N. Korea sending nuclear material to Iran

[yeat182]

I heard a report on the news today that N. Korea has been flying nuclear materials to Iran for some time now...way to dig yourself a little deeper hole.

[evil zach]

better go to war with them. Nothing like giving nu-cu-lar powers a chance to use thier weapons

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by evil zach
better go to war with them. Nothing like giving nu-cu-lar powers a chance to use thier weapons Well we need to do something about it. We can't just let nations like Iran get nuclear weapons.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by WithStamin
Well we need to do something about it. We can't just let nations like Iran get nuclear weapons.

We (you) let countries like N.Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, and China get nuclear weapons.

What makes Iran the exception?

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by Ronin
We (you) let countries like N.Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, and China get nuclear weapons.

What makes Iran the exception? What you just listed off are called mistakes. Do you want to repeat them?

[yeat182]

selling a terrorist nation nucular material is a bad idea no matter what.

as for china, the russians gave them the tech. during the cold war, and we would have stopped it if we could. india and pakistan developed their programs before the nucular non-proliferation pact was drawn up. Israel was given the technology i believe, by the west, but if not, they were certainly capable of designing it themselves, also before the pact. N. Korea has broken the pact, and numerous UN resolutions in their pursuit of nucular tech., as has Iran. we didn't "let" N.Korea develop nukes, they did so covertly, while telling the UN and the rest of the world that they would not, and then blackmailing them into giving them money, food, and energy, by threatening to start up the program again. if anything, we tried to prevent them from developing it by buying them off...it didn't work (thanks bill clinton) but to say we let them would be false.

[papathomas]

im guessing everyone feels that war with iraq was justified than? oh well soon this year bush will sned troops overand kick north koreas ass in his against terror. when he does it won't be as easy as iraq or afghanistan. the world sucks.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by yeat182
selling a terrorist nation nucular material is a bad idea no matter what.

as for china, the russians gave them the tech. during the cold war, and we would have stopped it if we could. india and pakistan developed their programs before the nucular non-proliferation pact was drawn up. Israel was given the technology i believe, by the west, but if not, they were certainly capable of designing it themselves, also before the pact. N. Korea has broken the pact, and numerous UN resolutions in their pursuit of nucular tech., as has Iran. we didn't "let" N.Korea develop nukes, they did so covertly, while telling the UN and the rest of the world that they would not, and then blackmailing them into giving them money, food, and energy, by threatening to start up the program again. if anything, we tried to prevent them from developing it by buying them off...it didn't work (thanks bill clinton) but to say we let them would be false.

ok, you didn't STOP them, and the US has done little since the news broke.

as for iran, they're hardly announcing to the world that they're seeking to become a nuclear power, though their nuclear ambitions (just like the nuclear ambitions of practically every country on earth) are well understood. I would imagine that Syria and Lebanon have nuclear ambitions as well. Why the HELL should Iran be attacked at this point?

The Bush administration is stoutly denying any desire to attack Iran, which is a good thing. The Iranians are terrified that the US will attack. The Ayatollah has told Muslim clerics specifically NOT to spread anti US sentiment. They aren't threatening your country.

[yeat182]

you're right, but they support terrorists who are threatening our country, and every country in the west.

but i'm not saying we should attack iran, i think now is certainly not the time to do it, and diplomacy still has a chance. there have been massive protsests there in the last week or so, calling for reforms, and the possiblitly still exists that the fundementalist regime will be overthrown from within.

all i was trying to say when i posted this was it is a stupid thing for N. Korea to do when the whole world has their eyes on them and wants them to shut down their nucular program.

[ms y o o n]

Originally posted by yeat182
all i was trying to say when i posted this was it is a stupid thing for N. Korea to do when the whole world has their eyes on them and wants them to shut down their nucular program.

i agree with that. ok although im korean i dont know anything thats happening and i'll question stupid things all the time.
so if n. korea were to attack someone, who would it be? would it be stupid if i were to go to s. korea this summer.. this probably makes no sense

[yeat182]

Originally posted by krazee_k0rean
i agree with that. ok although im korean i dont know anything thats happening and i'll question stupid things all the time.
so if n. korea were to attack someone, who would it be? would it be stupid if i were to go to s. korea this summer.. this probably makes no sense


if north korea were to attack someone it would almost certainly be S. korea, maybe japan too. as for going to S. Korea this summer, i'm sure you'd be fine, but check the news before you go, if things have escalated, i wouldn't go.

[yeat182]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89611,00.html

this is why countries like N.korea and Iran shouldn't have WMD's, because they blackmail countries into giving them everything they want by threatening to use their weapons if they don't get it.

[ms y o o n]

Originally posted by yeat182
if north korea were to attack someone it would almost certainly be S. korea, maybe japan too. as for going to S. Korea this summer, i'm sure you'd be fine, but check the news before you go, if things have escalated, i wouldn't go.

sighh... all of this is so sad.

and i agree with the countries not having th wmd's because of blackmail
they abuse the power of having them

[evil zach]

Originally posted by cal1082
What would you suggest the U.S. do to countries like Iran, and North Korea?
not provoke them

[yeat182]

yeah, we tried not to provoke N. Korea in the 90's and look at what appeasment did for us...we are now in a much worse situation because of it.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by cal1082
What would you suggest the U.S. do to countries like Iran, and North Korea?

When did the US suddenly become the global cop?

A corrupt cop taking kickbacks from the mob at that, but that's another issue.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
When did the US suddenly become the global cop?

A corrupt cop taking kickbacks from the mob at that, but that's another issue.

if the world doesn't want us to be the global cop, then they don't have to take our money...they bitch and moan constantly about the US, but they seem to have no problem taking our foreign aid check every year.

[papathomas]

Originally posted by yeat182
if the world doesn't want us to be the global cop, then they don't have to take our money...they bitch and moan constantly about the US, but they seem to have no problem taking our foreign aid check every year. that is a good point yeast. we give billions of dollars to countries that strongly oppose the u.s. policies. some one pointed out that we shouldn't appease n. korea. before ww2 all the european nations would appeased nazi germany and everytime that they did hitler would turn around and attack another country. look what happened there, thats another reason why we didn't take shit from iraq recrently and why will go to war with n. korea

[papathomas]

Originally posted by yeat182
if the world doesn't want us to be the global cop, then they don't have to take our money...they bitch and moan constantly about the US, but they seem to have no problem taking our foreign aid check every year. that is a good point yeast. we give billions of dollars to countries that strongly oppose the u.s. policies. some one pointed out that we shouldn't appease n. korea. before ww2 all the european nations would appeased nazi germany and everytime that they did hitler would turn around and attack another country. look what happened there, thats another reason why we didn't take shit from iraq recrently and why will go to war with n. korea

[Ronin]

Originally posted by papathomas
that is a good point yeast. we give billions of dollars to countries that strongly oppose the u.s. policies. some one pointed out that we shouldn't appease n. korea. before ww2 all the european nations would appeased nazi germany and everytime that they did hitler would turn around and attack another country. look what happened there, thats another reason why we didn't take shit from iraq recrently and why will go to war with n. korea

You cant really compare Iraq and Nazi Germany

Iraq hadn't attacked anyone since the Gulf War
We put up with their tactics (their "shit"for 10 years, so technically the US was practicing appeasement

and most importantly, we (you) wont go to war with N.Korea (at least I don't think so)

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
You cant really compare Iraq and Nazi Germany

Iraq hadn't attacked anyone since the Gulf War
We put up with their tactics (their "shit"for 10 years, so technically the US was practicing appeasement

and most importantly, we (you) wont go to war with N.Korea (at least I don't think so)

germany hadn't attacked anyone since World War I, and we didn't appease Iraq, we were the only country (other than england) that was pressing for stricter inspections and total disarmarment, and we were the only country to take action when inspectors were kicked out in 1998.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Ronin
You cant really compare Iraq and Nazi Germany



there are thousands of conections between the nazis party and the baath party.......and even more between hitler and saddum.......

[Ronin]

Originally posted by yeat182
germany hadn't attacked anyone since World War I, and we didn't appease Iraq, we were the only country (other than england) that was pressing for stricter inspections and total disarmarment, and we were the only country to take action when inspectors were kicked out in 1998.

but Germany started attacking, and that's when appeasement started, Iraq hadn't attacked anyone when the US invaded.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
but Germany started attacking, and that's when appeasement started, Iraq hadn't attacked anyone when the US invaded.

iraq attacked kuwait and we defeated them, then for the past 12 years they've been appeased...

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Ronin
but Germany started attacking, and that's when appeasement started, Iraq hadn't attacked anyone when the US invaded.
actually the appeasment started long be fore that.......first when hitler began build his army and then again when he moved troops in to the Rhien area....which were both against the treaty of Verssia (spelling) and both of these happened years before he invade austria......

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by yeat182
iraq attacked kuwait and we defeated them, then for the past 12 years they've been appeased...
not to mention they have not followed the rules tha we set up 12 years ago, we have been lied to, and we have been kicked out of their country when they MUST let us in for inspection, not to mention the thousands of innocents killed by saddam

[Ronin]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
actually the appeasment started long be fore that.......first when hitler began build his army and then again when he moved troops in to the Rhien area....which were both against the treaty of Verssia (spelling) and both of these happened years before he invade austria......

You're right, appeasement started when they moved troops into the Rhineland.

Different situation than Iraq, yes?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
You're right, appeasement started when they moved troops into the Rhineland.

Different situation than Iraq, yes?

appeasement actually started well before that, when the nations that signed the versailles treaty began to allow germany to rebuild their armed forces, though they did set limits on what they could build and how many units and such...germany exploited this and totally disobeyd all regulations

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by yeat182
appeasement actually started well before that, when the nations that signed the versailles treaty began to allow germany to rebuild their armed forces, though they did set limits on what they could build and how many units and such...germany exploited this and totally disobeyd all regulations

hey i said that first :mad:

[yeat182]

ooops, you're right...my bad

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Ronin
You're right, appeasement started when they moved troops into the Rhineland.

Different situation than Iraq, yes?

its different but still the same.............and couldn't it be said that iraq didn't follow the treaty they signed following the gulf war, and that that in its self is a justifable cause for us to go to war with them..........

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by yeat182
appeasement actually started well before that, when the nations that signed the versailles treaty began to allow germany to rebuild their armed forces, though they did set limits on what they could build and how many units and such...germany exploited this and totally disobeyd all regulations
and you did forget to mention the murder of political opponents, Nuremburg Laws, Kristalnacht, and death/concentration camps, all which happened in the late 30's prior to the Rhineland. The world appeased that. And this genocide is reminicant of Saddam killing off the Kurds as well as his own people and political opponents.

[yeat182]

very true

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by yeat182
very true
also we appeased when Hindenburg gave chancellorship and dictatorship to Hitler and when hitler suspended constitutional rights after mystery socialists burned down the parliment building. we should have stepped in and regulated that as well.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
also we appeased when Hindenburg gave chancellorship and dictatorship to Hitler and when hitler suspended constitutional rights after mystery socialists burned down the parliment building. we should have stepped in and regulated that as well.

I know America is chomping at the bit to get involved in everyone elses business, but dude, this is a little much.

You can't play global commando and invade every country that you deem wrong. Lots of leaders have taken first steps like Hitler, and there's no way anyone could have known what he would become.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Ronin
I know America is chomping at the bit to get involved in everyone elses business, but dude, this is a little much.

You can't play global commando and invade every country that you deem wrong. Lots of leaders have taken first steps like Hitler, and there's no way anyone could have known what he would become.
oh i realize that, but you would think that after taking away peoples rights AND killing jews and other various people in genocide fashion that SOMEBODY would have the testicles to step in. And thats about it for me tonight, see you tommorow guys.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
I know America is chomping at the bit to get involved in everyone elses business, but dude, this is a little much.

You can't play global commando and invade every country that you deem wrong. Lots of leaders have taken first steps like Hitler, and there's no way anyone could have known what he would become.

the point is that we learn from the mistakes of the past and make sure it doesn't happen again...ie. Iraq

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
oh i realize that, but you would think that after taking away peoples rights AND killing jews and other various people in genocide fashion that SOMEBODY would have the testicles to step in. And thats about it for me tonight, see you tommorow guys.

He hadn't started widespread genocide at that point, it came about gradually

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
oh i realize that, but you would think that after taking away peoples rights AND killing jews and other various people in genocide fashion that SOMEBODY would have the testicles to step in. And thats about it for me tonight, see you tommorow guys.

Will you take time to think about what you're saying? And think about how much of what you just said is actually your own thought and not just Bill O'Reilly's? It's none of our business what anyone does unless it poses AN IMINENT THREAT to us. Saddam didn't, Vietnam didn't, so we shouldn't have attacked them. Now think before you respond to this next part... Right now we shouldn't be doing anything outside of diplomatic activities with other countries. We have a weak leader, a poor economy and a big debt (a lot of which evolves around unjustified wars) we need to worry about ourselves before we cause more problems for other countries. (Now I look forward to hearing an intelligent response, devoid of gay references and ignorant statements about reparations)

[devin]

Originally posted by yeat182
the point is that we learn from the mistakes of the past and make sure it doesn't happen again...ie. Iraq


History does not repeat itself. Each crisis comes with a new set of circumstances. Drawing comparisons is foolhardy. If you've taken history, you may be familar with the terms teleology and contingency. Teleology is when people decide that an because an outcome occured, it was inevitable given the facts. An outcome in world affairs is the result of innumerable factors. It is impossible to know all of these, which is how contingency enters. Every factor plays a role. Unless you're suggesting that you have precisely defined all of these variables, you cannot predict an outcome. So refrain from thinking that a few similarities ensures a corresponding outcome.

Oh, and please never provide a foxnews story as a source. Fine, the mass media has a liberal bias. But it is not nearly as extreme as the jingoistic, yellow journalism bankrolled by Rupert Murdoch.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Will you take time to think about what you're saying? And think about how much of what you just said is actually your own thought and not just Bill O'Reilly's? It's none of our business what anyone does unless it poses AN IMINENT THREAT to us. Saddam didn't, Vietnam didn't, so we shouldn't have attacked them. Now think before you respond to this next part... Right now we shouldn't be doing anything outside of diplomatic activities with other countries. We have a weak leader, a poor economy and a big debt (a lot of which evolves around unjustified wars) we need to worry about ourselves before we cause more problems for other countries. (Now I look forward to hearing an intelligent response, devoid of gay references and ignorant statements about reparations)


man i could just as easily say the same things about your "writtings" that you say about brandnews..........and i'd be willing to bet i'd be right too.....

[BustaNutz]

I don't get what you're saying bud.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
I don't get what you're saying bud.

your saying, that hes just repeating what hes heard other say, and i'm saying that i could just as easily say the same thing about you..........



ps where ya been lately?

[BustaNutz]

I admit I get a lot of my opinions from listenting to my dad, watching the news, the BBC, reading articles. I get my opinions from many different areas, I learned about the issues and am forming my own opinions, so yes you could challenge where I hear things from but what I say has been my own opinion, not that of someone else.

I've been around just not as much lately, I've been posting general a lot more too.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
I admit I get a lot of my opinions from listenting to my dad, watching the news, the BBC, reading articles. I get my opinions from many different areas, I learned about the issues and am forming my own opinions, so yes you could challenge where I hear things from but what I say has been my own opinion, not that of someone else.

I've been around just not as much lately, I've been posting general a lot more too.

brandnews going to say the exact same thing...though..........

The BBC, the Fox of Liberal news........:D

[BustaNutz]

I rather like it, it's a different perspective, all the different news agencies have different perspectives. I do a Model UN club (with national and stat conferences ever year) so through that I've found plenty of news agencies, including arab news agencies with Arab slants, it's interesting to read all the different perspectives... Ok I'm rambling so I'm out.

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Ronin
He hadn't started widespread genocide at that point, it came about gradually
He started camps far before the Rhineland. We should have stepped in then. But it took us like six years to do so, and thats only because our allies were getting their ass kicked, not for the Jews. We should have stepped in years earlier than we did.

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Will you take time to think about what you're saying? And think about how much of what you just said is actually your own thought and not just Bill O'Reilly's? It's none of our business what anyone does unless it poses AN IMINENT THREAT to us. Saddam didn't, Vietnam didn't, so we shouldn't have attacked them. Now think before you respond to this next part... Right now we shouldn't be doing anything outside of diplomatic activities with other countries. We have a weak leader, a poor economy and a big debt (a lot of which evolves around unjustified wars) we need to worry about ourselves before we cause more problems for other countries. (Now I look forward to hearing an intelligent response, devoid of gay references and ignorant statements about reparations)
I AM THINKING WHAT I WROTE! This is not Bill O'Reilly's opinion either. 100% My Opinion. Hitler was crazy. He was, in my opinion, the evilest person to ever walk this earth. He was killing people BY THE MILLIONS. God forbid we step in. Saddam was killing in genocide fashion as well, and I have always said vietnam was stupid....and yes, I do believe it was advocated by a liberal president. We do need to worry about ourselves, but national debt isnt an instant threat. People dying is. Its like if your neighbor's house is on fire, but you have to mow your lawn, which do you choose to focus your attention on. Your neighbors house burning to the ground, or the lawn that is a bit too long. I hope you would choose the fire. Our leader is not a weak one by the way. Sure he is no FDR or Reagan, but he is much better than say Carter, Nixon, Clinton, Ford, Bush Sr. and probably MUCH better than Gore. Our economy is poor, I admit. The economy is a crazy thing. Some people believe that it takes an eight year period of time to affect an economy, some believe its an instant process, some believe the president cannot affect the economy. I don’t really know. I think we should basically do nothing. BASICALLY do nothing. Economies will have ups and downs, it’s a given. Right now we are in a down. It happens. Unemployment is up, that’s bad. How do we solve that? Give out welfare, no, that’s the liberal way out, tax the rich and give it to everyone else for not working. Create government jobs, such as drilling in Alaska. Do you realize how many jobs that would create? Quite a few. And as for the gay comment, I realize it was dumb, but for shit's sake, I'm 15 years old. Give me a break. It still doesn’t excuse it, because gays are people too, with feelings and the whole deal, and I mean no malice towards the homosexuals when I say it, but still doesn’t excuse it. From now on I will refer to people as dumbass or idiot or shithead, unless that offends somebody. And as for reparations, they are fucked. Why should NON-SLAVE OWNERS have to pay reparations to people who were NEVER SLAVES. Doesn’t make sense to me. And as for the opinion comment again. My sources come from everywhere, my local paper (very left biased), Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, my dad, my teachers (we read the book Night in school, thats where I get a lot of opinion on that issue from) and I am also in MUN. So my opinion is just as valid and just as original as you claim yours to be.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Will you take time to think about what you're saying? And think about how much of what you just said is actually your own thought and not just Bill O'Reilly's? It's none of our business what anyone does unless it poses AN IMINENT THREAT to us. Saddam didn't, Vietnam didn't, so we shouldn't have attacked them. Now think before you respond to this next part... Right now we shouldn't be doing anything outside of diplomatic activities with other countries. We have a weak leader, a poor economy and a big debt (a lot of which evolves around unjustified wars) we need to worry about ourselves before we cause more problems for other countries. (Now I look forward to hearing an intelligent response, devoid of gay references and ignorant statements about reparations)


communism did poses an imminent threat to us, and the reason we got involved in veitnam was because france fucked up and we had to bail them out. and again, as 9/11 proved, what happens in other countries does affect us and there for it is our buissness. we can't ignore what goes on in other countries and sit back and hope that the two oceans that surround us can protect us from whatever happens.

[WithStamin]

Vietnam wasn't stupid... we were just stupid. Johnson couldn't decide if he was in the war or not; he just kind of halfway commited to the war. He put in just enough people to get a lot killed, but he didn't use any intellignent strategy (nuke 'em!). That war could have been easily won if we used half a brain.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by devin
History does not repeat itself. Each crisis comes with a new set of circumstances. Drawing comparisons is foolhardy. If you've taken history, you may be familar with the terms teleology and contingency. Teleology is when people decide that an because an outcome occured, it was inevitable given the facts. An outcome in world affairs is the result of innumerable factors. It is impossible to know all of these, which is how contingency enters. Every factor plays a role. Unless you're suggesting that you have precisely defined all of these variables, you cannot predict an outcome. So refrain from thinking that a few similarities ensures a corresponding outcome.

Oh, and please never provide a foxnews story as a source. Fine, the mass media has a liberal bias. But it is not nearly as extreme as the jingoistic, yellow journalism bankrolled by Rupert Murdoch.


fox news is a fine source. and as for history repeating itself, it may not literally repeat itself with evey single situation exactly as it was before, but in a general sense it does, and there is no history teacher/professor that would say otherwise. if you truley studied history you would see that it is true.

also, claiming yellow journalism on the part of fox news would be history repeating itself.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
He started camps far before the Rhineland. We should have stepped in then. But it took us like six years to do so, and thats only because our allies were getting their ass kicked, not for the Jews. We should have stepped in years earlier than we did.


I AM THINKING WHAT I WROTE! This is not Bill O'Reilly's opinion either. 100% My Opinion. Hitler was crazy. He was, in my opinion, the evilest person to ever walk this earth. He was killing people BY THE MILLIONS. God forbid we step in. Saddam was killing in genocide fashion as well, and I have always said vietnam was stupid....and yes, I do believe it was advocated by a liberal president. We do need to worry about ourselves, but national debt isnt an instant threat. People dying is. Its like if your neighbor's house is on fire, but you have to mow your lawn, which do you choose to focus your attention on. Your neighbors house burning to the ground, or the lawn that is a bit too long. I hope you would choose the fire. Our leader is not a weak one by the way. Sure he is no FDR or Reagan, but he is much better than say Carter, Nixon, Clinton, Ford, Bush Sr. and probably MUCH better than Gore. Our economy is poor, I admit. The economy is a crazy thing. Some people believe that it takes an eight year period of time to affect an economy, some believe its an instant process, some believe the president cannot affect the economy. I don’t really know. I think we should basically do nothing. BASICALLY do nothing. Economies will have ups and downs, it’s a given. Right now we are in a down. It happens. Unemployment is up, that’s bad. How do we solve that? Give out welfare, no, that’s the liberal way out, tax the rich and give it to everyone else for not working. Create government jobs, such as drilling in Alaska. Do you realize how many jobs that would create? Quite a few. And as for the gay comment, I realize it was dumb, but for shit's sake, I'm 15 years old. Give me a break. It still doesn’t excuse it, because gays are people too, with feelings and the whole deal, and I mean no malice towards the homosexuals when I say it, but still doesn’t excuse it. From now on I will refer to people as dumbass or idiot or shithead, unless that offends somebody. And as for reparations, they are fucked. Why should NON-SLAVE OWNERS have to pay reparations to people who were NEVER SLAVES. Doesn’t make sense to me. And as for the opinion comment again. My sources come from everywhere, my local paper (very left biased), Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, my dad, my teachers (we read the book Night in school, thats where I get a lot of opinion on that issue from) and I am also in MUN. So my opinion is just as valid and just as original as you claim yours to be.

Just a general comment.

You don't seem to have much respect for the past or future. No, you might not own any slaves yourself, but our society oppressed african-americans for an extended period of time, and the effects are still felt. you don't think we should all do something to remedy the situation? And as for creating jobs in alaska, drilling for oil...I assume you're not much of an environmentalist.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by yeat182
communism did poses an imminent threat to us, and the reason we got involved in veitnam was because france fucked up and we had to bail them out. and again, as 9/11 proved, what happens in other countries does affect us and there for it is our buissness. we can't ignore what goes on in other countries and sit back and hope that the two oceans that surround us can protect us from whatever happens.


How did Communism pose an imminent threat?

And 9/11 proved that what the US does in other countries (financing the muhajadheen) comes back to affect you. You get involved in the affairs of other countries/cultures, and there are consequences.

edit: Don't get me wrong, I don't mean that the attacks on 9/11 were justified

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Ronin

And 9/11 proved that what the US does in other countries (financing the muhajadheen) comes back to affect you. You get involved in the affairs of other countries/cultures, and there are consequences.


so should we just ignore the suffering of israel?

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
How did Communism pose an imminent threat?


are kidding? did you forget the cold war, the mutually assured destruction, NATO vs. Warsaw pact etc. etc...

[Ronin]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
so should we just ignore the suffering of israel?

Not at all. We also shouldn't ignore the suffering of the Palestinians.

Pushing for peace in the region and doing everything possible to achieve it is a noble effort, but it's not the same thing as getting involved (indirectly) in the Russian/Afghani war.

Now, if the US started providing arms and training to some Jewish fundamentalist group (or to Hamas for that matter), then we might see a problem.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
And 9/11 proved that what the US does in other countries (financing the muhajadheen) comes back to affect you. You get involved in the affairs of other countries/cultures, and there are consequences.

edit: Don't get me wrong, I don't mean that the attacks on 9/11 were justified


people want to destroy the US now, and not doing anything and ingonring it isn't going to prevent it.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by yeat182
are kidding? did you forget the cold war, the mutually assured destruction, NATO vs. Warsaw pact etc. etc...

Every bit of intelligence that has come out of Russia and the US since the cold war ended showed that neither country ever intended to use nuclear weapons unless they were attacked themselves. The closest they came to nuclear was was during the Cuban missle crisis, and Kennedy did an admirable job of being level headed. Russia has no intentions of attacking the United States, or even of spreading Communism. Their takeover of Eastern Europe following the second World War was purely a defensive move, misconstrued by the West (though the Russians did little to clarify their intenteions).

Communism has never posed an "imminent" threat to the United States, just as Capitalism never posed an "imminent" threat to the USSR. That's just scare-tactics that they used during the Cold War to villify the "Evil Empire".

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
Every bit of intelligence that has come out of Russia and the US since the cold war ended showed that neither country ever intended to use nuclear weapons unless they were attacked themselves. The closest they came to nuclear was was during the Cuban missle crisis, and Kennedy did an admirable job of being level headed. Russia has no intentions of attacking the United States, or even of spreading Communism. Their takeover of Eastern Europe following the second World War was purely a defensive move, misconstrued by the West (though the Russians did little to clarify their intenteions).

Communism has never posed an "imminent" threat to the United States, just as Capitalism never posed an "imminent" threat to the USSR. That's just scare-tactics that they used during the Cold War to villify the "Evil Empire".

first, if the russians only took over eastern europe as a defensive move, then 1. they must have found the west to be a threat 2. why are they justified in taking countries to protect themsleves, yet we aren't? (ie. korea, vietnam, central america, turkey, greece..etc. etc..)we only installed democracies in those countries to protect ourselves.

and there was always a threat of a war with russia. while neither side wanted to go to war, both were prepared to do so and it was such a tense situation that even the smallest international incident could have had severe consequences. the cuban missle crisis is a prime example, we almost had a war fought over a shithole communist country like cuba. why? because the USSR wanted to put ballistic missles (nukes) 50 miles from american soil. tell me why if there was no threat from either side, would the USSR risk a war to put missles there?

finally, there was obviously a threat to communism from capitalism, because the communists gave up there philosophy and adopted capitalism in the early 90's, which is exactly what the communist party in the USSR feared.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Ronin
Just a general comment.

You don't seem to have much respect for the past or future. No, you might not own any slaves yourself, but our society oppressed african-americans for an extended period of time, and the effects are still felt. you don't think we should all do something to remedy the situation? And as for creating jobs in alaska, drilling for oil...I assume you're not much of an environmentalist.

the effects could be ended if people would just let the past die, and allow the "races" to live in peace with one another, see the vast majority of people aren't racist, they don't see people by the color of there skin, and at some time you are going to have to quite using it (racism) as a justification for the place african americans hold in our society.......its not always the faults of others.........but of course that could never happen, so long as we have one party whos whole platform is based on always judging someone based on the color of there skinn......:D


as for the environmentalist issues......people always come first, and yes drilling in alaska would be a great thing for jobs and the public, but the proven oil estimates aren't high enough to justifiy the costs.....what we need to do is look more in to the gulf of mexico......

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
He started camps far before the Rhineland. We should have stepped in then. But it took us like six years to do so, and thats only because our allies were getting their ass kicked, not for the Jews. We should have stepped in years earlier than we did.


I AM THINKING WHAT I WROTE! This is not Bill O'Reilly's opinion either. 100% My Opinion. Hitler was crazy. He was, in my opinion, the evilest person to ever walk this earth. He was killing people BY THE MILLIONS. God forbid we step in. Saddam was killing in genocide fashion as well, and I have always said vietnam was stupid....and yes, I do believe it was advocated by a liberal president. We do need to worry about ourselves, but national debt isnt an instant threat. People dying is. Its like if your neighbor's house is on fire, but you have to mow your lawn, which do you choose to focus your attention on. Your neighbors house burning to the ground, or the lawn that is a bit too long. I hope you would choose the fire. Our leader is not a weak one by the way. Sure he is no FDR or Reagan, but he is much better than say Carter, Nixon, Clinton, Ford, Bush Sr. and probably MUCH better than Gore. Our economy is poor, I admit. The economy is a crazy thing. Some people believe that it takes an eight year period of time to affect an economy, some believe its an instant process, some believe the president cannot affect the economy. I don’t really know. I think we should basically do nothing. BASICALLY do nothing. Economies will have ups and downs, it’s a given. Right now we are in a down. It happens. Unemployment is up, that’s bad. How do we solve that? Give out welfare, no, that’s the liberal way out, tax the rich and give it to everyone else for not working. Create government jobs, such as drilling in Alaska. Do you realize how many jobs that would create? Quite a few. And as for the gay comment, I realize it was dumb, but for shit's sake, I'm 15 years old. Give me a break. It still doesn’t excuse it, because gays are people too, with feelings and the whole deal, and I mean no malice towards the homosexuals when I say it, but still doesn’t excuse it. From now on I will refer to people as dumbass or idiot or shithead, unless that offends somebody. And as for reparations, they are fucked. Why should NON-SLAVE OWNERS have to pay reparations to people who were NEVER SLAVES. Doesn’t make sense to me. And as for the opinion comment again. My sources come from everywhere, my local paper (very left biased), Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, my dad, my teachers (we read the book Night in school, thats where I get a lot of opinion on that issue from) and I am also in MUN. So my opinion is just as valid and just as original as you claim yours to be.

Fair enough, and I agree Hitler was a threat, but if you notcied I didn't touch the World Wars in my statement, that was completely justified. We were attacked by Japan and when we declared war on them, Germany and Italy declared war on us, that's a threat we attacked. Iraq wasn't going to attack us, so I don't believe that was justified. As for the gay comments, that's cool, just try to get better about saying those things it's not a good idea to look like a bigot.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by yeat182
first, if the russians only took over eastern europe as a defensive move, then 1. they must have found the west to be a threat 2. why are they justified in taking countries to protect themsleves, yet we aren't? (ie. korea, vietnam, central america, turkey, greece..etc. etc..)we only installed democracies in those countries to protect ourselves.

and there was always a threat of a war with russia. while neither side wanted to go to war, both were prepared to do so and it was such a tense situation that even the smallest international incident could have had severe consequences. the cuban missle crisis is a prime example, we almost had a war fought over a shithole communist country like cuba. why? because the USSR wanted to put ballistic missles (nukes) 50 miles from american soil. tell me why if there was no threat from either side, would the USSR risk a war to put missles there?

finally, there was obviously a threat to communism from capitalism, because the communists gave up there philosophy and adopted capitalism in the early 90's, which is exactly what the communist party in the USSR feared.

Russia took over countries in Eastern Europe because of WW2. Russia lost more soldiers than all the other countries combined. Russia also had to deal with outside powers intervening in their civil war. Russia (Stalin) trusted NOBODY (rightfully so) and needed a geographical buffer zone for protection. The US has two nice buffer zones in the atlantic and pacific oceans, you're not really threatened with invasion like Russia. If South America attacked the US, produced huge casualties, and then the US installed a government in Mexico, then it would be the same thing.

The Cold War had its ups and downs, but the closest they ever came to war was during the missle crisis. Both sides were decently level headed and realized that nuclear war wasn't a good option. There was no real threat of war, it was a case of both countries erring on the side of extreme caution. The move to put missles in Cuba was a strategic one. The US had missles literally surrounding the USSR, in places like Turkey, so why shouldn't Russia go for the same type of move? The placement of missles is a deterrant to war, but a dangerous one yes.

Russia gave up SOCIALISM, not communism,and they did so because it was flawed from the beginning. The Russian leaders led Russia horribly, and made many mistakes. Capitalism didn't cause the fall of the Soviet Union, the inept policies of it's leaders did.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Ronin
. Russia also had to deal with outside powers intervening in their civil war.

that was world war I :) .............

[Ronin]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
that was world war I :) .............

I didn't differentiate, my bad

I just mean they had a history of invasion/manipulation from other nations, which made them very very un-trusting

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
Russia took over countries in Eastern Europe because of WW2. Russia lost more soldiers than all the other countries combined. Russia also had to deal with outside powers intervening in their civil war. Russia (Stalin) trusted NOBODY (rightfully so) and needed a geographical buffer zone for protection. The US has two nice buffer zones in the atlantic and pacific oceans, you're not really threatened with invasion like Russia. If South America attacked the US, produced huge casualties, and then the US installed a government in Mexico, then it would be the same thing.

The Cold War had its ups and downs, but the closest they ever came to war was during the missle crisis. Both sides were decently level headed and realized that nuclear war wasn't a good option. There was no real threat of war, it was a case of both countries erring on the side of extreme caution. The move to put missles in Cuba was a strategic one. The US had missles literally surrounding the USSR, in places like Turkey, so why shouldn't Russia go for the same type of move? The placement of missles is a deterrant to war, but a dangerous one yes.

Russia gave up SOCIALISM, not communism,and they did so because it was flawed from the beginning. The Russian leaders led Russia horribly, and made many mistakes. Capitalism didn't cause the fall of the Soviet Union, the inept policies of it's leaders did.


hindsight being 20/20, yes you could say there was no real threat, but at the time, it was a very real threat.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by yeat182
hindsight being 20/20, yes you could say there was no real threat, but at the time, it was a very real threat.

no, you could say that america (and russia) THOUGHT there was a threat, but it wasn't real

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by Ronin
I didn't differentiate, my bad

I just mean they had a history of invasion/manipulation from other nations, which made them very very un-trusting


but think what a better world this might have been if we had supported the "whites" more in that civil war, and they had beaten out the bolshiviks..........

[Ronin]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
but think what a better world this might have been if we had supported the "whites" more in that civil war, and they had beaten out the bolshiviks..........

Short of sending thousands of troops to Russia, I don't think the whites could have won.

But who knows? We'd live in a very different world

[BrandNewRock05]

Originally posted by Ronin
Just a general comment.

You don't seem to have much respect for the past or future. No, you might not own any slaves yourself, but our society oppressed african-americans for an extended period of time, and the effects are still felt. you don't think we should all do something to remedy the situation? And as for creating jobs in alaska, drilling for oil...I assume you're not much of an environmentalist.
Yes the effects are felt so much that they have gone in reverse and created affirmative action and "hate" crimes, in my opinion both are racist. If we could just equalize everybody and stop giving people head-starts and advantages in life due to the color of their skin, racism would simmer down, guarenteed. Sure you'll have the occasional red neck who yells "hang the ******" whenever he sees a black person, but these riots like we see would probably stop if you stopped bringing up the opression of blacks, you just fan the flame by giving them advantages. And I also wouldnt consider myself an enviromentalist either. I care for the enviroment. I recycle, I ride my bike, I dont light crude oil on fire. But drilling in Alaska will not hurt any wildlife. Its been proven. With the technology we have today its so percise and so accurate no animals would be harmed.

[devin]

Originally posted by cal1082
Human nature always repeates itself, and thats how history is made, through our actions.
So yes, a few similarities can spawn basically spawn a similar outcome.

History does not repeat itself. The similarities you find are the ones you impose on history. Each moment and experience is unique. No laws can predict where we will go. It's really just quantum mechanics. Maybe there are laws the govern the evolution through time, but it is impossible to have adequate knowledge. So it is impossible to actually know what will happen. Similar results arise far less frequently than dissimilar results.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by devin
History does not repeat itself. The similarities you find are the ones you impose on history. Each moment and experience is unique.

history does repeat its self.........how is Napolean being defeated by the Russian winter different from Hitler being beaten by the Russian winter?.......see both did the exact same thing, under estimating there enemy and not taking in to account the season at which they attacked.......(yes i understand that they are not exactually the "same" but there simaliarities are there)................

[devin]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
history does repeat its self.........how is Napolean being defeated by the Russian winter different from Hitler being beaten by the Russian winter?.......see both did the exact same thing, under estimating there enemy and not taking in to account the season at which they attacked.......(yes i understand that they are not exactually the "same" but there simaliarities are there)................

If I rolled myself down Everest ten years ago, I would have died. If I roll myself down Everest tomorrow, I will die. This is not history repeating itself. It is people in different circumstances encountering a virtually unchanged element. Furthermore, I think that reducing Hitler's failure to a matter of weather overlooks the fact that he was stretched too thin. History did not repeat itself, Hitler made his own mistake due to his own set of circumstances. Saying that history repeats itself requires that we know the precise reasons why something happened, and can account for all of those. History is dependent on countless variables. Some permutations appear similar, but that doesn't mean history repeats itself.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by devin
If I rolled myself down Everest ten years ago, I would have died. If I roll myself down Everest tomorrow, I will die. This is not history repeating itself. It is people in different circumstances encountering a virtually unchanged element. Furthermore, I think that reducing Hitler's failure to a matter of weather overlooks the fact that he was stretched too thin. History did not repeat itself, Hitler made his own mistake due to his own set of circumstances. Saying that history repeats itself requires that we know the precise reasons why something happened, and can account for all of those. History is dependent on countless variables. Some permutations appear similar, but that doesn't mean history repeats itself.

i get what your saying, and im not saying that history exactly repeats its self.........but couldnt' it be said that every mistake hitler made, napolean made the same? Doesn't this go beyond just common coincidences?

[yeat182]

no one is saying that history exactly repeats itself. the point is if you do not learn from the mistakes made in the past, chances are you will make them again, and thus history "repeats" itself. its a figure of speach, not one of newtons laws of physics.

[BustaNutz]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
i get what your saying, and im not saying that history exactly repeats its self.........but couldnt' it be said that every mistake hitler made, napolean made the same? Doesn't this go beyond just common coincidences?

I think you can fairly say that Hitler made similar mistakes but not the same mistakes, I can't articulate myself quite like Devin can, but if you read what he's saying it makes perfect sense. He's right in saying that history can have very striking similarities but it doesn't repeat itself because there existed an array of different circumstances for each event throughout history and for history to have repeated itself every circumstance would have had to been the exact same. But yes you could say there were similarities between Hitler's mistakes and those of Napoleon.

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
I think you can fairly say that Hitler made similar mistakes but not the same mistakes,He's right in saying that history can have very striking similarities but it doesn't repeat itself because there existed an array of different circumstances for each event throughout history and for history to have repeated itself every circumstance would have had to been the exact same.

thats exactally what im saying, the two did not do the exact same things, but very similars things..........and just think how history would have changed if hitler had learned any lesons from napoleans mistakes, instead of making simalar ones...............

[BustaNutz]

Think how history would have changed if Hitler would have just listened to his own generals...

[Justin_stacy]

Originally posted by BustaNutz
Think how history would have changed if Hitler would have just listened to his own generals...

yes but i was tring to make a comparison with Napolean/hitler and there winter invasions (well late summer invasions)......and Russia would have fallen it hitler had studied napoleans failures.......

[BustaNutz]

I got were you were saying, I was just adding had he just listened to his generals and let them have more control of the decisions the outcome may have been much different.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by Justin_stacy
yes but i was tring to make a comparison with Napolean/hitler and there winter invasions (well late summer invasions)......and Russia would have fallen it hitler had studied napoleans failures.......

I refuse to believe that Russia could have fallen
:D

but yes, you're right