North Korea 2nd Nuke Test

[Kisamoo]

You seem to be under the impression that aggressive military actions including the widespread slaughter of civilians brings us freedom and peace.

Hate to break it to you, but that kind of jingoism is slooowly falling out of favor.

Oddly enough, sentiments counter to that did play a role in ending a conflict and bringing peace in the late 60s/early 70s. Nixon even put to words his fears of massive protest and potential revolts, certainly influencing in some part an end to the Vietnam War.

Wha? Is that what you got from my post? I'm just saying if your country is in war, you should be prepared to die for it, soldier or not. I'm not a war monger, I just think citizens should be able to take responsibility for the actions of their country. Is that so hard to understand, really?

Do you honestly believe that any victim of the US will care if you sympathize with them? They'd probably just spit in your face and tell you to go back and live your fat American life style. That's all I mean when I say your morals amount to nothing, especially in the context of this forum. I just don't like seeing people like Mistress come here, spout their ignorant shit and think it makes them better.

[Beckwin]

What if you explicitly do not approve of a war? What if your government lied to you about the reasons for starting a war?

[Kisamoo]

What if you explicitly do not approve of a war? What if your government lied to you about the reasons for starting a war?

So what? The war still happened. In a year or so, it'll become an afterthought, and you'll forget about it. You can blame the president, elect someone else, wash your hands of it and move on. The victims of the war will never forget it though.

The people who should have been able to do something about it, didn't. You know, the civilians of said war-starting country. This is all I mean when I say taking responsibility for your country's actions, irregardless of what your personal beliefs are.

(billion edits, i know, its like 7:30 am, running around getting rdy for work)

[Elvis]

You're calling other people ignorant while at the same time making gross generalizations of 'the other'.

I don't doubt that the victims of imperialism (American 'exceptionalism') and colonialism (Zionism) and the MIC (Military-industrial-complex) are bitter and vengeful but there are also lots of them who are non-violent and peaceful. We may not see them on television, but that does not mean they do not exist.

Also, while it's true we are a democracy and we choose our leaders, do you really think people in this country can correlate our domestic prosperity to our foreign policy?

We enjoy a great amount of freedom in this country. We have equal rights and blah blah. Gay people will be able to marry one day and blah blah blah.

But look at out foreign policy. Take something that is absolutely uncontroversial - the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. We supported this occupation along with Great Britain and Australia (may have been more, but I can't remember).

Can you tell me why? What was the point?

Why do we support the Israelis over the Palestinians? Why do we call Egypt and Jordan, 'moderate' Arab States? Why do we support Saudi Arabia?

Let's dispense with the bullshit that is implied here that governments are moral institutions. They simply aren't.

And those freedoms you're talking about - how were they WON? Won - not handed down by 'the powers that be'.

Did American soldiers give Blacks civil rights? I don't want to imply our Army has never fought nobly overseas for a just cause but a lot of our freedom - in fact, most IMO, was achieved through dissidence and internal strife. Slavery abolished/Civil rights/feminism/Gay and Lesbian rights/international justice and solidarity movements/etc.

A lot of this 'freedom' was not won by 'the State' half-way around the world.

Also, if you're saying that an American citizen is responsible for the imperialist wars fought for resource management then you've justified terrorism.

Civilians are a legitimate target then because they are responsible for the actions of their 'State' (a POLITICAL ENTITY; in this case the USA).

Do most Americans even know what the fudgesicle is going on in the Occupied Territories? Do they know what was going on in East Timor? Blah blah blah. What the hell do I have to do with these policies? Or you for the matter? Do you agree w/ them?

We do not choose where we are born or what we look like or who are parents are. We do not choose so much in life. Why should we be expected to defend our STATE when it behaves like a criminal institution?

I'll defend my country but not 'the State'. My country means more to me than the foreign policy that 'the State' enacts in favor of a small minority of people whose interests run contrary to that of the great majority.

When we have an honest mainstream media and an honest debate on our foreign policy - then we can judge our citizenry on their morality.

[Rammses]

I'm just saying if your country is in war, you should be prepared to die for it, soldier or not. I'm not a war monger, I just think citizens should be able to take responsibility for the actions of their country. Is that so hard to understand, really?

Yes.

Do you honestly believe that any victim of the US will care if you sympathize with them? They'd probably just spit in your face and tell you to go back and live your fat American life style. That's all I mean when I say your morals amount to nothing, especially in the context of this forum. I just don't like seeing people like Mistress come here, spout their ignorant shit and think it makes them.

This is retarded. Do you think you'd have to move to the slums treating the sick and wounded, volunteer for every just war and sacrifice your life for what's good and right to make a positive difference in this world? Sometimes just not writing Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei on a ballot can be sufficient.

[Kisamoo]

In war, yes civilians are legitament targets. All that matters is that you win the war. Is it right? Absolutely not, but they're legitament targets. I know that's hard to grasp, but thats kind of how the world works. I get it, no one is willing to pay for the price for what happened in the past; OKAY, then that simply means there's no point in arguing about it and derailing this NK thread to hell and back is there?

[Senoska]

^ FUCKING NO, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!

[Senoska]

Caps required for how fucking stupid your post was.

[Beckwin]

"how the world works" is well on it's way to being an easy identifier for stupidity

[Plow]

Yeah, it's definitely not "if you're at war civs = targets."


The only question is when it gets to the point where the atrocities of the opponent you're fighting are such that your only option is to basically send civilians of your own, how do you determine the worth of what lives.

Which, quite frankly, is a question that cannot be answered.

[guartz]

but, all is fair in love and war?

[kuronosan]

Wow, this thread derailed quickly.

Can we get back on topic; specifically how any past actions directly correlate to how North Korea is acting now?

[RedRed]

This is the only solution left to us now...

[GRT]

Wow, this thread derailed quickly.

Can we get back on topic; specifically how any past actions directly correlate to how North Korea is acting now?

is why I asked a couple pages back if anyone remember what the reaction was in the U.S. when Mao first successfully detonated a nuclear bomb

[Beckwin]

is why I asked a couple pages back if anyone remember what the reaction was in the U.S. when Mao first successfully detonated a nuclear bomb

we glassed them, right?

[Obev]

Wow, this thread derailed quickly.

Can we get back on topic; specifically how any past actions directly correlate to how North Korea is acting now?

The only "past action" which I could see as correlating to an impoverished starvation economy country spending untold billions on bombs would be the end of the Cold War. Shorn of the nuclear backing of the USSR and faced with an increasingly "capitalist" PRC (yeah, yeah, it's a misleading and inherently false capitalist-socialist dichotomy, but I'm pretty sure the Dear Leader still sees things that way), North Korea might see itself as needing that nuclear muscle which prevented MacArthur from pressing on northwards in '51. Sounds pretty paranoid, but this is the state which thinks kidnapping is a legitimate diplomatic tool.

Of course there's nearly two decades of relative peace in between the Soviet breakdown and today's crisis, and what I've said is merely conjecture. Who knows what the hell Kim Jong-il is thinking - his neighbours (and their allies) unfortunately have to deal with the (hopefully not nuclear) fallout.

[Kisamoo]

I said legitimate targets... not zomg kill all the civs, guys. If they weren't legitimate targets, bombs wouldn't have been dropped on them, etc. When dealing with war you're forced to make tough decisions but in the end it's always for your own survival- even if that means killing civilians. If this wasn't fact, then wars would be foughtly solely with guns but instead we choose to drop bombs carelessly; which guess what, kills civilians!

Afghans riot over air-strike atrocity - Asia, World - The Independent

Civilians casualties are calculated. If that doesn't mean they're legitimate targets and acceptable losses, then I don't know. I don't know how you can expect to drop bombs of that power without expecting civilian casualties.

Civilian Casualties Factor Into War Decisions : NPR

*Edit, fixed sp errors.

[Correction]

legitament

[Rammses]

legitimate*

[GRT]

make a correction, Correction