By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - America is a bigger threat to world peace than North Korea

VGPolyglot on 16 April 2017
Razeak said:

Screw a socialist revolution. It just means another group of people exhibiting their will over others under threat of force. Government is inherently violent. Look at the death toll of the 20th century. That's government ladies and gentleman.

 

Exactly, that's why communists support the elimination of the state.



Around the Network
Leadified on 16 April 2017
Player2 said:
Leadified said:

You're missing the point. The mujahideen has grown powerful because of foreign investment from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States as a direct result of the Soviet invasion. Without it, groups like Al-Qaeda would either not exist or have any influence beyond a local level.

You're moving the goalpost from "exist" to "powerful enough to be an international threat".

Uh...what? I am clarifying an example I used to support my original point. The argument hasn't changed.



MTZehvor on 16 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Razeak said:

Screw a socialist revolution. It just means another group of people exhibiting their will over others under threat of force. Government is inherently violent. Look at the death toll of the 20th century. That's government ladies and gentleman.

 

Exactly, that's why communists support the elimination of the state.

I think I'd take that a step back and say people, or at least, a substantial number of people, are inherently violent. Government, when done right, can be a tool to protect against or at least mitigate the effects of people's violent whims (by putting violent criminals behind bars). Simultaneously, when it's done wrong, it can simply be a tool to further the violent whims of those in power. That's why a tough series of checks and balances is important, and it's also why I find the notion of communism to be unviable. Anyone who expects people to willfully give up the opportunity to sieze power when it presents itself doesn't seem to have the firmest grasp of human nature.



Aeolus451 on 16 April 2017
gergroy said:
Aeolus451 said:

Nope. For us to be at war, we would have to declare it or another country would have to declare it. Bombing terrorists in the sand dunes and mountains doesn't count. It would be silly if it did. We're not trying to destroy those countries' governments. If NK bombed us, we would declare war on them then go to war with them. 

We technically are at war with North Korea.  Korean War never actually ended, no peace treaty was ever signed, just a ceasefire.  So we have been at war for a very long time...

We're not in a state of war with them meaning we're not at war with them.



NightDragon83 on 16 April 2017
sethnintendo said:
NightDragon83 said:

Hmmm, let's see... OP is quoting Russian gov't officials, and has "Hands Off North Korea" in the avatar...

Conclusion:  Obvious troll is obvious.

I wouldn't mind putting my hands on that military woman in his avatar.

True, I wouldn't mind occupying her southern border either.



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.

Around the Network
gatito on 16 April 2017

This is true, it's always been true. The USA has always been obsessed with war, death and destruction.



Eagle367 on 21 April 2017
KLAMarine said:
Eagle367 said:

They are a failed system much like torture. It sounds appealing and would give results on paper but in reality they are the opposite of effective and cause more harm than good

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/23/obamas-drone-policy-gets-an-f/

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/15/world/asia/u-n-drone-objections/

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/world/asia/drone-strikes-reveal-uncomfortable-truth-us-is-often-unsure-about-who-will-die.html?_r=0

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

Troubling reads, I must say. However, I don't recall any portions in these articles detailing the exact criteria used for drone strikes.

Also, something that caught my eye: "Most security experts still believe that drones, which allow a scene to be watched for hours or days through video feeds, still offer at least the chance of greater accuracy than other means of killing terrorists. By most accounts, conventional airstrikes and ground invasions kill a higher proportion of noncombatants. But without detailed, reliable, on-the-ground intelligence, experience has shown, drones make it possible to precisely kill the wrong people."

Sounds like if militants are to be taken out, drone strikes, as imperfect as they can be, are the way to go.

Eagle367 said:

Its called Breaking International LAW. no damn way to sugarcoat it or justify it

I'm no lawyer but you may be right. Still, I think this matter is best left up to international courts and I think, in my legally-untrained opinion, combatants crossing the border into Pakistan are also guilty of breaking the law. Does the Pakistan Army make an effort to engage militants crossing into the country?

Yes heavily. The Pakistani military is fighting terrorists each day every day. The delicacy and area of the border make it more difficult to manage than the most tense borders out there. The Pakistani army is doing a much better job than US or the afghan military at the very least. But if the production of terrorists don't stop, there's not much the army can do than keep fighting. And the interenational courts will never hold the US accountable for its multitude of war crimes and law abuses. You should know that as well as I do. hell any country that has the power to veto is very unlikely to face any international trials. Pakistan and all of the countries west of it in Asia will cease to exist before the USA is held accountable for anything. So it is not best left upto the international courts. The people should educate themselves and raise their voices over the atrocities and if they fail to do so the USA will continue on its merry way. Do you honestly think the american elites care for human decency or the trials of the victims in the countries they attack or even the soldiers they send their to fight for their selfish needs?



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Ruler on 24 April 2017
Leadified said:
Ruler said:

It wasnt a fascist regime when it was founded, it used to be Marxist-Leninist and turned to it own Juche ideology a different branche of communist/socialist idology.

Juche is not a Fascist idiology. In fact Fascism isnt even an idiology its a reactonary tedandcy inside capitalism, that happens if liberal democracy cant substain the system against a communist uprising anymore. Thats why you see people associating all kind of things with it without really being able to explain what it really is.

The fact that they can build nuclear weapons proofs it, every other none nuclear country wouldnt even come as far espacially Third World countries, of which many would actually like to have a nuke i assume. No one is starving in North Korea now, they defentiatley made progress in the last view years.

The only reason why North Korea exist is because they have a 2 Million army, most of them growing up without the internet and who are actually ready to die for their country wittout getting an extrenomic paycheck like American soldiers do. But this is just my opinion.

Fascism is effectively an evolved form of socialism (or syndicalism) with a focus on militarism and nationalism. The only thing that really prevents North Korea from being a full blown fascist state is its economic structure but it's not too far away.

It's not all that difficult to start a nuclear program now a days, South Africa probably had nukes by the 1970s and Israel definitely has nukes even if they do not want to admit it. Malnutrition is a huge problem for children in NK right now, so I'm not so sure that they're as well off as you think.

You greatly overestimate the North Korean military. Most of it is poorly trained, ill equipped and would likely all apart once the command structure is taken out. The military is mostly used for manual labour and civilian tasks anyways.

I highly dissagree, fascism has nothing to do with Socialism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PvBBDqID-U

A communist/socialist state cant be fascist as both are the complete opposite to each other. Syndicalism has nothing to do with fascism at all, its anarchism and tries to have a stateless communist movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism

How is the North Korean Army supposed to fall apart if they believe in their own system? They can do huge damage to South Korean and US Army bases too, with their artillery.



Why i left PC gaming

 

(2015) Question for PS4 owners: if the situation would be reverse? would you still play on PS4?

(2015) The "I don't care PS4 is the most powerful console" thread

VGPolyglot on 24 April 2017
Ruler said:
Leadified said:

Fascism is effectively an evolved form of socialism (or syndicalism) with a focus on militarism and nationalism. The only thing that really prevents North Korea from being a full blown fascist state is its economic structure but it's not too far away.

It's not all that difficult to start a nuclear program now a days, South Africa probably had nukes by the 1970s and Israel definitely has nukes even if they do not want to admit it. Malnutrition is a huge problem for children in NK right now, so I'm not so sure that they're as well off as you think.

You greatly overestimate the North Korean military. Most of it is poorly trained, ill equipped and would likely all apart once the command structure is taken out. The military is mostly used for manual labour and civilian tasks anyways.

I highly dissagree, fascism has nothing to do with Socialism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PvBBDqID-U

A communist state cant be fascist as both are the complete opposite to each other

Well, "communist state" is an oxymoron in the first place as communism is stateless.



OdinHades on 24 April 2017
Aeolus451 said:
VGPolyglot said:

I just listed Afghanistan, which has troops, and 7 different countries that they're bombing. You don't count that as war? If North Korea bombed the United States, that wouldn't count as an act of war?

Nope. For us to be at war, we would have to declare it or another country would have to declare it. Bombing terrorists in the sand dunes and mountains doesn't count. It would be silly if it did. We're not trying to destroy those countries' governments. If NK bombed us, we would declare war on them then go to war with them. 

There have been little to no official declarations of war since WW2. Germany attacked poland without any declaration of war. Japan attacked USA without any declaration.

Especially americans just give war other names, to justify all of their crazy fights all around the globe. They said their fighting in Korea was a "international police mission". They called the war in Afghanistan a "international military presence". But no matter what they come up with, it's still war. Bombing the sovereign territory of another country is an act of war, no matter what someone declares or not declares and no matter how they like to call it.



Official member of VGC's Nintendo family, approved by the one and only RolStoppable. I feel honored.