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

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

Leadified on 15 April 2017
Ruler said:
Leadified said:

There weren't reports that Assad had chemical weapons, he did. A batch of them were destroyed in 2014.

The Soviet Union helping to end the war does not excuse propping up a fascist regime like the Kim family and invading the south. American and Saudi support for the mujahideen only happened because the Soviets invaded. Also, why should Russia get involved in messes that America and Europe are involved in? Two wrongs don't make a right.

North Korea isolated itself, it's a part of the Juche ideology, which is much closer to the Japanese fascism than any form of communism. I don't know how you can call North Korea sustainable, the country was crippled by the fall of the USSR and has never recovered since. The whole show is smoke and mirrors, all these bombastic remarks are just to suck up foreign aid.

The only reason that North Korea still exists is because of China, who does not want to deal with American presence at its border nor a massive refugee crisis from the state collapsing on itself. Nuclear weapons are impractical, unless if North Korea is feeling suicidal.

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.



Around the Network
Eagle367 on 15 April 2017
KLAMarine said:
Eagle367 said:

Here's an interesting idea: you make sure through intelligence that the person you are targeting is a terrorist or better yet instead of drone striking random targets based on shaky intelligence cooperate with the local military who fights these terrorists everyday to investigate and deal with them since breaking international law should not be something you just shrug off. You don't just take to the skies to see if you can find yourself a 30 something male with a beard cause that is the literal(actual) criteria which they use to target individuals. Can you imagine if that was in America and it was a 30 something white male with no beard. How many innocents would that kill. Also use ways that are not as inefficient as a blind guy without any skills throwing dart.

Where did you read up on the criteria used?

Eagle367 said:

You do realise that USA made Osama Bin Ladin who he was. He was an american agent gone rogue and on that subject, if the Pakistani government did not know about the ladin but you also let terrorists hijack planes from the Pentagon. Do all sorts of crazy shit in your own airspace and could do nothing as they attacked the pentagon and the twin towers. If you claim that the Pakistani government willfully did nothing to stop Bin Ladin then I can just as easily claim USA did nothing to stop 9/11 and might have even facilitated it

It's called the element of surprise. I think that's one reason why drone strikes are appealing to military operations. Also appealed to the 911 hijackers.

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

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



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

Azzanation on 15 April 2017

You cant control the world without Power. USA is part of the United Nations. Dont attack them and they wont attack you. - Coming from a none American.

Honestly what does the world want? USA to throw away there power so countries will continue to invade and kill?

If America didnt have destructive power, we all wont be standing here. The world will be a free for all mess. No country will be scared. Fear puts counties in there place.

Japan learnt a valuable lesson after trying to attack America. Its simple. Dont kill and you wont be killed lesson.

US has been like this for nearly 100 years. If they wanted to invade and attack they would have ages ago.



Razeak on 15 April 2017

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.

 



outlawauron on 16 April 2017
Ruler said:
Mystro-Sama said:
Thats bullshit and everyone knows it.

Thats why you used a Green Bomb in Aghanistan which has more TNT power than North Koreas Nukes without a reason whats so ever recentley,  and now you accuse the North Koreans of being irrational? 

Not sure what's funnier, your lack of understanding of military or the fact you unironically used a tabloid rag as a political piece.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Around the Network
outlawauron on 16 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Aeolus451 said:

SK went to war with SK. It was declared and it fits the definition of war. All of the other examples you mentioned are absurd. My definition fits perfectly with today's definition of it. You're the one that is confused on this. 

Since you're still not getting it. 

war

/wôr/

noun

1.

a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state:

 

The US is not at war with those countries. 

Yes, that's exactly what the US is doing. They're using arms (troops with weapons and bombs) to get into conflict with other nations and states.

Unless you're legitmizing as ISIS as a nation-state, then by your own logic, you're wrong. The US hasn't been at war with any country since the Iraq war. Since then, there's been conflicts with terrorist and extremeist groups across the Middle East. That is not war.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

TheTruthHurts! on 16 April 2017
Ruler said:
TheTruthHurts! said:
So....North Korea just attempted ANOTHER missile test and FAILED....Lol.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/15/asia/north-korea-missile-test/index.html


No confirmation on if it was intercontinental or not and we are still arguing.....

All the more CONFIRMATION this thread is BULLSHIT...🤣🤣🤣

Why shouldnt we argue? This thread is proof that people are actually are more worried about the US than North Korea now. 

And this failed test still doesnt guarantee the US under Trump wont respond.

It also look like it could be done on propoise by North Korea as a tactical move, to show the US  that they still are ready but not to provoke the US at the same time.

Every post you make as well as your supporters just reinforces the fact that this thread is BS.

I don't even need to try.  It's obvious, blatant, and hilarious......

 

This entire thread is BS...it's too easy.....without even trying...😂😂....

 

.....but please....😂😂....all of you....🤣🤣....continue.....

 

.....BWHAHA....😂😂

 

 



KLAMarine on 16 April 2017
Eagle367 said:
KLAMarine said:

Where did you read up on the criteria used?

It's called the element of surprise. I think that's one reason why drone strikes are appealing to military operations. Also appealed to the 911 hijackers.

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?



Player2 on 16 April 2017
Leadified said:
Player2 said:

Okay, let's see if this makes things more clear:

April 1978 - Coup d'etat - Daoud is overthrown and killed, PDPA (Afghan Communist Party) seizes power.

1978 - Uprisings become common due to the repression, purges and unpopular policies dictated by the PDPA. The mujahideen appear.

December 1979 - The USSR invaded Afghanistan at the request of the Afghan government, who found themselves unable to control the situation on their own.

 

Now let's revise your original statement: "If Russia did not invade Afghanistan, there would be no mujahideen"

Doesn't sound reasonable because the mujahideen existed before a single USSR soldier put a foot on Afghanistan.

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".



VGPolyglot on 16 April 2017
outlawauron said:
VGPolyglot said:

Yes, that's exactly what the US is doing. They're using arms (troops with weapons and bombs) to get into conflict with other nations and states.

Unless you're legitmizing as ISIS as a nation-state, then by your own logic, you're wrong. The US hasn't been at war with any country since the Iraq war. Since then, there's been conflicts with terrorist and extremeist groups across the Middle East. That is not war.

Yes, ISIS is de facto a state. They have control over parts of Iraq and Syria and they have a government in place that runs it.