Interesting

[Echoecho]

And there you go again, stating that they are a threat, that they "shouldn't" have nukes, that they sell them to the wrong people, that they put people in danger. Can't they think the same of the US? Can't you possibly imagine that they *might* consider the US a threat?

Sure, I'm not an idiot, I imagine it, and it even goes without saying. But I don't care. And neither do the people in charge. Why should I? What does that have to do with it?

#1 in the Lessons of war "empathize with the enemy". Empathy is not the same as sympathy. And no one is denying the logic of a rogue state trying to defend itself. Much the same way I would not begin to argue with the logic of someone trying to harm me if they would gain something from it and get away with it, who would? A naive person maybe. But what would that have to do with defending against it, I don't know. So it all boils down to interests and opinions and who has more power to impose theirs. Bring down the US to the level of it's hardened enemies if you like, but I am sure we would be much much worse if they were in charge.

Societies without liberty are backwards and undesirable on so many levels. And you can quote me on that. But of course that's just my opinion.

[Joe Camacho]

And there you go again, stating that they are a threat, that they "shouldn't" have nukes, that they sell them to the wrong people, that they put people in danger. Can't they think the same of the US? Can't you possibly imagine that they *might* consider the US a threat?

Sure, I'm not an idiot, I imagine it, and it even goes without saying. But I don't care. And neither do the people in charge. Why should I? What does that have to do with it?

Because you might realize what is causing so much tension in the world. The invasions that the US makes to enforce it's security, and the military technology that it researches for defensive reasons, can be compared to the nuclear technology that North Korea is making, for defensive reasons too. Now, why can the US have all that power, and others can't? Mmm?

#1 in the Lessons of war "empathize with the enemy". Empathy is not the same as sympathy. And no one is denying the logic of a rogue state trying to defend itself.

Indeed

Much the same way I would not begin to argue with the logic of someone trying to harm me if they would gain something from it and get away with it, who would?

Indeed too.

A naive person maybe. But what would that have to do with defending against it, I don't know.

That's the problem. Looks like the general idea is trying to be as powerful, that while logical, isn't the best option, world wise.. Then again, the USg has taken decisions that are also logical, but ot the best options, for the world.

So it all boils down to interests and opinions and who has more power to impose theirs.

Sadly, the US is the one with the interests and with the power to impose it, so it's obvious that all the guys that are against capitalism and liberalism (There is no such thing as "neoliberalism") are going against the greatest example of it: The US.

Bring down the US to the level of it's hardened enemies if you like, but I am sure we would be much much worse if they were in charge.

Yeah, maybe the US might be "worse" in that scenario but..

And aren't they "suffering" right now because of the US is in charge, right now? Or at least lots of countries in Latinamerica, Middle east and Asia? Sure, the US has living standards that are very nice, but when the World Bank or the International Monetary Bank give "recomendations" to poor Countries, they have the labels "Made in the US" all over, when the plans fail, because said plans *don't* work with the people in those states, instead of blaming themselves, and making their *own* development plans (What they should do) they blame the US.

Societies without liberty are backwards and undesirable on so many levels. And you can quote me on that. But of course that's just my opinion.

No one argues with that. And then again, freedom and liberty are things people need to embrace, instead of being imposed. Sound weird, I know, but you can't *force* someone to be free.

I have to go.. Stupid presentation I need to prepare. And I really hope I don't insult someone or feels this is personal, no way. And I have, I apologize. But please, you can't deny that the US sometimes uses a very awful doble-speech. Which just makes more people mad at it.

[Echoecho]

Because you might realize what is causing so much tension in the world.

No one who puts serious thought into something like this believes confronting threats ever eases tensions automatically. At least not until the enemy is neutralized. No amount of empathy alone nor warm fuzzies and kumbayas will wane a determined enemy. Never happens in the real world.

The invasions that the US makes to enforce it's security, and the military technology that it researches for defensive reasons, can be compared to the nuclear technology that North Korea is making, for defensive reasons too. Now, why can the US have all that power, and others can't? Mmm?

Because their ways are undesirable and are a threat like in the case of religious terrorism. Murderous tyrannies and dark ages thinking, or lack thereof. I will pass on cutting them any slack.

And aren't they "suffering" right now because of the US is in charge, right now? Or at least lots of countries in Latinamerica, Middle east and Asia? Sure, the US has living standards that are very nice, but when the World Bank or the International Monetary Bank give "recomendations" to poor Countries, they have the labels "Made in the US" all over, when the plans fail, because said plans *don't* work with the people in those states, instead of blaming themselves, and making their *own* development plans (What they should do) they blame the US.

The US, like any country, protects it's intrests. It's logical. I'm sure if the tables were turned the world would be utopian. (I would bet on "much worse" still)

No one argues with that. And then again, freedom and liberty are things people need to embrace, instead of being imposed. Sound weird, I know, but you can't *force* someone to be free.

I don't argue that Bush's Iraq invasion was stupidity.

[Joe Camacho]

Because you might realize what is causing so much tension in the world.

No one who puts serious thought into something like this believes confronting threats ever eases tensions automatically. At least not until the enemy is neutralized. No amount of empathy alone nor warm fuzzies and kumbayas will wane a determined enemy. Never happens in the real world.

Indeed, but empathy would help find the real thing both should target. One won't win with bigger nukes, and the other won't win trying to impose their lifestyle to other cultures. The USg should stop messing with other countries (And if they do, at least say that they need to because of economic/security reasons, not because they are "liberating the nation") And all those Military/Extreme regimes will implode, by themselves, once the people are tired of it, unless the regime changes into something good for it's people. It won't happen tomorrow, yes, but that's the natural evolution of societies. 10, 20... Hell, Here in Mx. it passed close to 300 YEARS before we had or independence war. Yes, I'm pretty optimistic

The invasions that the US makes to enforce it's security, and the military technology that it researches for defensive reasons, can be compared to the nuclear technology that North Korea is making, for defensive reasons too. Now, why can the US have all that power, and others can't? Mmm?

Because their ways are undesirable and are a threat like in the case of religious terrorism. Murderous tyrannies and dark ages thinking, or lack thereof. I will pass on cutting them any slack.

I can't believe you seriously think this is about religion, this has "Economy" painted all over, but I can't blame you, that's what they tell us everywhere. "Infidel Americans" or "Crazy Muslims". It's sad that, religion is something very useful, created to ease the mind of the human being. But others use it as a weapon in politics.

And aren't they "suffering" right now because of the US is in charge, right now? Or at least lots of countries in Latinamerica, Middle east and Asia? Sure, the US has living standards that are very nice, but when the World Bank or the International Monetary Bank give "recomendations" to poor Countries, they have the labels "Made in the US" all over, when the plans fail, because said plans *don't* work with the people in those states, instead of blaming themselves, and making their *own* development plans (What they should do) they blame the US.

The US, like any country, protects it's intrests. It's logical. I'm sure if the tables were turned the world would be utopian. (I would bet on "much worse" still)

Indeed, I <3 Capitalism. But I know lots of people that don't.. Like I said a little high from this, I just hate the doble-speech. Sure, if their interest makes them invade other countries, and they have the capability to do it, well do it! But if they disobey the UN, please don't come later and tell the UN they should sanction North Korea, because they too, are looking for their interests.

No one argues with that. And then again, freedom and liberty are things people need to embrace, instead of being imposed. Sound weird, I know, but you can't *force* someone to be free.

I don't argue that Bush's Iraq invasion was stupidity.

The thing with Irak right now, is that they US army should have bailed as soon as they had Saddam, they feared a Civil war, yes? Well, they should have left them fight that war. Instead of trying to impose them a new regime, which was paid with a very high price, and it's still is, by the US. At least during the civil war, they would only be killing Irakis, and not foreigners. After the dust of the civil war, the winners would have made another government, another dictatorship? a presidential or parliamentary democracy? a Monarchy? Who knows, but it would have been 100% THEIRS. After that, they could negociate with the winners any economic treaty they needed. At least that's what I would have done.

[Echoecho]

Indeed, but empathy would help find the real thing both should target.

It's easier said than done. And better people than both us are hard at work trying to balance the array of dilemas, and nothing either of us has said is news to said people.

One won't win with bigger nukes, and the other won't win trying to impose their lifestyle to other cultures.

Depends what you mean by "win". I would use "fend off" instead. Once you understand and deeply empathise with the enemy you still have to fight them or let them destroy you.

I can't believe you seriously think this is about religion, this has "Economy" painted all over, but I can't blame you, that's what they tell us everywhere. "Infidel Americans" or "Crazy Muslims". It's sad that, religion is something very useful, created to ease the mind of the human being. But others use it as a weapon in politics.

I'm no expert on the subject, but I've read articles here and there. I can also observe. I don't know if there is some big conspiracy among the leaders of middle eastern terrorists for the sake of economics, but the workhorse of the operation is the trend where a bunch of guys are itching to blow themselves up among crowds. If they're thinking about economy there, that's pretty odd.

I'm sure somewhere sometime there are terrorists with political or economic complaints, but if you think they all are, I think you're just reflecting on them something that's not there. There is definitely a sub-culture out there of people who want to worship their own "martyrdom" and harm "infidels". And they're determined.

Indeed, I <3 Capitalism. But I know lots of people that don't.. Like I said a little high from this, I just hate the doble-speech. Sure, if their interest makes them invade other countries, and they have the capability to do it, well do it! But if they disobey the UN, please don't come later and tell the UN they should sanction North Korea, because they too, are looking for their interests.

Leaders and politicians say stuff like this because they've read The Prince. The masses are stupid.

The thing with Irak right now, is that they US army should have bailed as soon as they had Saddam, they feared a Civil war, yes? Well, they should have left them fight that war. Instead of trying to impose them a new regime, which was paid with a very high price, and it's still is, by the US. At least during the civil war, they would only be killing Irakis, and not foreigners. After the dust of the civil war, the winners would have made another government, another dictatorship? a presidential or parliamentary democracy? a Monarchy? Who knows, but it would have been 100% THEIRS. After that, they could negociate with the winners any economic treaty they needed. At least that's what I would have done.

Civil war is "theirs" still. But we go around with circular logic here. You seem to be dead set on believing the only reason the US deploys the military is to protect economic intrests. And maybe you're right, but not always directly. The threat of terrorism is real regardless of who tries to spin it into whatever on whichever side.

[Joe Camacho]

Indeed, but empathy would help find the real thing both should target.

It's easier said than done. And better people than both us are hard at work trying to balance the array of dilemas, and nothing either of us has said is news to said people.

I hope so, but somtimes I get dissapointed.

One won't win with bigger nukes, and the other won't win trying to impose their lifestyle to other cultures.

Depends what you mean by "win". I would use "fend off" instead. Once you understand and deeply empathise with the enemy you still have to fight them or let them destroy you.

Or get into a truce, gray is always an option too.

I can't believe you seriously think this is about religion, this has "Economy" painted all over, but I can't blame you, that's what they tell us everywhere. "Infidel Americans" or "Crazy Muslims". It's sad that, religion is something very useful, created to ease the mind of the human being. But others use it as a weapon in politics.

I'm no expert on the subject, but I've read articles here and there. I can also observe. I don't know if there is some big conspiracy among the leaders of middle eastern terrorists for the sake of economics, but the workhorse of the operation is the trend where a bunch of guys are itching to blow themselves up among crowds. If they're thinking about economy there, that's pretty odd.

I'm sure somewhere sometime there are terrorists with political or economic complaints, but if you think they all are, I think you're just reflecting on them something that's not there. There is definitely a sub-culture out there of people who want to worship their own "martyrdom" and harm "infidels". And they're determined.

Most of the people's families that blow themselves, get huge sums of money and sponsorship from the Terrorists organizations. And hell, if your religion is awesome enough for it to be interpretated that if you blow yourself up and kill others, you go straight to the equivalent of muslim heaven, even better.

Like I said, they use religion as a weapon, a way to manipulate people. They fear the US and their allies will influence in such a way that they might lose control in the ways of production in their own nations. They fear the American economic work horse, or they simply fear the sphere of strong political influence that the US represents.

Indeed, I <3 Capitalism. But I know lots of people that don't.. Like I said a little high from this, I just hate the doble-speech. Sure, if their interest makes them invade other countries, and they have the capability to do it, well do it! But if they disobey the UN, please don't come later and tell the UN they should sanction North Korea, because they too, are looking for their interests.

Leaders and politicians say stuff like this because they've read The Prince. The masses are stupid.

Oh my dear Machiavelli! See what you have done!

The thing with Irak right now, is that they US army should have bailed as soon as they had Saddam, they feared a Civil war, yes? Well, they should have left them fight that war. Instead of trying to impose them a new regime, which was paid with a very high price, and it's still is, by the US. At least during the civil war, they would only be killing Irakis, and not foreigners. After the dust of the civil war, the winners would have made another government, another dictatorship? a presidential or parliamentary democracy? a Monarchy? Who knows, but it would have been 100% THEIRS. After that, they could negociate with the winners any economic treaty they needed. At least that's what I would have done.

Civil war is "theirs" still. But we go around with circular logic here. You seem to be dead set on believing the only reason the US deploys the military is to protect economic intrests. And maybe you're right, but not always directly. The threat of terrorism is real regardless of who tries to spin it into whatever on whichever side.

What's the point of terrorism? Or, what do you think is the reason the US is being victim of terrorism?

[funkyass]

let me make one point, a very vital one:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A DEFENSIVE NUCLEAR WEAPON

Don't delude yourself that nukes work as deterents to the determined, and don't delude yourself that NK, or India, or Pakistan developed their nukes to prevent someone from attacking them, NK has stated they are willing to fire their craptastic missles with nukes if they don't get what they want from the US, A point that Joe is unaware of or is willingly ignoring. He's also ignoring that NK's immediate neighbours aren't too happy with it either, and if you are wondering, thats Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan. The fact that those five agree on something should be a large enough clue that this isn't an act of American Imperialism.



but then again, this thread got stupid a long time ago.

[corronchilejano]

There's a LOT of bullshit going around. North Korea rogue state, Venezuela a rogue state... ANY of you been in Venezuela? Heck, reporters don't die as often as they do over here and we're "allies" with the US.

Just because a nation doesn't look like the US it doesn't mean it's not a good nation, and that's something people there CAN'T GET INTO THEIR HEADS!!!

People in another country are complaining their goverment sucks? Just look at the teenager that got taken out of her class because she had a picture in MySpace that said: "Kill Bush".... OMG the tirany!!!

What the US goverment needs is to leave the paranoia aside... that, or try to stop dominating the world. NO regime lasts forever, and one day TOO many will be pissed off.

THEN we'll have WWIII.

[Joe Camacho]

let me make one point, a very vital one:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A DEFENSIVE NUCLEAR WEAPON

Don't delude yourself that nukes work as deterents to the determined, and don't delude yourself that NK, or India, or Pakistan developed their nukes to prevent someone from attacking them, NK has stated they are willing to fire their craptastic missles with nukes if they don't get what they want from the US, A point that Joe is unaware of or is willingly ignoring.

Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by one of two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash Equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome — nuclear annihilation.

He's also ignoring that NK's immediate neighbours aren't too happy with it either, and if you are wondering, thats Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan. The fact that those five agree on something should be a large enough clue that this isn't an act of American Imperialism.

Russia also has nukes, China has nukes, South Korea has been in war with North Korea since the 50's and Japan doesn't really like any of the *both* Koreas. Japan, South Korea are strong US allies. And I think China has become (Or is becoming) a very strong economic partner with the US.

Of course, they are neighbors, and they are afraid of the possible nuclear war that would result, they would feel the impact.

And of course, the US should be afraid, any Country in the world should. But I find it terrible that the US states that the UN should sanction North Korea, when they disobey it when they want too.

And there lies why I think it's quite hypocrite from the US.

Demands? I onlyknow about these demands (If there are more, please let me know):
A nuclear reactor for civilian use, if they cease their research.
An apology from the US for "insulting" their government, or something.
The withdraw from US forces from South Korea.
The withdraw of US made nukes from South Korea.

I understand the first two demands: If you want them to stop their research, give them what they want, because obviously the US is the only one able to research nuclear technology. And you call them names that they felt them offensive (Even if they are true) an apology is reasonable.

It would be hard to provide the last two, because the US has guaranteed "nuclear protection" to South Korea since the 70's. North Korea sees that as an "act of American imperialism". Also, supposedly, there aren't any US nukes left in South Korea.

There's a LOT of bullshit going around. North Korea rogue state, Venezuela a rogue state... ANY of you been in Venezuela? Heck, reporters don't die as often as they do over here and we're "allies" with the US.

I thought that it was because Colombia is filled with Drug Cartels.

Just because a nation doesn't look like the US it doesn't mean it's not a good nation, and that's something people there CAN'T GET INTO THEIR HEADS!!!

Indeed.

People in another country are complaining their goverment sucks? Just look at the teenager that got taken out of her class because she had a picture in MySpace that said: "Kill Bush".... OMG the tirany!!!

What?

What the US goverment needs is to leave the paranoia aside... that, or try to stop dominating the world. NO regime lasts forever, and one day TOO many will be pissed off.

I don't really think that they want to dominate it, I believe they really want as much free market as they can get.

THEN we'll have WWIII.

If you could hear what I hear when I stop to listen to the dudes that "preach" communism and socialism in School. "MEXICO IS THE BRIDGE TO ATTACK THE CAPITALIST PIGS." I just tell them to return to class, and leave.

[funkyass]

Holy crap. Joe shut up until you actually have some fucking clue about what you are talking about.

MAD is only a useful deterent if and only if you and your opponents have enough firepower to threaten the survival of the human race, and that was the only thing keeping the US and the USSR from going nuclear - as nuclear first strike plans from boths sides entiled elmininating the other's nuclear capabilities before attacking civilian targets.

As for the demands, the west gave NK clean nuclear reactors if they didn't pursue their development of nuclear reactors that can refine plutonium - and they just used another method to refine it after they got the reactors.

NK is really good at keeping its word ain't it?

[kevman]

One of the North Korean demands is bipartisian talks with the US, without UN involvement. I wonder what they have to say to the US that is so secret.

I don't understand what there was, in the last few years, that had economic reasons at all.

The destruction of the WTC was economically motivated? Or the invasion of Iraq, from which he not taken a drop of oil?

Or our sanctions against North Korea? Or is North Korea trying to destroy its own economy by pulling sanctions over itself?

Why did the Muslim Zealots attack the US? Becuase they fear us and what we represent? That our influence leaks around the world, forced or not, and they don't want their way of life to change? What can we do about that? People don't want to live in poverty and darkness, so there will be movements away from that. The US is seen as the epicenter of modern, enlightened times, correct or not.

You take a look at the state that the Muslim world is in over there and compare it to our past, and things start to look EXTREMELY like the Dark Ages. And guess what? Just like the church during the dark ages, the Muslims are willing to torture, maim, and kill anyone who won't convert, including those outside their country. Case in point: 9/11. Yeah, they'll grow out of it, they really will, but how many American, German, British, Isreali lives will they take with them before they do?

If you really think that the radical muslims, and to a lesser extent, Kim can be appeased, you are one of the most naive persons I've ever met. Look God bless you, but let the grown-ups handle reality.

[Joe Camacho]

MAD is only a useful deterent if and only if you and your opponents have enough firepower to threaten the survival of the human race, and that was the only thing keeping the US and the USSR from going nuclear - as nuclear first strike plans from boths sides entiled elmininating the other's nuclear capabilities before attacking civilian targets.

You don't need a large array of nuclear missiles, only one that is able to pass through the defenses is enough risk to think about launching first. That's the point.

As for the demands, the west gave NK clean nuclear reactors if they didn't pursue their development of nuclear reactors that can refine plutonium - and they just used another method to refine it after they got the reactors.

NK is really good at keeping its word ain't it?

I didn't know that, I apologize for my wrong assumtion, or lack of information.

One of the North Korean demands is bipartisian talks with the US, without UN involvement. I wonder what they have to say to the US that is so secret.

I hadn't heard of it, I wonder too.

I don't understand what there was, in the last few years, that had economic reasons at all.

The destruction of the WTC was economically motivated? Or the invasion of Iraq, from which he not taken a drop of oil?

WTC: Symbol of American Economy and trade.
Irak: It's not just *the* oil, what about reconstruction contracts? Arms and supplies manufactured? It's not new that countries boost their economy when they go to war, and win.

Or our sanctions against North Korea? Or is North Korea trying to destroy its own economy by pulling sanctions over itself?

It's the same argument against Cuba, and look at them, even with all the economy sanctions, they are still there, still kicking. Yeah, the life quality there sucks, but for some reason there are cubans that like it. Not even all the assassination attempts were able to remove Castro, We had to let nature do what it does best.

Why did the Muslim Zealots attack the US? Becuase they fear us and what we represent? That our influence leaks around the world, forced or not, and they don't want their way of life to change? What can we do about that? People don't want to live in poverty and darkness, so there will be movements away from that. The US is seen as the epicenter of modern, enlightened times, correct or not.

Don't force them to change. Don't mess with their economic structures and let it implode over them, let them change their political regimes by themselves. Defend yourself, sure. Build all the walls and take all the security reasons you find convenient, but don't travel overseas and change other political regimes, don't lend money to poor nations, let them find resources by themselves, if you are going to recomend something, DON'T! I have a quote from a book I read:

“But the enemies of liberal commerce, most of them from third world countries, don’t want the civil conduct patterns or the production methods of the first world, just their consumer patterns.” – Carlos Alberto Montaner

Nations don't want to behave like the US, they just want to be as rich as them.. Yes, it's utopic, but you asked.

You take a look at the state that the Muslim world is in over there and compare it to our past, and things start to look EXTREMELY like the Dark Ages. And guess what? Just like the church during the dark ages, the Muslims are willing to torture, maim, and kill anyone who won't convert, including those outside their country. Case in point: 9/11. Yeah, they'll grow out of it, they really will, but how many American, German, British, Isreali lives will they take with them before they do?

Well, they aren't going to decrease if you take the war to them too, is it? And torture? Please don't talk to me about torture. Because the US also tortures people. I, for one, think is valid in some situations. But please, don't doble-speech. Torture is torture, it doesn't matter the reason.

If you really think that the radical muslims, and to a lesser extent, Kim can be appeased, you are one of the most naive persons I've ever met. Look God bless you, but let the grown-ups handle reality.

I don't think that they "can", I think they *will*, but then again, they must be appeased by their own people. Outside forces shouldn't force them, because you would just create more problems. We just have to give them time, and the economy and political structure will implode to them, and they will find, I hope, a better one.

Naive? I like to think I'm awfully optimistic. And God? Heh, We have had a couple a couple of runins in the past.

[Echoecho]

Or is North Korea trying to destroy its own economy by pulling sanctions over itself?

N.Korea has no economy. It's China's vagrant. It counterfits foreign money. And yes, regardless of anything the truth about it is that it's a rogue state.

Venezuela? Who the hell even mentioned that here? It's a socialist country now, (Not that there's anyone rushing to live there, work or study like everyone is rushing towards the US. Same goes for Cuba and N.Korea, but) good for them.

[AntoineWG]

I should point out that the MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. That means that both countries have both first strike and retaliatory capability that are both capable of wiping the enemy off of the map, if not the entire planet. Based on everything I've read, NK doesn't have enough nuclear firepower to wipe itself off the map, nor do they have the ability to deliver them very far. MAD doesn't apply here, just NKAD.


And in muslim countries, what about women's rights? They have none. They're barely a step above slaves. Ethnic cleansing? Yep. They do it, even with other muslim sects. How humane is that? I know the women in NK aren't much better off, but that's the case in many asian countries, but they're slowly coming around, much better than Islamic countries. As for ethnic cleansing, Koreans do value racial purity if watching M*A*S*H taught me anything, but I'm not sure to what extent. Amnesty International says NK has one of the worst human rights records, regardless.

[Joe Camacho]

I should point out that the MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. That means that both countries have both first strike and retaliatory capability that are both capable of wiping the enemy off of the map, if not the entire planet. Based on everything I've read, NK doesn't have enough nuclear firepower to wipe itself off the map, nor do they have the ability to deliver them very far. MAD doesn't apply here, just NKAD.

But it's not like they are going to just make a nuke, they want nuclear capability as any other country.

And in muslim countries, what about women's rights? They have none. They're barely a step above slaves. Ethnic cleansing? Yep. They do it, even with other muslim sects. How humane is that? I know the women in NK aren't much better off, but that's the case in many asian countries, but they're slowly coming around, much better than Islamic countries. As for ethnic cleansing, Koreans do value racial purity if watching M*A*S*H taught me anything, but I'm not sure to what extent. Amnesty International says NK has one of the worst human rights records, regardless.

I don't justify them, I just say that other States shouldn't tell another what to do, their people should. Becuase if another State gets involve, if something goes wrong, they will blame that said State, instead of themselves. See Irak, The US army liberated Irak from Saddam, good. But now that they haven't reached peace, how are the Irakis blaming? The US.

[adventure_of_link]

I thought it was spelled Iraq



whatever.

[Joe Camacho]

I thought it was spelled Iraq



whatever.

In spanish, it's spelled Irak, sorry.

[kevman]

But it's not like they are going to just make a nuke, they want nuclear capability as any other country.

I wouldn't bet my life on the idea that they won't build nukes.

I don't justify them, I just say that other States shouldn't tell another what to do, their people should. Becuase if another State gets involve, if something goes wrong, they will blame that said State, instead of themselves. See Irak, The US army liberated Irak from Saddam, good. But now that they haven't reached peace, how are the Irakis blaming? The US.

Well, they aren't going to decrease if you take the war to them too, is it? And torture? Please don't talk to me about torture. Because the US also tortures people. I, for one, think is valid in some situations. But please, don't doble-speech. Torture is torture, it doesn't matter the reason.


Heh, that's the best point you've made so far.
But, what if their people tell him to blow up South Korea? Or fly into the World Trade Center? What then? You have to do something about it. You know, the Olympic Hostage Crisis's terrorists, who killed a bunch of israeli athletes in the 70's, where given hero's burials with full military honors?

Well, they aren't going to decrease if you take the war to them too, is it? And torture? Please don't talk to me about torture. Because the US also tortures people. I, for one, think is valid in some situations. But please, don't doble-speech. Torture is torture, it doesn't matter the reason.

By "doble-speech," I think you mean "hold a double standard."
I see what you mean. Our infrequent, carefully-administered torturing of terrorist criminals for the safety of millions of people (and illegal torturing that occurs where the officers that do it end up rotting in jail) EASILY compares to the mass death-parades that are lead through the streets and administered to law-abiding citizens for stupid reasons as dressing the wrong way once.
Or the gutting so that the victims get to see their own intestines.
Or burning alive done from bridges.

Did I mention this was, AND IS, done to citizens? These are not things of the past, Joe. Not by a long shot. The media just judges it too grusome to report on.

Ah, but the fact that half a dozens of our fellow citizens did it once or twice and were thrown in jail for it makes us just as bad as that. I guess I might as well grab some gasoline and rope. We're still in the dark ages.

I don't think that they "can", I think they *will*, but then again, they must be appeased by their own people. Outside forces shouldn't force them, because you would just create more problems. We just have to give them time, and the economy and political structure will implode to them, and they will find, I hope, a better one.

Yeah, that's fine, but they try to force the outside. You can do whatever you want to your way of life, but if you try to force it onto me, we're gonna have problems. That's exactly what the Muslims have been doing for thousands of years. And it could very well be what Kim wants to do.

[Joe Camacho]

Heh, that's the best point you've made so far.
But, what if their people tell him to blow up South Korea? Or fly into the World Trade Center? What then? You have to do something about it. You know, the Olympic Hostage Crisis's terrorists, who killed a bunch of israeli athletes in the 70's, where given hero's burials with full military honors?

Then you protect *yourself*, but don't try to change other country's political regimes, you would just cause more hate against the US. And more people would will be willing to be used as suicide bombers.

By "doble-speech," I think you mean "hold a double standard."
I see what you mean. Our infrequent, carefully-administered torturing of terrorist criminals for the safety of millions of people (and illegal torturing that occurs where the officers that do it end up rotting in jail) EASILY compares to the mass death-parades that are lead through the streets and administered to law-abiding citizens for stupid reasons as dressing the wrong way once.
Or the gutting so that the victims get to see their own intestines.
Or burning alive done from bridges.

Did I mention this was, AND IS, done to citizens? These are not things of the past, Joe. Not by a long shot. The media just judges it too grusome to report on.

Ah, but the fact that half a dozens of our fellow citizens did it once or twice and were thrown in jail for it makes us just as bad as that. I guess I might as well grab some gasoline and rope. We're still in the dark ages.

You find it justified in your current situation, they find it justified in their political regime. Different suppositions, same conclusion. And hell, right now it's legal to do it in the US, so it's a State endorsed activity. It doesn't speak well of the US. Like I said, I don't think their beliefs are correct, but those are their beliefs, and I think the outside world must respect them (But not in the "Oh it's ok!", the "We don't like it, be we shouldn't try to change it"). Just like the outside world just respect the use of torture to get information (I know I do).

Also, I really think, that those governments use torture for political means, rather than religious, but they mask it as religious so they get more support.

I don't think that they "can", I think they *will*, but then again, they must be appeased by their own people. Outside forces shouldn't force them, because you would just create more problems. We just have to give them time, and the economy and political structure will implode to them, and they will find, I hope, a better one.

Yeah, that's fine, but they try to force the outside. You can do whatever you want to your way of life, but if you try to force it onto me, we're gonna have problems. That's exactly what the Muslims have been doing for thousands of years. And it could very well be what Kim wants to do.

I don't really think they really want America to "convert" (Muslims), or that they America becomes socialist (North Korea), rather that they leave them alone. I think they think that America is better dead than converted. At least that's what I have heard in the statements regarding that issue. Unless there is something I haven't heard, please make me know.

And man.. What a quoting mess.

Oh, and about the "nuclear capability", I was talking about Nukes, sorry for being ambiguous.

[adventure_of_link]

I thought it was spelled Iraq



whatever.

In spanish, it's spelled Irak, sorry.

I didn't know man. My apologies.

[kevman]

I don't really think they really want America to "convert" (Muslims), or that they America becomes socialist (North Korea), rather that they leave them alone. I think they think that America is better dead than converted. At least that's what I have heard in the statements regarding that issue. Unless there is something I haven't heard, please make me know.

You should study your history more... Or the Quran. Its pretty obvious when you read either. (not that I study the Koran, but I have read quotes from it that I'm too disinterested to look up.) Its a bit mixed when you look at the Crusades, I'll concede. That was mostly Christianity's fault.

[Joe Camacho]

I don't really think they really want America to "convert" (Muslims), or that they America becomes socialist (North Korea), rather that they leave them alone. I think they think that America is better dead than converted. At least that's what I have heard in the statements regarding that issue. Unless there is something I haven't heard, please make me know.

You should study your history more... Or the Quran. Its pretty obvious when you read either. (not that I study the Koran, but I have read quotes from it that I'm too disinterested to look up.) Its a bit mixed when you look at the Crusades, I'll concede. That was mostly Christianity's fault.

Oh, I know my history, my mexican history at least.

Let's not quote the Koran, because we both know that the Bible has also nasty stuff too. I was talking more about current statements. I haven't really heard Terrorist voicemen about trying to convert the americans to islam, I have heard that they just want to destroy "AMERICA IMPERIALISM NEOLIBERALISM".

Also, I'm reading a site called "Islam Online", yes, it might be biased, but for what I have read, it makes me believe that those "Islam terrorist" aren't more than common terrorists that use islam as a recluting tool.

For example:

Prior to the revelation of the Qur’an fourteen hundred years ago, there was no concept of civilized behavior neither in war nor of the rights of enemies. Yet Islam decreed humane rules of war, many centuries before such ideas were put into conventions and agreements in the West.

First, Islam draws a clear distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Non-combatants such as women, children, the old and infirm are not to be killed. Also, monks in monasteries and people in places of worship are to be spared.

These are the rights that Islam confers on combatants:

*No one should be burned alive or tortured with fire.
*Wounded soldiers who are neither unfit to fight, nor actually fighting, should not be attacked.
*Prisoners of war should not be killed.
*It is prohibited to kill anyone who is tied up or in captivity.
*Residential areas should not be pillaged, plundered or destroyed, nor should the Muslims touch the property of anyone except those who are fighting against them.
*Muslims must not take anything from the general public of the conquered country without paying for it.
*The corpses of the enemy must not be disgraced or mutilated.
*Corpses of the enemy should be returned.
*Treaties must not be broken.
*Muslims are prohibited from opening hostilities without properly declaring war against the enemy, unless the adversary has already started aggression against them.

[Deathlike2]

Also, I'm reading a site called "Islam Online", yes, it might be biased, but for what I have read, it makes me believe that those "Islam terrorist" aren't more than common terrorists that use islam as a recluting tool.

It wouldn't be the first, or the last. Including religion in any wars makes this so much more difficult. If you are tricked into doing something "for your God".... it can only result in many needless deaths. Religion sometimes makes the followers do stuff they normally wouldn't do, and worse is that whether or not they are right... it becomes the "justification" for everything.

[corronchilejano]

I thought that it was because Colombia is filled with Drug Cartels.

Go back to the books Joe. The last great cartel dissappeared 15 years ago. Knowing why we're fighting is something that would take a whole forum just to explain it.

And about Islam terrorism, it's just pure hatred. Never, and I say, NEVER in history has a religious regime (aside from the hiper corrupt Church, and a Catholic says so) EVER fought withouth a reason. It's as if the empire of the moment (in it's times Rome, now the U.S) just plainly wanted to put it's nose anywhere it wanted... and well, some people just get pissed off.

... to be TOTALLY honest, I understand why they blow themselves up and fight their hearts out in a war that can have no winner. This is no longer about ideals, it's about revenge... and that's something that can only end up in two ways: They succeed, or they die.

[Joe Camacho]

To be honest, the only thing I know about Colombia is from a movie called "La virgen de los Sicarios"... I don't really recommend it to anyone.

And I just saw Syriana, made me think I'm not the only one with this beliefs.