Support NeoGAF

[Shinobi]

I won't deny that many of the Bush admins moves are disturbing to me: the patriot act, and decision to preempt war in Iraq immediately come to mind. But let's leave the overzealous language out of this.

Fascism (or at least quasi-fascism) is sadly a fitting term for the actions of the current administration...hardly overzealous.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Fascism (or at least quasi-fascism) is sadly a fitting term for the actions of the current administration...hardly overzealous.

Ok, explain.

 

[Shinobi]

Well, depends which definition you use...but here's one.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

I'd say the last two points are Bush administration hallmarks.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Well, depends which definition you use...but here's one.

I'd say the last two points are Bush administration hallmarks.

You claim America's fascist, yet it barely fulfills half the points of the definition you handpicked.

America has always been an extremely nationalistic nation, and will continue to be in the future. Her rich history will prevent it from shying away from strong nationalism. Therefore, pointing out America's nationalism isn't relevant. Besides, lots of nationalism does not equal fascism. Nationalism is a characteristic of fascism, but it does not lead or indicate fascism when by itself.

You claim that racism is a hallmark of the current administration. I'm looking at top Bush cabinet members of past and present, and what do I see? Racial diversity. Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Justice Thomas. Clearly, the administration who appointed black people to the supreme court, and highest positions of cabinet promotes racism in American society. Also keep in mind that under the Bush admin, there has been a hell of a lot of work done at the Mexican border and California to promote legal immigration. Of course, promoting minorities to high level government and working on improving the immigration situation on the West Coast indicate a clear racial prejudice :/

...You really didn't answer anything How is he censoring the opposition? How is he a dictator? How is Bush any different than any President in the past? This isn't fascism, and it isn't anything close to it. This is what I like to call, "Having a douchebag as a President because the majority of American voters suck". Live with it.

 

[MC Safety]

Well, depends which definition you use...but here's one.



I'd say the last two points are Bush administration hallmarks.

Yes, America is a fascist state ...

that will hold free elections like clockwork every four years, and have an orderly transfer of power no matter which candidate wins.

 

[Particle Physicist]

geeze.

well, at least the israeli-palestinian conflict seems to be heading in the right direction:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/12/mideast.ceasefire/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/10/mideast/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/08/mideast/index.html

 

[Shinobi]

You claim America's fascist, yet it barely fulfills half the points of the definition you handpicked.

The fuck I did...I said "Fascism (or at least quasi-fascism) is sadly a fitting term for the actions of the current administration...hardly overzealous". It's a comment on the administration, not the country. It wasn't a handpicked definition either...that's the first definition at dictionary.com.

America has always been extremely nationlistic, but anyone with two eyes can see it's gone overboard since 9/11. The administration and it's loyal followers created a mindset that had anyone who even thought to criticize them as being anti-American. Every single action done by them good or bad is wrapped up in the flag, as if it makes it all better. The racism is pretty obvious...people of Arabian descent have been arrested by the hundreds without charge, locked away for months, sometimes tortured, then sometimes thrown back out on a whim. Didn't say Bush himself was a racist, or hated blacks or whatever, but the policies clearly are.

Though mind you, Bush appointing both Powell and Rice as Secretary of State is hardly a big deal...Strom Thurmond hired a black aid to work for him for a quarter of a century. Being a racist doesn't just mean you wear white sheets, light up crosses and hang every dark skinned person you see by the nuts or tits.

Anyway, that's why I said quasi-fascim...it isn't full blown fascim, but they've defintely got signs of it.

And BTW, I can't live with Bush as leader...I've got my own dumb fuck leader in Canada to live with.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

The fuck I did...I said "Fascism (or at least quasi-fascism) is sadly a fitting term for the actions of the current administration...hardly overzealous". It's a comment on the administration, not the country. It wasn't a handpicked definition either...that's the first definition at dictionary.com.

Make up your mind. Is America fascist or is it not? You threw 'quasi fascism' in there as a cover your ass afterthought.

America has always been extremely nationlistic, but anyone with two eyes can see it's gone overboard since 9/11. The administration and it's loyal followers created a mindset that had anyone who even thought to criticize them as being anti-American. /QUOTE]

Every party attempts to identify with

Every single action done by them good or bad is wrapped up in the flag, as if it makes it all better. The racism is pretty obvious...people of Arabian descent have been arrested by the hundreds without charge, locked away for months, sometimes tortured, then sometimes thrown back out on a whim. Didn't say Bush himself was a racist, or hated blacks or whatever, but the policies clearly are.

Any particular sources for the "hundreds of Arabs arrested without charge, locked away for months, sometimes tortured, then thrown back out on a whim"? Is this a reference to the patriot act? If so, when has torture come into play?

Let's be realistic about the policies: the people who just flew 2 planes into the nexus of the American dream are Arab. The man behind the attacks were Arab. Several prominent Arab figures have called for a Jihad on America. Would it not make sense to pay special attentio to Arabs exiting and entering the country along with all other travellers? When the majority of extremist hatred emanates to your country from a specific area, is it not wise to keep a close eye on people from that area?

Now, before you rape my ass for the above, let me just say that I do not believe the government should apply these restrictions to Americans. If you're an American, you should be treated like every other American regardless of skin colour. However, if you're from an Arabic country, then perhaps special treatment is not out of line.

If Americans have been held or detained for no reason other than their descent, then that's an atrocity, just like Guantonimo Bay is a human rights atrocity.

Though mind you, Bush appointing both Powell and Rice as Secretary of State is hardly a big deal...Strom Thurmond hired a black aid to work for him for a quarter of a century. Being a racist doesn't just mean you wear white sheets, light up crosses and hang every dark skinned person you see by the nuts or tits.

I agree, but you're downplaying the signifigance of the positions Bush has awarded. Even if you downplay the role Secretary of State (it's huge btw), the fact that Justice Thomas has been appointed to the Supreme Court ensures future rights for blacks. But whatever--you're obviously dead set in your beliefs, which is a shame.

Anyway, that's why I said quasi-fascim...it isn't full blown fascim, but they've defintely got signs of it.

Fair enough, but it'd be tough to find any government that doesn't exhibit characteristics of fascism at one point in time. Canada's got quite a few free speech restrictions, and the implementation of the War Measures Act during the FLQ crisis demonstrates my point.

And BTW, I can't live with Bush as leader...I've got my own dumb fuck leader in Canada to live with.

Heh, Martin is so much better than Bush.

 

[Matt]

Clearly, the administration who appointed black people to the supreme court

...huh? What administration are you talking about?

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

...huh? What administration are you talking about?

Clearly the wrong one. As a Canadian, I often work from hearsay....this is one of those times where a good memory doesn't prevent one from fucking up. Justice Thomas was sent to the supreme court under George H W Bush...not the George Bush we have in office today.

The fact that Thomas and Scalia are probably Bush's favourites in the Supreme Court (Scalia appointed by Reagan), is irrelevant.

Sorry, honest mistake.

 

[Shinobi]

Make up your mind. Is America fascist or is it not? You threw 'quasi fascism' in there as a cover your ass afterthought.

Do me a favour...don't tell me my business. If it was an afterthought, it would've either been spliced in with an edit, or used in a followup post. I put it there because that's how I feel, while leaving the full fascim term in to show that I agreed with the general context that bob_arctor posted.

Any particular sources for the "hundreds of Arabs arrested without charge, locked away for months, sometimes tortured, then thrown back out on a whim"? Is this a reference to the patriot act? If so, when has torture come into play?

Let's be realistic about the policies: the people who just flew 2 planes into the nexus of the American dream are Arab. The man behind the attacks were Arab. Several prominent Arab figures have called for a Jihad on America. Would it not make sense to pay special attentio to Arabs exiting and entering the country along with all other travellers? When the majority of extremist hatred emanates to your country from a specific area, is it not wise to keep a close eye on people from that area?

Now, before you rape my ass for the above, let me just say that I do not believe the government should apply these restrictions to Americans. If you're an American, you should be treated like every other American regardless of skin colour. However, if you're from an Arabic country, then perhaps special treatment is not out of line.

If Americans have been held or detained for no reason other than their descent, then that's an atrocity, just like Guantonimo Bay is a human rights atrocity.

I disagree with that viewpoint, for the simple reason that America is selling itself on the idea that they're fighting for freedom, truth, justice, the American way and apple pie. If you're gonna do that, you have to be consistent about it, and that means not discriminating. And it sure as fuck doesn't mean you throw people into jail for months on end without charge or the inability to contact a lawyer.

I agree, but you're downplaying the signifigance of the positions Bush has awarded. Even if you downplay the role Secretary of State (it's huge btw), the fact that Justice Thomas has been appointed to the Supreme Court ensures future rights for blacks. But whatever--you're obviously dead set in your beliefs, which is a shame.

:lol In terms of hating Bush? Sure. Never once said he was a racist though. I'm talking about the administration's policy here, not Bush's personal feelings. You're reading a little too much into "beliefs".

Of course, am I a little skeptical about the appointments not being disingenious? A little. But that comes down to a general distrust regarding anything these people do. On the whole I think it was a smart move on Bush's part, because in terms of international relations, he was probably the best person for the job, the guy in the administration that would ruffle the least feathers. Plus Powell seemed to possess a tiny bit of independant thinking, though he didn't seem inclined to use it (guess that's politics for ya). Rice I'm not sure about, but I guess it's good to see a black woman land such an important job.

Fair enough, but it'd be tough to find any government that doesn't exhibit characteristics of fascism at one point in time. Canada's got quite a few free speech restrictions, and the implementation of the War Measures Act during the FLQ crisis demonstrates my point.

I've made this point on this board for years, but perhaps you're new here so I'll repeat it: speaking in terms of nations and governments, there isn't one Goddamn white hat wearer to be found anywhere on this planet. Not the US, not Canada, not in Europe, not Russia, not China, not in the Middle East, and not anywhere in the UN. Alas, the US are the ones who've trumpeted themselves up to be the defenders of freedom and democracy, and thus they are held to a higher standard then other nations. I have equal distaste for the UN though, thanks to their ridiculous faliure to do anything in Rwanada until it was too late.

Heh, Martin is so much better than Bush.

Heh, I'd just go with better...still don't like him though. Last week did little to improve his standing in my eyes. Then again at least he didn't act like a twat like Mr Golf Ball. :lol

 

[Pimpwerx]

I stopped reading right about here.

Good show.

Then maybe reading comprehension is your problem.

NK having nukes is a form of checks and balances. Understand I don't like nukes. Love the tech, hate the weapons. But since it's blatantly obvious we'll never get any country to completely dismantle, I can handle so called "rogue" states having them. It's hard to believe our enemies are as bad or dangerous as portrayed. Kim Jon-Il may be crazy, but I don't believe he's the threat the administration has made it out to be. Hitler showed you could use propoganda very effectively to paint your enemies in a bad light. Just look at the Soviet Union we were shown of the Reagan years, and the Russia/Eastern Bloc that we've seen since communism fell. The reality didn't match up with the unsavory image we were given.

If you don't like the cheap Hitler ref, how about the genocide in Rwanda? Just radio alone got people to pick up garden tools and kill each other. I don't believe what this administration says, and I don't like the way they've played the public for chumps. They are very blatant, particularly in the use of talking points. It's one thing to have a piece of shit network like FoxNews spitting its own talking points to its anchors, but they parrot the administration. The media should be independant. It should not be a mouthpiece for the government. FoxNews is nothing more than state tv. And even the independant stations have generally played to the government. War coverage in particular has always been poor. We hear daily murders and serial killings in detail on daily news. War casualties are guarded, underreported and totally disregarded. War "heroes" are played up. And with this administration, a brass band plays the national anthem in the background with a big flag waving. It's cheap, it's transparent, but it's fucking effective. If there was an internet during WW2, I bet we'd have seen our share of Germans posting about the same thing.

It's no more apparent than when you look at the budget and the spending trends since Reagan and his trumped-up Cold War. There, I got in some Reagan-bashing, blatant Hitler references and more anti-war peacenik propoganda. I've fought the good fight for today. Continue believing bullshit. PEACE.

 

[MC Safety]

Then maybe reading comprehension is your problem.

NK having nukes is a form of checks and balances. Understand I don't like nukes. Love the tech, hate the weapons. But since it's blatantly obvious we'll never get any country to completely dismantle, I can handle so called "rogue" states having them. It's hard to believe our enemies are as bad or dangerous as portrayed. Kim Jon-Il may be crazy, but I don't believe he's the threat the administration has made it out to be. Hitler showed you could use propoganda very effectively to paint your enemies in a bad light. Just look at the Soviet Union we were shown of the Reagan years, and the Russia/Eastern Bloc that we've seen since communism fell. The reality didn't match up with the unsavory image we were given.

If you don't like the cheap Hitler ref, how about the genocide in Rwanda? Just radio alone got people to pick up garden tools and kill each other. I don't believe what this administration says, and I don't like the way they've played the public for chumps. They are very blatant, particularly in the use of talking points. It's one thing to have a piece of shit network like FoxNews spitting its own talking points to its anchors, but they parrot the administration. The media should be independant. It should not be a mouthpiece for the government. FoxNews is nothing more than state tv. And even the independant stations have generally played to the government. War coverage in particular has always been poor. We hear daily murders and serial killings in detail on daily news. War casualties are guarded, underreported and totally disregarded. War "heroes" are played up. And with this administration, a brass band plays the national anthem in the background with a big flag waving. It's cheap, it's transparent, but it's fucking effective. If there was an internet during WW2, I bet we'd have seen our share of Germans posting about the same thing.

It's no more apparent than when you look at the budget and the spending trends since Reagan and his trumped-up Cold War. There, I got in some Reagan-bashing, blatant Hitler references and more anti-war peacenik propoganda. I've fought the good fight for today. Continue believing bullshit. PEACE.

I hardly think reading comprehension is my problem. Your meaning was plain.

Rather, I think the problem is you are out of your gourd, three sandwiches short of a picnic crazy if you believe North Korea having nuclear weapons is a good thing because it somehow serves as a counterbalance to other countries' arsenals.

 

[BooM235689]

as soon as korea see this man they will dispose of those bobmbs

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Then maybe reading comprehension is your problem.

NK having nukes is a form of checks and balances. Understand I don't like nukes. Love the tech, hate the weapons. But since it's blatantly obvious we'll never get any country to completely dismantle, I can handle so called "rogue" states having them. It's hard to believe our enemies are as bad or dangerous as portrayed. Kim Jon-Il may be crazy, but I don't believe he's the threat the administration has made it out to be. Hitler showed you could use propoganda very effectively to paint your enemies in a bad light. Just look at the Soviet Union we were shown of the Reagan years, and the Russia/Eastern Bloc that we've seen since communism fell. The reality didn't match up with the unsavory image we were given.

LOL. Your credibilty on politics, videogames, quilt knitting = out the window.

This isn't a matter of the Bush administration painting N. Korea in a bad light--it's a fucking matter of them admitting to having nuclear weapons. But hey, asides from that, North Korea really isn't such a bad place, is it? Oh wait, it is. Kim Jong Il isn't a dumbass, but he is ruthless, and his grip on power at the sake of his own people demonstrates that. I guess the 2.5 to 3 million people who starved between 1995 and 1999 because of his retarded agriculture programs aren't a sign that this guys fucking ruthless. I suppose the fact that he has a net worth of over 4 billion dollars, yet his country has been enduring an extremely large famine caused largely by his agriculture policies, isn't a sign that he's ruthless.

Ok, so if the fact that this guy ranks right up there with Stalin and Hitler in terms of countrymen killed doesn't deem him crazy, then perhaps this will: Kim's ordered the government to round up all triplets born and place them under surveilance in state orphanages. He believes a triplet will replace him in power. Very rational ;0

No one should have nuclear weapons--insane murderers like this especially.

 

[Shinobi]

"Steroids. They really work."

I understand what Duane is saying...let's face it, the US doesn't touch Iraq if they had fully functional nukes lined up and pointed at Jerusalem. North Korea has 'em, so the US is going with the diplomatic route. Smart move in that case, but hardly consistent in the broader sense.

 

[COCKLES]

I'd imagine the meeting between Kim and Islamic terrorists would be quite funny.

Kim: My terrorist borthers. Embrace the suitcase nukes I present to you.

Bin-Laden: Praise Allah. Our beloved god.

Kim: (Cough). What did you say?

Bin-Laden: Praise Allah! Our beloved god.

Kim: (hack). Ummm....did no-one tell you? I'm god! Guard's take this god damn raghead to the dungeons!

 

[Pimpwerx]

LOL. Your credibilty on politics, videogames, quilt knitting = out the window.

This isn't a matter of the Bush administration painting N. Korea in a bad light--it's a fucking matter of them admitting to having nuclear weapons. But hey, asides from that, North Korea really isn't such a bad place, is it? Oh wait, it is. Kim Jong Il isn't a dumbass, but he is ruthless, and his grip on power at the sake of his own people demonstrates that. I guess the 2.5 to 3 million people who starved between 1995 and 1999 because of his retarded agriculture programs aren't a sign that this guys fucking ruthless. I suppose the fact that he has a net worth of over 4 billion dollars, yet his country has been enduring an extremely large famine caused largely by his agriculture policies, isn't a sign that he's ruthless.

So fucking what? Why have we targeted Kim Jong-Il over say...random curropt and cruel African dictator X. Pick one, there are about a dozen of them. Or maybe we could talk about the Saudis and not just the way we ignore it, but actually support their government. Why haven't we targeted these other dictators so rabidly? What has justified pegging NK and Iran to the axis of evil, and no one else? Why was Iraq on that list? I find this disturbing. You don't? In light of that, I find one of these countried possessing a deterrant as a good thing b/c if nothing else, it will halt this mad march that Bush seems to have set us on for no good reason. We already bombfucked a country that possessed NO WMDs. Why should I be so ready to believe the bullshit they spew about NK? Have I said Kim Jong-Il is anything less than a crazy douchebag? No. But that doesn't mean I'm ready for the US to march in guns blazing again, or even start leveraging embargos. Personally, I'd just like the fucking truth for a change. Another example is the continued villification of Castro, who is a fucking saint compared to MANY rulers out there. The truth doesn't match the fiction the government's feeding us. Or maybe I'm off my rocker. Apparently I was off my rocker for saying the same thing BEFORE the Iraq War. I said the same damn thing then, and us peaceniks wre just crazy for saying such a thing. I mean, Saddam was killing his people, and evading UN sanctions and blah blah blah brainwashing. :vomitingrolleyes:

Ok, so if the fact that this guy ranks right up there with Stalin and Hitler in terms of countrymen killed doesn't deem him crazy, then perhaps this will: Kim's ordered the government to round up all triplets born and place them under surveilance in state orphanages. He believes a triplet will replace him in power. Very rational ;0

Mike Tyson eats babies. China is also full of baby-killing murderers, who cares what theit population control problem is. If you paint your enemy in a light that will tug at the heart strings of your citizens, you can justify anything. Even genocide (Rwanda). It doesn't matter if that enemy is a crazy Korean on the other side of the world, or your next door neighbor. Information is the ultimate weapon. You control that, you can control the thoughts of most people who aren't willing to question the source. I don't believe Kim Jong-Il is a good person, and his removal would be grand. However, I do not for a second buy our justifications, nor do I believe our motives are even halfway noble. I think the composition of the Axis of Evil should make it abundantly clear that our motives are 110% strategic, not altruistic. Iraq? Pfft, had absolutely nothing. Iran? Of the Mid-East governments, are they really any worse than the Saudis, Jordanians or Syrians? North Korea? WTF is Jong-Il going to do against Japan, China, India, Pakistan or the US? Threaten then to death? However, all three pose significant strategic advantages compared to the other countries around there. And the US would love to finally annex NK so they can pull those troops out of the DMZ and grab another piece of land close to those commie Chinese. Am I cynical? Very.

No one should have nuclear weapons--insane murderers like this especially.

Damn straight, but given that it will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER happen, the opposite of that is the only possible solution. Everyone must have it. If you don't see that, you are naive. Nuclear weapons is the pursuit of any ambitious country. It will forever be pursued by "rogue" states b/c it's something that assures bargaining power. It will forever be denied by the "we got it first"ers b/c they do not want to relinquish power, not so much b/c they fear the actual use of these weapons. Seriously, what good would nuclear war do ANYONE? No one benefits from it. Why would a dictator threaten his rule by giving weapons to terrorists that will only result in their own loss of power? It's not like they can't trace the source of a bomb. Maybe I am crazy, or maybe it's just pretty fucking obvious that this is all just an extension of the uber-lame Cold War posturing. Country X has the bomb. Country X's ruler is evil. Country X is a threat to us. This will now justify our actions (war/sanctions/embargo) against Country X. Country X could just as easily be NK as it could be Iran, Cuba, India, Pakistan, or whoever you hate. It's a pretty simple formula that's been used for most of the century, if not longer. Being a bad dictator really means fuck all in this world of shitheads. I guess if you elect your shithead by a 3% margin and agree with the cause, it's justifiable *yawn*. PEACE.

 

[Pimpwerx]

I hardly think reading comprehension is my problem. Your meaning was plain.

Rather, I think the problem is you are out of your gourd, three sandwiches short of a picnic crazy if you believe North Korea having nuclear weapons is a good thing because it somehow serves as a counterbalance to other countries' arsenals.

Excellent rebuttal. Now fade like the disco culture, stu. PEACE.

 

[Shinobi]

:lol

I'd imagine the meeting between Kim and Islamic terrorists would be quite funny.

Kim: My terrorist borthers. Embrace the suitcase nukes I present to you.

Bin-Laden: Praise Allah. Our beloved god.

Kim: (Cough). What did you say?

Bin-Laden: Praise Allah! Our beloved god.

Kim: (hack). Ummm....did no-one tell you? I'm god! Guard's take this god damn raghead to the dungeons!

:lol :lol :lol

 

[Phoenix]

I'll throw in my 0.02. Anyone having nuclear weapons is bad, whether the reason be for deterence or if they actually intend to use them. WHy? Because if the opportunity presents itself for using them, they will be used - make no mistake about that. However we don't live in Candyland, so we'll have to deal with the fact that people are going to develop them and use them for their own deterrence and political currency. That's just the way of things.

The only 'real' thing at issue here is being in a treaty that prohibits developing them and continuing to develop them anyway. You want to build nuclear weapons - cool, just be open about it and stay out of the NPT.

P.S. The US and its administration is so far away from facism its not even comparable. You need to look at and live under a REAL facist government (or read the works from people who did) to appreciate that. Note that many of these people's works were discovered/published after their deaths or the fall of the regime under which they lived because they couldn't be published under those regimes under fear of death or imprisonment.

 

[Macam]

Excellent rebuttal. Now fade like the disco culture, stu. PEACE.

Oh, he's not wrong for saying it. Frankly, I was going to address your post initially, but opted against it considering the overwhelming ignorance and dramatic oversimplification of your view on the world. You've continued it above, and it's obvious that you don't understand what North Korea is doing with their arms or what the danger really is, so you've simply accepted it as being okay in your book, since there are plenty of other wrongs out there in the world and we're being led by a deceitful administration. Worse yet, you fired off a lame shot about Disco Stu's handle, from someone who's name is "Pimpwerx" and has a cannabis leaf as an avatar.

Really now.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

So fucking what? Why have we targeted Kim Jong-Il over say...random curropt and cruel African dictator X.

Random corrupt African dictator doesn't have nukes. Random corrupt African dictator isn't in a position to threaten places the US cares about.

Pick one, there are about a dozen of them. Or maybe we could talk about the Saudis and not just the way we ignore it, but actually support their government. Why haven't we targeted these other dictators so rabidly? What has justified pegging NK and Iran to the axis of evil, and no one else? Why was Iraq on that list? I find this disturbing. You don't?

I don't find it disturbing whatsoever. Iraq has what dubya wants--oil and a chance to finish up what Daddy never could. On top of that, it was ruled by a crazy ass dicatator who easily tops some of those of the African variety. I have never supported the war in Iraq if that's what you're assuming btw.

In light of that, I find one of these countried possessing a deterrant as a good thing b/c if nothing else, it will halt this mad march that Bush seems to have set us on for no good reason.

He believes in fighting fire with fire, a good enough reason for him and many others. I don't agree with that policy, but I understand it. I don't think you should be worried about the path you're on just yet. After all, to continue the war in Iraq much longer will require the draft. To continue supporting and fighting in Iraq will require a shitload more money. To extend America's forces to another region of the world at this point would be disasterous for the American economy and not feasible without a massive draft. It's not gonna happen--at least until Iraq's completely sovereign, and that won't occur for many years to come. Bush will be long gone by the time that occurs.

We already bombfucked a country that possessed NO WMDs. Why should I be so ready to believe the bullshit they spew about NK?

Because this information is coming straight from the horses mouth. KNowledge of Korean nukes hasn't come from US intelligence, it's come from North Korea. We've known they've been working on nuclear weapons for some time, and their proximity to other nuclear powers in Asia only confirms the availability of the technology.

Have I said Kim Jong-Il is anything less than a crazy douchebag? No. But that doesn't mean I'm ready for the US to march in guns blazing again, or even start leveraging embargos.

I agree, but their possession of nuclear weapons is hardly a good thing. I've never condoned the invasion of North Korea, and I probably never will barring an aggressive act on their behalf.

Personally, I'd just like the fucking truth for a change. Another example is the continued villification of Castro, who is a fucking saint compared to MANY rulers out there. The truth doesn't match the fiction the government's feeding us. Or maybe I'm off my rocker. Apparently I was off my rocker for saying the same thing BEFORE the Iraq War. I said the same damn thing then, and us peaceniks wre just crazy for saying such a thing. I mean, Saddam was killing his people, and evading UN sanctions and blah blah blah brainwashing. :vomitingrolleyes:

Like most dictator's who've clung to power for far too long, Castro lost his idealistic ways years ago. I admired the spirit of his revolution when it began, but he turned into a blemish on the Western world pretty quickly.

Wait a second...you don't believe that Saddam was killing his people and evading UN sanctions before? I'm not getting this. The dude should've been stripped from power a long time ago, but it should've been done in a different way.

Information is the ultimate weapon. You control that, you can control the thoughts of most people who aren't willing to question the source.

Yeah, what's your point. Last time I checked, most people are capable for freely thinking. I'm betting the people who supported the war on the basis of WMDs still support the war now. The WMDs were just an excuse to go into battle, and everyone already knew that. However, if you want to raise the WMDs as a way to prove that Bush intentionally is misleading everyone, then I think your logic isn't sound because knowledge of those WMDs was based off faulty intelligence gathering, not a bold faced lie concocted by the Bush admin. Did they rush to war too quickly based on a few shitty leads? Hell yes. But there's a lot of gray area here when it comes to who's lying and who isn't.

I don't believe Kim Jong-Il is a good person, and his removal would be grand. However, I do not for a second buy our justifications, nor do I believe our motives are even halfway noble.

Does it matter if your motives are noble if the outcome ends up being good? I really could care less if the US is just in Iraq for the oil. If democracy and peace comes, then I might have to flip flop and say it was a good thing. I will never forgive Bush for ignoring the UN and rushing to war, but I can overlook past wrongs if something good comes out of this, even if the intentions were not honourable.

Damn straight, but given that it will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER happen, the opposite of that is the only possible solution. Everyone must have it. If you don't see that, you are naive.

I'm sorry, but this is completely ridiculous. You think every country in the world should have weaponry that could kill millions and at the very worst, end mankind? I don't want to gamble our future on this planet just to test out some crackpot theory like this. The more nukes we have, the more chances they'll fall into the hands of some radicals who don't give a shit whether they live or die.

Deterrence only works when you're dealing with 2 countries who give a shit about their people. An extremist terrorist cell will gladly sacrifice their lives if it means wiping out the enemy; countries won't.

Nuclear weapons is the pursuit of any ambitious country.

No. Just no.

Why would a dictator threaten his rule by giving weapons to terrorists that will only result in their own loss of power? It's not like they can't trace the source of a bomb. Maybe I am crazy, or maybe it's just pretty fucking obvious that this is all just an extension of the uber-lame Cold War posturing. Country X has the bomb. Country X's ruler is evil. Country X is a threat to us.

I don't think you get it. There isn't gonna be any tracing to be had once the world's thrown into disarray. I'm not sure how one goes about tracing a nuke, but I'm sure it'd be pretty easy to cover your steps. As I said above, you can deal with countries, but you can't deal with terrorists. As long as nuclear weapons are being produced around the globe, the chance that they'll wind up in the hands of people who don't give a shit about the bomb's implications grows.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Oh, he's not wrong for saying it. Frankly, I was going to address your post initially, but opted against it considering the overwhelming ignorance and dramatic oversimplification of your view on the world. You've continued it above, and it's obvious that you don't understand what North Korea is doing with their arms or what the danger really is, so you've simply accepted it as being okay in your book, since there are plenty of other wrongs out there in the world and we're being led by a deceitful administration. Worse yet, you fired off a lame shot about Disco Stu's handle, from someone who's name is "Pimpwerx" and has a cannabis leaf as an avatar.

Really now.

So is it so fucking hard to elaborate? I'll defend my arguments b/c I know I'm right. Believe what you say? Then back it up. What you said here hasn't proven/disproven shit. Much like what Stu said added nothing and disproved nothing. I oversimplify to avoid Loki levels of rambling. Ask anyone who's been on here before, I can go on long, rambling tirades too. But why bother when the basic concept will suffice?

1. Nukes are a reality that everyone will pursue until everyone has them. Get the fuck over it.

2. NK is run by a retard. But a retard who's no more/less retarded than many others out there. And some would say Bush is no better, which brings up the issue of moral relativism, but I digress.

3. NK having nukes doesn't mean NK will suddenly start giving nukes to the "bad guys" or even start using them themselves. They could be *gasp* using them as protection (deterrence).

The problem is that people see "nukes" and "crazy dictator", and then immediately assume doomsday. Why? B/c we've been trained by our government to feel that. NK has nukes. So do we. NK doesn't have broken arrows. We do. NK hasn't given nukes to other nations. We have (Israel and I think Taiwan). NK doesn't have the capability of destroying the world. We do.

Who's crazier, the guy in charge of the most deadly military arsenal who started a war under false pretenses, and currently has NK lined up in the crosshairs. Or the guy who acquired nukes as a result of being targeted, yet can't even beat his next-door neighbor? Hmm, tell me again about the NK boogeyman, I love fairy tales.

Anyway, this crude combination of words is called a rebuttal. Try it sometime. You and Stu need to back your play or just shut the fuck up. PEACE.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

So is it so fucking hard to elaborate? I'll defend my arguments b/c I know I'm right.

Anyone who thinks they're right is usually wrong. The moment you stop questioning your own beliefs is the moment when you become a blind mouthpiece to the set of values you've decided to follow. In my mind, you're worse than the blind Bush followers simply because it's dumbasses like you who cheapen the fight of the left. I fucking despise Michael Moore and co because they take legitimate arguments and twist them to adhere specifically to their beliefs. They like to believe that there's a good guy and a bad guy. Well, guess what? There's a shitload of gray in between, and the quicker you realize that you are never completely right, the quicker you can become a human being whose opinions actually matter.

Emptiness = interchangability. Let go of obvious bias and pretentiousness and address each issue anew.

 

[Phoenix]

I agree, but their possession of nuclear weapons is hardly a good thing. I've never condoned the invasion of North Korea, and I probably never will barring an aggressive act on their behalf.

Like firing a ballistic missile over Japan? What IS the line that NK has to cross before they are considered a valid target (not that I want to attack them mind you)?

Wait a second...you don't believe that Saddam was killing his people and evading UN sanctions before? I'm not getting this. The dude should've been stripped from power a long time ago, but it should've been done in a different way.

There exists only one way to remove a dictator from power who has favor from his military and his generals - you have to remove him through force. His controlling the military pretty much prevents the other alternatives.

Yeah, what's your point. Last time I checked, most people are capable for freely thinking. I'm betting the people who supported the war on the basis of WMDs still support the war now. The WMDs were just an excuse to go into battle, and everyone already knew that.

This is really the point I wanted to contest, but was dragged into other parts of your post While the WMDs were an excuse, all wars have to be sold to the populace and much of the populace DID believe that there were WMDs there.

Does it matter if your motives are noble if the outcome ends up being good? I really could care less if the US is just in Iraq for the oil. If democracy and peace comes, then I might have to flip flop and say it was a good thing. I will never forgive Bush for ignoring the UN and rushing to war, but I can overlook past wrongs if something good comes out of this, even if the intentions were not honourable.

The end cannot justify the means. The United States brought about a bitch slap end to the Axis powers. This end would not have been possible without years and years of slavery and oppression at the hand of the country in its early years. Without its slavery backed economy its is more than likely it would not have had the economic muscle to maintain its independence.

I'm sorry, but this is completely ridiculous. You think every country in the world should have weaponry that could kill millions and at the very worst, end mankind? I don't want to gamble our future on this planet just to test out some crackpot theory like this. The more nukes we have, the more chances they'll fall into the hands of some radicals who don't give a shit whether they live or die.

Terrorists have already demonstrated that they can inflict considerable damage without having access to nuclear weapons. They have already been developing a variety of chemical and biological agents. These are 'low hanging fruit' compared to getting access to nuclear materials. In addition the more likely terrorists nuclear threat (dirty bomb) can be built fairly easily with materials readily available inside the country already (from hospitals).

I don't think you get it. There isn't gonna be any tracing to be had once the world's thrown into disarray. I'm not sure how one goes about tracing a nuke, but I'm sure it'd be pretty easy to cover your steps.

Actually its very hard. The isotopes from the blast leave a pretty discernable signature.

 

[Macam]

So is it so fucking hard to elaborate? I'll defend my arguments b/c I know I'm right. Believe what you say? Then back it up. What you said here hasn't proven/disproven shit. Much like what Stu said added nothing and disproved nothing. I oversimplify to avoid Loki levels of rambling. Ask anyone who's been on here before, I can go on long, rambling tirades too. But why bother when the basic concept will suffice?

1. Nukes are a reality that everyone will pursue until everyone has them. Get the fuck over it.

2. NK is run by a retard. But a retard who's no more/less retarded than many others out there. And some would say Bush is no better, which brings up the issue of moral relativism, but I digress.

3. NK having nukes doesn't mean NK will suddenly start giving nukes to the "bad guys" or even start using them themselves. They could be *gasp* using them as protection (deterrence).

The problem is that people see "nukes" and "crazy dictator", and then immediately assume doomsday. Why? B/c we've been trained by our government to feel that. NK has nukes. So do we. NK doesn't have broken arrows. We do. NK hasn't given nukes to other nations. We have (Israel and I think Taiwan). NK doesn't have the capability of destroying the world. We do.

Who's crazier, the guy in charge of the most deadly military arsenal who started a war under false pretenses, and currently has NK lined up in the crosshairs. Or the guy who acquired nukes as a result of being targeted, yet can't even beat his next-door neighbor? Hmm, tell me again about the NK boogeyman, I love fairy tales.

Anyway, this crude combination of words is called a rebuttal. Try it sometime. You and Stu need to back your play or just shut the fuck up. PEACE.

1. Nukes are a reality and there will always be nations that will have nuclear ambitions as a way of deterrance, security, and symbolism. That said, it's not a reality we should have to deal with or would want to be in.

2. Dubbing Kim Il-Jong a "retard" or addressing moral relativism is a completely separate issue. This justifies nothing on either front.

3. They are using them as deterrance and leveraging power, there's no question about that. That doesn't rule out that the economically unstable North Korean government won't distribute weapons to third parties as black market income to sustain the government or for further leveraging power.

To quote from a recent Foreign Affairs article:

"...the Bush administration has blocked action on the one present threat that North Korea is known to pose: the threat represented by its reprocessed plutonium, which could be used for nuclear weapons or transferred to third parties."

There IS a danger. To say otherwise is ignorant and naive. In your distaste for the Bush administration (which I share), you're oversimplifying, ignoring, and daydreaming.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Like firing a ballistic missile over Japan? What IS the line that NK has to cross before they are considered a valid target (not that I want to attack them mind you)?

I suppose they have to demonstrate that they are ready and willing to attack another country with nuclear weapons, something I can't see happening since, as pimpwerx said, they're mainly using them as a bargaining tool to get attention. If the world convenes and decides on a set of rules that every country must abide by, and N. Korea is found to be violating them, then they're considered a valid target. Until this happens, or the UN gets some balls, they'll have to demonstrate their willingness to extend power beyond their borders before the Wester intervenes.

There exists only one way to remove a dictator from power who has favor from his military and his generals - you have to remove him through force. His controlling the military pretty much prevents the other alternatives.

Of course, but the group that uses force to eject the dictator from power is a wild card. The circumstances surroudning the ejection is another variable that comes into play as well. So yes, force is necessary, but the way that force is utilized and by whom, can vary.

This is really the point I wanted to contest, but was dragged into other parts of your post While the WMDs were an excuse, all wars have to be sold to the populace and much of the populace DID believe that there were WMDs there.

uh...ok. What's there to contest? I agree with you completely: before heading off to war, you need the populace to be behind you. The war may be unjustified, and the tactics used may be unscrupulous, but the populace needs to be behind you. Just because the populace belives something doesn't make it true, and just because they're behind you doesn't justify your cause. The American people are quick to trust and jump behind their commander in chief, but that doesn't mean they shoudl be abused in the process.

The end cannot justify the means. The United States brought about a bitch slap end to the Axis powers. This end would not have been possible without years and years of slavery and oppression at the hand of the country in its early years. Without its slavery backed economy its is more than likely it would not have had the economic muscle to maintain its independence.

Huh? Aren't you saying the end does justify the means if slavery and oppression meant the end of Nazi Germany?

Terrorists have already demonstrated that they can inflict considerable damage without having access to nuclear weapons. They have already been developing a variety of chemical and biological agents. These are 'low hanging fruit' compared to getting access to nuclear materials. In addition the more likely terrorists nuclear threat (dirty bomb) can be built fairly easily with materials readily available inside the country already (from hospitals).

I highly doubt homemade nuclear bombs compare in power to those produced by scientists in a lab--I could be wrong, I'm just talking out of my ass right now. Please correct me if necessary. And just because terrorists have the ability to create WMDs and biological agents doesn't mean we shoudl throw up our hands and say, "meh, let's let everyone have nuclear weaponry...the terrorists will get their hands on a bomb eventually, no use in trying to prevent that from occuring."

Actually its very hard. The isotopes from the blast leave a pretty discernable signature.

Ah, if you will, please give me a brief education on this topic. How does America know what kind of isotopes a North Korean, Russian, Chinese, bomb has? How can you tell for certain which country the isotope originated from? Not rhetorical questions, I really would like an answer because this fascinates me

 

[Pimpwerx]

Random corrupt African dictator doesn't have nukes. Random corrupt African dictator isn't in a position to threaten places the US cares about.

Oh boo-hoo. Places the US "cares about"? WTF? Should I say more? ... No.

I don't find it disturbing whatsoever. Iraq has what dubya wants--oil and a chance to finish up what Daddy never could. On top of that, it was ruled by a crazy ass dicatator who easily tops some of those of the African variety. I have never supported the war in Iraq if that's what you're assuming btw.

WTF? So...you disagree with what happened in Iraq, but don't think it has a bearing on what's going on with NK or Iran? Again, am I missing something here? Justification. the word of the day is justification. It's like Where's Waldo for this whole dog and pony show. Find the justification in the whole mess. Oh, but at least you acknowledge that Saddam wasn't the worst dictator out there.

He believes in fighting fire with fire, a good enough reason for him and many others. I don't agree with that policy, but I understand it. I don't think you should be worried about the path you're on just yet. After all, to continue the war in Iraq much longer will require the draft. To continue supporting and fighting in Iraq will require a shitload more money. To extend America's forces to another region of the world at this point would be disasterous for the American economy and not feasible without a massive draft. It's not gonna happen--at least until Iraq's completely sovereign, and that won't occur for many years to come. Bush will be long gone by the time that occurs.

These doctrines stay in place for years. There is a lot of stuff still held over from Nixon and Reagan. More importantly, the budget continues to swing towards defense and away from what's being defended. I AM worried and will continue to be worried. Priorities will continue to shift until someone starts worrying. I mean, if you wait for things to get bad first, it's already too late. This is preventive panic, my new doctrine.

Because this information is coming straight from the horses mouth. KNowledge of Korean nukes hasn't come from US intelligence, it's come from North Korea. We've known they've been working on nuclear weapons for some time, and their proximity to other nuclear powers in Asia only confirms the availability of the technology.

The possession of nukes alone will be reason to attack? I don't think so. We should bomb Pakistan and India and Israel too then. The possession of nukes by "rogue states" is the grounds for action. My beef is with who gets labeled as "rogue" these days is totally dependant on what strategic purpose they serve for the US.

Like most dictator's who've clung to power for far too long, Castro lost his idealistic ways years ago. I admired the spirit of his revolution when it began, but he turned into a blemish on the Western world pretty quickly.

Again, he is a saint compared to most rulers around the world, which is why most of the world still does trade with Cuba, and why the US are the only real stallwarts in this. This is a holdover from the Cold War, nothing more. But in the US press (especially here in Miami), he is painted as a cruel and brutal dictator, when he is not that. And thanks to him, lots of people in the islands get good educations and other forms of aid. You'll find opinions of Castro deviate greatly once you leave the US and travel around. He's not a good guy, but he's not exactly a bad guy either. He's about par for the course, especially compared to many of our allies *cough* Saudi Arabia.

--- TANGENT --- The ultimat irony is that the US is using Cuba (Guantanamo) as a location to carry out the very same atrocities we accuse Castro of performing. Torturing political prisoners. :lol I'm sorry, it's not a laughing matter, but the irony is killing me. We hold guys at Gitmo in legal limbo, with no chance of parole, and we torture the shit out of them. America, fuck yeah.

Wait a second...you don't believe that Saddam was killing his people and evading UN sanctions before? I'm not getting this. The dude should've been stripped from power a long time ago, but it should've been done in a different way.

I believe he's done some of what's been stated. I think the evasion of the UN sanctions thing isn't 100% clear though. But then, I also think we had a hand in much of the early crimes be committed, especially since we supplied him. Rummy agrees:

Saddamn should have been taken out after the Gulf War. That was justified, which is why we had a coalition of the willing rather than a coalition of the bribed. But coulda, shoulda, woulda but didn't. The most recent means used has caused death and destruction that was sold to the US public as something totally different. And the same administration that coined the term "revisionist history" is using it effectively to rewrite the cause for war. Again, more reasons for my continued concern.

Yeah, what's your point. Last time I checked, most people are capable for freely thinking. I'm betting the people who supported the war on the basis of WMDs still support the war now. The WMDs were just an excuse to go into battle, and everyone already knew that. However, if you want to raise the WMDs as a way to prove that Bush intentionally is misleading everyone, then I think your logic isn't sound because knowledge of those WMDs was based off faulty intelligence gathering, not a bold faced lie concocted by the Bush admin. Did they rush to war too quickly based on a few shitty leads? Hell yes. But there's a lot of gray area here when it comes to who's lying and who isn't.

Has the brainwashing worked on you too? Here's a new word, "accountability". The whole problem with "intelligence" (that term is used loosely here), is that it's all done in secret. There's no transparency. We have to basically accept the word of the government. Now, it's all well and good that the admin wants to NOW pawn all the blame off on the intelligence community, but that doesn't fly with me. Prior to the war UNSCOM was coming up empty on the WMD front. YET, the administration was already mobilizing. I'd already mentioned a year before that that my friend's little bro was a tank driver and they'd already been doing plenty of desert maneuvers. What on earth could they be prepping for? So, while Blix and his crew were telling us one thing, the US's military buildup was showing another. The administration had set the wheels in motion from Day 1. You can see it as the words Iraq, WMD and Saddam gradually creep their way into the president's speeches. And they weren't directly related at first, just loose associations by crowding sentenced together. At this point, if I was Mandark, I'd already have overwhelmed you with links to past speech transcripts. But I'm lazy, and I'm not that good with Google. But I believe anyone else paying attention at the time would have noticed this as well.

I strongly believe the administration was just trying to build a case against Iraq. The question wasn't if war was necessary, it was WHEN it would become necessary. In order to do that, they needed to convince the American people, b/c we really are the only ones who can stop our military. So the infamous SoU speech managed to link Saddam, Iraq and WMDs together with the new catalyst for change, 9/11. "Do you remember?" Mr. Worley wasn't the only one to make a cheap cash-in on the memory of 9/11. It's become this administration's bread and butter. It's still being used as a justification. "Since 9/11...blah blah blah". The ears prick up, and now whatever follows reminds you of terrorists and a threat to security. A simple game of word association...again.

As you asked, yes, most people are capable of thinking freely. However, if it's not abundantly clear now, most people don't. The two-party system should pound that into anyone's skull. I mean, are there really only two stances on an issue? Come on, most people are fucking muppets. Not just here, everywhere. Again, in Rwanda, people killed their neighbors in the most brutal fashion just b/c of propoganda spewed on the radio. Free thought is a rare commodity it seems. I think we see it even more clearly with how the US's opinion on the war was so cruely out of wack with the rest of the world's. Why didn't most Europeans see it the same way? Again, depending on what information you feed your populace, they will believe what you want them to believe.

Does it matter if your motives are noble if the outcome ends up being good? I really could care less if the US is just in Iraq for the oil. If democracy and peace comes, then I might have to flip flop and say it was a good thing. I will never forgive Bush for ignoring the UN and rushing to war, but I can overlook past wrongs if something good comes out of this, even if the intentions were not honourable.

The ends justify the means I guess. I disagree, b/c the colatteral damage is irrepairable. Plus it's set a new, dangerous precedent. It's pretty much justified a country acquiring nukes.

I'm sorry, but this is completely ridiculous. You think every country in the world should have weaponry that could kill millions and at the very worst, end mankind? I don't want to gamble our future on this planet just to test out some crackpot theory like this. The more nukes we have, the more chances they'll fall into the hands of some radicals who don't give a shit whether they live or die.

Deterrence only works when you're dealing with 2 countries who give a shit about their people. An extremist terrorist cell will gladly sacrifice their lives if it means wiping out the enemy; countries won't.

First of all, we agree that the best option is total dismantlement. But it will never happen. As a result, there will always be a need to acquire them in order to GUARANTEE protection. So long as one country has them, everyone will want it as a deterrent. It's a sad fact. So what option does that leave? Why not letting everyone have it? I'd take that gamble. If someone's dumb enough to give terrorists a nuke, then they are dumb enough to guarantee their destruction. On a science level (again, something most people simply don't understand), a nuke can be traced. They'll know which reactor from which part of the world it came from. I gleam this partly from a movie (Sum Of All Fears), but also just from general chemistry. You can't make a nuke and not leave a signature. So then all Jong-Il could do would be to attack the US through a proxy, but the shit would come flying right back in his face. Then what has he accomplished? It couldn't stop him from attacking us with conventional weapons through a proxy, could it? And those are easier to disguise since he would only need to provide funding. Why aren't we scared he'll give some high-explosives to terrorists? Why aren't we scared he'll give fighter planes or something to terrorists? Why is it this unreasonable fear of nukes? My answer is b/c we've been trained to respond this way. Nukes scare people for some stupid reason. Again, Cold War bullshit. There's no chance of a nuclear war IMO. And if it happened, all the better. Start from scratch.

I don't think you get it. There isn't gonna be any tracing to be had once the world's thrown into disarray. I'm not sure how one goes about tracing a nuke, but I'm sure it'd be pretty easy to cover your steps. As I said above, you can deal with countries, but you can't deal with terrorists. As long as nuclear weapons are being produced around the globe, the chance that they'll wind up in the hands of people who don't give a shit about the bomb's implications grows.

Took me a bit to find something, but I figure Clancy bases his work on some form of reality:

http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/nuclear_terrorism.htm

Forensics.
The United States can often identify the origin of nuclear material used in a bomb. This forensic capability strengthens the value of controlling Russian nuclear weapons and materials: finding that material for a bomb detonated in the United Statescame from Russia, a likely source, would in all probability lead to the conclusion that the material was stolen rather than that Russia conducted the attack. At the same time, augmenting already-excellent forensic capability through technology and intelligence could help deter other nations from giving nuclear materials to a terrorist group.

We can probably trace the source of fissile material through radiation signatures. I think gamma rays and other emissions. I'm not the best-versed at nuke chemistry, so it's more of an extrapolation than anything. If there was a nuke detonated by a terrorist, I'm assuming the US could find where it came from. If they didn't know, they could solicit the nations of the world to release some of the radiation sig data from their reactors to track it down. The countries that refuse would make the short list of suspects. Nuclear war is hard to imagine IMO. It's just used to scare people, like it was during the Cold War. Phew! That was a long response. I'll shorten my replies in the future. PEACE.

 

[MC Safety]

Anyway, this crude combination of words is called a rebuttal. Try it sometime. You and Stu need to back your play or just shut the fuck up. PEACE.

It's my opinion you don't rebut nonsense.

North Korea having a nuclear arsenal is not a good thing. Mutually assured destruction is not a safeguard against anything, because it assumes humans will think rationally.

Whatever your hatreds and personal inclinations, it's led you to defend a position that's untenable.

 

[Pimpwerx]

1. Nukes are a reality and there will always be nations that will have nuclear ambitions as a way of deterrance, security, and symbolism. That said, it's not a reality we should have to deal with or would want to be in.

2. Dubbing Kim Il-Jong a "retard" or addressing moral relativism is a completely separate issue. This justifies nothing on either front.

3. They are using them as deterrance and leveraging power, there's no question about that. That doesn't rule out that the economically unstable North Korean government won't distribute weapons to third parties as black market income to sustain the government or for further leveraging power.

1. We HAVE to deal with it. If it's not NK, it's Iran or someone else. Or have we forgotten India, Pakistan and Israel? Or did I miss the memo showing they always had the bomb?

2. The dubbing of Jong-Il in ANY fashion is the entire crux of the matter. He's deemed as a renegade, that's the justification here, right? That renegade + nukes = bad? If it's just the nukes, then what's the big fucking deal? We have nukes. The French have nukes, etc... It's the labeling that's the problem. Without the label NK's just another nuclear power.

3. Insert the name of any former Soviet Union nation that's now in dire poverty. Maybe they should be pegged to the axis of evil? Or...maybe it's a lot of fear-mongering used to paint NK as a dangerous nation that needs to be dealt with. Oooh, propoganda debunked.

There IS a danger. To say otherwise is ignorant and naive. In your distaste for the Bush administration (which I share), you're oversimplifying, ignoring, and daydreaming.

There's a danger from us, from the French, from the Russians, from 300M US citizens all armed with pen knives. Oversimplifying works both ways, you see? I think it's an easy way to disregard a valid point, but it doesn't make you right. I hate Bush. I hate Jong-Il. I hate people who don't agree with me. But it's got nothing to do with being ignorant or naive. The threat posed it played up. Maybe you've forgotten already, but Iraq was supposedly a threat to us too. Despite myself and others pointing out repeatedly the shitty state of their military (oooh, Russian T51 tanks from yesteryear, and crippled missle delivery systems...so scary), and that they didn't even pose a threat to their neighbors, some people still thought war was necessary. Pfft. Again, NK's military has its hands full on the DMZ alone. Their missle delivery system poses NO THREAT to us. Their military capabilities as a whole are beneath us. Why are you (and others on here) ONCE AGAIN SPEWING THIS BULLSHIT??? Iraq wasn't a threat, Iran isn't a threat, and NK isn't a threat. Get that through your skulls. The only way to make paint them as a threat is by *assuming* they'll deal with "terrorists" (the new boogeyman), which only makes an ass of u and me. I always wanted to use that lame comeback, but it was very rewarding this time.

Why do we assume NK will deal with anyone? Did Saddam do it? He had plenty of justification. Not only was his country financially crippled, but the US was actively trying to kick his ass, and Saddam was supposedly "insane" too. I swear, it's like the Iraq War didn't happen and some of you just woke up today to read about a crazy dictator in NK. If that's the case, I fucking give up. Sanctions and embargos a go go. If you don't see a problem with how things are being portrayed to us, there's no point even trying then. Strategically, there's nothing NK can do to us. It only becomes a problem once we start talking about "covert deals" and other bullshit like that. But then, what's to stop the US from selling nukes to terrorists, or the Russians? Oh, probably b/c you feel we're better than that. Without evidence, I don't think there's a case. You're being played like idiots. The words "terrorist" and "nuke" have got the whole lot of you shook. PEACE.

 

[Pimpwerx]

It's my opinion you don't rebut nonsense.

North Korea having a nuclear arsenal is not a good thing. Mutually assured destruction is not a safeguard against anything, because it assumes humans will think rationally.

Whatever your hatreds and personal inclinations, it's led you to defend a position that's untenable.

And the sad thing is I agree with you. But I have no dreams of the status quo being maintained with the US policing who does what. I don't think the EU will be able to police it. I think the reality of our technology advances determine that at the bare minimum, any country in the world will be able to do nuke modeling on computers within 10 years, if not already. Appropriation of supplies will continue to take place on the lucrative black market, which only exists b/c of *gasp* the policing by the US and other nuclear powers. This is the drug war on a larger scale. You cannot stop something that people want, period. And thank you for adding something this time, even if you think I post nonsense, what you added before was utterly worthless. PEACE.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Oh boo-hoo. Places the US "cares about"? WTF? Should I say more? ... No.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be getting the world's attention, I was just explaining why they aren't. Not that you didn't already know the reasons


WTF? So...you disagree with what happened in Iraq, but don't think it has a bearing on what's going on with NK or Iran? Again, am I missing something here? Justification. the word of the day is justification. It's like Where's Waldo for this whole dog and pony show. Find the justification in the whole mess. Oh, but at least you acknowledge that Saddam wasn't the worst dictator out there.

I really don't know how we can compare dicators in terms of good and bad. They all kill their people, prevent others from having a voice, and generally wallow in their own filth. A murder's a murder...pouring over who's killing 2 million less than the other guy is fruitless because both guys are fucking insane pieces of shit.

These doctrines stay in place for years. There is a lot of stuff still held over from Nixon and Reagan. More importantly, the budget continues to swing towards defense and away from what's being defended. I AM worried and will continue to be worried. Priorities will continue to shift until someone starts worrying. I mean, if you wait for things to get bad first, it's already too late. This is preventive panic, my new doctrine.

I agree that you need to make your voice heard when you disagree with a particular policy. However, I still don't think things will escalate to the point you think they will. I'm not familiar with the details of the new budget, but doesn't it attempt to curb excessive military spending and stop the expansion of the deficit? Again, fighting several dictatorships at once and rebuilding them is simply far too expensive for the US to do. It's not gonna happen now or anytime soon.

The possession of nukes alone will be reason to attack? I don't think so. We should bomb Pakistan and India and Israel too then. The possession of nukes by "rogue states" is the grounds for action. My beef is with who gets labeled as "rogue" these days is totally dependant on what strategic purpose they serve for the US.

I never said it was reason to attack. You said Saddam didn't have WMDs and therefore NK probably doesn't. The difference, as I already stated, is that US intelligence believed Saddam had WMDs; NK has ADMITTED to having them. So no, possessing nukes in itself isn't reason to attack. I never said it was.

Again, he is a saint compared to most rulers around the world, which is why most of the world still does trade with Cuba, and why the US are the only real stallwarts in this. This is a holdover from the Cold War, nothing more. But in the US press (especially here in Miami), he is painted as a cruel and brutal dictator, when he is not that. And thanks to him, lots of people in the islands get good educations and other forms of aid. You'll find opinions of Castro deviate greatly once you leave the US and travel around. He's not a good guy, but he's not exactly a bad guy either. He's about par for the course, especially compared to many of our allies *cough* Saudi Arabia.

Yeah, whatever. I'm a Canadian by the way, and like I said, I admired the spirit of the revolution in the beginning, but his days of idealism are over and the days of clinging to power have begun. Castro probably woudn't be like this if it wasn't for the US in the cold war.

I believe he's done some of what's been stated. I think the evasion of the UN sanctions thing isn't 100% clear though. But then, I also think we had a hand in much of the early crimes be committed, especially since we supplied him.

I think the genocide and ethnic cleansing he's promoted in the past speak for themselves. You're making yourself look bad by attempting to lessen the atrocities he's committed in the past. The US played a part in giving him weapons to do harm, but at the end of the day, he's still the one to pull the trigger on the gun borrowed. I'm not excusing the US's actions, because frankly, they're horrible.

Saddamn should have been taken out after the Gulf War. That was justified, which is why we had a coalition of the willing rather than a coalition of the bribed. But coulda, shoulda, woulda but didn't. The most recent means used has caused death and destruction that was sold to the US public as something totally different. And the same administration that coined the term "revisionist history" is using it effectively to rewrite the cause for war. Again, more reasons for my continued concern.

I agree. I hate how the Bush administration has moved from cause to cause for this war. On one hand, I admire their political maneauvering, but on the other, I'm disturbed that so many willingly lap it up. There are many, however, who supported the war in the first place to remove Saddam and bring democracy to Iraq. There are equally many who believed he had WMDs.


Has the brainwashing worked on you too? Here's a new word, "accountability". The whole problem with "intelligence" (that term is used loosely here), is that it's all done in secret. There's no transparency. We have to basically accept the word of the government. Now, it's all well and good that the admin wants to NOW pawn all the blame off on the intelligence community, but that doesn't fly with me.

I threw that argument out because I've heard it several times from people who support Bush. I wasn't agreeing with it, only demonstrating that there's a reasonably valid response to the allegation that Bush was lying. There's no way we'll ever know for sure whether the intelligence really was faulty or if it was fabricated. I tend to think that it wasn't fabricated--this doesn't mean I agree with Bush's decision to go into war. I still believe more intelligence gathering was required; you don't go to war based on a few shitty satellite pictures and the word of a couple IRaqis.

I strongly believe the administration was just trying to build a case against Iraq. The question wasn't if war was necessary, it was WHEN it would become necessary. In order to do that, they needed to convince the American people, b/c we really are the only ones who can stop our military. So the infamous SoU speech managed to link Saddam, Iraq and WMDs together with the new catalyst for change, 9/11. "Do you remember?" Mr. Worley wasn't the only one to make a cheap cash-in on the memory of 9/11. It's become this administration's bread and butter. It's still being used as a justification. "Since 9/11...blah blah blah". The ears prick up, and now whatever follows reminds you of terrorists and a threat to security. A simple game of word association...again.

Politicians are quite the smart one's.

My answer is b/c we've been trained to respond this way. Nukes scare people for some stupid reason. Again, Cold War bullshit. There's no chance of a nuclear war IMO. And if it happened, all the better. Start from scratch.

Thanks for the general description of how nukes are traced. I'm not sure how I missed Sum of AlL Fears, but I did. I do believe there exists a chance for nuclear war. I also believe that if it occurs, we won't be able to "start from scratch." Just different opinions.

 

[Dilbert]

The United States is not a fascist state currently. However, it is undeniable that, over the last few years, the government has taken some actions which are in the direction of fascism.

The real issue is what happens in 4 years when the next President is elected. If he continues the current trends, then panic might well be warranted.

 

[MC Safety]

The United States is not a fascist state currently. However, it is undeniable that, over the last few years, the government has taken some actions which are in the direction of fascism.

The real issue is what happens in 4 years when the next President is elected. If he continues the current trends, then panic might well be warranted.

If you believe there will be an election in four years, and that there will be a next president during that time, you don't have to worry about the United States becoming a fascist regime.

To my mind, people have no idea what fascism really is or the extent of its repression and brutality if they're comparing the modern-day United States to, say, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, or Hitler's Germany.

 

[Dilbert]

To my mind, people have no idea what fascism really is or the extent of its repression and brutality if they're comparing the modern-day United States to, say, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, or Hitler's Germany.

Elections are no guarantee of anything -- Franco and Hitler were originally elected.

I agree that anyone who says that the United States is either presently or imminently fascist IS exaggerating. However, it is absolutely a phenomenon which needs to be vigilantly guarded against. What is fascism, anyway?

The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that

* exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
* engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
* engages in corporatism,[1]

So how are we doing on that checklist? Exalting the nation above the individual? We have a government which loves to talk about "sacrifice" and "duty" and "American values" a lot, and people who disagree with official positions are accused of being "un-American," even though our history and tradition is one of dissent. Censorship? Not formally, but the media control being exercised by the White House is frightening. Propaganda? The government has lied or exaggerated so much that I don't know where to start, and the "talking heads" on television and radio (Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, Fox News, take your pick) are allowed to spew whatever they want without check or balance. Economic and social regimentation? The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Corporatism? Companies have been become so big and powerful that they can afford to get their own laws passed.

"The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life[b/], but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad....

Well, we'd NEVER have a government which tried to enforce a particular set of beliefs, or which would forcibly implement policy outside its borders...oh, wait.

No, we're not fascist. But I don't sleep very well at night.

 

[MC Safety]

Elections are no guarantee of anything -- Franco and Hitler were originally elected.
.

Regular elections, held every four years and with an orderly transfer of power, are a pretty good safeguard against the establishment of a reactionary dictatorship.

I can understand a lot of people are unhappy with American policies as they exist today. And the signs, given these feelings of dissatisfaction, can be interpreted as ominous. It may also be that because of this, it's very easy to focus on the bleak aspects of today -- perpetuating the sort of gloom and doom mentality.

So, yes. There are signs. And vigilance is ever necessary. But it must be noted that the American system has a great way of realigning itself after spectrum shifts. And I, as ever, remain hopeful.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

"talking heads" on television and radio (Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, Fox News, take your pick) are allowed to spew whatever they want without check or balance.

Freedom of speech: a sign that the USA is not fascist, or on the road to becoming fascist (yes, I know you don't think it's fascist either. I'm just making the point clear). There are talking heads on each side of the political spectrum, all of whom are utterly worthless besides making politics entertaining.

 

[DJ Sl4m]

*I haven't read the entire thread & honestly I don't plan to* </disclaimer>

But personally I feel N.Korea can be treated like the bitches they are and havve their issure resolved peacfully if the UN & US stops all funding, help and food provisions.

If Kim wants to threaten <Bush>nucleer</Bush> war, then do it while starving, there's no fucking way this assclown would send his few (probably lone 1 nuclear missle) anywhere when the risks are weighed. Hell he doesn't even have long range capacity.

I know it would scare the hell out of Japan untill he comes to reality, but fuck this guy, it doesn't take a whole lot of rationalizing to realize that he has no ground to stand on.

 

[Phoenix]

The end cannot justify the means. The United States brought about a bitch slap end to the Axis powers. This end would not have been possible without years and years of slavery and oppression at the hand of the country in its early years. Without its slavery backed economy its is more than likely it would not have had the economic muscle to maintain its independence.

Huh? Aren't you saying the end does justify the means if slavery and oppression meant the end of Nazi Germany?

Not in the least. Just because a good outcome happens, that does not mean that the road that you took to get there is justified. If I write a virus that bankrupts the world bank and puts all the money in my back account, but I give all that money away to the poor - the end (giving money to the poor) does not justify the means (bankrupting the world bank). Never ever let anyone convince you that because something good resulted from an action that any action taken to achieve that result is justified - it isn't.

I highly doubt homemade nuclear bombs compare in power to those produced by scientists in a lab--I could be wrong, I'm just talking out of my ass right now. Please correct me if necessary. And just because terrorists have the ability to create WMDs and biological agents doesn't mean we shoudl throw up our hands and say, "meh, let's let everyone have nuclear weaponry...the terrorists will get their hands on a bomb eventually, no use in trying to prevent that from occuring."

That's not the point. You can't prevent countries from developing weapons of any kind if they want to. If NK wants to develop them, we really can't prevent them from doing so outside of continually bombing their facilities in the country - is that what we really want?

Actually its very hard. The isotopes from the blast leave a pretty discernable signature.

Ah, if you will, please give me a brief education on this topic. How does America know what kind of isotopes a North Korean, Russian, Chinese, bomb has? How can you tell for certain which country the isotope originated from? Not rhetorical questions, I really would like an answer because this fascinates me

The method for processing plutonium, uranium, etc. will result in a specific signature as a result of the process. When taking the decay rate into account you can tell when it was made. When taking the 'behavior' of the material into account you can tell how it was made, and usually where it was made. There is a whole science to it which is related to the materials behavior.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Never ever let anyone convince you that because something good resulted from an action that any action taken to achieve that result is justified - it isn't.

In your opinion. The ends justifies the means is never true, nor is the exact opposite. I'll apply the theory situation to situation rather than making a sweeping generalization and taking a stance one way or the other.

That's not the point. You can't prevent countries from developing weapons of any kind if they want to. If NK wants to develop them, we really can't prevent them from doing so outside of continually bombing their facilities in the country - is that what we really want?

If the goal of your opponent is to bite your ear off and nothing else, they will likely succeed in spite of the beating that receive as they single mindedly go for your ear. Likewise, if North Korea, or anyone else, wants to develop nukes, they will eventually succeed. Pimpwerx suggested that every country have access to nukes because it would create a climate of deterrence. I disagree and stated my reasons. You interjected with a different point. This has really gone off on a tangent, so let's forget about it for now.

 

[UltimateMarioMan]

NK having nukes means squat. If they ever used them they'd have every other country with them vaporising them.

 

[Phoenix]

In your opinion. The ends justifies the means is never true, nor is the exact opposite. I'll apply the theory situation to situation rather than making a sweeping generalization and taking a stance one way or the other.

It you want to call that opinionated, that's fine. But considering how you're willing to flip flop on your beliefs based on an outcome speaks clearly to why the end should NEVER justify the means. (Re: Does it matter if your motives are noble if the outcome ends up being good? I really could care less if the US is just in Iraq for the oil. If democracy and peace comes, then I might have to flip flop and say it was a good thing.)

Pimpwerx suggested that every country have access to nukes because it would create a climate of deterrence. I disagree and stated my reasons. You interjected with a different point. This has really gone off on a tangent, so let's forget about it for now.

To be honest I'm more inclined to side with the idea of mutual deterrence through WMD as well. If everyone has them, it keeps the game 'honest' in that you don't have expressed invasions of soverign nations with no fear of reprisal.

The downside to this, however, is that oppressive regimes could move unchecked as no one would be willing to risk a global apocolypse to prevent their activities.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

It you want to call that opinionated, that's fine. But considering how you're willing to flip flop on your beliefs based on an outcome speaks clearly to why the end should NEVER justify the means. (Re: Does it matter if your motives are noble if the outcome ends up being good? I really could care less if the US is just in Iraq for the oil. If democracy and peace comes, then I might have to flip flop and say it was a good thing.)

Ok, I'll try to explain this. I will never waver in my opinion that Bush should not have gone to war based on the information he had at the time. I will never support the decision to sidestep international law and public outcry. However, if the end result is a healthy democracy that'll forge a great relationship with the West, I will recognize that good has come from bad, and I will say that the war was a good thing. Based on the information at the time should he have gone to war? No. But if that decision inadvertently creates something extremely positive, I will consider it a good thing. Does that make any sense? Heh, probably not. Meh.

To be honest I'm more inclined to side with the idea of mutual deterrence through WMD as well. If everyone has them, it keeps the game 'honest' in that you don't have expressed invasions of soverign nations with no fear of reprisal.

The downside to this, however, is that oppressive regimes could move unchecked as no one would be willing to risk a global apocolypse to prevent their activities.

Yeah, aside from the possibility that the apocolypse might occur, there really are no downsides! I'm willing to put this planet's future on the line in order to ensure that countries remain honest!

 

[Phoenix]

Ok, I'll try to explain this. I will never waver in my opinion that Bush should not have gone to war based on the information he had at the time. I will never support the decision to sidestep international law and public outcry. However, if the end result is a healthy democracy that'll forge a great relationship with the West, I will recognize that good has come from bad, and I will say that the war was a good thing. Based on the information at the time should he have gone to war? No. But if that decision inadvertently creates something extremely positive, I will consider it a good thing. Does that make any sense? Heh, probably not. Meh.

Actually no - it doesn't make any

Yeah, aside from the possibility that the apocolypse might occur, there really are no downsides! I'm willing to put this planet's future on the line in order to ensure that countries remain honest!

You should take into account that the world wouldn't be here without mutual deterence. So while you're talking about gambling with the planet's future, perhaps you need to read up on deterrence in history and how it has kept us alive.

 

[Socreges]

You should take into account that the world wouldn't be here without mutual deterence. So while you're talking about gambling with the planet's future, perhaps you need to read up on deterrence in history and how it has kept us alive.

I think we need to put deterrence into context. Does it make nuclear proliferation at all a good thing? No.

The more hands that carry nuclear weapons, the greater the potential for disaster. Every particular risk increases, including misinterpretation and unresponsible possession (nukes getting into the hands of those that can't be identified or targetted).

 

[MC Safety]

I think we need to put deterrence into context. Does it make nuclear proliferation at all a good thing? No.

The more hands that carry nuclear weapons, the greater the potential for disaster. Every particular risk increases, including misinterpretation and unresponsible possession (nukes getting into the hands of those that can't be identified or targetted).

Agreed.

I would also add that fear has not kept us alive, sanity has. As I've stated before, assured destruction assumes that all parties are thinking rationally.

 

[Phoenix]

I think we need to put deterrence into context. Does it make nuclear proliferation at all a good thing? No.

The more hands that carry nuclear weapons, the greater the potential for disaster. Every particular risk increases, including misinterpretation and unresponsible possession (nukes getting into the hands of those that can't be identified or targetted).

I believe I framed that several posts ago

I'll throw in my 0.02. Anyone having nuclear weapons is bad, whether the reason be for deterence or if they actually intend to use them. WHy? Because if the opportunity presents itself for using them, they will be used - make no mistake about that. However we don't live in Candyland, so we'll have to deal with the fact that people are going to develop them and use them for their own deterrence and political currency. That's just the way of things.

 

[bob_arctor]

If you believe there will be an election in four years, and that there will be a next president during that time, you don't have to worry about the United States becoming a fascist regime.

To my mind, people have no idea what fascism really is or the extent of its repression and brutality if they're comparing the modern-day United States to, say, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, or Hitler's Germany.

Just because I mentioned the U.S. as somewhat fascist doesn't mean I was comparing or likening them to the "perfect" models you just mentioned. It's as if, and I'm not just saying this about yourself, once a word with such negative and really, plain frightening, connotations starts getting mentioned in the same sentence as the U.S., there's this automatic "black and white" response. It's like saying that we don't really know what terrorism is, regardless of 9/11, since we don't have suicide bombers running loco in Times Square on a monthly basis.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Just because I mentioned the U.S. as somewhat fascist doesn't mean I was comparing or likening them to the "perfect" models you just mentioned. It's as if, and I'm not just saying this about yourself, once a word with such negative and really, plain frightening, connotations starts getting mentioned in the same sentence as the U.S., there's this automatic "black and white" response. It's like saying that we don't really know what terrorism is, regardless of 9/11, since we don't have suicide bombers running loco in Times Square on a monthly basis.

We can all agree that the US government shares some characteristics with fascism, but we can also agree it shares characteristics with communism, socialism, etc too.

We don't have to fear the US turning to pure fascism anytime soon, but I do agree that we need to keep a close eye on the government. When it does something you disagree with, make your voice heard, and at the very least, vote.

EDIT: whoops, I confused you with someone else . Parts that didn't make sense were edited out.