Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57

Thread: And What About North Korea?

  1. #31
    jetje's Avatar former star
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    4,520
    Yes hope there will be hundreds of thousands B)

  2. Lounge   -   #32
    Rat Faced's Avatar Broken
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Newcasil
    Age
    55
    Posts
    8,811
    Originally posted by SuperJude™@14 February 2003 - 02:51
    Japan, Korea, vietnam. Hell we'll go back to the Phillipines even.

    It is a widely held belief in these parts that Asians are the fiercest fighters in the world, and I do not think we are itching to get into another conflict in the far east.

    Iraq (part 1) and Afghanistan pretty much just laid down, while every Asian conflict we have been in has amounted to severe casualties.

    Just something to think about.

    -SJ™
    Instead of going over Jetje's points again, apart from agreeing and adding AGAIN...there is no link between Iraq and Al Queda, so i cant take any argument based on 'Terrorism' for attacking Iraq seriously...

    There was a Venezuelan arrested at Heathrow the other day with a live grenade. By the logic your using about 'hitting the terrorists', we should look around and invade say Brazil.....because that country is in the right part of the world and has lots of Natural Resources we could do with.



    I'll agree with SJ on his post i've quoted instead.

    Apart from pointing out the obvious Japanese in WWII, there was also the Burmese 'resistance' at that time..The Vietnamese as mentioned etc etc.

    But from personal experiance and admiration, i'll turn to the British Army....or rather part of it.

    The Ghurkas are, in my opinion the best 'natural' soldiers in the British Army by far, and quite possibly the world. Im not talking 'specialist', such as Samuri or SAS etc...im talking natural "SOLDIER"

    Their normal training puts them almost into the catagory of Special Forces, and Im proud to have them as part of the British Army.

    I'll also add a short political statement, that will mean nothing except to the UK contingent....They are treat appalingly by the British Government, and should have EVERY RIGHT AND PRIVELAGE as any other British Soldier, including Full Pensions and all that goes with it. Because by god they earn it, compared to the normal British Squadie.


    As to the post about throwing nukes about in South East Asia.....grow up. You really think China will sit still for that? Im in the UK....we got fallout from Chernabel for godsake and we are thousands of miles away, that wasnt even a bomb!

    North Korea may well invade South Korea, i hope not but wont discount it. China is the only power that can stop this, not the USA.....and not Russia. In case you havent noticed, Russia has its own problems and wouldnt be able to do anything even if it was interested.

    An It Harm None, Do What You Will

  3. Lounge   -   #33
    JunkBarMan's Avatar Milk Sucks,Got Beer?
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    320
    jetje you are so wrong in your opinion that I am sick by your point of view. You live in a fog clouded world when you say "we provoke the terroist states", and the go on to say "Btw why i quoted terrorist states, there are none"...So what exactly are you trying to say with these two contradicting statements?


    Next you go on to say "We need to help the politicians have fair trades for their countries, take them serious. The only thing we all have to do is share the wealth we have with all in the world. A happy man is a peacefull man. Not a frightend one he wants war (look at the US governement it's fear driven, fear for terrorism)" I ask you to look at yourselves (South Korea) and then let me know you have helped the world with your passive aggresive attitudes. Do you think the leader of North Korea is a happy man? if by what you say" a happy man is a peaceful man", then you would also say that he is peaceful then, right?

    I really would like to go on and on and point how YOUR thoughts are so far off base, but you really wouldn't have anything good to come back with? Name one other country you would like to see on your side, in war time or peace.......and tell me why.

    Rat Faced i dont know what cave you live in, But, "there is no link between Iraq and Al Queda, so i cant take any argument based on 'Terrorism' for attacking Iraq seriously..." Considering the CIA(central intelligence agency for you america haters) Just yesterday went in front of the world and point out 12 specific Al Queda groups operating in and around Iraq, so exactly where do you not see a connection?
    If you thinks this is such Bs, then why is the Brits backing the USA on this one? I think i saw your PM standing next our president saying that these terrorists need to be taken care of.

    I am so sick of America helping and aiding the rest of the world and then getting bit in the ass for doing it. But when the crap starts to fling around the next time, guess who everyone asks for help from? USA, thats who.....
    Today is the day.

  4. Lounge   -   #34
    Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Heaven69
    Posts
    362
    There is something so idiotic about this post that I had to login and reply. Not that I'm sure that Jetje and Rat Face will have an adequate rebuke for what is clearly an insult.

    Originally posted by JunkBarMan+15 February 2003 - 05:18--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JunkBarMan @ 15 February 2003 - 05:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>jetje you are so wrong in your opinion that I am sick by your point of view. You live in a fog clouded world when you say "we provoke the terroist states", and the go on to say "Btw why i quoted terrorist states, there are none"...So what exactly are you trying to say with these two contradicting statements?[/b]

    Well actually the US does provoke states, just whether they are terrorist or fit that definition (who&#39;s), is up for debate. Many freedom-fighters, including Nelson Mandela have been labeled Terrorists at some time. Btw. don&#39;t confuse my words, with the fact that the WTC-distaster really was a terrorist act&#33; These are 2 seperate issues.

    Originally posted by [email protected] February 2003 - 05:18
    Next you go on to say "We need to help the politicians have fair trades for their countries, take them serious. The only thing we all have to do is share the wealth we have with all in the world. A happy man is a peacefull man. Not a frightend one he wants war (look at the US governement it&#39;s fear driven, fear for terrorism)" I ask you to look at yourselves (South Korea) and then let me know you have helped the world with your passive aggresive attitudes.
    Jetje is Dutch, it&#39;s El Jefe that lives in S. Korea, but actually he&#39;s American&#33; Maybe he&#39;s a spy?
    Originally posted by [email protected] February 2003 - 05:18
    Do you think the leader of North Korea is a happy man? if by what you say" a happy man is a peaceful man", then you would also say that he is peaceful then, right?
    Your statement does not provide a good argument, since N.Korea is under threat of war.

    Originally posted by [email protected] February 2003 - 05:18
    I really would like to go on and on and point how YOUR thoughts are so far off base, but you really wouldn&#39;t have anything good to come back with? Name one other country you would like to see on your side, in war time or peace.......and tell me why.
    In war, the side that wants peace, in peace, there are no sides.

    Originally posted by [email protected] February 2003 - 05:18
    Rat Faced i dont know what cave you in, But, "there is no link between Iraq and Al Queda, so i cant take any argument based on &#39;Terrorism&#39; for attaclive king Iraq seriously..." Considering the CIA(central intelligence agency for you america haters) Just yesterday went in front of the world and point out 12 specific Al Queda groups operating in and around Iraq, so exactly where do you not see a connection?
    Considering the US&#39;s and UK&#39;s governments&#39; rap-sheet in providing factual proof (show me&#33, I&#39;m not at all convinced, sorry&#33; I find Iraq&#39;s public statement that they are not associated with Al Queda more convincing.

    Originally posted by [email protected] February 2003 - 05:18
    If you thinks this is such Bs, then why is the Brits backing the USA on this one? I think i saw your PM standing next our president saying that these terrorists need to be taken care of.
    Do your research, the majority of the "limeys&#39; are against a war, about 65% last time I checked. As a matter of fact, a few days ago Blair issued a statement that supporting a war has been damaging to his reputation Britain&#39;s prime minister (I agree).

    In light of the last two quotes, please refrain from ever turning on a TV again and read a (non-american) history-book or two.

    <!--QuoteBegin--JunkBarMan
    @15 February 2003 - 05:18
    I am so sick of America helping and aiding the rest of the world and then getting bit in the ass for doing it. But when the crap starts to fling around the next time, guess who everyone asks for help from? USA, thats who.....[/quote] I&#39;m also sick of hearing that statement. There are very few times that America was asked to help, and when they did help, they did so if it served them well. [Sarcasm]Thank you so much for helping us in WWII, I sincerely hope that our (monetary) repayments have been sufficient in making the US even more powerful (and arrogant).[/Sarcasm]

    As my usual end-note I&#39;d like to add that this is a war of governements, ie. power-hungry people, not of actual citizens (mere tools of governments), like us here. Please try to remain objective about matters of the world, since there is no single side, no single logic, and no single race to take into account&#33;

    One world = many people = many opinions.

  5. Lounge   -   #35
    Originally posted by JunkBarMan@15 February 2003 - 05:18
    Considering the CIA(central intelligence agency for you america haters) Just yesterday went in front of the world and point out 12 specific Al Queda groups operating in and around Iraq, so exactly where do you not see a connection?
    Don&#39;t you see it&#39;s just manipulation. The US government & its agencies may be able to manipulate American minds, but they can&#39;t manipulate the world as they used to. And it seems that they don&#39;t understand it. See what&#39;s they&#39;ve done with the last so-called Bin Ladden voice message. Only Americans think it&#39;s real, but we all know it&#39;s a fake made by your &#39;great&#39; intelligence agency.

    Btw, it seems that&#39;s there&#39;s no free press in the US : those who think different can&#39;t even access to the media, except via buying large advertisement space, and even that is not easy : some newspapers won&#39;t even sell them that space. Most US newspapers also don&#39;t report correctly the huge peace demonstrations held in Washington or NYC.

  6. Lounge   -   #36
    maximboy99
    Guest
    Jetje, tomorrow I will sit down and try to figure out exactly what you *ARE* arguing for. Until than, I will give you something to think about. If you do not understand this argument (which I dont think you will) I beg you to research WWII. An important lesson: Appeasement lead to World War II.

    The world made a mistake trying to conduct weapons inspections in Germany after WWI. At the time, it was believed as long as Germany was under international scruitany, they would dare not rebuild. The allies knew of Germany&#39;s failures to comply with inspectors. But popular thought dictated that militarily disarming Germany, would only further inflict wounds to a weak and DEFEATED country. We all know the course of Germany&#39;s actions in the following years. Several times the war weary Europeans favored appeasement. They allowed Germany to make small military victories, which eventually escalated to war in 1939. It still is amasing how simply enforcing their own rules, would have stopped WWII.

    Yet here we are, half a century later, facing a remarkably similar situation. The UN has failed to enforce its own resolutions. Europe, having not learned its lesson, cries for appeasement. The rest of the world, unequipped to handle this situation. America, firm in its resolve, marches to war. Leaving many critics of American policy leaping on an anti-war bandwagon. But what do they truly offer as a solution? Nothing. More complexly put: they offer continued inspections, which have failed to stop WMD proliferation. Further, the inspections have also shown Iraq has failed to comply with resolution 1441. What is a serious consequence to 12 years of failure to comply? Resumption of the first gulf war, which only ceased after Saddam accepted a peace agreement, but Saddam has broken his own peace agreement. The stipulations of peace were infact: FULL AND COMPLETE COOPERATION IN DISARMING. Period.

    Jetje, it just doesnt get more simple than this. When you lose a war, you sign a peace treaty. You follow that peace treaty or you get removed. Where is the confusion?

    (below is directed at Jetje)
    It must be that innocent people are going to die. I know it is sad. But life is sad for many people all over the world. It is sad that Iraqis will die in this war. But how many would die if the US waited? Do you not doubt Saddam will one day use WMD (he already has used chemical agents on his own people), one day obtain a nuclear missle? There are hundreds of ways in which allowing Saddam to continue evading inspections will lead to a much more dangerous world.

    Let us suppose for a moment that Saddam allowed Isreal to be attacked (suitcase nuclear bomb or biological agent or Scud attacks with Ricin tips etc). This is not entirely a hypothetical situation. Saddam has shown his willingness to attack innocent Israeli citizens. The Israeli response, a Nagasaki and Hiroshima of modern day proportions. Israel would fire its nukes into Iraq and possibly ignite a worldwide reaction. How many more would die than? Are you prepared to shoulder the moral responsibility of a third world war? Of a nuclear or biological catastrophe? No, because you supported peace. You fail to see your actions have consequences. You(Jetje) are blinded by years of American protectionism. Your freedom to discuss this matter with me, is entirely reliant upon 37,000 American soldiers risking their life for your ingratitude. Thats your ignorance. Theres your so called peace.

  7. Lounge   -   #37
    I&#39;ve read in the newspapers that the US army was planning to use forbidden chemcal "non lethal" weapons such as fentanyl in Irak. The US have ratified the convention on chemical weapons, so they&#39;re not allowed to use them.

    And they want to attack Irak cause they think this country have chemical weapons.

    Looks like a big paradoxe, don&#39;t you think ?

  8. Lounge   -   #38
    MagicNakor's Avatar On the Peripheral
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    5,313
    War is what happens when diplomacy fails.

    If you really want to bring up WWII, America didn&#39;t enter it until she was forced to. America also sold munitions to both sides.

    It&#39;s unlikely that Europe hasn&#39;t "learnt its lesson." Perhaps some of the "pacificts" have learnt from history. America didn&#39;t endure years of bloodshed on her soil. The war was already winding down by December 1941.

    "...Of course, the people don&#39;t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don&#39;t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

    "There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    -Hermann Goering and Gustave Gilbert
    things are quiet until hitler decides he'd like to invade russia
    so, he does
    the russians are like "OMG WTF D00DZ, STOP TKING"
    and the germans are still like "omg ph34r n00bz"
    the russians fall back, all the way to moscow
    and then they all begin h4xing, which brings on the russian winter
    the germans are like "wtf, h4x"
    -- WW2 for the l33t

  9. Lounge   -   #39
    jetje's Avatar former star
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    4,520
    What i can&#39;t believe in this debates is that there are in fact people who are in favor of war. It solves nothing. The situation in Afghanistan shows it again. "We" fought our battle over there an just left a out of control state with only feeding grounds for new terrorists. Instead of helping them to build a new state we go after the next one, which has nothing to do with terrorists. Here is the same thing as after WWI Germany had a feeding ground for rebuilding war cause the lack of help on the countrie. WWII prooved that if you help the countrie out economicly speaking, there won&#39;t be more feeding grounds. Germany isn&#39;t doing that bad at the moment no threat for world peace i think.

    At all that are in favor, you all forgetting and overseeing the most important argument of not going to war.
    It&#39;s not the countries you have to fear it&#39;s some people, with (political) power that are wrong (or that are after that). As i stated before every normal Abdullah is like every normal John Smith or the Jetjes of this world. All want a better world just live safe and in peace. It&#39;s the war hungry, powergreedy people like Saddam, George Bush etc we have to be afraid for.

    I can go on replying all the accusations at my head but won&#39;t. I know people who have been in wars, even those oppose this war, war doesn&#39;t bring good to people. War is not civilized.

    Just read the poem by Sting once more, fill in another name were stands Russians. Is that so hard to comprohend.

  10. Lounge   -   #40
    maximboy99
    Guest
    Originally posted by ketoprak+14 February 2003 - 22:59--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ketoprak @ 14 February 2003 - 22:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--maximboy99@14 February 2003 - 21:03
    I would like you to note I said countries, not imperialistic countries.* In 2003 there is no single imperialistic country.* Perhaps you need to go read the definition of imperialistic.* ( http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/i/i0057600.html ) .* Sorry, as much as the intelligencia would have you believe, America is not imperialistic.* We do not conquerer nations, and make them fly the American flag, or pay taxes to our government.* Name one place in the world that is a member of the United States, that wishes not to be.* Further info: http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000017.html .
    I just wondered, maybe you Americans had a different definition from us, Europeans. So I checked on a reliable American dictionary, i.e. Webster&#39;s New Collegiate.


    imperialism : the policy, practice or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation esp. by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas.

    You must have been mixing-up imperialism and colonialism.[/b][/quote]
    -----No, you must be confusing imperialism with hegemony.-------

    definitions from Cambridge Dictionary,
    Imperialism: "Imperialism is a system in which a country rules other countries, sometimes having used force to obtain power over them."
    Hegemony: "the position of being the strongest and most powerful and therefore controlling others"


    There is an important distinction. Imperialism is to be imperial. To be imperial, you need to wish to build an empire. Definition of imperial: "of an empire or the person who rules it." And if you read carefully in my argument I explain why the US is not an Empire, not Imperialistic. I stand by my arguments.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •