The Unfan

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.

lucifer_sam

List of states with nuclear weapons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we have more allies than this, no?

__________________
first.am

sleepy jack

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.

__________________

TheBig3

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.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

The Unfan

They are relevant when discussing reasons for recent invasions.

Now who's picking the fights?

TheBig3

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.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

The Unfan

I meant the point of America launching (or not) weapons, not WMDs in general.

TheBig3

...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?

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Son of JayJamJah

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

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

sleepy jack

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.

__________________