posted by PB Montgolfier@31 May 2003 - 17:15
Perhaps, given that they have a culture more than 25 minutes old, they feel that they must respect others right to be different from them. As opposed to the attitude that, since we have no heritage we must ensure that no-one else has either.
Like Korea.
Yeah!
They're thousands of years old- should be perfect.
My guess is that if a bastardized, greed driven, mongrel company like McDonalds were to open in the DPRK, KIM Chong-il's culturally superior masses would trample him into a bloody memory trying to get their hands on a Big Mac.
But since we have no heritage I suppose it would be presumptious to even imagine such a scenario.
I'll just lay back and watch how you older and more mature folks deal with the situation.
You're up!
OK
Well, coming from a mongrel country that has spent the best part of its history raping the natural resources of less powerful nations...
My conclusion is that whatever anyone does in the west to aid those elsewhere they will be looked upon as invaders...
back to the media thread I am afraid...but propaganda will win.....the west will be pilloried for its attempts at imposing its vision on others and having ulterior motives (can we be sure that powerful western corporations would not move in like vultures once the dust settles and the infrastructure is destroyed?)
One other point....the UN will NEVER get its act together for fear of upsetting its members...and Europe will NEVER agree with itself never mind with the US on foreign policy. So as enticing as it is to try and solve the worlds ills, ultimately...we will pretty much have to wait most of it out until either we are attacked directly or the dictator dies or the people revolt...an unhappy but inevitable situation....
Nah. There are not only wolves in sheep's clothing, there are wolves in shepherd's clothing. B)Quote:
PB Montgolfier wrote:
I think you´ll find that it´s the Shepherd that would take the sheep to the slaughterhouse.Quote:
(OlderThanDirt @ 31 May 2003 - 19:53)
This may be a simplistic and pessimistic view of history. But, I think people as a whole (anywhere) are basically sheep looking for shepherds. Unfortunately, some shepherds turn out to be wolves leading their sheep to the slaughterhouse. And unfortunately, some sheep are willing to allow this as long as the trip to the slaughterhouse is a reasonably comfortable trip.
The wolf is more likely to do what it wants there and then.
I think im with Sarah.Quote:
Originally posted by sara5564@1 June 2003 - 01:03
Well, coming from a mongrel country that has spent the best part of its history raping the natural resources of less powerful nations...
My conclusion is that whatever anyone does in the west to aid those elsewhere they will be looked upon as invaders...
back to the media thread I am afraid...but propaganda will win.....the west will be pilloried for its attempts at imposing its vision on others and having ulterior motives (can we be sure that powerful western corporations would not move in like vultures once the dust settles and the infrastructure is destroyed?)
One other point....the UN will NEVER get its act together for fear of upsetting its members...and Europe will NEVER agree with itself never mind with the US on foreign policy. So as enticing as it is to try and solve the worlds ills, ultimately...we will pretty much have to wait most of it out until either we are attacked directly or the dictator dies or the people revolt...an unhappy but inevitable situation....
Being a mongrel and all.......
It's one thing to twist an analogy, however you are just kicking the $h1t out of this one. Let it die in peace.Quote:
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@1 June 2003 - 01:44
Nah. There are not only wolves in sheep's clothing, there are wolves in shepherd's clothing. B)Quote:
PB Montgolfier wrote:
I think you´ll find that it´s the Shepherd that would take the sheep to the slaughterhouse.Quote:
(OlderThanDirt @ 31 May 2003 - 19:53)
This may be a simplistic and pessimistic view of history. But, I think people as a whole (anywhere) are basically sheep looking for shepherds. Unfortunately, some shepherds turn out to be wolves leading their sheep to the slaughterhouse. And unfortunately, some sheep are willing to allow this as long as the trip to the slaughterhouse is a reasonably comfortable trip.
The wolf is more likely to do what it wants there and then.
I beleive that the best answer for us the united states is to leave the u.n. We don't need some third world countries telling us what to do it is an outdated concept anyways. As far as europe the way we helped majority of the countries with aid and they turned on us at the flip of a dime proves that we don't need them.
I just have to ask you man, if this is how you feel... when will the rest of the world bring war to our gov't for denial of our basic freedoms? The U.S. offers nothing more than a false sense of freedom. Do you know we have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?Quote:
Originally posted by clintonesque@31 May 2003 - 20:22
Most people in North Korea do not think of their ruler as a god, they are too busy looking for their next meal.
If only one small corner of our world is denied it's basic freedoms & needs we all are worse off.
At what point do civilized peoples intervene?
At what point do we justify going to war?
Is war justified?
Sometimes war is necessary, but it is a failing on our part.
We live in dangerous times..still
Life? Really? Well, allowing prisoner execution is a violation of that right, whether that person took a life themselves or not. The government's job is not to play God. It is an established fact that life in prison is cheaper to taxpayers than execution, so what purpose does it serve other than revenge? Should the government of a free society be allowed to carry out revenge, in the biblical sense of "an eye for an eye"? What about separation of church and state?
Liberty? Really? Media censorship of any kind is a denial of liberty... and that includes censorship from the gov't and the media itself! Afterall, it is the big, rich, executives of the networks that decide what is aired and what is not!
And Pursuit of Happiness? Really? Tell that to the millions of people living in poverty, on the streets, or starving right here in our own backyard and watch them spit in your face, or possibly put a cap in your arrogant ass.
Give people zero opportunity to overcome their beginnings, then sit around and bitch about having to pay taxes on welfare... sounds real humanitarian to me!
I would like to see some Americans around here start speaking up about the truly evil aspects of this government and stop letting their greed and American arrogance control their patriotism. In other words, when the country is financially sound, everybody's happy.... as soon as it starts to go to sh*t, everybody complains. Anything that this country does concerning other countries is all a matter of money. A country that bothers with everyone else's problems, but cannot handle it's own deserves scrutiny, not respect and undying patriotism.
Wow. I'm going to find myself defending America. That's a..refreshing change? :blink:
Capital punishment I've always been in favour for. He relinquished his right to life when he took an innocent's (or innocents'). And yes, most often the people who receive a death sentence are male, just as there aren't many female serial killers. You won't get on death row for killing a single person, generally. Killing a single person, and their entire family, perhaps. An eye for an eye, in that example, would be executing not just the muderer, but his entire family as well. The punishment should fit the crime. Consider that "life" usually means 10-25 years in prison, perhaps less accounting for "good behaviour" and parole, I should be dead. Perhaps a "life" sentence of 25 years would work in some of the more poverty-stricken third-world countries, but certainly not in the US, where the average life expectancy is 76.9 years. Also consider that some of the more destitute commit crimes just so that they can go to prison (they get regular meals, a roof, a warm bed, regular exercise and medical care...doesn't sound too bad). Futhermore, most financial calculations typically do not take into account that much of the legal counseling for death row inmates is pro bono, which does not cost the taxpayer. Most executions world-wide are substantially cheaper than life imprisonment costs, and the capital punishment/life imprisonment finance statement doesn't factor in anything but the United States' usage. I would hazard the guess that most executions in less-developed countries require a single (or perhaps a pair) of bullets and a somewhat adequate gun, a length of rope, or a pile of stones. You can't get much cheaper than rocks.
You're connected to this (mostly) world-wide invention that'll allow you information from most any part of the world. If you want to see other countries' perspectives of the US, feel free. They've got newspapers. If you're content to watch FOX News and decry its bias, it becomes your own fault, as there isn't one media source in the world entire that is bias-free. As it is, the majority of Americans can't be bothered. One need only check the apathy ratings when the next election rolls around.
Certainly, if you can show me a country where there are no rich and no poor, and everyone is absolutely equal, I'll move there. The only thing that'd come close is the ideal Communistic country, which, oddly enough, hasn't appeared. Additionally, feel free to point out a country that has no domestic affairs of its own.
Anything any country does with any other country is eventually tied into finance. Either they help out a buddy because they've got some valuable resource, they help out one more neutral in the hopes of gaining a potential ally, or they help out a (perhaps unwilling) one that detests them, so that they can say "Look how decent and kind-hearted we are. These people hate us, but we're giving them peanut-butter sandwiches!" Good press equals a favourable light for those who may be more inclined to reciprocate financially.
:ninja:
Try living in some of these pathetic totalitarian/Autocratic governing countries
angellynn26, and I'm sure you will have a fresh new outlook on life.
Very easy to criticize something you have never been without.
Life, Liberty, & Justice.
I just have to ask you man, if this is how you feel... when will the rest of the world bring war to our gov't for denial of our basic freedoms? The U.S. offers nothing more than a false sense of freedom. Do you know we have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?Quote:
Originally posted by angellynn26+16 June 2003 - 16:00--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (angellynn26 @ 16 June 2003 - 16:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clintonesque@31 May 2003 - 20:22
Most people in North Korea do not think of their ruler as a god, they are too busy looking for their next meal.
If only one small corner of our world is denied it's basic freedoms & needs we all are worse off.
At what point do civilized peoples intervene?
At what point do we justify going to war?
Is war justified?
Sometimes war is necessary, but it is a failing on our part.
We live in dangerous times..still
Life? Really? Well, allowing prisoner execution is a violation of that right, whether that person took a life themselves or not. The government's job is not to play God. It is an established fact that life in prison is cheaper to taxpayers than execution, so what purpose does it serve other than revenge? Should the government of a free society be allowed to carry out revenge, in the biblical sense of "an eye for an eye"? What about separation of church and state?
Liberty? Really? Media censorship of any kind is a denial of liberty... and that includes censorship from the gov't and the media itself! Afterall, it is the big, rich, executives of the networks that decide what is aired and what is not!
And Pursuit of Happiness? Really? Tell that to the millions of people living in poverty, on the streets, or starving right here in our own backyard and watch them spit in your face, or possibly put a cap in your arrogant ass.
Give people zero opportunity to overcome their beginnings, then sit around and bitch about having to pay taxes on welfare... sounds real humanitarian to me!
I would like to see some Americans around here start speaking up about the truly evil aspects of this government and stop letting their greed and American arrogance control their patriotism. In other words, when the country is financially sound, everybody's happy.... as soon as it starts to go to sh*t, everybody complains. Anything that this country does concerning other countries is all a matter of money. A country that bothers with everyone else's problems, but cannot handle it's own deserves scrutiny, not respect and undying patriotism. [/b][/quote]
You really don't have the slightest idea, do you? :huh: