Well done Bush

[roadrunner_0]

yeah, but they still eat their babies

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

Since they invented them, yes I do believe the US has more right to have them than North Korea.

Heh. Patents!

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Its not about encouraging more nuclear weapons but unless theUS is prepared to disarm all its weapons then it can't justifiably expect other countries to not develop them.

Even if those other countries have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and other agreements pledging not to do so?

The really worrisome thing about this is that one of North Korea's very few exports is weapons. :/

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Also neg repping for not agreeing with you is really low. You suck dude. You should have done it for calling you a moron, now you will have to wait.

I gave you negative rep for the post in which you called me a moron after I decided that it was a waste of time contesting your point as you appeared to be wilfully ignoring what I was saying, try looking at the post the neg rep links you to.

I do not have to wait to do it because I have already done it but thank you for proving my conclusions correct.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well the majority of the worlds population doesn't support the US, and in fact there is no organisation that represents the opinion of the majority of the world.

I think that the majority of the world recognise that following the United States is not the path to peace and never has been. Please explain to me when the United States has promoted peace.

Its not about encouraging more nuclear weapons but unless theUS is prepared to disarm all its weapons then it can't justifiably expect other countries to not develop them.

Especially when the US refuses to rule out using Nuclear weapons on non-nuclear countries

Oh and:

Current US Nuclear Weapons Policy

US nuclear policy affects the security of every person on the planet, including, of course, every American. Current US nuclear weapons policy, under the Bush administration, sends a message to other states that the US intends to rely upon nuclear weapons for the indefinite future.

The major outlines of current US nuclear weapons policy are as follows:

The US continues to rely upon its nuclear arsenal to threaten retaliation against a nuclear attack, and has extended this threat of nuclear retaliation to chemical and biological weapons attacks or threats of attacks on the US, as well as its troops or allies, wherever they are located in the world.

Despite previous promises not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states, the US has developed contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against five non-nuclear weapon states: Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Libya. (It is possible, but still not certain, that North Korea has now developed a small nuclear arsenal.)

The US has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, in order to develop missile defenses, making way for the development of space weapons, despite promising to preserve and strengthen this treaty.

The US has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, despite making commitments to do so. While it still adheres to the nuclear testing moratorium, except for sub-critical tests and computer simulations, it has allocated funds to reduce the time needed to ready the Nevada Test Site to resume testing.

The US has entered into the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) with the Russians to reduce the deployed long-range nuclear weapons on each side to between 1,700 and 2,200 by the year 2012, but has failed to make these reductions irreversible in accord with the consensus agreement at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Additionally, the treaty terminates in 2012 unless extended. Despite this agreement, each side continues to keep some 2,250 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, poised to attack the other at a moment’s notice.

The US has ended a decade-long Congressional ban on research and development of nuclear weapons under 5 kilotons (mini-nukes), and allocated funds to perform research on the development of such weapons, increasing the likelihood of use of nuclear weapons and blurring the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons.

The US has allocated funds for researching more powerful Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator weapons, another way of making nuclear weapons more usable and therefore more likely to be used.

The US has allocated funds to create a facility to produce some 450 plutonium pits annually that could only be used for new nuclear weapons. This suggests to other nations that the US is planning to further develop new nuclear weapons and to possess and rely upon nuclear weapons for the indefinite future.

The US has not adhered to the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to in the year 2000 by the states that are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the five declared nuclear weapon states.

The US has not challenged the reliance on nuclear weapons by our allies, including Israel, UK and France, and has made no attempt to provide leadership for broad-based nuclear disarmament.

From here
It's quite an interesting article actually.

[Yahwe]

NK is increasinly hostile to most western nations.

i can not understand what you mean by 'never threatened'.

NK is to my mind the only valid member of the 'axis of evil'. the threat posed when any country pursues nuclear weapon cabability is immense. when that nation is totalitarian and diplomatically hostile then surely the threat must be greater.

PS to T&F

you do have a tendancy not to answer points raised by others. as well as a tendancy to flame and insult anyone who contradicts what you say.

[Ninja_spammer]

Ok T&F please post the full neg rep I gave you including the link to the post you were neg repped for and time it was given.

I have already explained why I did it (Both in the rep and again in this thread) and to which post it related.

Otherwise stop making an issue of it.

[JammyJim]

Just as a point....North Korea has some of the best missile technology in the world. They have proved several times they are capable of striking japan or any other country within that kind of 'radius' and have apparently been working on extending the range of its missiles.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Its not about encouraging more nuclear weapons but unless theUS is prepared to disarm all its weapons then it can't justifiably expect other countries to not develop them.

And why should the US disarm at a time when so many people like you seem to think its OK for other countries to start developing them?

You cant have it both ways. I think Yahwe has a point. You are simply anti-US.

[Nusselt]

Im confused as to the exact positions taken by everyone here (all the hatred ) but just so i can clarify my own, i don't feel that North Korea presents as great a threat to the world as is made out (by the US and others) the act of NK developing atomic weapons doesn't mean its on the final count down to world domination, it could just be the usual MAD defensive doctorine. Ignoring a sudden personality shift in its leader and extrapolating from its relatively non-threathening behaviour of the past 50 odd years, i give it the benefit of the doubt.

[noah02]

better not be any kind of war or anything coz i hate tony blair going yes sir no sir 3 bags full sir as i want to spend some time with the missus between doing tours in afgan and iraq and bosnia etc... dont need somewere else to stag on

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

And why should the US disarm at a time when so many people like you seem to think its OK for other countries to start developing them? You cant have it both ways.

Oh look, we're in a circular argument. The United States already has the technology to fire nukes at North Korea. Since the American government over the last 50 years (more, but we'll keep things simple) has had an aggressive foriegn policy, it's entirely logical that countries who could face potential aggression want to even the score a little. You cannot have it both ways.

The point is quite clear (and in no way contradictory) : Once the US has eliminated (or greatly reduced) it's nuclear arsenal (and defence spending generally) then it will be in a moral position to lecture others on weapons of mass destruction.

I think Yahwe has a point. You are simply anti-US.

I'm amused that ring-wing views attract people as diverse as Crashtester and Yahwe

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I don't think its OK I just think that if the US and Russia has them then the world is no less safe with North Korea having them. I favour complete nuclear disarmament, but the US isn't interested in that, it just wants to pick on North Korea. I can say qithout reservation that the US does not want total nuclear disarmament.

I am not anti US I am anti-US Government. I like American's but ti feel that there elites represent a clear and present danger to the security of the world, including regular Americans.

The world will be much less safe with another country having nukes, more so I believe if it were NK, given its hatred of the US. So if you truely favour nuclear disarmament you would not want any other nation having nukes. We cannot start disarming while others are racing to have the very thing we are seeking to get rid oourselves of.

What makes you think it America alone that can bring about niclear disarmament? There are plenty of other nations with nukes that must all agree to it before you could even consider it becoming a reality. America can reduce its stockpile, which I genuinely believe it is trying to do with agreements with Russia, but it will take a collective agreement for total or near total disarmament.

Other nations jumping into the mix doesnt help anyone - not us and not the nation concerned.

[Ste]

Crashtester - read this link. (yes i posted it earlier but noone responded i thought it was good)
Especially the bits about considerations US should make about their nuclear policy and what a responsible US nuclear policy might be. It definately gives you things to think about.

You can't say "Don't research nukes" while researching and testing your own. If you're going to lead - lead by example.

"US nuclear weapons policy under the Bush administration appears to be rooted in a “do as I say, not as I do” approach. This raises two important questions: Does this policy make the US more secure? Is this a policy that the American people would support if they understood it? I believe the answer to both these questions is No. "

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

If a war can be a valid war, which surely must be possible, then the only way it could be made valid would be by consensus of the UN.

edit: for war perhaps we should use the term 'invasion of a sovereign state by another"

Originally Posted by Yahwe

valid within terms of international law and immunity from unilateral or group punishment.

So you're basically saying that the only way a war can be valid within terms of international law is if it complies with international law? Unless someone agreed with your bizarre definition of the term 'valid', what reason is there to care about the opinions of the UN?

[Super]

I think the point is that the US has proven it is responsible with its nukes. Do you really trust North Korea the same as you trust the US? I feel pretty safe with the US having nukes, as we are all protected against aggressive dictatorships, or radical fundamentalist governments. I'm assuming people seem to have forgotten that most of the world signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, stating that the only nations that may possess nuclear weapons are the US, UK, France, Russia and China. North Korea signed this treaty. Thus, we have a problem.

[Ste]

North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
And seeing as Israel, India and Pakistan never signed into it and have since developed nuclear weapons, and the US has continued developing it's own Nuclear weapons anyway, it's pointless to state that as a reason for hostilities against NK I'd say.

[Super]

It still gives the US the 'right' to have them and lecture others though, as the majority of the world recognises the treaty.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Ste

Crashtester - read this link. (yes i posted it earlier but noone responded i thought it was good)
Especially the bits about considerations US should make about their nuclear policy and what a responsible US nuclear policy might be. It definately gives you things to think about.

You can't say "Don't research nukes" while researching and testing your own. If you're going to lead - lead by example.

"US nuclear weapons policy under the Bush administration appears to be rooted in a “do as I say, not as I do” approach. This raises two important questions: Does this policy make the US more secure? Is this a policy that the American people would support if they understood it? I believe the answer to both these questions is No. "

If I own a gun, I can certainly say that someone who I believe wants to kill me shouldnt be allowed to own a gun (especially if he has a previous history of highly irrational behavior). It would be sheer idiocy for me to throw my gun away as a token gesture, and expect him to do the same. A lot of people believe that NK is a potential threat in a way that America isn't (for all the hype about America being 'out of control', they cannot seriously be called a threat to the world), and taking steps to remove this threat seems justified. You could certainly argue (as I suspect T&F would) that America is a potential threat to NK hence NK is justified in arming itself, and in a sense you would be correct, but I would personally class this as being analogous to saying that a policeman is a potential threat to a serial killer hence the killer is justified in buying guns. It might be true strictly speaking, but its not a particularly useful statement and it glosses over the vast differences between the two parties involved, and WHY they are threats to each other.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Oh look, we're in a circular argument. The United States already has the technology to fire nukes at North Korea. Since the American government over the last 50 years (more, but we'll keep things simple) has had an aggressive foriegn policy, it's entirely logical that countries who could face potential aggression want to even the score a little. You cannot have it both ways.

You arent taking into account why these countries face potential aggression. While America is by no means perfect, it is nonsense to suggest that countries such as NK, Iraq, and many of the countries involved in cold war skirmishes are the innocent victims of an 'aggressive foreign policy'.

[Super]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If I own a gun, I can certainly say that someone who I believe wants to kill me shouldnt be allowed to own a gun (especially if he has a previous history of highly irrational behavior). It would be sheer idiocy for me to throw my gun away as a token gesture, and expect him to do the same. A lot of people believe that NK is a potential threat in a way that America isn't (for all the hype about America being 'out of control', they cannot seriously be called a threat to the world), and taking steps to remove this threat seems justified. You could certainly argue (as I suspect T&F would) that America is a potential threat to NK hence NK is justified in arming itself, and in a sense you would be correct, but I would personally class this as being analogous to saying that a policeman is a potential threat to a serial killer hence the killer is justified in buying guns. It might be true strictly speaking, but its not a particularly useful statement and it glosses over the vast differences between the two parties involved, and WHY they are threats to each other.

I wish I could get my views across this plainly. You pretty much summed up what I think, while I've been writing gibberish. Ho hum.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally Posted by Structural Integrity

Bring in Team America!

F*CK YEAH!

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Ste

North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Well, yeah, after they were caught violating it. Twice. The first time they were caught they signed another--bilateral--agreement with the US promising to abide by the NNPT in exchange for some foreign aid--heh.

And seeing as Israel, India and Pakistan never signed into it and have since developed nuclear weapons, and the US has continued developing it's own Nuclear weapons anyway, it's pointless to state that as a reason for hostilities against NK I'd say.

Hostilities wouldn't be my first choice, but there should be consequences for nations that violate their agreements.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

So it would be OK for North Korea to attack the United States then?

Just as they hit the so-called red states.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Well, yeah, after they were caught violating it. Twice. The first time they were caught they signed another--bilateral--agreement with the US promising to abide by the NNPT in exchange for some foreign aid--heh.

South-Korea has also done that. Oh well.

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Hostilities wouldn't be my first choice, but there should be consequences for nations that violate their agreements.

US promised to build up some power stations in NK, becouse NK agreed to stop trying to get nukes. However, US never furfilled their agreement.
Israel has giving a rats a** about the UN for decades. I never seen them been punished.

Your grasp of history is not impressing.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If I own a gun, I can certainly say that someone who I believe wants to kill me shouldnt be allowed to own a gun (especially if he has a previous history of highly irrational behavior). It would be sheer idiocy for me to throw my gun away as a token gesture, and expect him to do the same. A lot of people believe that NK is a potential threat in a way that America isn't (for all the hype about America being 'out of control', they cannot seriously be called a threat to the world), and taking steps to remove this threat seems justified. You could certainly argue (as I suspect T&F would) that America is a potential threat to NK hence NK is justified in arming itself, and in a sense you would be correct, but I would personally class this as being analogous to saying that a policeman is a potential threat to a serial killer hence the killer is justified in buying guns. It might be true strictly speaking, but its not a particularly useful statement and it glosses over the vast differences between the two parties involved, and WHY they are threats to each other.

Since you obviously have no clue about the massmurders, torture and so on the USA have either done themself or backed /funded since 1945 (we could go back to the US independece and see that they have always acted like this, but that might be to complex for you), i find that portraying the US as a policemen and NK as a serial killer is midly ammusing.

Here you go, and that list isnt even complete:
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa02.html

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Here you go, and that list isnt even complete:
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa02.html

A lot of them are nonsense (parts of it read like someone has went down the list of every country America has ever given aid to, and invented an underhand reason for each one - I was surprised there was no mention of the money given to Thailand for 'humanitarian' reasons towards the end of 2004 in order to fight socialism), a lot are entirely justified, and a fair few arent. What's your point? Noone is claiming that America is perfect, simply that it isnt comparable to countries such as North Korea. Pretty much every single country today in existence today is evil, but America is a lot less evil than most.

[Super]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Here you go, and that list isnt even complete:
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa02.html

Thanks that link is hilarious. Might I make a suggestion? I realise the guy who compiled that list must have super secret sources to give us the real reasons for US action, but do you think maybe it's a little biased? I'll give you some examples that I find fairly intriguing:

1965 Vietnam Military Action > To keep the country from uniting.

Uniting, being forced into communism by an aggressive neighbour.. potato po-tato.

1974 Vietnam Trade Embargo > The Vietnamese were winning against the USA.

I don't really understand why this one should be seen as an ulterior motive..

1979 Afghanistan Military Aid > To repel USSR and break their economy.

Jesus, they helped Afghanistan repel an invading force? Damn America to hell!

1993 Iraq Bombing > To ensure that Iraq does not flood the oil market, lowering the price.

Because we all know how much the US wants the oil price to be high when it's importing so much.

1999 Iraq Bombing > To destabilise independent Arab regime.

Yep, poor innocent Saddam Hussein. Well, not innocent in the sense that he was in violation of the UN.

While it is fair to say the US doesn't have a spotless record, I think they have done a lot of good in the world. Hell I think they can rest on the laurels of WW2 for another 20 years or so.

[Nodrog]

You missed the best one:

1991 Iraq Invasion; UN Violation Sanctions Free Kuwait To ensure that Iraq became less powerful.

[Super]

Oh dammit. That one is even better than the oil one.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If I own a gun, I can certainly say that someone who I believe wants to kill me shouldnt be allowed to own a gun (especially if he has a previous history of highly irrational behavior). It would be sheer idiocy for me to throw my gun away as a token gesture, and expect him to do the same.

But by having the gun you must realise that people who believe you want to kill them will also attempt to get a gun (especially if you have a previous history of killing people you don't agree with unless they have a gun in which case you become more agreeable)
I didn't say 'throw away your gun', the link I was quoting wasn't talking about full nuclear disarming it was describing ways the US could lead by example while still being the most powerful nation on earth.
Using your analogy you would be acquiring bigger and more powerful guns whilst telling people that if they acquire a gun (no matter how small) you will kill them.
The US needs to lead by example. They have no need for the amount of nuclear weaponry they have.

A lot of people believe that NK is a potential threat in a way that America isn't (for all the hype about America being 'out of control', they cannot seriously be called a threat to the world), and taking steps to remove this threat seems justified.

While America might not be a direct threat to the world (although they are to a large amount of people), they are definately at least an indirect threat to everyone.
I certainly feel more threatened by the actions casued by the US than I do of North Korea.

You could certainly argue (as I suspect T&F would) that America is a potential threat to NK hence NK is justified in arming itself, and in a sense you would be correct, but I would personally class this as being analogous to saying that a policeman is a potential threat to a serial killer hence the killer is justified in buying guns. It might be true strictly speaking, but its not a particularly useful statement and it glosses over the vast differences between the two parties involved, and WHY they are threats to each other.

I wouldn't argue the killer is justified getting guns but you could certainly understand the reasoning behind it. Surely that is one of the reasons that Police in this country haven't got guns.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Here you go, and that list isnt even complete:
http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa02.html

Wow that reminds me of Perle's crappy list of Britains military action.
Not good.
There are much better lists of American Military interventions, i think i have one in a book about a metre away from me... shame i can't be arsed to type it out...

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Super

Uniting, being forced into communism by an aggressive neighbour.. potato po-tato.

Aggressive neighbour? Heh. You know the countries North and South Vietnam were temporary artificial entities created after the war, right? As for being "forced" into Communism, the only elections held were fixed by the corrupt regime in the South but the general consensus is that the majority of Vietnamese at the time wanted the country unified under the leadership of the NLF (who had fought the Japanese and French).

Jesus, they helped Afghanistan repel an invading force? Damn America to hell!

American intervention happened before the Soviet invasion ocurred. Indeed, part of the reasons the Soviet Union invaded was because the broadly pro-Soviet regime was being destabalised by American-backed mudhajeen. The fact the Americans hoped the Soviet's would invade Afghanistan (and therefore face a Vietnam like situation of their own) is on the public record from state department officials as far as I'm aware.

You can justify the original intervention if you wish (the pro-Soviet regime was not a democratic one) but it helps if we get the order of events right. I think it would be difficult to make the case that the American's intervention was particularly helpful in terms of the forces they allowed to grow powerful and indeed this (as we all know) came back to bite them in the arse a bit.

It's pretty easy to criticse that list, there are many points which are either logically unsound or factually incorrect. I'm mystified however that would choose these cases where you're clearly not massively informed on to which to comment.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

American intervention happened before the Soviet invasion ocurred. Indeed, part of the reasons the Soviet Union invaded was because the broadly pro-Soviet regime was being destabalised by American-backed mudhajeen.

That kind of glosses over the fact that there was already a mujahadeen in place to be backed. It was the heavy-handedness of the pro-Soviet Tariki regime (especially the land reforms and brutal killings of peasants) which really created a wide-spread resistance. In fact, the Tariki regime was so inept that the Soviets eventually staged a coup to replace it (and bungled that so badly as to make things even worse).

The fact the Americans hoped the Soviet's would invade Afghanistan (and therefore face a Vietnam like situation of their own) is on the public record from state department officials as far as I'm aware.

That was probably part wishful thinking; but in any case the Soviets (and their various Afghan client regimes) surely bear some responsibility for creating a broad insurgency motivated by pure hatred. All we could do was to arm them.

You can justify the original intervention if you wish (the pro-Soviet regime was not a democratic one) but it helps if we get the order of events right.

Indeed.

I think it would be difficult to make the case that the American's intervention was particularly helpful in terms of the forces they allowed to grow powerful and indeed this (as we all know) came back to bite them in the arse a bit.

The Taliban didn't emerge until after the Soviets withdrew (and most US aid had ended) so I don't see your point. Most of the original mujahadeen were indifferent to the US (though grateful for the aid) and a fair number of them were fighting for the Northern Alliance (aka United Front) and allied with the US to oust the Taliban in 2001.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

So you're basically saying that the only way a war can be valid within terms of international law is if it complies with international law?

if you need to massively simplify what i said then yes, this is as good a simplification as any i suppose.

its not exactly shocking is it gordon "for an action to be legal it must comply with the law" is a widely accepted view. not exactly bizarre is it?

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Unless someone agreed with your bizarre definition of the term 'valid', what reason is there to care about the opinions of the UN?

you may not have any reason to care about the UN.

If you were a nation state you might care a bit more about the threat of UN sanctions, or Security Council military response.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm amused that ring-wing views attract people as diverse as Crashtester and Yahwe

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't really agree with a consensus determining the validity of anything.

frankly i consider your anti democracy stance more right wing than my "more countries developing nuclear weapons is bad" argument.

you fly in circles if you've two left wings.

[Boogster]

You see, I love you guys*. I have found no other forum in which there are clever people willing to talk in a reasonable and informed manner on a contentious subject such as this. No sarcasm intended.

*platonic.

EDIT: I realise that I have added absolutely nothing to the thread/argument, please excuse that.

[CamelToe]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

1) America has made a nation that has not issued any threats to it a target, why have they done this? Is America interested in World Peace? Is America so worried about North Korea that it would rather attack Iraq (another country who had never threatened America) first?

Do you understand anything about global society (and/or history) or do you just enjoy portraying yourself as a benighted tool? I mean really man, find a lawyer and sue whatever back country community college enlightened you. And Yes, I know my post here provides no real insight into my own opinion on this matter, just so long as you to know that every moment you spend typing another post on this forum is counter-positive to you be perceived as someone of reputable knowledge.

Jealously and hypocrisy at its best.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by CamelToe

Do you understand anything about global society (and/or history) or do you just enjoy portraying yourself as a benighted tool? I mean really man, find a lawyer and sue whatever back country community college enlightened you. And Yes, I know my post here provides no real insight into my own opinion on this matter, just so long as you to know that every moment you spend typing another post on this forum is counter-positive to you be perceived as someone of reputable knowledge.

Jealously and hypocrisy at its best.

T&F used to (possibly still does, I don't know) work in the Downing Street Press Office. That implies that he might have some connection with political knowledge.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

T&F used to (possibly still does, I don't know) work in the Downing Street Press Office. That implies that he might have some connection with political knowledge.

Oh really?

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

T&F used to (possibly still does, I don't know) work in the Downing Street Press Office. That implies that he might have some connection with political knowledge.

I can see some cheap points to score here, but I shall resist.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by CamelToe

Do you understand anything about global society (and/or history) or do you just enjoy portraying yourself as a benighted tool? I mean really man, find a lawyer and sue whatever back country community college enlightened you. And Yes, I know my post here provides no real insight into my own opinion on this matter, just so long as you to know that every moment you spend typing another post on this forum is counter-positive to you be perceived as someone of reputable knowledge.

Jealously and hypocrisy at its best.

3/10. Must rant better.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

I can see some cheap points to score here, but I shall resist.

I didn't.

Go me, go me, it's a sunday, it's a sunday.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I didn't.

Go me, go me, it's a sunday, it's a sunday.

I was going to say political reality, but changed that because it's lol satire blair sucks to say otherwise.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

frankly i consider your anti democracy stance more right wing than my "more countries developing nuclear weapons is bad" argument.

I'm not really sure if anyone on the left has said that democractic opinion established the moral validity of any act. My quote was specifically related to that, rather than a more general point (although you can choose to take it out of context if you wish).

I've already said more nuclear weapons were a bad thing more generally, but if that was the only point either of us had then I'm not sure why we bothered posting. It seems to have had no effect aside from increasing the gross level of banality in the world.

you fly in circles if you've two left wings.

Did you get that out of a fortune cookie?

[Summanus]

Quite frankly both North Korea and the United States have acted the fool on many different occasions over the years. It is highly probable that both regimes have a smattering of evil through them. Trying to argue that one is more justified in having nukes than the other, or that one is good and one is evil, is like trying to put sole responsibility on Germany for World War I.