Planetarion Forums

JonnyBGood · 22 Jan 2005, 21:03

Watch out Cuba, Belarus, Iran, North Korea, Mynamar and Zimbabwe the USA is coming for you!

Zar · 22 Jan 2005, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Watch out Cuba, Belarus, Iran, North Korea, Mynamar and Zimbabwe the USA is coming for you!

frst link requires registration. is it really worth it?

JonnyBGood · 22 Jan 2005, 21:10

It didn't when I accessed it through google. Changed.

mist · 22 Jan 2005, 21:28

the book on bin laden's nuclear plans at the bottom made me giggle. i'm not sure why :/

Weeks · 22 Jan 2005, 21:32

We need to set up some kind of who-will-the-US-liberate-next poll.

Stew · 22 Jan 2005, 22:00

Surely we (Britian) could just take on that twat Mugabe on our own?

demiGOD · 22 Jan 2005, 22:04

we are liberators and pioneers of democracy!! we are facilitators of peace and the land of the free!! we are a superpower! and we will topple down all nations that do not support this...
except for china of course..

Super · 22 Jan 2005, 22:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Watch out Mynamar

You might know it as Mynamar, but it will always be Burma to me.

Kurashima · 22 Jan 2005, 23:01

TBH , a regime change in Myanmar and Zimbabwe is very very long overdue. However Cuba is more likely, as is Iran, as one is a strategic military position , and the other has an abundance of natural resources (well , the one Bush gives a shit about , Oil).

I dont think we will see any movement towards North Korea unless Bush wants World War III , and Belarus? What the **** would be the point in that for Bush? I mean, it would be a serious cluster**** with massive casualties and no discernable benefit to the USA (although obviously, it would benefit the world at large, and somehow , i just feel Bush isnt really looking to do that, despite the words of Ms Rice).

Kurashima · 22 Jan 2005, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Super

You might know it as Mynamar, but it will always be Burma to me.

Burma Shave?

Ninja_spammer · 22 Jan 2005, 23:18

Quote:

In addition, bin Laden has recruited former Soviet scientists and technicians to maintain these weapons and recharge their nuclear cores so that they may be deployed immediately on his command.

Um I didnt realise that Nukes took duracells.

Damn the uraniums gone flat again.

Ärketrollmannen · 22 Jan 2005, 23:55

If you use the name Myanmar (instead of Burma) aren't you supporting the regime then?

Considering they are the only ones actually calling it Myanmar.

Vaio · 22 Jan 2005, 23:55

I am going to start teh Carlisle Liberation Front. Take over the local government and then get teh oppressed peasants of Stanwix working on building Weapons Of Mass Delusion. With a bit of luck the US will threaten to invade.

Then we can offer to destroy our weapons (probably a half brick in a sock or 2) if they build us some flood defences, cause lets face it, the local government don't give a f'k.

They saved about £25m by not building defences and the bill so far for repairs is £250m.

Tossers.

ARE YOU LISTENING MISTAR BLAIR ?

~Vaio~

JonnyBGood · 23 Jan 2005, 00:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ärketrollmannen

If you use the name Myanmar (instead of Burma) aren't you supporting the regime then?

Considering they are the only ones actually calling it Myanmar.

Not really. Calling a country x instead of a y is not a crime. The fact that a group which commits evil acts also commit act a does not mean that nobody should commit act a.

mist · 23 Jan 2005, 00:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

Um I didnt realise that Nukes took duracells.

Damn the uraniums gone flat again.

all that glowing obviously saps the batteries

Tactitus · 23 Jan 2005, 00:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

Um I didnt realise that Nukes took duracells.

Damn the uraniums gone flat again.

Plutonium, more likely (if it's an production weapon they've acquired on the mythical black market vs. a home-grown "prototype" weapon). Although if it's an H-bomb, the tritium is by far the weaker link (decay wise).

Marilyn Manson · 23 Jan 2005, 01:30

Why on earth do we have at least one of these 'The Bush administration doesn't like Iran, North Korea et al!' threads every two days or so?

They're getting a tad repetitive, tbh.

JonnyBGood · 23 Jan 2005, 01:34

Because now new countries have been added to the list which haven't been discussed before?

Marilyn Manson · 23 Jan 2005, 01:40

The Bush administration has long made it clear that it has a particular dislike for Cuba, Belarus, (It has called Lukashenko 'The last dictator in Europe.' for quite a few years now), and
Zimbabwe. North Korea and Iran are spoken for. None of this is real news.

It won't take any action againt Zimbabwe because there's no pressing humanitarian or strategic reason to do so, (Not to mention all the old fears about African interventions - CF. Somalia.) Belarus is within Russia's imemdiate sphere of influence, so nothing will happen there, and they presumably want to simply wait until Castro dies, and then influence developments. (The Republicans in particular won't stop playing up how evil Castro is as a sop to the Cuban-American constituency, so let's not by navie enough to take them precisely by their words here.)

All old hat.

JonnyBGood · 23 Jan 2005, 02:49

Never discussed Belarus or Mynamar on GD before. The fact it has been discussed is utterly irrelevant. Most of the discussions we have have taken place elsewhere beforehand. However the point of discussion is individual enlightenment not necessarily originality. Y'dig?

Marilyn Manson · 23 Jan 2005, 02:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Never discussed Belarus

I have. I made a thread about it once.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

or Mynamar on GD before.

I wasn't aware that this thread was purely regarding the political status of Belarus and Myanmar. To me it's purpose seemed more general than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The fact it has been discussed is utterly irrelevant.

Why on earth not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

However the point of discussion is individual enlightenment not necessarily originality. Y'dig?

We should strive for both, not either/or. In this case, I fail to see how either can be gained.

Also, discussion of current affairs is supposed to be just that, not the same old stories re-hased over and over ad nauseum until everyone's head falls off.

JonnyBGood · 23 Jan 2005, 03:00

No offence but "sod" and "off".

Marilyn Manson · 23 Jan 2005, 03:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

No offence but "sod" and "off".

I take it this means that you'll consider posting something original and genuinely interesting with regards to current affairs in future.

Goodo.

JonnyBGood · 23 Jan 2005, 03:05

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Ninja_spammer · 23 Jan 2005, 03:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Quoting Anne Coulter is bad mmm'k .

Marilyn Manson · 23 Jan 2005, 03:10

I murdered her in a temper, actually.

JonnyBGood · 23 Jan 2005, 03:11

Also your thread concerning Belarus was posted on the 27th of November 2002. Do you think the situation or the attitudes towards the situation in question might have changed slightly since than?

Marilyn Manson · 23 Jan 2005, 03:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Also your thread concerning Belarus was posted on the 27th of November 2002. Do you think the situation or the attitudes towards the situation in question might have changed slightly since than?

Not really.

Belarus is a very dull place, internationally speaking. It has, after all, remained almost totally unchanged, politically speaking, since independence.

I imagine this is probably a contributory factor as to why my thread recieved so few replies. That and the fact that I am a long-winded homo/paedo.

JonnyBGood · 23 Jan 2005, 03:17

But perhaps people's attitudes have changed? A fact reflected in the inclusion of belarus in what could be called the new "axis of evil"?

Marilyn Manson · 23 Jan 2005, 03:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

But perhaps people's attitudes have changed? A fact reflected in the inclusion of belarus in what could be called the new "axis of evil"?

It's only a point of any relevance, like I said previously, if you believe there will be a serious policy shift to match the rhetoric. And, in the case Belarus, there won't be.

demiGOD · 23 Jan 2005, 07:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I murdered her in a temper, actually.

thats really nice of you

Ninja_spammer · 23 Jan 2005, 18:02

Next month we will have 'Bunkers of Badness' .

or 'Guard tower of Opression'

XeeThot · 24 Jan 2005, 13:37

I really think that before -any- country starts to play the world's police, he has to solve all it's internal problems and affairs. Everything other than that is just another motion to a World War.

Wake up and smell the Napalm.

MrL_JaKiri · 24 Jan 2005, 13:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

Next month we will have 'Bunkers of Badness' .

HP Lovecraft's At The Bunkers of Badness?

No, doesn't really work.

wu_trax · 24 Jan 2005, 13:48

i dont give a damn about any of these country, sorry, but that true. they should live in what ever way they want. if the people are treated so bad they will eventually overthrow their goverment and become democratic, sooner or later.
why is it any bush's buisness to change regimes in any country? the us does not only act a global policemen, but as "global policeman who reports to no higher authority and no longer allows locks on citizens' doors" (quote from some article i read. i like the comparison, but the article was full of crap)

wu_trax · 24 Jan 2005, 14:43

yes, maybe it's all pretty bad, but i am conviced that external intervention can not work out, especially if it's not authorised by the UN. it is just bad to run around in the world and tell people how to live because you know better how to live, even if you in fact do know better. i mean, who checks where to stop? bomb europe, because our high taxation for to pay for the social security system means that people are not 'free'?
(that, ofc, is a stupid example, but i think i could come up with a better one if i would put some thought in it)
my point of view is to be prepared to defend yourself if that should ever be necessary, to help people if the ask for it (with un-peacekeeppers or humanitarian aid or whatever) and otherwise to mind your own buiness.

JonnyBGood · 24 Jan 2005, 15:18

It took me a while to figure out that Aginthat was "again that" and wasn't in fact the name of a small village in southern France.

JonnyBGood · 24 Jan 2005, 15:28

Don't you have a job?

wu_trax · 24 Jan 2005, 15:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I agree with youn in the sense that it is not the business of one group of peopel to tell another group of peopel how to live. However that is not what America is saying (although perhaps it is what they are doing) The Burmese clearly don't wish to live as virtual slaves under a military junta, hwoever thanks to being armed with lots and lots of guns they have been supressed so they have NO choice in their way to live.

yet if now we go in, bomb the shit our of them and implement a democratic system we would force them to live our way, they wouldn't have a choice either. crappy systems eventually collapse on their own, after they do the people of that country have a choice on their own to do whatever they like in their country. if we change their system for them, we only get a new enemy if things don't work out in the way we intended (and rightly so)

Quote:

Also your analysis is too simplistic. For instance the USA successfully sued a country (I think it was the Philipines, in the world court because they had banned cigarettes. The USA said this was restriction of trade. So there you have it a country forcing another bunch of people to live a certain way. Similarly if you support a particular group in another country then you are influenceing that country. For instance Americans who sent money to the IRA.

The philipienes (or whoever, i never heared about this) at some point agreed to accept the WTO (i guess it was the WTO, because they do all these trade-things) as an international body to decide about trade disputes. Their choice. If they changed their law because of the WTOs decision it was also their choice, they could just have ingored it and lived with the counter messures the US would have started. again, their choice.

Quote:

So you could argue that we shoudl be isolationist, but then where do you end. I can't day that I liek anybody telling me how to live my life, why should peopel in Scotland have a say in Parliament, they don't know me, for that matter, why poeple in West London, or people half a mile away, or my next door neighbour. I think it is impossible to have a world where everryone is completely alienated in their decision making.

well, that's the way your country works, if you dont like it either leave, start your own party to get political influence or try to start a revolution.

Quote:

So having such an attitude as yours is basically saying "I'm not going to think about it." Aginthat is easy to say if you are one of the lucky few with finacial independence and basic political freedoms, but you can't take those for granted.

Saying "I don't care" is in itself a political position.

Other countries have another cultural background, who am i to say i know whats best for them? if they want helpo they should get it, but im not willing to support any action on another country unless it posses an imediate thread to my personal security (that does not incluede preemptive strikes).

JonnyBGood · 24 Jan 2005, 15:51

We don't have countries any more wu_trax. Now it's just people.

Knight Theamion · 24 Jan 2005, 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

Um I didnt realise that Nukes took duracells.

Damn the uraniums gone flat again.

do you have some 220V here?