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 15 April 2017
RolStoppable said:
Looking past the source of the article and that the quote is coming from a Russian, it's true that the world isn't sure if Trump is bluffing or going to go through with the things he has been saying on various subjects.

Obama was a wuss. Trump is not.

So, even though he bombed 7 countries, people still think that he wasn't kiling enough people? Why is killing a whole bunch of people and destroying a ton of infrastructure and displacing so many people considered to be a good deed?



Around the Network
Smear-Gel on 15 April 2017
Kudistos Megistos said:
*tangentally related text that seems valuable because it's a long post*

The point of the thread isnt whether or not America is inherently good for the world, and nobody is saying that they are better off not existig, but there's no reason to wave away all the terrible things they have done either. There is literally no downside in being critical of some of the country's shadier practices.

It's about whether, in it's current state, the US is a bigger cause for world destabilization than NK. And despite how bad NK is, they think of themselves as a lot more dangerous than they are. The US can carry out a lot more of it's crazy plans right now, and they have no shortage of crazy plans in this administration. Especially since people have literally no idea what the president will do at any given moment.



Leadified on 15 April 2017
Ruler said:
Leadified said:
No kidding, however Russia shouldn't be talking about threats to world peace here when they're just as guilty.                                      

There was no proof of chemical weapons being used by Assad. If the US wouldnt have invaded Iraq and wouldnt have sanctioned Syria and sponsored these protests in the first place, all of this wouldnt have happened. Russia did good things for the world vetoing everything the US wanted, just look what happened in Lybia its even worse now without Gadafi. Lybia used to be one of the richest countries in Africa and now its balkanized and completley in ruins, ISIS is also spreading there rapidley.

Its funny how North Korea tested Nukes for quite some time now but no one losed as much sleep at night as now, so yeah the Russian politician is absolutley right.

Assad agreed to hand over his chemical weapons for destruction after the chemical attack in Ghouta in 2013, do you think he would if he didn't have any? Or that there is no possibility that he used them? I'm not sure why you list examples of American intervention and assume Russia is any better. If Russia did not invade Manchuria, there would be no North Korea. If Russia did not invade Afghanistan, there would be no mujahideen. Putin has dragged Russia right into the middle of the Sunni-Shia conflict now too. Don't be fooled by the crocodile tears from these politicians.

I'm not sure what's you're talking about now, North Korea developing nukes has always been a big deal. Instead of developing into a modern state such as China or Vietnam, North Korea is busy sucking its population dry and using international aid to fund its imperial family.  I don't know how anyone can defend it.



VGPolyglot on 15 April 2017
Leadified said:
Ruler said:

There was no proof of chemical weapons being used by Assad. If the US wouldnt have invaded Iraq and wouldnt have sanctioned Syria and sponsored these protests in the first place, all of this wouldnt have happened. Russia did good things for the world vetoing everything the US wanted, just look what happened in Lybia its even worse now without Gadafi. Lybia used to be one of the richest countries in Africa and now its balkanized and completley in ruins, ISIS is also spreading there rapidley.

Its funny how North Korea tested Nukes for quite some time now but no one losed as much sleep at night as now, so yeah the Russian politician is absolutley right.

Assad agreed to hand over his chemical weapons for destruction after the chemical attack in Ghouta in 2013, do you think he would if he didn't have any? Or that there is no possibility that he used them? I'm not sure why you list examples of American intervention and assume Russia is any better. If Russia did not invade Manchuria, there would be no North Korea. If Russia did not invade Afghanistan, there would be no mujahideen. Putin has dragged Russia right into the middle of the Sunni-Shia conflict now too. Don't be fooled by the crocodile tears from these politicians.

I'm not sure what's you're talking about now, North Korea developing nukes has always been a big deal. Instead of developing into a modern state such as China or Vietnam, North Korea is busy sucking its population dry and using international aid to fund its imperial family.  I don't know how anyone can defend it.

That's a simplification of what happened during WWII. The USA and USSR both made an agreement that the Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan 3 months after the war in Europe, and that they'd divide the country along the 38th parallel. It was not a unilateral decision by the USSR.



Leadified on 15 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Leadified said:

Assad agreed to hand over his chemical weapons for destruction after the chemical attack in Ghouta in 2013, do you think he would if he didn't have any? Or that there is no possibility that he used them? I'm not sure why you list examples of American intervention and assume Russia is any better. If Russia did not invade Manchuria, there would be no North Korea. If Russia did not invade Afghanistan, there would be no mujahideen. Putin has dragged Russia right into the middle of the Sunni-Shia conflict now too. Don't be fooled by the crocodile tears from these politicians.

I'm not sure what's you're talking about now, North Korea developing nukes has always been a big deal. Instead of developing into a modern state such as China or Vietnam, North Korea is busy sucking its population dry and using international aid to fund its imperial family.  I don't know how anyone can defend it.

That's a simplification of what happened during WWII. The USA and USSR both made an agreement that the Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan 3 months after the war in Europe, and that they'd divide the country along the 38th parallel. It was not a unilateral decision by the USSR.

Yes I'm aware. However, it was the Soviets who gave permission to Kim to invade the south and provided weapons and armour to assist in the invasion. The Soviets continued to prop up the Kim family after the war which now takes up to today.



Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 15 April 2017
Leadified said:
VGPolyglot said:

That's a simplification of what happened during WWII. The USA and USSR both made an agreement that the Soviet Union would enter the war against Japan 3 months after the war in Europe, and that they'd divide the country along the 38th parallel. It was not a unilateral decision by the USSR.

Yes I'm aware. However, it was the Soviets who gave permission to Kim to invade the south and provided weapons and armour to assist in the invasion. The Soviets continued to prop up the Kim family after the war which now takes up to today.

Yes, but the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and along with it virtually all of the support it gave to North Korea, while South Korea was ruled by military leaders and dictatorships until 1988, only 3 years beforehand.



Leadified on 15 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Leadified said:

Yes I'm aware. However, it was the Soviets who gave permission to Kim to invade the south and provided weapons and armour to assist in the invasion. The Soviets continued to prop up the Kim family after the war which now takes up to today.

Yes, but the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and along with it virtually all of the support it gave to North Korea, while South Korea was ruled by military leaders and dictatorships until 1988, only 3 years beforehand.

I'm not sure what your point is here.



VGPolyglot on 15 April 2017
Leadified said:
VGPolyglot said:

Yes, but the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and along with it virtually all of the support it gave to North Korea, while South Korea was ruled by military leaders and dictatorships until 1988, only 3 years beforehand.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

That the United States during the Cold War at the very least matched the Soviet Union in terms of violence and repressiveness.



Leadified on 15 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Leadified said:

I'm not sure what your point is here.

That the United States during the Cold War at the very least matched the Soviet Union in terms of violence and repressiveness.

My original reply to Ruler was about how Russia is no better than the US at foreign policy, not that the US is inherently better.



VGPolyglot on 15 April 2017
Leadified said:
VGPolyglot said:

That the United States during the Cold War at the very least matched the Soviet Union in terms of violence and repressiveness.

My original reply to Ruler was about how Russia is no better than the US at foreign policy, not that the US is inherently better.

Yes, but the difference is that the United States has much more power and wealth in order to cause damage than Russia. Even Canada, with 35 million people vs Russia's 145 million, has a higher nominal GDP than them!