Dumb Statement (from North Korea)

Post Reply New Topic

You can generally agree with a political party's ideology without endorsing every isolated stance it takes.

In fact, you pretty much have to.

Really, then how come we did not invade Soviets before they developed nukes, of the Libyans, or Syria, or East Germany, or Cuba (at least with our own troops or attempt again), or South Africa (years of apartheid), or El Salvador, or Columbia when it was filled with drug lords, or
Once again, TAFKASH, your wild theories and accusations and examples are whollely lacking accuracy and truthfulness. And you know, the U.S. would not take on such a dominate role in the policing the world as you say, if the U.N. got off its butt once in awhile, was not corrupt, did not assign reps from countries with horrible human rights records to human rights counsels, followed up on its warnings, did not dicker around endlessly while wrongs were being committed, and did not give such importance of oppinion to the very nations under the microscope for its actions (it should be more 3rd party arbitration).

No, that is wholly inaccurate. I read first hand sources. I know. The sole reason was not to scare the Soviets, that may have been a side effect or an afterthought, but that was not the main motivation behind the Democrat and Great President Harry S. Truman's decision to drop the bombs. No need to state false events to support your fantasy idea about the U.S.

And no, Japan's empire was finished, but it still had plenty of troops and planes, Japan was not finished, if they had been they would have surrendered and they would not have kept fighting. I know I read first hand sources on Japan's military strength.



Wrong topic, talking about North Korea, if you want to know about Iraq, read my other posts in the Bush and elections forums.

I was not dissing the North Koreans, just their Dictator, I don't believe I have any racism, but I do not like the Somolian war tribes after their inhumane behavior shown on TV, despite the efforts to feed them. The Somolia action, (a Clinton move), was supposed to send troops to protect food shipments from being stolen by warlords before they could get to the people they were intended for. That is more like dislikeing mobs or terrorists because they commit such heinous crimes rather than a whole race. I like Asian cultures, I have read chinese novels, I studied some japanese, I like the Ethiopian Pyramid builders, Egyptians, the Banta peoples of south africa and the way the Zulus stood up to a modern army, the pueblos and anasazi, the great lakes allied indian tribes, the iroquios nation, the Olmecs of Venuzuela, are a few examples. I don't care for your instigation that I have any racists stances. Not only am I a historian and conassuour of world cultures, but I am of many ethnicities myself. That is not what my complaint agains North Korea is about. And Jay, its not just their nuclear program, but their lack of coorperation for a peaceful resolution. I see Jong Il's Nuke program as more of a sign of desparation, why else would seek bribes and financial gain to stop the program. Something is definitely up with him. I don't like to see any nation with nukes, but they are here and many nations already have them, the fear is that if everyone has them then there will be an ever greater chance of one of them getting annoyed at another (like India and Pakistan, they are frequently having border clashes in Kashmir and both have nukes, I have been defty nervous that these two nations with a greater history and instances of clashes then the Soviets and Americans had getting into it since they both developed them) and using them. The great powers that have them have been for years, starting in the early 1970's with the SALT 1 talks, to reduce or eliminate nuclear weapons. But not all powers that have them will sign nuclear treaties, another reason to be fearful.

....because they'd have kicked your bottoms at the time, and noone in the States would have stood for another World War so soon after the last one.....



...because World War would have ensued - see above.



South Africa? What've they got that the US needs and can't already get? They've always basically been US friendly, anyway. Invading drug nations wouldn't prevent the flow in the drug trade one iota, so what's the point?



Before the bombs were dropped, Japan offered surrender based on the condition that the Emperor would keep his position - the allies refused, demanding unconditional surrender..... The bombs were dropped and once again, Japan offered surrender based on the condition that the Emperor would keep his position - the allies accepted. The bombs changed nothing.......

No, they would not have, again you are fantasizing. As I said, at that time the U.S. had nukes and the Soviets did not as per your insinuation. The U.S. also had better bombers and faster fighters. It might have been bloody, but it would not have meant victory for Soviets. Stalin was no better than Hitler, in fact, I suggest he was probably worse, he had mass graves before the Germans did and killed far more of his own people then the Germans extermination campaign did. He just hid his attrocities a little better and was a little more patient and probably a little smarter than his younger demon brother Hitler.

After Japan's sneek attack, how could they trust Japan under the same leadership, it would not have been a defeat without an unconditional surrender, especially with Japan's Bushido code and misguided Samuri (they missed the true essence of the Samuri (to serve) in WWII.). Nothing less than an unconditional surrender would have convinced the Japanese of the error of their ways, since shorty after Meiji took control of Japan in 1868 they began a policy of expansion, Russian islands, Korea, China, Indo china. This would have been irresponsible, once again you seem to be living in a fantasy world were everything is hunky dorry. There are somethings you have to fight for and somethings you can't accept peacemeal like a conditional surrender from a nation loyal to the core to an emperor whose government expanded and at a great cost to their victims. Re: the rapes of china. Batton Death March.

We agree wholheartedly on this one (that makes a change eh, matey ) - Stalin made Hitler look like Gandhi by comparison, no question.



But that's the point - Japan did not surrender unconditionally...... Both before and after the bomb, Japan offered identical terms of surrender to the allies: i.e. unconditional surrender, except for their insistence on the recognition by the allies of the continued sovereignty of the Emperor. This basically identical offer of surrender was rejected before the bomb, and accepted after the bomb.....

Careful Epimonandas - you are making personal insinuations again. I refer all protagonists once again to the announcement at the top of this forum. Behave - I don't want to have to lock the politics forum, I had hoped people could behave rationally and refrain from baiting each other.

i noticed you mentioned el salvador as a glowing example of u.s foreign policy Epimonandas.

found a good article on it:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Choms ... vador.html

How is that relevant Duncvis? I don't understand how that is a personal attack.

Could that interference have something to do with the very old U.S. policy of Monroe doctrine?

Admittedly, the U.S. does not always follow the best policy, and this is true of both parties, then again, some of these mistakes must be made to learn from, much of the rest of world have had nearly millinium or more of learning from mistakes, and the U.S. is still under 300 and our world politics practices were not very strong until the late 1890's, when Teddy Roosevelt put the U.S. into the thick of international relations.

Ideally though, U.S. policy is supposed to support any nation whose people want to rule by the people over authoritarian governments (as they are a dying fad, far less stable reliable, and not always in the charge of a capable leader (that should be earned, or granted by the people, not by a few). Sometimes, I think the U.S. fails to see long term consequences, like the Europeans failed to do when they divided the Middle East after WWI against Lawrence's more experienced advice, and when the government sees a threat they may make the most expedient move which is not always the best action. Then again, there are many recent former older nation citizens helping to advise and run our nation, so I think human nature in general plays a big part of it as well.

Glad to see we are not entirely different, eh, TAFKASH. You know what they say, Its a small world after all.

Iraq was not a "mistake". It was coldly calculated from day 1. It was an evil act by a monstrous man.

Not sure what you are driving at Epimonandas so I will make it clear. Implying that someone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint is living in a fantasy world is a personal attack. Stick to rational argument and not personal comments.

I am sick of having to referee these threads. Any more belligerent responses from either side and I will lock the topics concerned - this is not up for discussion.

No, Ed. He is not evil, Saddam is.

Please forgive me for going back to the original topic, but there are 2 posts that I cannot ignore.

North Korea is headed by a communist dictator. He hasn't been chosen for his virtues, but because the former ruler was protective of his offspring and instituted a sort of dynasty, to save his family from lynching. The goal of Kim Jong Il is to stay in power and avoid being killed, and not being logical or popular. As in all communist regimes, there is a negative selection to governmental offices, i.e. criminals are favored. The most important virtue taken into account is blind loyalty. Therefore I would not expect anything wise coming from the mouths of North Korean officials. If they were wise, they would be able to give people freedom and still stay in power, without risking lynch.


Please do not confuse North Korean government with people. The people are the victim of the oppressive government that came to power by force, and not by the democratic process. I am sure that North Korean officials are not poor at all, and they actually live quite well. It's the people who have nothing to say that starve.


With all due respect, Tali, I have heard otherwise from reliable sources. You may take a look at the following link (but I caution you that it contains a rather disturbing material): http://www.nkhumanrights.or.kr/. I do not see how sympatizing with the hard life of North Koreans would be a prejudice against people of color. However, I strongly dislike and oppose any communist government, because I lived in a country enslaved by such. Again, please do not confuse the government with people.

They are both evil.

Sorry magic, but I kind of meant the people were poor because of lack of industry and trust and trade and too much of what money the government has spent on weapons.

Your use of the pronoun "they" has made me suspect that your post was based on a common misconception that "communist countries are populated by communists". If that was not the case, I apologize for misreading your words.