Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NS.com Thug

Your Opinion

Recommended Posts

You keep pumping out the unfounded opinions, ill keep pumping out the dumb comments.

Unfounded?

So a war between nations armed with nukes does not hold the possibility of nuclear war?

And a nuclear war does not hold the very real possibility of our own destruction?

 

Let's face it, you are just trying to pick flaws in everything i say, and you are failing, badly. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look at the cold war, no-body is stupid enough to launch a nuke simply due to the fear of mutual destruction. (purely my opinion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take a look at the cold war, no-body is stupid enough to launch a nuke simply due to the fear of mutual destruction. (purely my opinion).

 

But this is the Kim family we're talking about, they haven't shown themselves to be particularly rational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take a look at the cold war, no-body is stupid enough to launch a nuke simply due to the fear of mutual destruction. (purely my opinion).

 

But this is the Kim family we're talking about, they haven't shown themselves to be particularly rational.

slide1.jpg

 

"oh lkt004, you bwaking my balls..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, if North Korea like Iraq havn't commited any evil deeds yet, then I can't see any problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take a look at the cold war, no-body is stupid enough to launch a nuke simply due to the fear of mutual destruction. (purely my opinion).

And what if one of these powers is facing total destruction from the other one, because they are losing the war?

They have nothing to lose, so why not take the rest of the world with them?

It doesn't even need to be the country at risk.

If the leader of this country is at risk of being overthrown and killed, what is stopping him from using nukes as a last resort?

 

The point is, there is a lot more at stake when attacking a nuclear power. And not just NK, but China and Russia might get involved if the sequence of events get out of control. They may seem ok now, but lot's of things can happen in a war that may change that, especially with a country with a history as shaky as NK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take a look at the cold war, no-body is stupid enough to launch a nuke simply due to the fear of mutual destruction. (purely my opinion).

And what if one of these powers is facing total destruction from the other one, because they are losing the war?

They have nothing to lose, so why not take the rest of the world with them?

It doesn't even need to be the country at risk.

If the leader of this country is at risk of being overthrown and killed, what is stopping him from using nukes as a last resort?

 

The point is, there is a lot more at stake when attacking a nuclear power. And not just NK, but China and Russia might get involved if the sequence of events get out of control. They may seem ok now, but lot's of things can happen in a war that may change that, especially with a country with a history as shaky as NK.

 

Which is why imo the US would be better off neutralising the threat now instead of dicking around in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Take a look at the cold war, no-body is stupid enough to launch a nuke simply due to the fear of mutual destruction. (purely my opinion).

And what if one of these powers is facing total destruction from the other one, because they are losing the war?

They have nothing to lose, so why not take the rest of the world with them?

It doesn't even need to be the country at risk.

If the leader of this country is at risk of being overthrown and killed, what is stopping him from using nukes as a last resort?

 

The point is, there is a lot more at stake when attacking a nuclear power. And not just NK, but China and Russia might get involved if the sequence of events get out of control. They may seem ok now, but lot's of things can happen in a war that may change that, especially with a country with a history as shaky as NK.

 

Which is why imo the US would be better off neutralising the threat now instead of dicking around in Iraq.

This may be true, i don't know enough on the current situation to make that call.

 

I'm not arguing on wether or not they should, i am arguing against the claims that they are doing nothing, just because they haven't sent in the army to wipe out NK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

people are going to get their period-stained panties in a twist over this but.....

 

under a communist or fascist government there is NO place for terrorism - so leaders like Saddam serve a purpose.

 

Jemaah Islamiah only became prevelant in Indonesia after the fall of Suharto.

Nobody dared to act out under Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam, Kim Jong Il, etc.

 

Democracy allows for terrorism to occur. If everybody is afraid of their government listening to them, spying on them, of their neighbours dobbing them in for having a faulty light globe, etc NOBODY will act out and get away with it.

 

*this doesn't meant i support a communist/fascist society - i like being able to call my PM a wanker in public. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
agree with Han

 

Sadam was no worse than dozens of other governments in central asia (eg Burma) Africa (eg mugabe etc) and south america.

 

Why did saddam have to go all of a sudden and why are they doing nothing about N Korea who have blatantly admitted they have WMDs (shit they test em every couple of months) - who voice more anti american rhetoric than Saddam ever did, and yet they do nothing.

 

OIL

 

Thats why.

 

Having said that tho america is on her knees. She no longer rules the world unchallenged and the hypocracy they call the United states will no longer shape the events of the world.

 

ahhh yes the legendary oil argument...

 

amount of truth in it??? none.... the US would have been far better off invading Saudi Arabia or Iran for oil supplies... Iraq is oil rich but not as oil rich as those to countries... IMHO i believe its Iraq is and will always be just a staging point... it is just one big scheme to gain geographical dominance in the region and provide for quick action in the region... trouble is Saddam Hussain would not exactly agree to have a major US military base in the region... so you would do the next best thing invade the country... with dominance over the geographical area, you can then control the area and control any rouge nation who might... lets say create an oil embargo on the US and its "Allies", if an oil embargo occurs the US would most likely quickly be able to contain the situation and insure its oil supplies and its economy remain preserved before the embargo would hurt the economy and oil prices... what im am trying to do is give a scenario similar to the 1973 Oil Crisis, this was when numorous countries such as Saudi Arabia, to an extent halted oil production which virtually crippled the US economy at that time, during this time, Isreal was conducting military excersice against "rouge" middle eastern nations (nations which were trying to take down Isreal) the embargo occured because the US was provide Isreal with arms... trouble is the US wasn't really counting on an uncontrollable insergency and a 3 trillion dollar war... so when you look at the situation it was a colossal failure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you all know that there is a slight chance everything we know about our own governments MAY be completely false...

 

 

seriously how do WE know what the government actually does when it comes to DEFENCE...

my opinion on the matter is that for every one thing the government ACTUALLY tells us there are TEN other issues that must be held from the nation.

 

 

 

in saying that, who has actually seen the good things that people over in iraq have done for the people of that country, not too many so really not many people can come on here and claim that america has done this and has done that to iraq... you havnt been there so you really dont know.

 

 

 

 

i'm not saying i know but i'm just making it completely obvious that no one here really has the right to say what is right and what is wrong on the subject... were merely pawns in the governments plans...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm staying out of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

White western people need to run everything.

 

Look around the world and the biggest problem areas are middle east and Africa.

 

South Africa was under control until they gave the blacks power.

 

 

harsh maybe, true definitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely off topic, but following all this North Korea talk, has anyone else seen Tae Guk Ki (Brotherhood of war). Excellent but very depressing film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White western people need to run everything.

 

Look around the world and the biggest problem areas are middle east and Africa.

 

South Africa was under control until they gave the blacks power.

 

 

harsh maybe, true definitely.

 

I'm a white western person. I feel I'm probably fairly similar to most other white western people. I do not feel a need to run everything or anything.

 

If what you are saying is true then why is virtually every single Dutch, British, German and French colony/protectorate in Africa, Asia and the Americas now independent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White western people need to run everything.

 

Look around the world and the biggest problem areas are middle east and Africa.

 

South Africa was under control until they gave the blacks power.

 

 

harsh maybe, true definitely.

 

I'm a white western person. I feel I'm probably fairly similar to most other white western people. I do not feel a need to run everything or anything.

 

If what you are saying is true then why is virtually every single Dutch, British, German and French colony/protectorate in Africa, Asia and the Americas now independent?

 

they foolishly thought they could manage themselves.

 

Are you arguing that Africa is in a better state under black rule rather then white?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China did not, and does not, need to be run by white people.

 

They effectively run Singapore, and Singapore is doing a hell of a lot better after the British got the hell out in 1965.

 

World GDP:

pct-world-gdp-1500.jpg

 

Note they lost ground during the Industrial Revolution and the rise of the United States. Predictions have it they will be back as the highest GDP in the world by 2030.

 

Therefore your statement that "white people need to run everything" is null and void.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^my judgement was based on Africa and the ME, not china.

 

China may well be excelling in some areas but its doing at the cost of its people and the environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly like the western world did during their years of major growth. Atleast they aren't building their infrastructure with official "slaves."

 

You have to admit, you did say "everything." Be more specific next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush's dad couldn't get it done the first gulf war, I have no doubt that bush jr. was just trying to finish what his father couldn't and used 9/11 as a catalyst.

 

Either way I don't care, I would be all for the invasion if it actually REDUCED the cost of fuel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush's dad couldn't get it done the first gulf war, I have no doubt that bush jr. was just trying to finish what his father couldn't and used 9/11 as a catalyst.

People often forget theres actually 2 wars America is involved with in the Middle East.

 

The one in Afghanistan and the one in Iraq.

 

Afghanistan was against the terrorists that supposedly purportraited 9/11.

 

Iraq was originally "to find WMD's" - then once they were in, and knew they couldn't continue to convince the world there were any, they spun it by saying they were freeing the people.

 

When insurgents in Iraq fought back, they called them terrorists, and melded the two wars into one in the minds of western societies, and subsequently can continue to justify the fight in Iraq as a fight on the terrorists in 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being in the Army for the last 6 years I had no idea about these wars

 

tell me more

 

Who gives a shit, whats done is done and I think the school yard analogy sums it up. The world will never ever see eye to eye and people fight, its normal. Some do it with fists and bottles, others with their defence forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all wars are a war of choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the way western society perceives and treats muslims is very similar to that of how the germans "dealt" with jews. fear is a politicians best friend. jews were seen back then to be capable or raping their own mothers and were seen as scum, it is just comical that people do not see history repeating itself over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being in the Army for the last 6 years I had no idea about these wars

 

tell me more

No need to the sarcasm. I was simply building on your statement, in fact, I agree with you, which is why I said "people," not "you," because I was sure some bleeding heart would pip up about your comment and say something about we shouldn't be in the Middle East full stop. Maybe you want to re-read what I wrote.

 

Don't be so sensitive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case sorry mate, just seemed like you thought I had been living under a rock since 2001.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry about it. If anything I should have made my sarcasm more apparent

 

"to find WMDs" should probably read "to find WMDs"

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a fair history nut and I reckon that this will be one of the most debated wars in the future. I can see very long standing arguments over the reasons to go to war in Iraq.

 

Personally I don't think you can name one singular factor. I think its a combination of factors. I don't solely buy the oil argument. The way I view it the key factors are as follows:

 

-Media and domestic pressure/beat up

-Moral conscience of the firmly pro democratic Americans...the fear of dictators...the genocide on the Kurds...

-Political response- leaders generally won't make a decision, unless it has public support

-They US thought it would be a cake walk, steamroll a vastly inferior military force and I doubt they thought it would turn out to be such a hard slog

-Fear of terrorism and muslim powers, Sept 11 was still very fresh in the minds of the US citizens and Iraq was the most hostile muslim country

-Economic benefit, whilst the US wouldn't necessarily control the Iraqi oil they could secure a reliable source of oil.

 

You might disagree, but just quickly they are my thoughts on the conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess there does need to be a big boss of the world... :S

I have always said, there is no political system currently known to man that can make the world run properly. This is because they all contain one fatal flaw, they are all run by human beings.

The human race is not capable of governing itself fairly, but we would never allow ourselves to be ruled by something else (if that something ever came along, super intelligent computer, aliens etc).

 

No matter how you look at it, we're f'ked, it is just a question of who, and how many get the short straw.

I think you can have a human ran political system that is largely fair to an extent. You just need a political system that doesn't allow an absolute power and one that keeps those in charge directly accountable to the people they govern while still having a significant enough influence over the people. Something that doesn't let the actions of those at the top make changes that influence the majority without the support of the majority. As well as ensuring those at the top are at the top and can act without external powerful minorities pressuring their decisions. Something that allows for the corruptions and shortfalls of humanity in power i.e. acting in a self preservative manner, greed, being a pawn.

 

The problem is you'll always have a varying idea about what is fair and best and an underrepresented minorities. Also it would be EXTREMELY difficult to implement as you probably wont get a consensus for a better method and those with invested interest will probably have it killed through the media and or force etc.

 

I agree with you to a point though I think its possible to create a system that does it better, rather than to just say its impossible cause it'll always be a human.

 

That's just my opinion anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess there does need to be a big boss of the world... :S

I have always said, there is no political system currently known to man that can make the world run properly. This is because they all contain one fatal flaw, they are all run by human beings.

The human race is not capable of governing itself fairly, but we would never allow ourselves to be ruled by something else (if that something ever came along, super intelligent computer, aliens etc).

 

No matter how you look at it, we're f'ked, it is just a question of who, and how many get the short straw.

I think you can have a human ran political system that is largely fair to an extent. You just need a political system that doesn't allow an absolute power and one that keeps those in charge directly accountable to the people they govern while still having a significant enough influence over the people. Something that doesn't let the actions of those at the top make changes that influence the majority without the support of the majority. As well as ensuring those at the top are at the top and can act without external powerful minorities pressuring their decisions. Something that allows for the corruptions and shortfalls of humanity in power i.e. acting in a self preservative manner, greed, being a pawn.

 

The problem is you'll always have a varying idea about what is fair and best and an underrepresented minorities. Also it would be EXTREMELY difficult to implement as you probably wont get a consensus for a better method and those with invested interest will probably have it killed through the media and or force etc.

 

I agree with you to a point though I think its possible to create a system that does it better, rather than to just say its impossible cause it'll always be a human.

 

That's just my opinion anyway.

 

Very well said, its about finding the best possible government setup rather than the perfect one. The biggest issue in the modern world is the medias influence on the population and therefore how the government decide. Only the best democratic leaders put there foot down on important issues.

 

Also on a side note, in my opinion Obama so far A+++ as President!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×