Eve of the Apocalypse: Twilight

Here in America, respect your fellow man. Some foreign cultures don't understand. We got this little rule and it's called elbow room. Pertaining to the spatial occupancy you consume.

If I'm in front in line, then you should stay behind, until I get my ice and soda. It's such a simple thing it's called first come first serve. Wooden clogs that smash my feet I really don't deserve.

What's your affinity for my vicinity? There's plenty room here in your country. It's just good etiquette to use deodorant. Maybe smelling bad's the way you choose to represent. Boozy and stinkin' I smell what your thinkin', I just need a little more space Get out my face.

Barge me with your walkin', spray me with your talkin', back the fuck up ass hole shut your bread & cheese hole. Tryin' to make myself clear, give me just a foot here.You offend my sinus, I'll kick your royal highness. I'll see your Euro-barge by friend, and raise you one Ugly American.

In every region it seems there's a legion of impatient close talking slime,
that cut in line. Barge me with your walkin' spray me with your talkin'. Push you out of the way sock you in the patte. step right off you inbred, hygiene like a deadhead. I am the ambassador, of fuckin' kick your assador!

Time to Godwin this thread.

I think those of you defending NK are so blinded by your hatred of America that you would have supported Muhammad in WW2. Which makes arguing with the lot of you utterly pointless.

DarnYak

Yeah, this ends this thread.

You them em, Yak!

That kind of thinking exemplifies the reason why a good portion of the world doesn't respect American foreign policy.

I was done with this thread, but one statement always annoys the fuck out of me.

The US is also the ONLY country to have used them in a war, period.

And thank god we did. Someone was going to have to use it for a first time, thankfully it was a situation where only one side had it, there was a limited supply, and there's pretty solid data that it saved more lives than it cost. And once used, it showed the world how horrible of a weapon it is and scared the crap out of anyone. Had we not, odds are we would have seen a real nuclear war with two sides shooting them at each other (I don't know which war), and a lot more people dead.

Further, the fact that we haven't used it since then is exactly why we can claim to use them responsibly. We could have nuked the whole middle east in response to 9/11, do you honestly think anyone would have stood in our way? Instead we continue to fight it like a conventional war at a much greater cost in American blood and cash.

And don't bother citing Nagisaki as how irresponsible we are with the things. Telling the world (hell, even just Americans) we nuked Hiroshima is one thing. Seeing the reality of the consequences of a nuclear blast is completely another. That information sure as hell wasn't readily known outside Japan at the time we decided on the second bombing. (Not saying we didn't know it was a giant ass bomb, just the vast numbers and injuries etc. inflicted, the human side instead of photos of a destroyed city from air)

DarnYak

Well, as long as they can only nuke the west coast, I do not care the slightest amount.

Casval wrote:That kind of thinking exemplifies the reason why a good portion of the world doesn't respect American foreign policy.

I don't think any nation in the world supports NK. The only reason it has some defenders is #1 China doesn't want a war and the resulting refugees next to it, #2 those countries profitting from sharing tech with it (Iran), or #3 those who profit from just being in our way because it makes them look tougher (Russia, Europe). None of these are in direct support of NK itself.

I bring this up because I don't think there's a more universally detested regime in the world at the moment, and yet you're distort reality to make them seem just a normal happy country being bullied by the US for no apparent reason. This isn't foreign policy the world dissagrees with on any level. Only those who really hate anything America does has that viewpoint.

DarnYak

DarnYak wrote:I was done with this thread, but one statement always annoys the fuck out of me.

The US is also the ONLY country to have used them in a war, period.

And thank god we did. Someone was going to have to use it for a first time, thankfully it was a situation where only one side had it, there was a limited supply, and there's pretty solid data that it saved more lives than it cost. And once used, it showed the world how horrible of a weapon it is and scared the crap out of anyone. Had we not, odds are we would have seen a real nuclear war with two sides shooting them at each other (I don't know which war), and a lot more people dead.

Further, the fact that we haven't used it since then is exactly why we can claim to use them responsibly. We could have nuked the whole middle east in response to 9/11, do you honestly think anyone would have stood in our way? Instead we continue to fight it like a conventional war at a much greater cost in American blood and cash.

And don't bother citing Nagisaki as how irresponsible we are with the things. Telling the world (hell, even just Americans) we nuked Hiroshima is one thing. Seeing the reality of the consequences of a nuclear blast is completely another. That information sure as hell wasn't readily known outside Japan at the time we decided on the second bombing. (Not saying we didn't know it was a giant ass bomb, just the vast numbers and injuries etc. inflicted, the human side instead of photos of a destroyed city from air)

DarnYak

Actually, I'm a big supporter of both the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs. They saved countless lives and ended a war that would've stretched out for much, much longer. Fortunately, we don't live in a world where the world's most prosperous nations still engage in active imperialism and believe in the concept of total war the way Japan did at the time. But I made that statement specifically to point out that you cannot say North Korea has not demonstrated the maturity to use them correctly, because no other nuclear nations have either with the exception of the US.

DarnYak wrote:

Casval wrote:That kind of thinking exemplifies the reason why a good portion of the world doesn't respect American foreign policy.

I don't think any nation in the world supports NK. The only reason it has some defenders is #1 China doesn't want a war and the resulting refugees next to it, #2 those countries profitting from sharing tech with it (Iran), or #3 those who profit from just being in our way because it makes them look tougher (Russia, Europe). None of these are in direct support of NK itself.

I bring this up because I don't think there's a more universally detested regime in the world at the moment, and yet you're distort reality to make them seem just a normal happy country being bullied by the US for no apparent reason. This isn't foreign policy the world dissagrees with on any level. Only those who really hate anything America does has that viewpoint.

DarnYak

North Korea is by no means "universally detested", considering they're only a regional threat and haven't actually DONE anything in half a century. Compare that to active regimes in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia that have been actively waging genocidal wars for decades.

Speaking of hatred for America, I remember reading an article several years ago stating that Osama became one of the most popular names in the world for newborns after 9/11. And speaking of American do-gooder foreign policy, you should also consider that the reason Al Qaeda began its jihad against America in the first place was because Americans decided to do their world policing in the "first" Gulf War and stationed their troops in Muslim holy land. It's sad, because ever since WWII, American foreign policy has been a projection of military power across the world in such a way that they attempt to guarantee an economic and political situation favorable to itself. Vietnam and Korea were, as I said, attempts to spread a political ideology. The invasion of Panama was a thinly veiled attempt to control a key global trade route. The invasion of Grenada was, like Vietnam and Korea, another attempt to control local ideology. Iraq was an attempt to control oil price inflation and curb the last Baath unificationist's spread of power.

EDIT:
I should also point out that while I do support the right of all nations to become nuclear powers, I don't believe Kim Jong Il is a good person, nor that how he runs his country is justified. What I do believe, however, is that he and his country are the results of international pressure as opposed to something purely internal. I also believe that the only way you can get these sort of people to cooperate is by being the better person and stepping in to give aid as the first step as opposed to doing it in a reactionary fashion as a political move.

But I made that statement specifically to point out that you cannot say North Korea has not demonstrated the maturity to use them correctly, because no other nuclear nations have either with the exception of the US.

Technically they can't even use them yet (they aren't able to be fitted on warheads), so they certainlly haven't demonstrated how they will use them.

North Korea is by no means "universally detested", considering they're only a regional threat and haven't actually DONE anything in half a century.

A country can be detested without doing anything outside their borders - it just makes them a non-priority to the majority of the world. What makes them detested is the horrible place it is under the current dictatorship.

I remember reading an article several years ago stating that Osama became one of the most popular names in the world for newborns after 9/11

By people who think America is 95% jewish, yes.

the reason Al Qaeda began its jihad against America in the first place was because Americans decided to do their world policing in the "first" Gulf War and stationed their troops in Muslim holy land

At Saudi Arabia's request, to protect them from Saddam. Which is one of the reasons Osama really hates Saudi Arabia, because they let the infidels into the holy land. Osama is a crazed radical muslim, lumping his hatred for us together with the other conflicts we've been in does not fit.

It's sad, because ever since WWII, American foreign policy has been a projection of military power across the world in such a way that they attempt to guarantee an economic and political situation favorable to itself.

Welcome to the entirety of human history. Failure to do so will ultimately lead to a countries demise (and don't cite Canada/Europe/etc. as not doing it, since they basicly rely on us doing it). The trick is doing it in a fairish way - which I'm not going to claim we've always done in the past, but certainly more so than any nation with comparable power throughout history.

God i need to stop posting here and finish c3.

DarnYak

Al Qaeda began its jihad against America in the first place was because Americans decided to do their world policing in the "first" Gulf War and stationed their troops in Muslim holy land.

Casval, reading your posts leads me to think that you are a very educated and intelligent person, who, even though I may disagree with at times, respect. However, this statement by you has really upset me, and leads me to think you'll also been brainwashed by typical, far-Leftist bullshit that only serves to belittle America and paint it as cruel and imperialistic (as Discom stated). I'm not saying you believe this, I hope to God you don't, but what you said is not only gravely wrong, but misleading.

Al Qaeda (and radical Muslims in general) hate America for basically one, fundamental reason: Because we are Americans. I doesn't matter whether your Liberal, Conservative, Republican, or Democrat, even Moderates/Independents, or from a religious standpoint: Jew, Christian, Atheism, etc. It goes far deeper than that Casval, they hate us because we are Americans. Because we believe in personal freedom, dignity, honesty, honor, that each man has intrinsic value and can be or do whatever he wishes with his life (within reason of course) without fear of oppression. And that despite varying beliefs, whether religious or political or moral, that we all recognize each other as Americans who love our country and the very principles it stands for. This, they cannot stand, they despise, and will stop at nothing to destroy. It has nothing to do with what we do, it has everything to do with who we are. Most of this is probably born from Islam, which is at its core, a barbaric and vile religion. Don't get me wrong, I believe in respect for other beliefs, but when your promote the destruction of human dignity and life, it ends there, and I have zero respect for it then. I have read parts of the Koran, and they actually use the word "terrorize" to simulate what Allah requires of them. They are passages that say things along the lines of "terrorize the nonbelievers" and yes, "slay the infidel". Now, with a religion that requires you to do this to go to heaven, do you really think it matters whether we have a tiny outpost in the desert to them? (I may be able to dig up some actual passages later).

I am sorry you feel as though the Muslim's hatred was brought upon because we acted in supposed cruelty, it's just not true. This is truly a war against evil, Casval, and I hope you learn that someday.

!تَكْبِير!تَكْبِير

Do you really believe all the shit you type all the time?

DarkNemesis wrote:Al Qaeda (and radical Muslims in general) hate America for basically one, fundamental reason: Because we are Americans. I doesn't matter whether your Liberal, Conservative, Republican, or Democrat, even Moderates/Independents, or from a religious standpoint: Jew, Christian, Atheism, etc. It goes far deeper than that Casval, they hate us because we are Americans. Because we believe in personal freedom, dignity, honesty, honor, that each man has intrinsic value and can be or do whatever he wishes with his life (within reason of course) without fear of oppression. And that despite varying beliefs, whether religious or political or moral, that we all recognize each other as Americans who love our country and the very principles it stands for. This, they cannot stand, they despise, and will stop at nothing to destroy. It has nothing to do with what we do, it has everything to do with who we are.

I wonder who of you both got brainwashed.

DarnYak wrote:Technically they can't even use them yet (they aren't able to be fitted on warheads), so they certainlly haven't demonstrated how they will use them.

Didn't know this, but it reiterates the idea that the situation is overblown.

A country can be detested without doing anything outside their borders - it just makes them a non-priority to the majority of the world. What makes them detested is the horrible place it is under the current dictatorship.

Yes, but then you have plenty of other countries that fit that bill, plus a lot more who have actually extended outside the borders, or, just as worse, performed atrocities within their own borders.

At Saudi Arabia's request, to protect them from Saddam. Which is one of the reasons Osama really hates Saudi Arabia, because they let the infidels into the holy land. Osama is a crazed radical muslim, lumping his hatred for us together with the other conflicts we've been in does not fit.

Well, he wants to establish an Islamic caliphate. English text often uses the word "global", but what it means is that he wants to unite Islamic countries, as opposed to enforcing this upon the whole world. The United States fundamentally opposes a unified Middle East, both on religion and on politics, because that creates an oil market hegemony, which is why they tried so hard to topple Saddam in the first place, and finished him off a few years ago.

Welcome to the entirety of human history. Failure to do so will ultimately lead to a countries demise (and don't cite Canada/Europe/etc. as not doing it, since they basicly rely on us doing it). The trick is doing it in a fairish way - which I'm not going to claim we've always done in the past, but certainly more so than any nation with comparable power throughout history.

Well, no. Most countries are past the point of imperialism. Cultural subversion is one thing--plenty of countries have done that, notably in South America. Not everyone uses military power to win over allies, or ends up setting up military bases all over the world. Failure to do so absolutely does not lead to a country's demise. You are getting causal effects confused--you're saying that the United States needs to project its power right now because it will crumble if it doesn't, because a country that does not project power is fundamentally weak due to other countries needing to prey on it. That's wrong, because the reason other countries want to prey on the US is because it's projecting its power. It's also not good to argue that it's been done historically--that isn't justification for its continued existence. Europe absolutely does not rely on the US to do its job--in fact, before 9/11 and European countries started joining the US coalition, they had no problem at all with sticking to their regional woes. On the other hand, the US has been meddling in affairs across the globe that absolutely do not impact US security whatsoever, with the invasion of Afghanistan being the first conflict to peripherally affect US security since WWII.

God i need to stop posting here and finish c3.

GOGO FIX PLIGHT

DarkNemesis wrote:

Al Qaeda began its jihad against America in the first place was because Americans decided to do their world policing in the "first" Gulf War and stationed their troops in Muslim holy land.

Casval, reading your posts leads me to think that you are a very educated and intelligent person, who, even though I may disagree with at times, respect. However, this statement by you has really upset me, and leads me to think you'll also been brainwashed by typical, far-Leftist bullshit that only serves to belittle America and paint it as cruel and imperialistic (as Discom stated). I'm not saying you believe this, I hope to God you don't, but what you said is not only gravely wrong, but misleading.

I'm actually really far-right as far as the political compass goes on most issues, especially fiscal. As far as the socialized medicine debate goes, I was arguing for the fun of it. My girlfriend is going to med school this fall, and I want her to make a lot of money kekekekeke.

Al Qaeda (and radical Muslims in general) hate America for basically one, fundamental reason: Because we are Americans. I doesn't matter whether your Liberal, Conservative, Republican, or Democrat, even Moderates/Independents, or from a religious standpoint: Jew, Christian, Atheism, etc. It goes far deeper than that Casval, they hate us because we are Americans. Because we believe in personal freedom, dignity, honesty, honor, that each man has intrinsic value and can be or do whatever he wishes with his life (within reason of course) without fear of oppression. And that despite varying beliefs, whether religious or political or moral, that we all recognize each other as Americans who love our country and the very principles it stands for. This, they cannot stand, they despise, and will stop at nothing to destroy. It has nothing to do with what we do, it has everything to do with who we are. Most of this is probably born from Islam, which is at its core, a barbaric and vile religion. Don't get me wrong, I believe in respect for other beliefs, but when your promote the destruction of human dignity and life, it ends there, and I have zero respect for it then. I have read parts of the Koran, and they actually use the word "terrorize" to simulate what Allah requires of them. They are passages that say things along the lines of "terrorize the nonbelievers" and yes, "slay the infidel". Now, with a religion that requires you to do this to go to heaven, do you really think it matters whether we have a tiny outpost in the desert to them? (I may be able to dig up some actual passages later).

I am sorry you feel as though the Muslim's hatred was brought upon because we acted in supposed cruelty, it's just not true. This is truly a war against evil, Casval, and I hope you learn that someday.

Well, as a devout atheist, I would have to agree with you that Islam is fundamentally not a religion of peace, but as I said, their current justification and declaration of holy war has very little to do with the freedom aspect. Muslim terrorists have also performed plenty of bombings in countries that are not free, including the Philippines, Pakistan and India, Russia, and China. It's all about their belief that they should be able to govern themselves free of external input from non-Muslim authorities.

Dark, who the fuck educated you because they need to die. The shit that you type just fucking astounds me. The ignorance you posses would cause eternal bliss if you could share it with the world. I feel fucking ashamed to believe that I share a country with an ignorant individual such as yourself.

Dekar wrote:I wonder which one of you got brainwashed.

QFT, and edited for grammar.

Uh, can we grammatically fix that?

It seems to be getting worse. Check it out...

http://www.yahoo.com/s/1078198

Dekar wrote:Uh, can we grammatically fix that?

Yours was no better. Mine was an attempt to fix it which failed. Time to scrap the entire sentence!

This is in response to South Korea joining an international group that basically calls for search and seizure of ships that may contain nuclear crap.

North Korea believes it to be identical to a provocation of war and said they would attack if anyone boarded their ships. Once again, it just reiterates that taking a hardline approach does not work in these situations (if someone is taking hostages, you don't negotiate for their safety by threatening the hostage taker's life).

OMG you edited my quote!

You are not supposed to do that!

I got the intention across. >_>

Ok first of all, Dekar and Crypt, try very hard not to totally derail this thread, eh? At least fight like nice children.

North Korea believes it to be identical to a provocation of war and said they would attack if anyone boarded their ships. Once again, it just reiterates that taking a hardline approach does not work in these situations (if someone is taking hostages, you don't negotiate for their safety by threatening the hostage taker's life).

On the contrary, a hard-line approach is exactly whats needed here. North Korea has blatantly violated UN policies/sanctions (although the UN imo is a joke and doesn't due shit), as well as made threats of war against the U.S and South Korea. What I think we need to do is try and convince the Chinese to side with us (with they basically have, for the most part) and then threaten to cut off trade between the two countries. This will make North Korea think damn hard before making any further, drastic moves. As they relay heavily on China for imports.

DarkNemesis wrote:Ok first of all, Dekar and Crypt, try very hard not to totally derail this thread, eh? At least fight like nice children.

North Korea believes it to be identical to a provocation of war and said they would attack if anyone boarded their ships. Once again, it just reiterates that taking a hardline approach does not work in these situations (if someone is taking hostages, you don't negotiate for their safety by threatening the hostage taker's life).

On the contrary, a hard-line approach is exactly whats needed here. North Korea has blatantly violated UN policies/sanctions (although the UN imo is a joke and doesn't due shit), as well as made threats of war against the U.S and South Korea. What I think we need to do is try and convince the Chinese to side with us (with they basically have, for the most part) and then threaten to cut off trade between the two countries. This will make North Korea think damn hard before making any further, drastic moves. As they relay heavily on China for imports.

Kekekeke. I'm Chinese, by the way, so let me give you a few insider hints about why the Chinese are "siding" with the US and South Korea.
1. Generalized compliance shifts attention from Tibet and Taiwan.
2. China has been reaching out hardcore to South Korean businesses in the past decade, trying to garner mutual investment. Siding with North Korea would give Chinese investors a lot of grief.
3. Regional stability: good thing.
4. If North Korea actually does goes to war, they would inevitably call on China, which, from a political and economic standpoint, MUST stay neutral during the war. Therefore, it is in their best interest to act as neutral as possible.

North Korea has not quite made any true threats of war. They've made threats of retaliation, which the US and South Korea make just as often (see Bush's threats of military action in 2006).

Once again, it just reiterates that taking a hardline approach does not work in these situations

And all attempts to not take a hardline approach in the past has gotten us what exactly? NK with an actual nuclear bomb? The country's proven it'll do whatever the hell it wants because there's no real threats to it.

(if someone is taking hostages, you don't negotiate for their safety by threatening the hostage taker's life).

You should, send the message across that we don't deal with hostage taking and thus render it pointless to ever do. On the other hand, you could pay off the hostage takers like they keep doing to the somali pirates and benefit by having more of your ships hijacked.

DarnYak

DarnYak wrote:And all attempts to not take a hardline approach in the past has gotten us what exactly? NK with an actual nuclear bomb? The country's proven it'll do whatever the hell it wants because there's no real threats to it.

The clear progression here is that North Korea will become a full nuclear power no matter what. Convincing them to stop is not going to work unless it's a bilateral, friendly approach. Seeing as how no one is willing to do that, and probably with good reason, the only other approach is to convince them to use that power responsibly. At this point, North Korea is not being the first aggressor in any such way. People complained in the same way when India and Pakistan became nuclear powers, and those are two countries with significant extant conflicts. It will happen again whenever any country develops nuclear capabilities.

You should, send the message across that we don't deal with hostage taking and thus render it pointless to ever do. On the other hand, you could pay off the hostage takers like they keep doing to the somali pirates and benefit by having more of your ships hijacked.

That's how we deal with ransoms and terrorists, not domestic hostage taking. You need to send a clear message of sternness and severity, but most importantly, you need to negotiate both realistically and favorably to the hostage-taker. This analogy does not even completely apply to the situation, as North Korea did not make any explicit threats--it merely conducted a test. Note that every time North Korea conducts any sort of military-related activity, everyone seeks it as provocation. Meanwhile, the United States has stationed thousands of troops in neighboring countries, holds joint activities with the South Korean armed services regularly, and is a nuclear power as well. South Korea, on the other hand, has the available facilities to produce nuclear and biological weapons, though it publicly has discontinued such programs, it has no need to do so with the US military present. The entire idea that Seoul would be defenseless rests on the idea that North Korea would make the pre-emptive strike, when both sides have long acknowledged that any military action would be pre-emptive on the part of South Korea and the US based on their threats of attack on nuclear facilities, as opposed to first blood being drawn by North Korea.

You and I differ fundamentally whether or not the development of nuclear weapon technology is a right. I firmly believe that it is, so as long as existing nuclear powers continue to stockpile the weapons, all countries should reserve the right to do so. Citing responsibility as a an prerequisite in a century where not a single nuclear power is innocent of participating in frivolous wars and indecent global activities is outright hypocritical to me.