Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-28-2009, 10:25 PM   #61 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Methville
Posts: 2,116
Default

If we enter N. Korea it should be on grounds of breaking CTBT, not because of the way the civilians are treated. Which we can't because CTBT is not yet active and is still being discussed.
The Unfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 10:30 PM   #62 (permalink)
Unrepentant Ass-Mod
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,920
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy jack View Post
The Weapons of Mass Destruction point is completely irrelevant. Every United States alley is developing/has nuclear technology. The only difference between North Korea and those countries is North Korea isn't a United States ally and apparently only the West and it's friends are allowed to have the big guns. This is a humanitarian argument.

Iraq was only stable in the sense that Saddam would torture, threaten, imprison or murder any dissenters. All dictatorships are stable in that sense. You don't consider that as offensive as starvation; which is happening all over the world including United States streets?
List of states with nuclear weapons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we have more allies than this, no?
__________________
first.am
lucifer_sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 10:36 PM   #63 (permalink)
isfckingdead
 
sleepy jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 18,969
Default

Yeah I meant to say every country with nuclear technology is a United States ally and according to wikipedia, barring the obvious countries, I'm not wrong. Thanks for that insightful counterargument though.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by METALLICA89 View Post
Ive seen you on muiltipul forums saying Metallica and slayer are the worst **** you kid go suck your **** while you listen to your ****ing emo **** I bet you do listen to emo music
sleepy jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 10:36 PM   #64 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 9,252
Default

You're doing a couple things here that I think are dirty, and are being done to win an argument I'm not getting in because I don't think we should invade either country.

1. Pick the fights - It doens't have anything to do with WMD's but you brought up Iraq.

2. You're equating North Korea with America. Your point about who's allowed to have Nukes is valid, but its unreasonable to compare the two when North Korea is launching them to see what they can do, with no regard for where they actually land. Why do they have missiles crash landing in the sea of Japan? Does America?

3. You're attempting to paint me with a redneck brush in the last line, which we're all aware is a caricature of my positions.


Not all dictatorships are stable like Iraq was stable. To say the active murder of someone is better or worse than starvation is a tough call. I'd prefer neither but being shot does have the one saving grace of at least being quick. As I mentioned, Iraq was stable in regions, and while dissent wasn't tolerated, people aren't being starved. I'm sure you'll twist this into me defending something I'm actually not, but thats how this works I suppose.

In my final two years at college, I had the opportunity to sit in a writing group with a guy from Kurdistan (thats his call, I wasn't going to argue geographic boundaries with him) and he told me how their economy was more high functioning, and their currency worth more there then in either the rest of Iraq or Iran.

So maybe Iraq wasn't perfect, but I'd say it was far better off than North Korea then or now.
TheBig3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 10:42 PM   #65 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Methville
Posts: 2,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog View Post
1. Pick the fights - It doens't have anything to do with WMD's but you brought up Iraq.
They are relevant when discussing reasons for recent invasions.

Quote:
2. You're equating North Korea with America. Your point about who's allowed to have Nukes is valid, but its unreasonable to compare the two when North Korea is launching them to see what they can do, with no regard for where they actually land. Why do they have missiles crash landing in the sea of Japan? Does America?
Now who's picking the fights?
The Unfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 10:43 PM   #66 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 9,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unfan View Post
They are relevant when discussing reasons for recent invasions.

Now who's picking the fights?
Since he brought it up, and I don't own a time machine, I'd still say Ethan is/had/did.

Edit: Also, I think you're agreeing with me in your first point.
TheBig3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 10:45 PM   #67 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Methville
Posts: 2,116
Default

I meant the point of America launching (or not) weapons, not WMDs in general.
The Unfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 10:47 PM   #68 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 9,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unfan View Post
I meant the point of America launching (or not) weapons, not WMDs in general.
...I'm gunna need a complete sentence here.

He brought up Iraq. So I brought up WMD's (because that was America's rationale for going in). He says thats not relevent. I'm saying its a package deal, and when you bring up Iraq, you have to bring up WMD's.

So what are you saying again?
TheBig3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 10:48 PM   #69 (permalink)
Occams Razor
 
Son of JayJamJah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: End of the Earth
Posts: 2,470
Default

Again, a lot of mucking up a pretty simple solution. A likely unstable retarded fucking asshole who has no regard for basic human decency and a fresh supply of big fucking bombs is threatening to use them on people if someone doesn't pay attention to him.

Why should I or anyone else give a shit if his ass gets wiped off the planet.

North Korea is a hell hole and he's the main reason why.
__________________
Me, Myself and I United as One

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent View Post
i prefer foreplay. the orgasm is overrated.
If you're posting in the music forums make sure to be thoughtful and expressive, if you're posting in the lounge ask yourself "is this something that adds to the conversation?" It's important to remember that a lot of people use each thread. You're probably not as funny or clever as you think, I know I'm not.

My Van Morrison Discography Thread
Son of JayJamJah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2009, 10:51 PM   #70 (permalink)
isfckingdead
 
sleepy jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 18,969
Default

In regards to North Korea testing nuclear weaponry I don't believe it's the United States job to do something about it. Now if they actually hit waters (or darwin forbid it land) of one of our allies and our allies chooses playtime is over for North Korea and they ask us for help that would be valid. The United States going in on Bushian grounds right now and assassinating Kim Jong Il is an entirely different scenario.

I didn't bring up Iraq to discuss the Weapons of Mass Destruction angle; you're the one who brought that in. I brought up Iraq from a humanitarian perspective. Saddam was doing many atrocious things to the citizens of Iraq; including murder but not limited to that. You're doing something which I think is dirty which is choosing one of Saddam's cruelties and saying "well at least it's over fast Kim Jong Il's starving people to death isn't." That's disingenuous. Saddam was torturing people, imprisoning them (I doubt he fed many of those people either) and coercing them. He was a deeply evil man who do deeply evil things - many things that are on par with starvation considering starvation was a factor in some of his acts. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. He didn't neglect them he killed them. I wouldn't consider a country that does that to be "stable." But that's irrelevant; this isn't about stability it's about humanism.

Now despite Saddam being a mass murderer you accused Kim Jong Il, because of his cruel negligence, of being genocidal and said that was justification for assassinating him...but you're still against United States intervention in Iraq? It's hypocritical. I don't think Il has killed nearly as many people as Saddam did. I hate discussing things like that I don't particularly want to say who is worse through quantifiable means or think it's necessary.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by METALLICA89 View Post
Ive seen you on muiltipul forums saying Metallica and slayer are the worst **** you kid go suck your **** while you listen to your ****ing emo **** I bet you do listen to emo music
sleepy jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.