Team America - World Police

RichieC

Freddie59 wrote: »

Sweet Jesus. They said the same about Hitler. Have we learned NOTHING???

As for China, yeah they leave us alone. Out of sight out of mind and all that. Unless you're Chinese - and living in China.

As I've said on numerous occasions - and you've named them all out - I'll take the Americans ahead of the "alternatives". Anytime.:cool:

actually the problem was they didn't say the same thing about Hitler, it took hitlers army mobilising for anyone to do anything about it. Hitler had fair backing in the US prior to that. their support could have gone either way.

dsmythy

quietriot wrote: »

I'm glad to see Russia and China involved though. The US will not screw with China as china basically own them and the Russians aren't going to be walked over. It might just be what we need to keep them from messing with Iran for the time being.

I'm not anti-US, for whatever it's worth, quite the opposite. I just wish they'd sit down and let everyone get on with their lives rather than dictating the world as they want it and threatening war if they don't get it.

Russia and China acting in humanitarianism of course. The Balkans were left alone to sort themselves out until something had to be done. I'd rather the Middle East didn't do similar except on a wider scale.

It would be great if the "west" could sit back and let countries do as they wish and not expect blowback of the apathy kind rather than the interfering kind. If only. Also remember democracies don't go to war with each other. As I said earlier too better then devil you know. We only miss certain things when they are gone

RichieC

dsmythy wrote: »

Russia and China acting in humanitarianism of course. The Balkans were left alone to sort themselves out until something had to be done. I'd rather the Middle East didn't do similar except on a wider scale.

It would be great if the "west" could sit back and let countries do as they wish and not expect blowback of the apathy kind rather than the interfering kind. If only. Also remember democracies don't go to war with each other. As I said earlier too better then devil you know. We only miss certain things when they are gone

:pac:

dsmythy

RichieC wrote: »

:pac:

I'm going to retract that one on the might of the pacman face /serious

Democracies are a lot less likely to go to war with each other. A hell of a lot less likely.

Deus Ex Machina

chin_grin wrote: »

Reads like an Alex Jones rant.

Alex Jones, famous for his rants, is not even the proprietor of the best rant on his show. That's about all you need to know about him.

RichieC

dsmythy wrote: »

I'm going to retract that one on the might of the pacman face /serious

Democracies are a lot less likely to go to war with each other. A hell of a lot less likely.

Statments from the pro America at any cost lot come with ideological baggage, whos definition of democracy, for instance, Iran has a democratically elected parliament. The answer is, as always "ours" (americas definition), a state with two corporate owned parties, one of the worst examples of democracy in the western world, imo.

dsmythy

RichieC wrote: »

Statments from the pro America at any cost lot come with ideological baggage, who's definition of democracy, for instance, Iran has a democratically elected parliament. The answer is, as always "ours" (americas definition), a state with two corporate owned parties, one of the worst examples of democracy in the western world, imo.

The Iranian "free" parliament has layers above them more important than they are when it comes to the declaration of war. You seem to be focusing on this section of what I said rather than what else I wrote. America closed in on itself would be a disaster for the world. They may get called the great satan but they are clearly only a little devil compared to what else lurks in the world.

RichieC

dsmythy wrote: »

The Iranian "free" parliament has layers above them more important than they are when it comes to the declaration of war. You seem to be focusing on this section of what I said rather than what else I wrote. America closed in on itself would be a disaster for the world. They may get called the great satan but they are clearly only a little devil compared to what else lurks in the world.

again, your statements works great for us living in Ireland England and Europe. but there are people in Iraq who had their whole families destroyed by US hardware, "conservative estimate" of 100k people. countless thousands dead from their campaigns in Latin America during the cold war. Try telling them there's worse things lurking in the world.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, when everywhere else is under their control you don't think they ever decide to come here? noo, sure we're WHITE!

af_thefragile

dsmythy wrote: »

The Iranian "free" parliament has layers above them more important than they are when it comes to the declaration of war. You seem to be focusing on this section of what I said rather than what else I wrote. America closed in on itself would be a disaster for the world. They may get called the great satan but they are clearly only a little devil compared to what else lurks in the world.

And the American government has no such layers? At least Iranian parliament is superseded by religious scholars unlike the American parliament which is pushed around by large corporations and lobbyists.

I don't think the world would be any worse if America wasn't this superpower going around policing the world. In fact the world would be better off as we'ld all be much better financially with less debt if it wasn't for american banks screwing up the world's economy and American corporations exploiting third world workers.

Overheal

RichieC wrote: »

Iran has a democratically elected parliament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932010_Iranian_election_protests

?

dsmythy

RichieC wrote: »

again, your statements works great for us living in Ireland England and Europe. but there are people in Iraq who had their whole families destroyed by US hardware, "conservative estimate" of 100k people. countless thousands dead from their campaigns in Latin America during the cold war. Try telling them there's worse things lurking in the world.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, when everywhere else is under their control you don't think they ever decide to come here? noo, sure we're WHITE!

The 100k in Iraq includes enemy fighters, guerrillas and Iraqis killed by other Iraqis. How many non-enemy combatants did Americans actually kill compared to how many of the same were killed by other Iraqis. Do you have them numbers? Genuinely interested in checking them out.

Iraqis suffered under the American invasion. But they saw a glimpse of the bigger evil when their fellow Iraqis directly set out to kill them because of their ethnicity and/or religious denomination.

You seem to want other countries to be allowed deliver a piece of the misery pile. You can roll the dice and leave the US in the US 1945 onwards after they had vanquished another greater evil in the NAZIs. But I'll stick with this timeline cheers.

af_thefragile

Overheal wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932010_Iranian_election_protests

?

Not unique to Iran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies

RichieC

Overheal wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932010_Iranian_election_protests

?

hilarious coming from a yank.

Overheal

af_thefragile wrote: »

Not unique to Iran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies

You forgot the even more controversial 2000 election. I don't believe either resulted in much widespread rioting or violent crackdowns or media blackouts.

Overheal

RichieC wrote: »

hilarious coming from a yank.

Ad Hominem much? It's a serious question young man, and my nationality has nothing to do with it. You believe that the government of Iran is completely legit?

dsmythy

af_thefragile wrote: »

And the American government has no such layers? At least Iranian parliament is superseded by religious scholars unlike the American parliament which is pushed around by large corporations and lobbyists.

I don't think the world would be any worse if America wasn't this superpower going around policing the world. In fact the world would be better off as we'ld all be much better financially with less debt if it wasn't for american banks screwing up the world's economy and American corporations exploiting third world workers.

Who do you trust not to cause MAD. People trying to make money or religious despots thinking it will take them to heaven a great man. Never a woman of course.

Corporations deliver people of the third world money which doesn't involve prostitution and begging. If you want to step back to the time before this be my guest.

Who should police the world? If you take the Gardaí out of the whole of Ireland what you think happens?

af_thefragile

Overheal wrote: »

You forgot the even more controversial 2000 election. I don't believe either resulted in much widespread rioting or violent crackdowns or media blackouts.

What we see in the news is often exaggerated especially when it comes to countries like Iran.

Remember the depictions of people celebrating in Baghdad as american soldiers pulled down the huge statue of Saddam Hussein which were later found out to be people paid to stand there and then their numbers greatly exaggerated in the media to support the US war propaganda.

Also one can't forget this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

RichieC

Overheal wrote: »

Ad Hominem much? It's a serious question young man, and my nationality has nothing to do with it. You believe that the government of Iran is completely legit?

Not my place to go around saying if certain governments are legit or not. If the Iranians have issue with their government let them sort it out themselves. they certainly don't need to be freedummed like the Iraqis.

Overheal

dsmythy wrote: »

Who do you trust not to cause MAD. People trying to make money or religious despots thinking it will take them to heaven a great man.

I think it's poor reasoning either way. These countries don't exactly have the arsenal to glass the planet like Russia and the United States do. They may be marginally more inclined to deploy the use of them but that's as far as it goes.

Who should police the world? If you take the Gardaí out of the whole of Ireland what you think happens?

The United Nations, not any one Nation.

Overheal

RichieC wrote: »

Iran has a democratically elected parliament.

RichieC wrote: »

Not my place to go around saying if certain governments are legit or not

I accept your apology.

RichieC

Well that was ****...

af_thefragile

dsmythy wrote: »

Who do you trust not to cause MAD. People trying to make money or religious despots thinking it will take them to heaven a great man. Never a woman of course.

Corporations deliver people of the third world money which doesn't involve prostitution and begging. If you want to step back to the time before this be my guest.

Who should police the world? If you take the Gardaí out of the whole of Ireland what you think happens?

No one should police the world. No one country has the right to meddle with the internal affairs of another unless they are being directly attacked.

No people of any nation will welcome a completely foreign country with completely different language and culture to theirs to dictate who they should elect as their leader and what their internal and foreign policy should be.

Imagine the outrage if China decided to threaten USA of an attack and then proceeded to park its naval ships by Hawaii or California?

Also what US corporations do is a blatant exploitation of labour in these third world countries who are bound by enormous debt which their corrupt leaders (who are supported in place by US interests) will do nothing to resolve. If you think the corporations are doing these people a favour by making them work such long hours for minimal wages, then you are very naive and ill informed.

dsmythy

Overheal wrote: »

I think it's poor reasoning either way. These countries don't exactly have the arsenal to glass the planet like Russia and the United States do. They may be marginally more inclined to deploy the use of them but that's as far as it goes.

The United Nations, not any one Nation.

The UN? What they going to do wag fingers, bicker and maybe do a sanction or two? Their dithering would cost lives.

On the deployment point fair enough. People against nuclear proliferation have no power to actually stop it. Those who want nuclear weapons don't care for their pacifist protestations.

Overheal

The UN isn't exactly the League of Nations. That's what the UNSC is for, and the peacekeeping forces.

Their dithering may cost time and lives but so does charging in. I can see both sides to the Iraq issue that people were dying before 2003, and they were dying after 2003. Either way, people die. I can tell you which option is more likely to spark war though.

af_thefragile wrote: »

Also what US corporations do is a blatant exploitation of labour in these third world countries who are bound by enormous debt which their corrupt leaders (who are supported in place by US interests) will do nothing to resolve.

With regard to China what do you think exactly is going on there and what do you think can actually be done about it? If anything, it's the US that owes China money, not the other way around. It's China that ignores copyright law, and I don't think foreign investors are really what are causing the living conditions at places like Foxconn. Not directly, anyway. I would like to know personally what is driving the Chinese to allow such horrible conditions and why they would set up workers for that, I know where companies like Apple are concerned they won't simply pull out of China because their business model depends on the low cost of those components and assemblies.

yermanoffthetv

quietriot wrote: »

They're now doing the same evidence less posturing, including painting Iran as an oppressive, extremist Muslim nation, all on the back of no evidence once again. Oh wait, there could be a bunker underground that nobody could see, right?

People have a right to doubt what the US say. Iran, thus far, hasn't been invading and destroying countries on the back of lies, using their military against residents in foreign nations (US Seal teams taking out Osama in Pakistan), etc.

Id say public executions by hainging from a lampost is oppressive (there are videos, look them up) not to mention the regular floggings beatings and "disappearences". Theres even serious plans to ban the internet as a result of the arab spring uprisings. Pakastan on the other hand is unwilling/unable to combat terrorism in its own country, the US was on their case for years to shore up their boarders and they did nothing about it. Heck there was several documented cases of intell being leaked to terrorist groups from goverment sources. The US could not risk that in taking out bin laden, remember he was camped out for years only a few miles from their largest military academy :rolleyes:

Nobody is stopping Iran from having nuclear power...provided they follow the IAEA rules and allow independant inspectors to moniter the production usage and disposal of nuclear fuel and materials. If you dont allow this process then obviously you are trying to produce a nuclear weapon or supply nuclear materials to nefarious groups. North Korea was offered 2 light water reactors and fuel supplies until they were built if they abided by the 6 party talks. They didnt, and now they have nuclear weapons and have a much stronger negotiating tool as a result. Imagine Iran in a similar position, you can guarantee fuel prices would skyrocket within a few months.

RichieC

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

North Korea was offered 2 light water reactors and fuel supplies until they were built if they abided by the 6 party talks. They didnt, and now they have nuclear weapons and have a much stronger negotiating tool as a result. Imagine Iran in a similar position, you can guarantee fuel prices would skyrocket within a few months.

This is the crux of it. stopping Iran having the power to tell others to go and fk off out of their business.

Overheal

RichieC wrote: »

This is the crux of it. stopping Iran having the power to tell others to go and fk off out of their business.

On the other hand do you think DPRK should just be left alone to violate human rights?

dsmythy

af_thefragile wrote: »

No one should police the world. No one country has the right to meddle with the internal affairs of another unless they are being directly attacked.

No people of any nation will welcome a completely foreign country with completely different language and culture to theirs to dictate who they should elect as their leader and what their internal and foreign policy should be.

Imagine the outrage if China decided to threaten USA of an attack and then proceeded to park its naval ships by Hawaii or California?

Also what US corporations do is a blatant exploitation of labour in these third world countries who are bound by enormous debt which their corrupt leaders (who are supported in place by US interests) will do nothing to resolve. If you think the corporations are doing these people a favour by making them work such long hours for minimal wages, then you are very naive and ill informed.

You advocate wait until they have built themselves up and have the power to actually attack before finally getting militarily involved. I dont want to fall back to WW2 all the time but the German army in 1937 and 1939 were different beasts. If only.

Maybe in 80 years the Iraqis might have wriggled out from under the boot of the Hussein dynasty or whatever other power decided to take control instead. I see a freer future for them post intervention which they will grow to prefer.

China wouldn't do that because of American might and proven willingness to use it. Much like I suspect the US wont do anything to Iran because Russia and China are in the background enabling the country to build what horrors they wish. The American people aren't crying for freedom from brutes because they do not exist.

I'm not saying corporations have third world workers empowerment as their aim however in India for example what's the average foreign corporation unskilled manufacturing wage versus the average Indian owned company one? In Africa I think it might be even more vital though it's the Chinese doing the dirty work there these days. If those jobs dont exist many of those people would be begging on the streets or selling their bodies I'm always confused by people's willingness to leave people to prostitution rather than be "exploited" working. Again we are back to the lesser of two evils.

You say I'm naive? I'm surrounded by idealists here. Nothing wrong with that but it wont help anyone.

electrobanana

Lets hope the republicans don't get back into power in the US after the elections them lads love a good aul war.

Pissmire

It's about enslaving the human race, controlling all natural resources and food production. Halliburton and Monsanto, leaders in their fields of expertise, stalk the corridors of power in the US.

AngryBollix

A nice bit of an aul nuclear war might be a good reason to start watching the news again

RichieC

Pissmire wrote: »

It's about enslaving the human race, controlling all natural resources and food production. Halliburton and Monsanto, leaders in their fields of expertise, stalk the corridors of power in the US.

No, it really isn't, that's just a side product of their greed and corruption.

carbon nanotube

sebastianlieken wrote: »

Team America - World Police Bullies

So I've been following the news latley about Iran's Nuclear Interest, and can't help but reading it somewhat like this:



Iran developing technology to build nuclear power plant to power country, hence removing it's dependance on oil. Team america says "No, you're not allowed to develope WMD's!... Iran is like "wtf, who said anything about weapons of mass destruction you war mongering bigot?!...we're making a power plant!", Team America says "no no no, No Nuclear Bombs for you!!!", Iran rolls eyes saying "Nuclear power plant. Idiot... like you're one to talk about nuclear bombs *cough* hiroshima, nagasaki *cough*. Team america gets pissy and says "FUCK YOU", then proceeds to scuttle off to his friends the EU and gets them to gang up with him against Iran. Now US and EU impose imbargo that Iran cannot export oil to anybody anymore. Not to china, south korea, Japan, ANYONE. Iran get's annoyed and says FINE, then i'm not going to let you use our big canal at the Straight of Hormuz. Team America is like "watch me", and strolls in with US aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincon with his buddies; a British Royal Navy Frigate and a French Warship. (FYI, the USS Abreham Lincoln is a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. IT IS... wait for it.... NUCLEAR POWERED!)

poor iran

par-agra-phs-by-any-cha-nce?

RichieC

Overheal wrote: »

On the other hand do you think DPRK should just be left alone to violate human rights?

Stop pretending this about human rights abuses. It's about gaining control of Iran.

Spacedog

TRUTH, ART & POLITICS
Harold Pinters Nobel Acceptance Speech 2005

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1zVzyDuSPk

/thread

Bannasidhe

Freddie59 wrote: »

Ah yeah, sure them Iranians are such an open, free, and democratic Government.:rolleyes:

Yeah - they should learn from the Land of the Free what democracy is really about:

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012[1] was signed into United States law on December 31, 2011 by President Barack Obama.

The Act authorizes $662 billion in funding, among other things "for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad." In a signing statement, President Obama described the Act as addressing national security programs, Department of Defense health care costs, counter-terrorism within the U.S. and abroad, and military modernization.

The Act also imposes new economic sanctions against Iran (section 1045), commissions reviews of the military capabilities of countries such as Iran, China, and Russia, and refocuses the strategic goals of NATO towards energy security.

The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention are contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, have generated controversy as to their legal meaning and their potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority.
Although the White House and Senate sponsors maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.[
The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

Did they learn nothing from the McCarthy years? Apparently not - now the government of the US has given itself the technical authority to instigate the arrest of US citizens, on US soil, by members of the US armed forces. So much for due process and the Bill of Rights...:rolleyes:

Overheal

RichieC wrote: »

Stop pretending this about human rights abuses. It's about gaining control of Iran.

Stop evading my rather simple direct question? Do you think that DPRK should be left alone to commit human rights abuses. I'm not placing this question in any context to Iran. This is an AH thread about World Policing.

Overheal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yeah - they should learn from the Land of the Free what democracy is really about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

Did they learn nothing from the McCarthy years? Apparently not - now the government of the US has given itself the technical authority to instigate the arrest of US citizens, on US soil, by members of the US armed forces. So much for due process and the Bill of Rights...:rolleyes:

Old news. They already had the technical authority. And anyway,

http://www.ology.com/politics/ron-paul-introduces-legislation-repeal-indefinite-detention-provisions-ndaa/01222012

In the grand scope of what we're talking about though the ability to detain US citizens, one which isn't really being exercized all that much if at all, this seems like minutiae.

Bannasidhe

Overheal wrote: »

Old news. They already had the technical authority. And anyway,

http://www.ology.com/politics/ron-paul-introduces-legislation-repeal-indefinite-detention-provisions-ndaa/01222012

In the grand scope of what we're talking about though the ability to detain US citizens, one which isn't really being exercized all that much if at all, this seems like minutiae.

Whether it is being exercised or not is hardly the issue when the legislation that allows it to be exercised in on the Statute Books.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It would appear that now the fact that the government has suspicions can be deemed probable cause.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused;

Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Will be interesting to see how that one is (re) interpreted.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Being arrested and detained by member of the armed forces based on suspicion - seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me. Unless one lives in a totalitarian state obviously, in which case it would be par for the course.

Forgive me if I am sceptical but I have a serious doubt that a country that went to war based on completely false evidence re:WMD would be overly concerned about the legal niceties around what constitutes a firm foundation to base suspicions on.

Overheal

The supreme court regularly butcher legislation for being unconstitutional. It's still unclear whether the SC will challenge the section in the appropriation bill.

On a side note,

Being arrested and detained by member of the armed forces based on suspicion - seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me.

I'm sure people try that one all the time when they are thrown in a cell by the police. I'm pretty damn sure they were discussing torture and mutilation among other things. The mere act of being detained is not enough to call it cruel and unusual, you're not given enough information about the conditions of the detention by that alone.

Marcus_Crassus

Overheal wrote: »

Stop evading my rather simple direct question? Do you think that DPRK should be left alone to commit human rights abuses. I'm not placing this question in any context to Iran. This is an AH thread about World Policing.

Why has the U.S. taken it upon themselves to police the world? They have no business intervening in the internal politics of other nations.

The truth is that the U.S. only intervenes and topples a dictatorship when it suits them! Do not take the moral high-ground by promulgating otherwise. More often than not the U.S. is installing dictators rather than toppling them -- and that's irrefutable.

They've been intervening in the politics of the Middle East and Central and South America for decades in the fervent hope that they can mollify everyone by installing pro-western governments.

Where were they to mediate the conflicts in the Congo when millions were dying? Since WW2, the wars in the Congo were by far the most sanguinary. Over 7 million died.

As I said, the U.S. only help when they could be bothered, or where they see an opportunity for themselves. They're not munificent. They're not magnanimous.

Overheal

Marcus_Crassus wrote: »

Why has the U.S. taken it upon themselves to police the world? They have no business intervening in the internal politics of other nations.

The truth is that the U.S. only intervenes and topples a dictatorship when it suits them! Do not take the moral high-ground by promulgating otherwise. More often than not the U.S. is installing dictators rather than toppling them -- and that's irrefutable.

They've been intervening in the politics of the Middle East and Central and South America for decades in the fervent hope that they can mollify everyone by installing pro-western governments.

Where were they to mediate the conflicts in the Congo when millions were dying? Since WW2, the wars in the Congo were by far the most sanguinary. Over 7 million died.

As I said, the U.S. only help when they could be bothered, or where they see an opportunity for themselves. They're not munificent. They're not magnanimous.

...OK. ?

Maybe you didn't read the thread or know where I was coming from, but I don't think the United States should take it upon itself to police the world either. So the whole thing about moral high ground and pomegranates doesn't make much sense to me. It's not that hard to see that you are just projecting a bunch of political stereotypes directly unto me which don't actually fit any of the views that I have expressed.

I know I've asked this twice now but what's a third time between friends? What would any of you do, with regard to the situation in The DPRK? I thought it was a fairly straightforward question, but both times thus far I've been met with bigoted responses that revolve around the fact that I happen to be an American asking a simple question. Do I need to create a multiple choice answer for you? Why are you all so afraid to respond directly? I mean hell I'll make it even simpler for you, let's just remove Ameriker out of the scenario. Let's say America doesn't exist, it's only America, fcuk it. Boom. It's gone. Ron Paul is the President and he says "Fcuk you world, deal with your own sh*t" and the United States has crawled back up it's own anal cavity. Now, what does the rest of the world do about North Korea? Does the rest of the world just let it keep happening? Wag their finger at the problem? Send France and Germany in? Leave them around to their human rights abuses? You tell me, no option is unavailable here. You can be as creative as you like, so long as you extend some common courtesy and give the question a straight answer.

Marcus_Crassus

Overheal wrote: »

...OK. ?

Maybe you didn't read the thread or know where I was coming from, but I don't think the United States should take it upon itself to police the world either. So the whole thing about moral high ground and pomegranates doesn't make much sense to me.

I know I've asked this twice now but what's a third time between friends? What would any of you do, with regard to the situation in The DPRK? I thought it was a fairly straightforward question, but both times thus far I've been met with bigoted responses that revolve around the fact that I happen to be an American asking a simple question. Do I need to create a multiple choice answer for you? Why are you all so afraid to respond directly?

Eh, but the whole idea of stopping the DPRK comes under the world policing bit, you realise that, right? So yeah, they should stop policing the world. There's your answer. Is that simple enough?

I think my response was fair, and everything led up to explaining my final point -- non-interventionism. You can't just start picking and choosing which conflicts to get involved in to suit yourselves.

Right, for argument's sake, let's say the U.S. invade the DPRK and liberate these people, where does it stop? Any other countries that suit the U.S. to bomb? The DPRK aren't the only ones breaking rules.

Overheal

I think we're arguing around eachother here. I'm not interested in the US being the World Police. The United Nations and the League of Nations before them have tried similar things though. I'm asking what should the UN do about the situation in DPRK, since it's clear the US isn't going to act? Just thinking out loud.

Right, for argument's sake, let's say the U.S. invade the DPRK and liberate these people, where does it stop? Any other countries that suit the U.S. to bomb? The DPRK aren't the only ones breaking rules.

Indeed. And in the case of DPRK they proliferated their nukes without much outside interference. Not enough to prevent it at any rate. Is the logical conclusion though that more and more states with proliferate nuclear arsenals and what kind of trouble does that spell? In one respect they are just securing their sovereignty but in another what happens if X goes to war with Y and one or both of them are nuclear-armed? Or should we just hope the world gets to some point where everyone has nukes, everyone is afraid to screw with eachother and everyone turns a blind eye to what might happen over at someone else's gaff?

Freddie59

Marcus_Crassus wrote: »

Why has the U.S. taken it upon themselves to police the world? They have no business intervening in the internal politics of other nations.

The truth is that the U.S. only intervenes and topples a dictatorship when it suits them! Do not take the moral high-ground by promulgating otherwise. More often than not the U.S. is installing dictators rather than toppling them -- and that's irrefutable.

They've been intervening in the politics of the Middle East and Central and South America for decades in the fervent hope that they can mollify everyone by installing pro-western governments.

Where were they to mediate the conflicts in the Congo when millions were dying? Since WW2, the wars in the Congo were by far the most sanguinary. Over 7 million died.

As I said, the U.S. only help when they could be bothered, or where they see an opportunity for themselves. They're not munificent. They're not magnanimous.

Yep. You're right. But, heck, the world would be a far darker place without them. No two ways about it.

Freddie59

Marcus_Crassus wrote: »

non-interventionism

Also known as appeasement. Chamberlain tried it in 1938. Look where that got us. It is not that simple. There will always be the bully-boys and thugs like NK and Iran, who treat their population like scum and then want to do the same to the rest of us. Thankfully a nation has the balls to stand up and say no on our behalf.

Freddie59

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yeah - they should learn from the Land of the Free what democracy is really about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

Did they learn nothing from the McCarthy years? Apparently not - now the government of the US has given itself the technical authority to instigate the arrest of US citizens, on US soil, by members of the US armed forces. So much for due process and the Bill of Rights...:rolleyes:

Yeah, that Iranian dictatorship really condones a free and open society - like in the West? Give me a fcuking break. Yes the Yanks were (and are) paranoid. No two ways about it. But to compare that thug Ahmedinejad's regime to them is laughable really.

Bannasidhe

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yeah, that Iranian dictatorship really condones a free and open society - like in the West? Give me a fcuking break. Yes the Yanks were (and are) paranoid. No two ways about it. But to compare that thug Ahmedinejad's regime to them is laughable really.

I didn't compare them.
I merely pointed out that the US is not quite the bastion of liberty and democracy it claims to be and it has just enacted legislation to be used against its own citizens that any totalitarian regime would be proud of. Whether or not the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional - and I really hope it does - remains to be seen. Until such time, it is still the law in the US.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

And if the only response the West has to regime's like Ahmedinejad's is to remove basic civil rights from its own citizens - then the thugs win.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

...............

I know I've asked this twice now but what's a third time between friends? What would any of you do, with regard to the situation in The DPRK? I thought it was a fairly straightforward question, but both times thus far I've been met with bigoted responses that revolve around the fact that I happen to be an American asking a simple question. Do I need to create a multiple choice answer for you? Why are you all so afraid to respond directly? I mean hell I'll make it even simpler for you, let's just remove Ameriker out of the scenario. Let's say America doesn't exist, it's only America, fcuk it. Boom. It's gone. Ron Paul is the President and he says "Fcuk you world, deal with your own sh*t" and the United States has crawled back up it's own anal cavity. Now, what does the rest of the world do about North Korea? Does the rest of the world just let it keep happening? Wag their finger at the problem? Send France and Germany in? Leave them around to their human rights abuses? You tell me, no option is unavailable here. You can be as creative as you like, so long as you extend some common courtesy and give the question a straight answer.

....the US has stopped abuses in North Korea?

Bluefoam

Freddie59 wrote: »

There will always be the bully-boys and thugs like NK and Iran, who treat their population like scum and then want to do the same to the rest of us. Thankfully a nation has the balls to stand up and say no on our behalf.

1. If they are so concerned about individuals being bullied by their leaders, why don't they go after Zimbabwe or Nigeria. Oil?

2. Not on my behalf!