Author Topic: why the double standard (Read 1185 times)

Hortlund · « **Reply #30 on:** March 11, 2003, 10:41:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
you are acting like a retard.

I guess it's now personnal ,because I posted it.

I doesnt really bother me if you call me a retard or something like that. I would mind if you called me a nazi, just as I'm sure you would mind if I called you a pedophile or something like that.

But when you call my dead relatives cowards because they were raped and butchered by Soviets in 1945 I do mind. They were kids.

straffo · « **Reply #31 on:** March 11, 2003, 11:07:43 AM »

And when mine are killed by some nazi butcher it's just a non-allied war crime.

I've no word to define how abject you are.

Krusher · « **Reply #32 on:** March 11, 2003, 11:11:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrLars
It's funny < sic > how the topic of the evening on the news/talk/entertainment shows suddenly becomes the topic of the day in this forum. For some, this topic isn't new but when Hanity/O'Reilly or now even Savage gets hold of it becomes a hot topic.

Just an observation from a lemming who refuses to run with the pack

I dont watch any of those shows. I dont listen to Rush or Savage and I get almost all of my news from the 5:00 pm news, local paper, internet and sunday talk shows.. working 10 to 12 hours a day dosnt leave much time for TV. I actualy fly Aces High when I am home and have the time.

But thanks for assuming I get my opinion the california way

Habu · « **Reply #33 on:** March 11, 2003, 11:24:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
Habu:
French unilateralism in Africa:

West Africa

More west Africa

And some more

Haby, all those examples are french cooperating with the Ivory Coast legally recognised government on their request, not invading it.

Krusher: Russian and China should be major players in NK talks (after all they built NK), but they both dont want anything to do with it.
Anyone want to guess why?

They did not agree to diplomatically recognise the legitimacy of NK government in 1994 in return for NK not aquiring nuclear weapons only to renege on that promise? And we see what eventually happens to the governments US urges to disarm but does not recognise as legitimate - or rather we will soon.

miko

I have a problem with it being ok for France to support a corrupt government without UN approval while it is not ok for the US to attack a corrupt government without UN approval.

In fact France seems to love supporting corrupt governments aka Zimbabwe and Iraq.

Hortlund · « **Reply #34 on:** March 11, 2003, 11:29:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
I've no word to define how abject you are.

I dont even think that is a word.

majic · « **Reply #35 on:** March 11, 2003, 11:38:18 AM »

Its a word Hortlund, grab your dictionary.

Dowding · « **Reply #36 on:** March 11, 2003, 11:38:32 AM »

'Abject' is a word, Hortlund.

Quote

My current elected office of "Anti-American Moderator" charges me with the task of seeking out those who detract from conversation, as opposed to add to it.

It is my priviledge and responsibility to flame those who attempt to cause trouble by means of confusion and open ended questioning.

Such behavior will not be tolerated on these forums.

That is all.

Your definition of 'Anti-American' is about as broad and generalised as your delusions of grandeur.

Hortlund · « **Reply #37 on:** March 11, 2003, 11:43:37 AM »

Well...dont hold back..what does it mean?

miko2d · « **Reply #38 on:** March 11, 2003, 11:45:36 AM »

Habu: I have a problem with it being ok for France to support a corrupt government without UN approval while it is not ok for the US to attack a corrupt government without UN approval.

Tough luck - the international laws and customs of the last few centuries were adopted to minimise international conflicts rather than facilitate them.
Nobody expects you to love the other country's government, but once it is recognised as legitimate, there are rules you must follow.

Plenty of Ivorians(?) do not believe that their government is corrupt while plenty of americans believe theirs is. That does not give any other countries a right to go knocking other governments down whenever they feel like it.

US supported and still supports way many more corrupt oppressive regimes than France ever did. In fact, World Trade Center in my city got destroyed on 9/11/2001 by our former allies exactly because US government supported evil corrupt feudal Saudi regime against it's population and kept troops there.
That does not make Al-Qaeda act legal.

Anyway, you are just being ridiculous. According to your logic, if you can invite a plumber or a pest exterminator into your house to help with a problem without clearing it with police, that means you can break in into other people's houses and kill them and redecorate their home whenever you wish - if you do not like what they do with their place. Doesn't work like that.

miko

Habu · « **Reply #39 on:** March 11, 2003, 11:52:33 AM »

The US is smart to ignore NK right now.

NK is on the verge of collapse. They are doing all of this now to try to blackmail the West for money like they did back in the early 90's.

They did not live up to that agreement and there is no reason to expect they would live up to a new agreement.

South Korea elected a leader who campaigned on the platform of changing (i.e. distancing) the relationship SK has with the US. There were massive anti US protests in SK over the past year by students too young to know the horror of the last war.

Now the US has said that it may pull its troops back from the DMZ and redeploy them farther south, (out of the range of NK artillery).

That is a brilliant move. What that does is tell SK that if you want to go it alone feel free. The US will not sacrifice 35,000 lives to protect you if you do not support them 100%. If the south wants the US out then the US should leave and let China and Japan worry about NK. It is a problem on their doorstep and it is irresponsible that they are not taking a more active role in dealing with Mr Kim Jong II.

What that tells NK is that there is a now a possibility that the US could retaliate militarily as they have means to protect those troops now that they are out of range of the North's fixed guns.

But the best strategy is to play the waiting game. NK is devoting huge resources to its military and it cannot sustain the budget. At night by satellite the whole country is dark. There is not electricity to light even the cities contrasted to the bright lights of the south. Once the country starts to starve and the economy collapses then they will have to change their policies. Total isolation works is the whole world is on board. If any countries try to bypass the isolation then the US should go after them, either economically or politically.

(edit to fix the repeated paragraphs)

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #40 on:** March 11, 2003, 12:03:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding

Your definition of 'Anti-American' is about as broad and generalised as your delusions of grandeur.

This is your final warning.

Cease all "grey" activities...

...or I will taunt you a second time-ah!

Toad · « **Reply #41 on:** March 11, 2003, 12:24:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saintaw
Call me selfish, but I have family in Japan...

I wouldn't call you selfish, I'd call you concerned.

But tell me, why do you think it is solely the responsibility of the United States to deal with this problem?

NK, by self admission violated the terms of the "Agreed Framework" almost immediately after it was signed with their uranium enrichment program.

The IAEA, the same outfit working in Iraq to disarm them and watchdog of the NPT, has put the case before the UN SC due to the serious nature of the issue.

You are aware that US troops serve in South Korea under the United Nations Command, right? It's the Blue Flag that flies over the SK side of the DMZ.

I would think you'd be pressing for the UN SC to discuss this problem and find a peaceful solution.

You might start with petitioning France, Russia and China, the most non-interventionist permanent members of the SC. I'm sure if they put forth a meaningful resolution, both the UK and the US would support it.

gofaster · « **Reply #42 on:** March 11, 2003, 12:31:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raubvogel
North Korea has nothing to offer and doesn't owe European countries (read France and Germany) large sums of money? Just a guess, honestly don't know.

You're close. Its because NK has no diamonds, no oil, and no white slavery rings!

Nixon started it with his oil embargos to drive up the price of domestic oil. Ford was an idiot and sat on his hands too long and OPEC pulled back on their production so that their prices would match the rates the US suppliers were charging - hey the sheiks were getting screwed out of revenue per barrel and wanted their piece of the action! To keep the sheiks at bay, Carter went to Egypt back in the '70s to broker a deal for Russian white slave prostitutes being ferried inside empty missile tubes (the whole "peace with Israel" thing was just a cover to set up a diamond cartel). Kissinger went along with it because he was part of the secret diamond cartels in West Germany selling stones shipped through Tel Aviv and his NY connections completed the precious gemstone triad between Moscow and South Africa, so he knew he could get diamonds across borders if he kept mum on the prostitute thing. Those diamonds were being mined by al Queda cells who used the funds to purchase US Sidewinders - the same missiles bringing down Soviet MiL helicopters in Afghanistan in the '80s! Reagan was in on it, which is why the Iranian Muslim fundamentalists held the US hostages in '79 until after the US presidential election was over - Carter could get off scot-free since he was no longer in office but was still entitled to immunity from prosecution overseas! Khomeini was all about the oil but he bartered in diamonds to keep the market up. He knew he could only keep power so long as he had the diamond merchants backing him up. Bush learned all about this during Reagan's turn in the White House and used those connections to expand the white slave prostitution ring and diamond brokering operation into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm so that he could get friendly oil rates in exchange for white slaves. Clinton risked blowing the whole thing apart. Clinton "got high on his own supply" which is where Lewinsky fit into the picture. When that white prostitution scandal hit the papers, Clinton had to back off on the oil and diamond operations. You ever wonder why Clinton remained in office? Because he had the oil and diamond guys backing him up! They knew where Clinton stood and they wanted to keep him in office rather than risk some loose cannon blowing the lid off the whole thing. So along comes Bush Part Two and he's back after Iraq. Coincidence? I think not! He's pushing his dad's agenda - OIL!

miko2d · « **Reply #43 on:** March 11, 2003, 12:39:19 PM »

Habu: NK is on the verge of collapse. They are doing all of this now to try to blackmail the West for money like they did back in the early 90's.

They did not live up to that agreement and there is no reason to expect they would live up to a new agreement.

They agreed to not aquire nukes in return for US recongising them. Of course they are lying communist bastartd but it does not change the fact that this particular agreement was broken by US. Which would not be a big deal if US government and media was not trying to decevie our own people about what really happened.

At night by satellite the whole country is dark. There is not electricity to light even the cities contrasted to the bright lights of the south.

That's why they are building all those nuclear stations.

Once the country starts to starve and the economy collapses

Done already.

then they will have to change their policies.

Not realy. They can always make a bundle of money selling nukes, more missles and submarines to countries not as technologically developed.

Total isolation works is the whole world is on board.

If they are really crumbling and Kim faces the same fate as Chaushesky, what's to stop him from nuking Japain and invading SK? Nothing. They realise that and will come up with any help necessary. China as well. It does not need all that fallout from the US nukes dropped on NK in retaliation.

If any countries try to bypass the isolation then the US should go after them, either economically or politically.

Oh, yeah - I imagine that Japanese, South Koreans and Chinese will be very unhappy with US forcing them to get nuked by North Koreans...

This whole thing is one huge Catch-22. The 37,000 US troops there serve no purpose other than diplomatic and being a tripwire. With NK posessing exellent long-range missles and nukes there is no place in the hemisphere you could withdraw them to spare them from NK strike, if they decide to go with it. May as well withdraw them to US to save some cash.

miko

hawk220 · « **Reply #44 on:** March 11, 2003, 12:43:10 PM »

Krusher, to answer your question (and apply some form of spin control to a wildly hijacked thread)

you asked:
On Iraq everyone wants the US to act with the UN's approval. On NK everyone wants the US to go it alone. Russian and China should be major players in NK talks (after all they built NK), but they both dont want anything to do with it.

I think the reason is simple: NK will actually put up a fight (and probably a half-way decent one at that) and a war with them is not a foregone conclusion of victory. Or a victory would/will come at a very heavy price. I think the NK leader is a nutcase, (even more than SH) and would drop his A bombs on an advancing army or navy. so why would China or Russia want to get a million troops melted when the US can?

whereas Iraq is essentially the world's squeak. They will (and have) surrenedered to people holding video recorders. They are a military joke and the world knows it. hell, I'll bet the National Guard from ANY one of the 50 states could prolly take the whole damn country.