Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-06-2009, 02:28 PM
VCURamFan's Avatar
VCURamFan VCURamFan is offline
Allons-y
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Basketball Capital of the World
Posts: 14,298
Send a message via AIM to VCURamFan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
Your Bubble swings the other way. It runs from Hawaii to the Eastern Bloc of Europe.

They arent in your Bubble until they can get a missile over Russia...or A missile to Pearl.

They cant get a missile to South Korea yet.
Dave, this is a fairly ignorant view, in my opinion. We're dealing with a historically aggressive country that's coming out of a semi-recession & is now flexing its military muscles, trying to build up as large & as powerful an armament as possible (i.e. long range nukes), and you're preaching appeasement. Tell me, how'd that turn out for the world the last time a Brit suggested it? Lemme help you out if you're having trouble remembering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
http://www.omnibusol.com/wcessay6.html

We need less Chamberlain & more Churchill. Rather than waiting until they can nuke my country, I think it'd prefer making sure they never get close. If you've got a gun & are being charged by a guy with a knife, are you going to wait until he's within arm's distance before you shoot him? I mean afterall, he could just be shadow-knifing.

No thanks. I'll put 2 center mass & a third between his eyes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-06-2009, 02:36 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCURamFan
Dave, this is a fairly ignorant view, in my opinion. We're dealing with a historically aggressive country that's coming out of a semi-recession & is now flexing its military muscles, trying to build up as large & as powerful an armament as possible (i.e. long range nukes), and you're preaching appeasement. Tell me, how'd that turn out for the world the last time a Brit suggested it? Lemme help you out if you're having trouble remembering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
http://www.omnibusol.com/wcessay6.html

We need less Chamberlain & more Churchill. Rather than waiting until they can nuke my country, I think it'd prefer making sure they never get close. If you've got a gun & are being charged by a guy with a knife, are you going to wait until he's within arm's distance before you shoot him? I mean afterall, he could just be shadow-knifing.

No thanks. I'll put 2 center mass & a third between his eyes.
According to your Declaration of independance Any State has the right to Levy War

that includes the State of North Korea.

I do hope your not talking about taking away those rights...before they have abused them?

You are ignorant if you think Korea could Bomb your Country with a Missile from the air...has noone ever told you of Starwars? even if tonight Korea lauched ALL its missiles, ALL at once, DIRECTLY at you....you wouldnt suffer a Scratch...thats what Starwars is all about. Although it doesnt cover Korea...you are watching her like a Hawk...you would know the micro-second she launched and you would simply knock the missiles out of the Sky.

You dont need to worry about America being bombed with Nuclear Weapons...unless they are your own by Terrorists.

So get off your soap box, sit down...and go laugh and point a North Korea's silly attention seeking Habits.

I certainly wouldnt go lecturing me about the second world war...coming from a post-constitutional Nation who failed to act when it should have, and is now forever trying to make up for it by running in too soon.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-06-2009, 04:12 PM
VCURamFan's Avatar
VCURamFan VCURamFan is offline
Allons-y
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Basketball Capital of the World
Posts: 14,298
Send a message via AIM to VCURamFan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
According to your Declaration of independance Any State has the right to Levy War

that includes the State of North Korea..
OK, either you are grossly misunderstanding the context or you're gorssly misconstruing it. Either way, you're incorrectly attempting to apply the DoI. It says that if you're being oppressed by your government, you have the duty to overthrow that government & create a new one. We do not govern NKorea, so they cannot stage a revolution against us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
I do hope your not talking about taking away those rights...before they have abused them?
Have you not paid attention, Dave? Your precious UN has forbidden them to test, yet they test anyway, clearly abusing their privileges. Stop being obtuse & realize that even that most corrupt & useless of ruling bodies dislikes what they're doing. The problem is that NO ONE HAS THE BALLS TO DO ANYTHING!!!! Unfortunately, this currently includes our President & therefore the US.

Also, just because you think they have a "right to levy war" doesn't mean that the US is morally obligated to allow them to do so. We have a right to protect ourselves and I think we need to. Now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
You are ignorant if you think Korea could Bomb your Country with a Missile from the air...has noone ever told you of Starwars? even if tonight Korea lauched ALL its missiles, ALL at once, DIRECTLY at you....you wouldnt suffer a Scratch...thats what Starwars is all about. Although it doesnt cover Korea...you are watching her like a Hawk...you would know the micro-second she launched and you would simply knock the missiles out of the Sky.
Again, Dave, I ask you this: If you've got a gun & are being charged by a guy with a knife, are you going to wait until he's within arm's distance before you shoot him? I'll even update it a little bit: If you've got a gun and body armor & are being charged by a guy with a knife, are you going to wait until he's within arm's distance before you shoot him? If you answer "yes" to either of those scenarios, I've got to question your survival instincts. Why would you risk eventhe 1 in a million chance that the nut-job finds the one random accidental chink in your armor? Shoot the f***er in the face!

I don't care if the Missle Defense Agency could re-direct their missle to explode in their pants, I still don't want to allow for the chance of a mistake. They're threatening & need to be dealt with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
You dont need to worry about America being bombed with Nuclear Weapons...unless they are your own by Terrorists.
Seriously? You think America's only danger for a nuclear disaster is for a terrorist to steal one of our missles & launch it at us? First of all, the likelihood of a terrorist cell being able to inflitrate a US military base & absconding with a warhead is slim-to-none (forget what you've seen in the movies), but I will grant for the sake of argument that it's possible. Are you forgetting about Iran's attempt to create nuclear weapons? Do you honestly believe that N Korea isn't trying to find a way to launch a nuclear warhead? Do you think it's impossible for terrorists to get crude plutonium & make a dirty bomb?

If you think America's own threat is from our personal stockpile being turned against us, then you need to pay more attention to world affairs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
So get off your soap box, sit down...and go laugh and point a North Korea's silly attention seeking Habits.
You really think it's funny? I should laugh at the thought of a hostile nation repeatedly testing & refining their military in an attempt to threaten my country. I'm sorry, I fail to see the humor in that. Please enlighten me as to how this is a comical scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
I certainly wouldnt go lecturing me about the second world war...coming from a post-constitutional Nation who failed to act when it should have, and is now forever trying to make up for it by running in too soon.
O, I'm sorry, so because your country is older than mine I can't point out its mistakes? I'm so terribly sorry to have struck a nerve. You suddenly seem to critequing the US for having waited too long. Are you suggested that, perhaps, we should have launched an offensive before disaster struck? That seems to be contrary to what the rest of your argument has been...

If actually do remember your WWII history, then why are you falling prey to exactly the same flawed philosophy? Don't you get it? Trying to talk it out & comprise & appease an aggresive, violent nation does nothing but whet its appetite. I hate to sound cliched, but if you don't learn from history, you're going to suffer identical consequences.

Yeah, we waited too long. FDR was begging Congress to get us in there but they were too scared of public sentiment. That foolish decision cost us way too many lives. Are you suggesting that we should repeat that mistake? Would you rather that we sit around with our thumbs up our @$$es waiting to get bombed again before we do anything?

Show me when we've "run in too soon". Are you talking about the Korean War, when North Korea invaded our allies, so we sent troops over to protect them? Or maybe you're talking about the Vietnam War when we did the same thing. O, I know, you must be referencing the Gulf War when Saddam invaded our ally Kuwait & we went over to push him back into his own country. Then again, maybe you're thinking about the war in Afghanistan, where we attack a country that harbored a terrorist who had just staged 4 attacks on US soil. Or possibly you're referring to the Iraqi War where we went in & disposed of one of the world's most cruel dictators who was responsible for tens of thousands of his own people's death? Tell me Dave, in which one of these wars did we try to make up for Pearl Harbor by rushing in too soon? In which one of these 5 retaliations against foreign oppressors did we jump the gun? Please teach me, o wise & learned historian.

Also, we're not "post-constitutional", as the Constitution is what governs our country. If Obama has his way, we may be post-constitutional within the next few years, but for now we are a Constitutional country.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-06-2009, 05:05 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCURamFan
1)OK, either you are grossly misunderstanding the context or you're gorssly misconstruing it. Either way, you're incorrectly attempting to apply the DoI. It says that if you're being oppressed by your government, you have the duty to overthrow that government & create a new one. We do not govern NKorea, so they cannot stage a revolution against us.

2) Have you not paid attention, Dave? Your precious UN has forbidden them to test, yet they test anyway, clearly abusing their privileges. Stop being obtuse & realize that even that most corrupt & useless of ruling bodies dislikes what they're doing. The problem is that NO ONE HAS THE BALLS TO DO ANYTHING!!!! Unfortunately, this currently includes our President & therefore the US.

3) Also, just because you think they have a "right to levy war" doesn't mean that the US is morally obligated to allow them to do so. We have a right to protect ourselves and I think we need to. Now.

4) Again, Dave, I ask you this: If you've got a gun & are being charged by a guy with a knife, are you going to wait until he's within arm's distance before you shoot him? I'll even update it a little bit: If you've got a gun and body armor & are being charged by a guy with a knife, are you going to wait until he's within arm's distance before you shoot him? If you answer "yes" to either of those scenarios, I've got to question your survival instincts. Why would you risk eventhe 1 in a million chance that the nut-job finds the one random accidental chink in your armor? Shoot the f***er in the face!

5) I don't care if the Missle Defense Agency could re-direct their missle to explode in their pants, I still don't want to allow for the chance of a mistake. They're threatening & need to be dealt with.

6)Seriously? You think America's only danger for a nuclear disaster is for a terrorist to steal one of our missles & launch it at us? First of all, the likelihood of a terrorist cell being able to inflitrate a US military base & absconding with a warhead is slim-to-none (forget what you've seen in the movies), but I will grant for the sake of argument that it's possible. Are you forgetting about Iran's attempt to create nuclear weapons? Do you honestly believe that N Korea isn't trying to find a way to launch a nuclear warhead? Do you think it's impossible for terrorists to get crude plutonium & make a dirty bomb?

7)If you think America's own threat is from our personal stockpile being turned against us, then you need to pay more attention to world affairs.

8) You really think it's funny? I should laugh at the thought of a hostile nation repeatedly testing & refining their military in an attempt to threaten my country. I'm sorry, I fail to see the humor in that. Please enlighten me as to how this is a comical scenario.

9) O, I'm sorry, so because your country is older than mine I can't point out its mistakes? I'm so terribly sorry to have struck a nerve. You suddenly seem to critequing the US for having waited too long. Are you suggested that, perhaps, we should have launched an offensive before disaster struck? That seems to be contrary to what the rest of your argument has been...

10) If actually do remember your WWII history, then why are you falling prey to exactly the same flawed philosophy? Don't you get it? Trying to talk it out & comprise & appease an aggresive, violent nation does nothing but whet its appetite. I hate to sound cliched, but if you don't learn from history, you're going to suffer identical consequences.

11) Yeah, we waited too long. FDR was begging Congress to get us in there but they were too scared of public sentiment. That foolish decision cost us way too many lives. Are you suggesting that we should repeat that mistake? Would you rather that we sit around with our thumbs up our @$$es waiting to get bombed again before we do anything?

12) Show me when we've "run in too soon". Are you talking about the Korean War, when North Korea invaded our allies, so we sent troops over to protect them? Or maybe you're talking about the Vietnam War when we did the same thing. O, I know, you must be referencing the Gulf War when Saddam invaded our ally Kuwait & we went over to push him back into his own country. Then again, maybe you're thinking about the war in Afghanistan, where we attack a country that harbored a terrorist who had just staged 4 attacks on US soil. Or possibly you're referring to the Iraqi War where we went in & disposed of one of the world's most cruel dictators who was responsible for tens of thousands of his own people's death? Tell me Dave, in which one of these wars did we try to make up for Pearl Harbor by rushing in too soon? In which one of these 5 retaliations against foreign oppressors did we jump the gun? Please teach me, o wise & learned historian.

13) Also, we're not "post-constitutional", as the Constitution is what governs our country. If Obama has his way, we may be post-constitutional within the next few years, but for now we are a Constitutional country.
1) No it doesnt. What it says right at the very end, is a definition of what defines a free state. those include the right to levy war, the right to conduct peace, the right to be able to manage their own trade aggrements...and one other thing which I forget right now.

Yes it also says the people OF THAT STATE have the right to throw off the Government if they find it oppressive...it says that at the start.

2) doing something like what?? They havent attacked you, they havent attacked anyone. They havent even launched missiles into waters that belong to another country yet. Other then fire rockets which the United Nations deems as wrong...the same United Nations your trying to say is a waste of time! you aggree with one of its judgements, but not others.

Typical American...when it suits you its fine...when it doesnt you think you can just over-rule it. And you dare to call England a Tyrany Cant you see that if you act without provocation, you are completely and utterly in the wrong?

Now if they fire on your allies, or they fire into seas not theres, or they fire at you...then fine...smush them. If they are breaking a UN law...something you dont abide by anyway, and certainly dont respect...leave it for the UN.

3) protect yourself from what? North Korea is a buzzing fly to America...she hasnt even got a sting...and she isnt actively threatening you. You are just being paranoid...she is playing mind games with you...and you've got yourself sucked in...you cant handle war with everyone...you cant fight Iraq, Iran, China, Russia, North Korea and Afghanistan on your own. Trust me...you will eventually be on your own if you dont start listening to others who...in the world scheme know more then you. Swallow your Pride, listen to your Allies. You havent even faced the kind of warfare we have MANY times...you probably never, ever will!!

4) the trouble with that scenario is Korea isnt charging at you. Korea wouldnt dare...she knows full well that she wouldnt win. Your gun is a deterent...you only need to life it and she'll sit down and shut up. She's making noise coz she has nothing better to do. So no. Dont give her what she wants...dont make her an unneedful martyr...she hasnt done anything...she probably never will.

5) They arent threatening. Thats the point. They could arange a bloody piss up in a brewrey You have no confidence, possibly because you've never studied American Defence capability. Let me tell you. She'll rot from the inside before she breaks from the outside...there is no defeating her with missiles...a combined effort from the ENTIRE world wouldnt be likely to get through

From Korea, you are perfectly safe, as you were from Iraq....Iran...they might try it, but they would get through. You are NOT safe from Terrorists, you are not safe from internal conflicts...and you wouldnt be safe from an inside job or infiltration

6) No Missile launched from anywhere, Iran or Korea will get to the US...no dirty bomb from Iran or Korea will get to the US

You DO have weakness from the Ocean...something able to fire through the water without breaking the service could cause minimal damage to your shores and coastal cities...especially pacific...Hawaii...yeah they are in danger still from a sea attack...but you dont live in Hawaii.

Now...anything launched from inside the US...well...I dont like your chances on that one. But those are likely to be rougue terrorists...harboured possibly, but not sponcered by actual States.

Fear the 9/11 style attack, because that is your weakness. Korea and Iran arent likely to act like this....joe bloggs the recent untraceable convert to radical islam...well there might be no stopping him...but if its any consolation, they wont just attack you on this level...they will attack me.

I dont know if you have experienced Terrorism first hand Ben...I mean really first hand. But I was in London when it got bombed on 7/7/05...I should have been closer to the bombs then I was, thanks to a shift swap.

7) well it could be terrorists bringing in weapons to the US and then using them I suppose. Outside attack would be almost impossible without it being an inside job.

8) In an attempt to threaten you?? Please explain where you get that from? They have broken UN sanctions...a body you dont acknowledge...so what if they break a law you dont think exists??? that makes them a threat to you???

9) second world war...you should have joined the rest of us when Hitler invaded Poland. You were our Allies and you werent there for us. You left us FOR YEARS...you watched as we got bloody pushed back into the sea!!! This isnt about you being attacked...this is about one of your friends being attacked....about your duty to help THEM

...finally when you joined and we won...you hark on about it as if it were your victory...and naturally your the only one with money left because you havent been spending it on protecting the rest of the world.

THATS what I mean by too late Ben.

10) We're not negotiating with them Ben...like we did with Germany. if we were doing appeasement we would say "Hey...if we let you take South Korea, you leave us alone mkay?" We arent doing that...we're letting them have their temper tantrum...we're letting them bark and shout...and in a few weeks...they will be silent again. Sometimes the hardest thing to do, is absolutely nothing...North Korea...you just need to leave alone

11) I'm saying...you wont get bombed this time because you have a defensive shield. In all honnesty...you need never actually make war with anyone ever again. you could simply just watch them forever throw missiles at you, and forever watch their own missiles sink into the sea....course that depends on you keeping you friends Ben...the one thing about Starwars is that countries like Britian could completely strip you of that defence.

All we need to do is push you out of the listening stations you have created on OUR soil...Then you would have to worry...not from us...but because then all of a sudden, you really WOULD be in danger of attack.

But dont worry. We're your friends

12) I'm talking about the Iraqi War. I'll tell you why Saddam lied about Weapons of Mass Distruction, and I'll tell you why you went to war. Saddam never had weapons of mass distruction that could be used for anything other then genocide...why did he say that he did? well at the time we though he was playing sillybeggers...but actually...he was trying to show someone else that he was still powerful. That Saddam/UN display was to show IRAN that he was still a major power. The most recent speculation says that Iran knew he didnt have Nukes...and the US knew he didnt have nukes...People assume that the United States went in to steal the oil...but have you ever considered that perhaps they went in to SAFE guard the oil from Iran?

Have you ever considered that the whole sage since 2003 might actually have nothing much to do with Iraq, weapons of mass distruction, saddam, or even oil. Have you ever considered it might have something to do with preventing a catastrophe in terms of Iran invading Iraq?

My mind goes back to doctor david kelly, the expert who leaked to the press that Iraq might not have weapons....they say he committed suicide.

IF the above is true then guess what? Suddenly I aggree with America for going into Iraq...because...it wasnt pre-emptive...that was a cover because she could tell the truth...if she told the truth...Iran would have gotten there first.

I'm waiting for the semi-public enquiry into the war, that the government are trying to organize...but I wonder if...I wonder if we have all been grossly wrong about absolutely everything pertaining to that event.

I mean...would you kill a single man...if he threatened to distroy the future of the entire western world? Would you, as leaders, lie to the public, in order to safeguard their security in the end? would you have that much love for your country that you would actually forever go down in history as a liar, and a warmongerer...because you'd rather have the entire world hate you...then see them all in the termoil that would have happened if Iran had got to the oil fields first? Would you be prepared to do it, knowing, that you could NEVER admit to it, even after it had taken place?

Perhaps President Bush was actually a guy who has loved and sacrificed more for America then anyone in your entire History? I am suddenly wondering if he was one of the most GODly men of our time? If he and Blair acted under THOSE conditions...it would explain the quickness, and the ultimatum given to the UN.

Perhaps Bush saved the western world Twice. He bailed out the banks, He saved the oil from Iran...and in so doing, managed to liberate a people, kill a tyrant...and sacrified....well...that has just recently become a possible theory raised in this country.

Perhaps..who knows...I think I can work with both and say...if in actual fact they lied...I support them...if they were just warmongers...then they were prooved wrong. I guess we will never know.

13) I didnt mean post as in after the end of...I meant post as in...after the Consitution had been errected...I should have said "since" the consitution
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-06-2009, 05:14 PM
Crisco
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Where do terrorists get the weapons from that they will use against us?

Countries that have tech that can't use it will most likely give it away.


N. Korea is esentially a bankrupt and starving nation and having finished nuclear tech to sell is very lucrative.



We should nip it in the butt. Send the airforce to knock out the plants and all things involved. Say "Hey we warned you" and if they try and come back we send the air force back in to knock out what's left. Ground troops are needed minimally in this kind of war. We don't have to go cave to cave.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-06-2009, 05:18 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisco
Where do terrorists get the weapons from that they will use against us?

Countries that have tech that can't use it will most likely give it away.


N. Korea is esentially a bankrupt and starving nation and having finished nuclear tech to sell is very lucrative.



We should nip it in the butt. Send the airforce to knock out the plants and all things involved. Say "Hey we warned you" and if they try and come back we send the air force back in to knock out what's left. Ground troops are needed minimally in this kind of war. We don't have to go cave to cave.
Well that is true...but then...shouldnt they be silently selling those weapons rather then...er...wasting them by launching them pointlessly...you think they are trying to attract buyers???

I could be up for a bombardment of their nuclear facilities only. I think the United Nations would tern a blind eye...like it does to Israel...but after the bombardment...the US would have to go NO further.

In other words...disarm the assilant but leave him to possibly fight another day.

Crisco...I may not always aggree with you...but I do think you have a knack of understanding that I can work with
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-06-2009, 05:19 PM
Rev
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wow.





Dont you guys have jobs?lol When do you find time to put together a post that size? lol
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-06-2009, 05:24 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev
wow.





Dont you guys have jobs?lol When do you find time to put together a post that size? lol
Monday is my day off...I dont know what Bens excuse is
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-06-2009, 05:40 PM
Crisco
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
Well that is true...but then...shouldnt they be silently selling those weapons rather then...er...wasting them by launching them pointlessly...you think they are trying to attract buyers???

I could be up for a bombardment of their nuclear facilities only. I think the United Nations would tern a blind eye...like it does to Israel...but after the bombardment...the US would have to go NO further.

In other words...disarm the assilant but leave him to possibly fight another day.

Crisco...I may not always aggree with you...but I do think you have a knack of understanding that I can work with
I'll take that as a compliment I suppose haha.

As for your point about silently selling I disagree. I think if you want to sell nuclear arms and get BIG money for them you set a few off then you wait a couple years and sell the tech.

It shows buyers you have the ability and then they are also led to believe that over the course of time you have improved that capability. It also lets things cool down a bit.

I don't think that is what they are doing. I think NK is tired of being pushed into the corner and like most dictators they only understand strength. They are flexing hoping to become the next asian big player. It worked for China so I think it N.K. is going to try and push their luck,.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-06-2009, 05:46 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisco
I'll take that as a compliment I suppose haha.

As for your point about silently selling I disagree. I think if you want to sell nuclear arms and get BIG money for them you set a few off then you wait a couple years and sell the tech.

It shows buyers you have the ability and then they are also led to believe that over the course of time you have improved that capability. It also lets things cool down a bit.

I don't think that is what they are doing. I think NK is tired of being pushed into the corner and like most dictators they only understand strength. They are flexing hoping to become the next asian big player. It worked for China so I think it N.K. is going to try and push their luck,.
Cant see that working out nicely for Korea
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.