Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Korea. Now what?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Korea. Now what? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Korea. Now what? - 10/10/2006 9:46:12 AM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline 		Meat,
I am in agreement with everything in your reply. Including this...
quote:

Bush has never taken the lead on anything but Iraq where he has been proved wrong. He has refused to talk to Iran and Korea and the Palestinians, he has withdrawn from just about every international treaty of note and refuses to participate in international initiatives such as the ICC.

...qualified with my perspective. "Talks" only work if both parties come to the table with the cards turned up. The US can not unilaterally acquiesce and take as fact the representation of the government's of Iraq and Korea. How would talks alter his perspective and allow for peaceful co-existence with S. Korea or the rest of his neighbors? Hell, I think he even scares the Chinese! The prior administration thought they had talked Kim out of nuclear development. The UN talked and thought they side-tracked him from that goal. Can't we learn from that history? 
 
Kim is the closest representation of pre-WWII Hitler. He's a megalomaniac whose country compares to pre-WWII Germany, except the poverty and suffering of his people are self generated and not the result of the post WWI "punishment" of Germany.
 
What is Kim's goal? A peaceful and secure N. Korea? What is standing in his way to accomplish that today, or yesterday, or the day before he tested his nuclear ability? If the money spent on the program developed the resources and people of his country, why couldn't N. Korea accomplish the same result as Japan or S. Korea?
 
Iraq is a similar story. I agree with your assessment that Israel stands in the way of true peace in the area. However, they exist and will continue to exist, and is very capable of defending themselves. I believe that without the US there would be a better chance for peace, but there would also be a better chance for a war; perhaps using nuclear weapons. In either case, let it happen.
 
It's true that nukes are considered a deterrent weapon, but that's because since 1945 they have only been used as such. Applying that mentality to the leaders of Iraq and N. Korea, may be a false hope. You are applying a western view of "civilization" to leaders who don't share that view. You also have to consider that if pushed to the brink, I believe both N. Korea and Iraq would "use 'em" before "losing 'em" to an attack.
 
Which is why I believe strongly that the US should take a step back from world affairs. As most on this thread have pointed out, the US has little respect and even less trust. Let the world work these things out on their own. Western Europe has only been able to accomplish what they have by relying on the US to protect it. First from the USSR, and now to take the brunt of the responsibility to deal with radical Islam. It's their neighborhood let them police it or isolate it however they deem appropriate.
 
It's time to focus within and use all our resources, inventiveness, and productiveness on US issues. I don't doubt that with a "US First" focus we have the ability to address all our internal issues. Our military should be used to protect our borders and our interests. And those interests don't include multi-national corporations that profit from manufacturing goods outside our borders and selling them here. Whether it's oil or sneakers, companies are on their own if they decide to go outside US borders. A simple reciprocal tariff act would eliminate the export of manufacturing jobs.
 
I say give the world what it wants; US influence and power contained by the borders of the US; securely protected. Based upon what I read that should generate a world wide break out of the 'Kum Ba Ya' song.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Korea. Now what? - 10/10/2006 10:09:38 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Well, let's let Europe handle this one.


Yeah, that way the US will be free to go make another new mess somewhere else for the world to clean up.
0


Oh? And when has "The World" cleaned up our mess?
You mean we can't depend on our European ALLIES to deal with N. Korea by themselves?

(in reply to Zensee)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Korea. Now what? - 10/10/2006 10:17:46 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Well, let's let Europe handle this one.


Yeah, that way the US will be free to go make another new mess somewhere else for the world to clean up.
0


Oh? And when has "The World" cleaned up our mess?
You mean we can't depend on our European ALLIES to deal with N. Korea by themselves?


Hi Popeye
- no, you cant, and here's why; just counting those who have the ability of course - most have no ability to affect anything and so need not be mentioned -

France - they dont like any sort of international relations which doesnt directly involve them or result in them growing wealthy; even the EU is effectively owned and run by them, for them
Germany - they are still frightened of doing anything internationally since 1945, unless its through the EU, which is under the control of the French
Italy - sorry to say, knowing your origins, an absolute disaster of a country unable to fix its own problems, let alone look into someone else's
UK - already overstretched as the sole ally of the US to provide support in Iraq and Afghanistan, over and above sending a half dozen army cooks or similar

The EU as a whole - see France above

E


_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Korea. Now what? - 10/10/2006 11:00:18 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

It's true that nukes are considered a deterrent weapon, but that's because since 1945 they have only been used as such. Applying that mentality to the leaders of Iraq and N. Korea, may be a false hope. You are applying a western view of "civilization" to leaders who don't share that view. You also have to consider that if pushed to the brink, I believe both N. Korea and Iraq would "use 'em" before "losing 'em" to an attack.

It seems apparent that Kim is psychotic and keeping him in his pen is necessary but he is a bigger danger to China, Japan and S Korea than anyone else. China is a nuclear power and Japan is only a screwdriver turn from having nukes if they desire them. It seems to me it is their back yard.
 
Western Europe has only been able to accomplish what they have by relying on the US to protect it. First from the USSR, and now to take the brunt of the responsibility to deal with radical Islam. It's their neighborhood let them police it or isolate it however they deem appropriate.

The USSR threat never looked so bad from Europe as it apparently looked from the USA. When I was growing up, although we were on the same side as the USA (depending where you went in Europe), we found both sides just as scary because it would be our soil that would be turned to glass and not the US's or Russia's. That thought sobers you up. We were in effect, the US's forward defence and the US wants to place its latest generation of missiles on European soil with no advantage to Europe. That is why many Europeans feel they are being used.
 
Hmm Various administrations have been dividing western Europe but that is Europe's fault. I think the Franco-German vision of Europe would be best and more able to deal with radical Islam if the US would allow it which it won't. The US appears to see radical Islam as one big problem when it is caused through several territorial wars and national wars that the US refuses to address because of its blind, unfettered support of Israel. Europe would be more even handed in the ME and it is trusted more by the Arabs than the US is and yep, it is our backyard. Israel has special trading status with the EU and even wants to be a member (or did at one time) so Europe has some leverage there if the US stops bankrolling it.
 
Politics is a dirty rough business and who knows what really motivates the politicians but when secret papers are published years after events, it rarely seems the politicians work in anyones interest but their own.


(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Korea. Now what? - 10/10/2006 11:05:46 AM   
MissyRane


Posts: 1032
Joined: 5/11/2005
Status: offline 		Wonder how they would feel if we dropped one piece of nuclear bomb on them. I really think the nations should just do one hell of an attack on the damn govnerment assholes that run this country n blow their heads off...cruel? I don't give a shit at least it would hopefully shut them up for good some people don't deserve to live..if they are people that is..since they've got their heads stuck so far up their asses that they can't seem to see anything anymore but their own insides. grrrrrrrr

< Message edited by MissyRane -- 10/10/2006 11:07:01 AM >

(in reply to SirKenin)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Korea. Now what? - 10/10/2006 11:10:47 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

France - they dont like any sort of international relations which doesnt directly involve them or result in them growing wealthy; even the EU is effectively owned and run by them, for them



I don't have a problem with the French attitude in regard to international relations. It makes no pretence at covering inself with a fig leaf of 'freedom and democracy' but is usually quite clear why it has a particular policy. I have a problem with its tantrums when it can't lead. However, the biggest problem in the EU is Britain which can't decide if it is the 51st state or part of Europe. If Britain would take a more European stance and joined up with France and Germany, Europe would be more effective in foreign policy but it won't. Blair by having his head up Bush's butt has missed a golden opportunity to set the agenda and shaping Europe. Probably an opportunity lost that won't come along again for a generation.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Korea. Now what? - 10/10/2006 11:15:22 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

France - they dont like any sort of international relations which doesnt directly involve them or result in them growing wealthy; even the EU is effectively owned and run by them, for them



I don't have a problem with the French attitude in regard to international relations. It makes no pretence at covering inself with a fig leaf of 'freedom and democracy' but is usually quite clear why it has a particular policy. I have a problem with its tantrums when it can't lead. However, the biggest problem in the EU is Britain which can't decide if it is the 51st state or part of Europe. If Britain would take a more European stance and joined up with France and Germany, Europe would be more effective in foreign policy but it won't. Blair by having his head up Bush's butt has missed a golden opportunity to set the agenda and shaping Europe. Probably an opportunity lost that won't come along again for a generation.


Hear, hear
E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Korea. Now what? - 10/10/2006 3:24:22 PM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Well, let's let Europe handle this one.


Yeah, that way the US will be free to go make another new mess somewhere else for the world to clean up.
0


Oh? And when has "The World" cleaned up our mess?
You mean we can't depend on our European ALLIES to deal with N. Korea by themselves?


More importantly, Popeye, when has the USA cleaned up its own mess? Stop trying to shift blame.

Guess where NK got  nuclear technology. Would that be Haliburton? Would that be Dick Cheney, member of the board?

"What's a ceramic figurine company doing winning a three billion dollar no-bid nuclear contract?" fumed House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. "Why not just give the contract to my local veterinarian, or a horse show judge, or something?"

Presently Canada is taking care of the business the USA started in Afganistan (fighting the Taliban, you know, the people who probably DID aid the 9/11 attacks). Canadian troops are six times more likely to die there than US troops in Iraq. The rest of the world already does a lot of work cleaning up US shit. Unfortunately the US is so good at stiring up new shit and has such an appetite for it, especially since WWII, that it is beyond the capability (not to mention the responsibility) of most other countries to do more than offer aid and reconstruction.

There's a whole bus load of dictators, tyrants and terrorists who were sponsored, trained and enabled by the USA. The chickens are coming home to roost and your stock "solution" is to bring the troops home and leave the mess for someone else to fix. These are not simple problem and your simplistic answers amount to abandonment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

I say nuke them now and get it over with. Screw this morality crap. If Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine can do it, why not the US?


This is a joke, right? Because not only do the first three countries you list NOT have nuclear capability, the third one does and is the only one to even have used it. Even in your pressing need to respond to every thread here, regardless of your inexperience with the matter (like having breasts, for instance), you could not seriously make such an irresponsible statement as "just nuke 'em"! Could you?
0

_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Korea. Now what? - 10/10/2006 5:31:21 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Well, let's let Europe handle this one.


Yeah, that way the US will be free to go make another new mess somewhere else for the world to clean up.
0


Oh? And when has "The World" cleaned up our mess?
You mean we can't depend on our European ALLIES to deal with N. Korea by themselves?


Hi Popeye
- no, you cant, and here's why; just counting those who have the ability of course - most have no ability to affect anything and so need not be mentioned -

France - they dont like any sort of international relations which doesnt directly involve them or result in them growing wealthy; even the EU is effectively owned and run by them, for them
Germany - they are still frightened of doing anything internationally since 1945, unless its through the EU, which is under the control of the French
Italy - sorry to say, knowing your origins, an absolute disaster of a country unable to fix its own problems, let alone look into someone else's
UK - already overstretched as the sole ally of the US to provide support in Iraq and Afghanistan, over and above sending a half dozen army cooks or similar

The EU as a whole - see France above

E



Lady, I figured as much.Thankyou.
Our only real European Allie is of course Great Britain.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Korea. Now what? - 10/10/2006 6:18:00 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

It seems apparent that Kim is psychotic and keeping him in his pen is necessary but he is a bigger danger to China, Japan and S Korea than anyone else. China is a nuclear power and Japan is only a screwdriver turn from having nukes if they desire them. It seems to me it is their back yard.
 


Kim Jong Il is not really a danger to China.  With the possible exception of radioactive fallout blowing west from the smoking crater that used to be North Korea.

Japan doesnt need weapons.  They are under the US military umbrella.  North Korea attacks Japan, North Korea becomes an ex-country.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Korea. Now what? - 10/10/2006 11:15:15 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

It seems apparent that Kim is psychotic and keeping him in his pen is necessary but he is a bigger danger to China, Japan and S Korea than anyone else. China is a nuclear power and Japan is only a screwdriver turn from having nukes if they desire them. It seems to me it is their back yard.
 


Kim Jong Il is not really a danger to China.  With the possible exception of radioactive fallout blowing west from the smoking crater that used to be North Korea.

Japan doesnt need weapons.  They are under the US military umbrella.  North Korea attacks Japan, North Korea becomes an ex-country.

Sinergy


US attacks a Chineese client (no matter how wilful) what would China do? The same as the US if one of its clients  was attacked?

Japan might feel it needs weapons. When it comes to the crunch can you rely on someone else when it is your land at stake.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 10/10/2006 11:18:17 PM >

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Korea. Now what? - 10/11/2006 12:14:27 AM   
SkatDomina


Posts: 14
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Lady, I figured as much.Thankyou.
Our only real European Allie is of course Great Britain.


Maybe the politicians.  The public majority are vigorously opposed to Iraq and support for the USA.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Korea. Now what? - 10/11/2006 1:01:38 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SkatDomina

Maybe the politicians.  The public majority are vigorously opposed to Iraq and support for the USA.


While you are right about support for Iraq, I think general support for the USA has the majority. Certainly politicians think the voters are more pro-American than pro-European and while people don't vote on one issue, people seem to vote for policies sympathetic to a pro-American stance than policies sympathetic to a pro-European stance.

(in reply to SkatDomina)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Korea. Now what? - 10/11/2006 1:25:50 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SkatDomina

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Lady, I figured as much.Thankyou.
Our only real European Allie is of course Great Britain.


Maybe the politicians.  The public majority are vigorously opposed to Iraq and support for the USA.


Everytime I've been to Ireland I found they "loved" Americans and Harley Davidsons.
The Poles like us too.

(in reply to SkatDomina)
Profile   Post #: 34
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Korea. Now what? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078