North Korea Invades the United States

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Tagaziel, Mar 8, 2013.

  1. Cimmerian Nights

    Cimmerian Nights So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Aug 20, 2004
    I don't want to belabor a trivial point like this, but both clearly said they're on the Op-Ed section right at the top. On a site (RT), that is funded by, and a mouthpiece for, the Kremlin. It's purposefully and explicitly warped.
    I really can't speak to Fox news, I couldn't even tell you what channel it's on. I'm violently allergic to Sean Hannity, you see.
     
  2. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 27, 2003
    Ilosar seems to just be playing devils advocate which I understand.

    The problem with N.Korea is why do they even bother to fight anymore? Is the suffering your own people are enduring worth joining the nuclear club?

    In a couple of previous lengthy discussions long long ago, some folks here reminded me that being a 'world power', or 'a nuclear club member', isn't really worth all that much. This is especially important because more and more the status relies less on actual military force and more on cultural force and economic force.

    Those same folks said that people in Sweden, Japan and numerous other countries without nuclear weapons enjoy a very high standard of living.

    Just some food for thought.
     
  3. Ilosar

    Ilosar Vault Fossil

    Apr 20, 2010
    That's humans being humans, not like like NK is the only one doing all that shit. Hell you'd be hard pressed to find a country that didn't do that in the last 10 years, among the reasonably powerful ones I mean.

    The thing is, Sweden, Japan and those other countries (mainly Scandinavia, a few other European ones like Swiss I guess, a handful of South Americans, and maybe Canada) don't have a big part of their economy based around their military. Remember, defense spendings in the US go from 20 to 25% of the budget (albeit I think it went a bit lower these last few years...). It's an absolutely gigantic industry, and they need to justify it somehow. So it's partly the reason for wars like Afghanistan, like Irak, like Lybia, and stuff like the massive deployment of force around Korea. I'm not inventing that shit; Eisenhower himself warned the Americans of this, and it has only grown since then.

    As for nukes, it's an exclusive club for obvious reasons, these things are an international game changer. Nobody will ever directly attack a country that has a nuke, it's way, way too risky. Small skirmishes, perhaps (like what India and Pakistan are fond off), but all out war is completely out of the question, even for nutjobs like the North Korean leaders. It's also, of course, somewhat of a prestige isssue; the State that manages to get nuclear weapons, despite the ban imposed by the US, Great Britain, France ect, is instantly viewed by those hostile to them as an acheiver. It's Iran's plan in a nutshell, for example (and one of the reasons Irak was in fact attacked; a show of force to Iran. Not that it worked).

    And yes, martial might certainly doesn't equal an happier or healthier people. if you take means, standards of living in the US are amongst the worst in the West (IIRC), rampant crime rates, very present poverty, numerous health issues, the works. And meanwhile, their defense budget still trumps everyone else's by a very wide margin. Not that injecting that cash in welfare would magically solve the issue or anything, just stating facts.

    I just thing it's not a black and white issue at all. You can't just say a country is ''evil''. This is international politics, morality doesn't matter at all, money does. Influence does. And those things are, yes, won by, and I quote, assassinations, bombings, axe murders. kidnappings, artillery strikes, and naval attacks. The US has done all this and more. As did China, France, Russia, Great Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, and probably many others. Trying to take the moral high ground is just futile. The only countries that haven't done bad shit are those who are in no position to do so.
     
  4. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Aug 21, 2004
    Granted, but again, what "non warped" "impartial" media are you suggesting I read instead? Because accusing RT of being a mouthpiece for the Kremlin would be denying the US corporate media is not one for US economic interests, and that just wouldn't be true.

    Is RT absolutely impartial? Probably not, but then again, who is? I choose sources that go more accordingly to my point of view, you choose those that go with yours.

    @deadr4tz: Ilosar mostly answered what I would had, but one thing caught my eye as a good example of why he's right.

    You mean it wasn't reprehensible back in the 70's when he was fighting against Iran and the US provided Sadam with satellite intelligence, weapons, and most importantly chemical weapons he used agains iranians and civilians opposing his regime and committed also during that period, when the US was his close ally and supporter, most of the crimes that he was later executed for?

    Also

    Last time I checked providing weapons to revels was not humanitarian intervention, it was directly supporting a coup.

    Or one of the dumbest. Gaddafi stopped it's weapons programmes, as soon as he did the same countries that asked them to do so started sending heavy weapons and giving the rebels the means to overthrow him.

    In both cases it proves that is better having WMD's than not, if you do you have at least "some" deterrence, if you don't you are openly inviting you enemies to attack. North Korea sees it that way and that's why they make all these threats, as deterrence, the same deterrence the joint military maneuvers are aimed to cause.

    And if NK is making the threats because you play wargames that simulate nuking them and as an answer you send bombers near his borders, I'm sorry, but that's plain provoking them, here and in Mars.
     
  5. Ratty Sr.

    Ratty Sr. Ratty, except old Moderator Orderite

    Apr 23, 2003
    Hah! No. That's totalitarian regimes being totalitarian regimes. That's North Korea being the worst of them. In the entire post-WWII history it's hard to find a regime that has been more bellicose in its rhetoric and behavior, more callous in its disregard for international law, more brazen in its violations of security and sovereignty of other countries. Yes, other countries sometimes commit amoral acts too, even democratic ones, but it's ludicrous to claim that North Korea's barbaric behavior represents some kind of a universal standard.

    Also, don't think I will allow you to gloss over the innumerable crimes North Korean regime has committed, and continues to commit against its own people, including mass starvation, denial of basic life necessities, denial of fundamental rights and freedoms, political violence and terror, including but not limited to arrests, assassinations, torture and internment in prison camps. Seriously, if you believe North Korea is morally even on the same plane of existence as most of the world's countries, let alone democracies, then there is something profoundly wrong with your own moral compass.

    *blinks*

    Okay. Name one.

    Your belief that countries like North Korea and Iran are being denied nukes only because they aren't part of the exclusive club of countries that got them first isn't completely erroneous, but it is certainly narrow and simplistic. Yes, nuclear-weapon states are naturally suspicious of other countries attempting to gain nuclear weapons, but have in general not intervened to prevent them from doing so. Israel has been allowed to develop nuclear weapons (even if it denies possessing them), as have Pakistan and India.

    One of the key reasons why these countries have been allowed to develop and keep their nuclear weapon stockpiles, while the same is denied to Iran and North Korea, is because the former can be trusted with nukes, while the latter two cannot. Iran and North Korea have both repeatedly shown total disregard for international law - Iran with its attack on the US embassy, sponsorship of terrorist groups, and threats of annihilation directed against Israel, and North Korea with all the things TheGM named, and more. Neither of these states has demonstrated political and moral responsibility needed to possess nuclear weapons, which is why even their international allies (including those sitting in the UN Security Council) have generally backed initiatives and resolutions aimed at stopping their nuclear programmes.

    The US has the third highest HDI in the world. What the fuck are you talking about?

    More importantly, what does it matter? Surely you are not attempting to argue there exists some kind of parallel between a state that spends 5% of its GDP on its military while simultaneously having one of the highest standards of living in the world, and a state that spends 25% of its GDP on the military when it can't even afford to feed its people without international aid.

    No, no, no. This misguided and cynical belief helps no one and only plays into the hands of totalitarian regimes. A state's moral worth is reflected first and foremost in its treatment of its own citizens, then in the treatment of its foreign partners, and finally its foreign adversaries. A systematic look at the history of democratic states vs. totalitarian states will reveal an indisputable truth - democratic states have consistently shown a firmer adherence to universal moral principles than their totalitarian counterparts. So yes, the United States can indeed take the moral high ground when dealing with North Korea. So can South Korea, and Japan, and most European countries, and a good chunk of the world. To believe otherwise is to show either considerable ignorance or alarming deficiency in personal morals.

    This argument is as overused as it is fallacious. Yes, foreign policy of the United States during the Cold War was often amoral and misguided. That doesn't in any way excuse the crimes of totalitarian regimes. Neither does it invalidate any of the good the US has done in international politics before or since.

    Same goes for the constantly repeated "But US is the only country to have used nukes against civilians, derp!" Yes, I know they did. No, that doesn't mean erratic third-world dictators should be allowed to possess them.

    Rebels? Coup? At that time the Gaddafi regime no longer possessed international legitimacy. NTC had become the internationally recognized government of the Libyan people, and armaments and the no-fly zone were provided for defense of the Libyan people against a savage totalitarian regime.

    I can only wish the international community had extended similar support to my own country in 1991; many of my countrymen would still be alive.

    I don't know whether this is ignorance or disingenuity at play, but I will assume it's the former and educate you. Gaddafi regime gave up its WMD programme in 2003, some months after the US invasion of Iraq. For the next 7 years, Gaddafi's Libya enjoyed a reasonably harmonious relationship with the West. International military intervention against his regime occurred in 2011, as a response to mass killings of (unarmed) protesters and subsequent bloody quelling of (armed) pro-democracy uprising against his regime. It had fuck-all to do with weapons of mass destruction, nuclear or otherwise.
     
  6. Ilosar

    Ilosar Vault Fossil

    Apr 20, 2010
    Do. Some. Damn. Research. North Korea has never aided to depose the leader of another country. North Korea hasn't invaded tens of States since 1951. North Korea hasn't imposed sanctions on those who didn't see eye-to-eye with them. Disregard for international law, you say? Who invaded Irak in 2003 in defiance of those suddendly sacro-saint international laws? Who aided to depose the democratically elected leader of Chile? Of Iran? Who aided the dying South Vietnam semi-dictatorship? I'm skipping a lot of things, and that's only for the US. France has done the same thing in Africa a few times. Great Britain as well. Violation of sovereingty is rich, coming from the country that sends drones to kill hundreds of people in an ''allied'' State

    We're talking international policy here. Of course I don't condone the horrible stuff NK does to its own citizens, what the hell kind of stupid strawman is that?

    US. France. Great Britain. China. Look dat shit up.



    BAHAHAHAHA oh that's just priceless. Israel has ''demonstarted responsibility''? You know, those people who have an entire region of the world closed off and starving, and build the Berlin Wall 2.0 around 'em? ''moral responsibility'' has sweet fuck all to do with it, son. They're the US's puppet state, very powerful lobbies back in Washington don't want Israel to be attacked, so they got US-sponsored nukes and now they're safe. Israel has a right to defend itself, of course. But to claim there's anything ''moral'' about it is pure derp. Sorry.

    As for Pakistan, they've been an ally of the West for some time. A very on and off ally but still. Now we're ''buddies'' since 9/11, so the US actually helps them protect their nuclear supply. Again, nothing moral, it's pure politics. If the Pakistanis were in the same political position as Iran, you can bet your arse they would have sanctions upon sanctions piled up on them. But instead they get millions of aid. Because their karma meter is in the positive, is that it?

    India is in the same ballpark. They're big chums with Great Britain, so nobody complains when they get some nukes. Not like India ever had or will have serious international ambitions anyhow, they're just there because China had nukes and Pakistan has now.

    You're very, very naive if you think nukes have anything to do with a nation's ''morals'' (by the way, is that the US moral compass? Should we judge the entire world based on how close to America they are, and they're evil if they're not like them enough?). It's a game of alliances and influence, enforced by those who have nukes and most definitely don't want anybody else to have them save for those they're in bed with.

    Wasn't responding to you there, but you're welcome to be offended if it makes ya feel better.

    Since when does it matter? You think POTUS and his staff sit in the White House and say ''you know, it would be in our interests to broker a secret alliance with X State, but na they're not ''moral'' enough for us, forget it''. They don't give a single shit. Why continue treating with China, then? Their humanitarian record is pretty damn appaling. Or Russia, who is a semi-dictatorship already? Or Saudi Arabia and its numerous (by US ''morals'') abuse of basic human rights? Or Columbia, what with the state of quasi civil war and the sometimes brutal repression? Why keep sending a shit ton of weapons to various dictatorships around Africa and Asia? And I'm not even going into the absoutely ruthless stuff they did during the Cold War, to democratically elected governments no less.

    Besides, you know the answer; politics and money. They are viable diplomatic partners, so we let all that shit slide. Maybe complain about it on the international scene once in a while to make us feel better about ourselves, but actually doing something about it? Never, don't wanna lose our precious partner.

    North Korea is worse than those countries, yes. But morals don't even enter the calculus. It didn't during the Cold War, and it sure as hell doesn't now, else they would already have invaded NK a long, long time ago. But that would piss off China, so it's a no-no.

    Yeah, it's not like they've invaded two countries since then and plunged them in a state of constant civil war. Oh wait...

    Agreed, but it makes it very, very grating when people then attempt to use the moral high ground in the case of nukes. There is none. The reasons why NK (among others) is denied nukes is purely practical.

    You do know This wasn't exactly new, right? Lybia has been a long-standing dictatorship since the 70's. it's just that they provided buttloads of oil, so the West simply kept quiet about it. Only when they couldn't ignore it anymore did any action come, and even then things in Lybia have barely improved to this day. And the West would probably have been more cautious if there were serious threats of Lybia having WMDs, which I honestly doubt there ever was. It was mostly posturing.
     
  7. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Aug 21, 2004
    So, the US gallantly went to war in Iraq only to save the poor people under Saddam's rule? Then why does the situation in Iraq is no better than it was under Saddam, and the US supports the current government who is still committing atrocities.

    Jus a couple of articles, this time not from RT but from western media, you know, because RT is biased and all that.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/27/iraq.peterbeaumont

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16035086/#.UWQigqLgc1k

    Doesn't look like the US intervention helped much in stopping the violence and human rights abuse. So what other excuse are you going to give me.

    But the cold war excuses the US from their amoral actions somehow.

    Not only the US brands all their enemies as evil, but they brand themselves as the good guys and if we look at the result of their selfless humanitarian interventions they are no better.

    You know what the US and the UK did to have a base to bomb afghanistan and Iraq from? They illegally expelled 3.000 natives from an island leaving them in absolute misery, many of them even died as a result, and they continue to deny them their land even today after the UK supreme court ruled the action illegal and that they should be returned their land.

    So, can we stop being hypocritical, that's all I'm saying.

    Also, I might sound like "anti american", not to mention you already branded me as one, just for not agreeing to it's foreign policies, but what I say is not different of what some american citizens are saying about their own government. Wonder if they are branded as anti americans and traitors being american citizens themselves.

    You are saying it yourself, if riding a government of legitimacy, recognizing the rebels as the legitimate government and them providing them heavy weaponry is not openly supporting one side of a civil war agianst the other I don't know what it is.

    Okay, so 7 years went by, but it shows what having good relations with the West and doing what the West says does ultimately, having them support a civil war against you. So, again, why should North Korea see this as an example to have good relations with the west and not the opposite?
     
  8. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    To be fair though, why do you denny North Korea access to something the US, Soviets ... excuse me Russians, Britains, French and a couple more like Israel have? Nuclear weapons.

    Before you attack me for saying that. Consider a few things first.

    1. North Korea might be not a democratic dream state and I sure would like to see it rather dissapear. But they are after all, a nation. And that means they have the right to do what ever they want INSIDE their borders. I mean you know its really a funny thing, when the Serbians have problems with something, like Kosovo for example which sure has seen a lot of things you can blame the Serbians for, then of course, sovereignty claims are something the US supports here for Kosovo and its citizens because it suits them. Bombing Serbian cities and military instalations was the result. A state like North Korea though is shown as an monkey playing with an dooms day device. Where is their sovereignty. I call that a form of Propaganda. North Korea is an dictatorship. An bad regime for its people. We dont have to discuss that. But it still a form of Propaganda.

    2. Which brings us to the next point. Have states like the USA, Britain, France, Russia and so on shown actually more responsibility with nuclear weapons? I dont think so. Not only have they always played with our lifes in Europe. But they have actually played a party of Poker with Nuclear weapons on an global scale. If either side would have lunched an attack it would have been devastating. There is no doubts about that and it was often enough VERY close. And lets not even talk about situations like Pakistan - India, where even only a "nuclear war" on such "small scale" would still be very bad even for the rest of us. Israel has nuclear weapons as well. But no one ever complained about the fact that they never acced for permission either.

    Lets be honest here, the reason why they dont want to see nuclear weapons for NK or Iran, is becaues it makes it much harder to slap them around. Nuclear weapons sure dont win wars for you. But they make it a lot less likely to get attacked. If I would be the leader of those nations, I would want one as well. As fast as possible.



    I sure dont want to see nuclear weapons in the hands of a person like Kim. But I think, they are not stupid either. If they dont want to die, the last thing they will do is throw their Bombs at Seoul. As much as I hate dictatorships, but I think as far as killing people goes the US and Europe have been more efficient in the last 60 yeasr then NK. But we see them as the biggest threat. Just as how some politicans here loved to compare Saddam with Hitler and calling that war the biggest tank battle of all time ... indeed. Where no own US tank was lost in the whole war which lasted a few days. Kim, Sadam etc. Sure all of those are bad people. I wold love to see them dissapear. But because they are assholes doesnt mean we have to agree with western Propaganda.

    Ask your self what that changed so fast. Its not like Gadaffi was not on the priority list of the US before either.

    For example Putin is one of the biggest mass murders around that you can see in TV. But why is Putin a common guest at parties and Gadaffi an asshole? Because Putin actually has all the weapons they accused the Iraq to posses and thats why, they call it "putin fighting terrorits" when he is doing something and Saddam an Asshole. I would have no doubt if Saddam really had all those weapons we would have seen Sadam now as welcomed official guest in Europe or the US and they would simply say he isnt killing kurds, he is fighting terrorism. Just like how Gadaffi was a friend when they still saw him usefull. Do people still remember how Gadaffi was in France? Not as prisoner. Not as the schweinehund he was. No. He got an welcome like a noble statesman. Because the interest of the US shifted away from Gadaffi to the terrorists that Bombed the World Trade Center. And the people which worked for Gadaffi had informations about those groups from the 70s and 80s when they used Libya as base before they threw them out of their nation when those terroristic groups started to make trouble. And just as the US starts to look for those people Gadaffis general in London presents them a lot of nice informations. All they wanted? To reckognize Gadaffi again on the political parquet.

    maybe, but that doesnt make it less wrong. The US is an super power, and they act like that, if it seems conventient, history has proved that part more then once. Vietnam, Contras, Iraq and so on. The list has become pretty long over the lats 100 years. But well. I am not hating the US. The Europeans are just as guility if not even more. Or the Russians, or Chinese or who ever has more power then the others around him.
     
  9. zegh8578

    zegh8578 Keeper of the trout Orderite

    Mar 11, 2012
    Man, you guys are debating hard!

    Yesterday they showed some quick street interviews from Seoul. A bunch of peppy, hipster, asian-cutsie koreans talking about how absurd the notion of war was to them. One of them mentioned just having got a good job, and how this would ensure her safety even during war, clearly a bit of wishful reasoning.
    I just felt sorry for them. For a little moment my morbid curiousity had to move aside for a strong, heartfelt wish that NK do not incite any sort of hostility :I

    My morbid side of course still wants to know how this turns out from a strategical point of view.
     
  10. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 27, 2003
    What I am saying is why does N. Korea have to base their spending on primarily military? Even if they cannnot afford said spending? Is an ideaology worth permanently repressing and starving ones citizens to maintain an extremeley out-dated and in-efficient mode of governance? Even the PRC switched sides during the 70s because their leaders had the wisdom to see traditional state command economies just do not work.

    1. Nuclear arsenals are expensive to build, maintain and secure.

    2. Having nuclear weapons does not necessarily mean having the go-ahead to use them. To date, the US has been the only country to have deployed an atomic weapon against a foreign enemy. I also believe had the political climate in America today existed back during WW2, the liberals and most likely the moderates would have demanded Washington take a different course of action.

    3. Many of the S. American countries you mention that used to be fucked with by America managed to stand on their own without nuclear weapons. Again, same with a lot of asian nations such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, S. Korea, etc. As I stated before, economic and cultural force combined with strong alliances often does a much better job then simply acquiring nuclear weapons.

    In the instance of Saddam, he was seen as a moderate back in the 80s and enjoyed considerable support during the Iraq and Iran war. Countries like Saudia Arabia, Kuwait and other secular muslim nations feared having similar theocratic revolutions in their own backyard. The West and even the Soviet Union had their own motivations for supporting Iraq, political for US and arms sales for the Soviets. He literally FUCKED all of that up by invading Kuwait and potentially Saudi Arabia during the 90s.

    Ghadaffi made himself an international pariah by supporting any and all terrorist groups and allowing them refuge in Libya. He got better with reforms but it was too little too late. The Arab Spring essentially sealed his fate.

    Lets visit the should we decide what others can have?

    India and Pakistan both had enough political and economic clout to hold onto their nuclear weapons after announcing their development. Both countries ALSO know they would be internationally FUCKED, if they were used ir-responsibly. Same goes for Israel.

    Iran and N. Korea are different, any political goodwill they could have had went down the shitter with their violent rhetoric and threats to annihilate anyone who gets in their way. Their respective governments are composed of hardliners who see nuclear weapons as threats instead of as an objective lesson in political and economic maneuvering.
     
  11. Ilosar

    Ilosar Vault Fossil

    Apr 20, 2010
    I imagine that they've gone too far to turn back. Remember, China changed after a pretty radical switch in management; Mao and his ilk would never, ever, have taken the country's current course. It was when old Deng Xiaoping became boss that he decided all that communist nonsense had to go. NK never had such a change, it was always ruled by a dynasty of semi-lunatic fucks who are too comfortable in their ways to ever want the system to change.

    As for your point 3, I think Latin America has understood direct confrontation with the Western juggernaut won't yield anything fruitful (unless you,re Venezuela or something). They just decided to develop themselves alongside the West, minding their own business. Some of them (like Bolivia) may bark a bit too, but the region is more stable than it used to be. The fact that the US has basically lost interest in them certainly helps, too. The Monroe Doctrine has done a lot of damage to Latin America.

    I agree, Saddam was very, very dumb. IIRC there were increasing pressures on him now that he had outlived his usefullness (after the Iran-Iraq war), but his invasion was just the excuse the West was looking for. Then they basically decided to finish the job in 2003 in some stupid show of force. The whole affair was handled catastrophically by both sides really.

    Ghadaffi was always considered a bit of a joke to be honest. He barked a lot and helped some terrorists back when they were a minor threat, but he gave lots of oil to Europe so they simply let it slide. His fall was a fairly simplistic affair, the West barely had to lift a finger. Send a few planes, some guns, wait for the situation to develop and hope for the best.
     
  12. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 27, 2003
    Your statement in a weird way is your answer.

    Mao during his later years went batshit crazy (the most glaring example was the cultural revolution). Other party cadres saw this craziness and decided that once he was gone, changes would be implemented. Would this be hard? Would this require shrewdness and thinking outside the box? Of course. But like everything else, necessity is the mother of all invention.

    The entire N. Korean leadership could have simply bullied Kim Jong Un into sub-mission. Coups or waiting the leader out, as we see in history, are not that hard to en-act if given proper attention. The changes both in Russia, and the PRC are glaring examples of this. Whats truly important in these situations that once change has been effected, a strong and pragmatic leader is requires to lead.

    So here we have a military and political establishment that could unite and bully Kim into sub-mission yet they refuse to do so. This signals to me that the folks in charge under Kim are not yet ready to seriously enter the international stage as they cannot even stand on their own without their 'dear leader'. Do you really want these folks to acquire nuclear technology?

    I would ask why did this happen? Does Venezeula still have oil? Yes. Does Venezuela have nuclear weapons? No. So what has stopped the US from invading?

    IMO, Hugo Chavez orchestrated a very shrewd, political and economic maneuver. He calls out the US on its crimes but not once does he advocate the annihilation of the country, just that reforms are in order.

    Did he politically and economically isolate himself from his neighbors and allies? No. Instead he spearheaded a social revolution that began to sweep into neighboring countries inspiring folks like Evo Morales, the Kirchners, Rafael Correa, Fernando Lugo, etc.

    Did he just demand respect from the world like Kim or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Khomeinis? No. Where the Iranian revolution and Kim dynasty create more fear and un-certainty in the region (mostly through violence), Chavez just showed the world through, again, political and economic maneuvering.

    Does this mean Chavez did not use violence as well? Of course not. Sometimes thats what you need to instill order out of chaos. However, it should NEVER, be the sole alternative.

    Does this mean Chavez is flawless? Far from it. There are many glaring challenges that remain un-resolved but in contrasting political leaders who consistently harp on the US, Chavez seems much more level headed than the alternative.
     
  13. Jebus

    Jebus Background Radiant
    Orderite

    Jan 29, 2004
    Darkcop, I refer you to the thread on Chavez on why Chavez should never be held up as a positive example.
     
  14. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 27, 2003
    Yes I know, Venezuela happened to be mentioned by Ilosar so thats what I used.

    Th reason I used Hugo was to illustrate how he is much more moderate SOUNDING, he is compared to the likes of the Kims and the Khomeinis. Not to mention how his neghbors don't flat out hate his guts unlike the other two nations.

    In other words, he may not be a very good leader but he has done less damage to his nations reputation and image than the latter two.
     
  15. Jebus

    Jebus Background Radiant
    Orderite

    Jan 29, 2004
  16. Ilosar

    Ilosar Vault Fossil

    Apr 20, 2010
    I do understand your position, but I think the bottom line is that the country's elites have no real reason to want change; they live in relative comfort, and the State has never gone against them. Meanwhile, Mao's cultural revolution turned many, many elites against him, and further renforced opposition to his rules and methods within the Communist Party, the same Party that kicked him out due to the (not so) Great Leap Forward. As far as we know, the Kim family has ruled alongside it's elites, while Mao simply did whatever the hell he liked without worrying overmuch about the consequences. That's my take anyway, I doubt any of it has that much to do with the common people's fate.

    Well, Venezuela has friends/allies (primarily Russia and several other Latin American states, being a big exporter of oil tends to build up relashionships), an OK military, a fairly decent economy (it still trades with the US if I'm not mistaken) and just isin't worth bothering because, as you said, they stuck to words and didn't start backing terrorism and shit like that. So they simply let him bark his rhetoric (albeit Chavez claims there was an attempt on his life sponsored by them in 2002 IIRC, but that may also enter the rhetoric).

    I feel that we agree here; Latin America doesn't pursue the same strategy as Iran and North Korea, among others. They don't attempt to gain influence, nukes, or militarize themselves; they just want to be left to their own affairs. Meanwhile, ever since the Revolution, Iran has tried to turn the Middle East against the West (for several reasons, some of them understandable). North Korea is constantly menacing one of the US's prime trading partners and allies in Asia. It's a far more direct approach, which naturally elicits a stronger reaction. It has sweet fuck all to do with ''morals'', as deadr4tz claims.
     
  17. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 27, 2003
    The only real point I was trying to make was that nuclear weapons may not be the end all be all that Iran and N. Korea seem to think they are. The way they pursue them with single minded purposes is what freaks everyone else out.

    Maybe you or someone else said that Iran and N. Korea are entitled to them or they should be allowed to develope them because your playing devils advocate. I am simply playing the guy on the other side offering opinions on why nuclear weapons are no longer a game changer and them being in the hands of those who cannot handle the responsibility is a bad idea.
     
  18. Yamu

    Yamu Le Fromage Vieux oTO Moderator Orderite

    Jul 26, 2003
    Yeah, I've got a buddy teaching ESL classes in a satellite of Seoul, and he's amused to no end over the Western media going Defcon 1 over all this. Not one of his friends and associates is even remotely concerned yet, and it's not rating above any of North Korea's past bluster on the nightly news over there.
     
  19. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    well the citizens of Berlin didnt cared either about every fart the US or Soviets released all the time.

    Just saying.
     
  20. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Carbon Dated and Proud

    Feb 23, 2006
    The North Koreans will launch 3 nuclear warheads on chinese rockets launched from 3 Iranian container ships flying the colors of Venezuela.

    The launch sites will be; San Francisco Harbour, Gulfport/Biloxi MS, and New York Harbour. Each ship will fire one missile 6 miles into the atmosphere and detonate.

    EMP Apocalypse...