Wars

Auggie

Active member
Let me clarify my position. The North Korean regime (not so much the Iranian regime) is evil by every objective measure possible. We are the good guys; they are the bad guys. It's that simple.

I believe that the every single person in the North Korean regime deserves to be tortured within an inch of their life for eternity. I would have no compunction if we simply rounded up every single person in the regime and shot them without trial.
 

greggerypeccary

Active member
Let me clarify my position. The North Korean regime (not so much the Iranian regime) is evil by every objective measure possible. We are the good guys; they are the bad guys. It's that simple.

I believe that the every single person in the North Korean regime deserves to be tortured within an inch of their life for eternity. I would have no compunction if we simply rounded up every single person in the regime and shot them without trial.
And that just made you the bad guy.
 

DonDeeHippy

Active member
Just compare their track records, John.
remind me when Hilary was a president so we can compare records.......

Trump : “Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the fucking lot of them.”

you know i think Trump just hates soldiers no matter what side they are on
They remind him of everything he is not, Courageous, Loyal, Integral (and they don't have bone spurs)
 
Last edited:

greggerypeccary

Active member
remind me when Hilary was a president so we can compare records.......

Trump : “Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the fucking lot of them.”

you know i think Trump just hates soldiers no matter what side they are on
They remind him of everything he is not, Courageous, Loyal, Integral
(and they don't have bone spurs)
I think you've hit the nail on the head there.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
remind me when Hilary was a president so we can compare records.......

Trump : “Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the fucking lot of them.”

you know i think Trump just hates soldiers no matter what side they are on
They remind him of everything he is not, Courageous, Loyal, Integral (and they don't have bone spurs)
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed." - Sen. Hillary Clinton talking about the Iraq War Resolution that she voted for.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In an era of endless military conflict, anti-war sentiment abides among Democrats. In 2004, their presidential nomination went to John Kerry, who was strongly critical of George W. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. In 2008 they chose Barack Obama, largely because he had opposed that war. This year, 12 million people cast ballots for Bernie Sanders, who voted against it.

According to Gallup, 68 percent of Democrats think the Iraq War was a mistake — compared with just 31 percent of Republicans. Two out of 3 reject the use of ground combat troops against the Islamic State.

Then there is Hillary Clinton, who will be this year's nominee. Few Democrats have more consistently favored the use of military force. She voted for the Iraq War. As secretary of state, she urged Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

New York Times correspondent Mark Landler, author of the new book "Alter Egos: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Twilight Struggle Over American Power," told me her aides have told him she favored shipping lethal defensive military equipment to the government of Ukraine after the Russian invasion, something Obama rejected.

She pushed for U.S. intervention in Libya. She proposed similar action in Syria. She has recounted her advice to her husband in dealing with Serbia in 1999: "I urged him to bomb."

Most Democrats, particularly Obama, have learned to be wary of entangling the United States in wars of choice. But not Clinton. Despite the disaster in Iraq, the failure in Afghanistan and the chaos in Libya, she remains a hawk at heart.

June 28, 2016: Editorial: What the Benghazi report reveals about Hillary Clinton

Landler, who covered Obama and Clinton for the Times, sees a clear difference between her approach to foreign policy and that of the president she served. Obama believes "the United States resorts too readily to military force to defend its interests," he writes. Clinton thinks "that American intervention does more good than harm, and that the writ of the United States properly reaches, as George W. Bush once declared, into 'any dark corner of the world.'"

Robert Gates, who was defense secretary under Obama, likes and admires Clinton. But when she pressed Obama to bomb Moammar Gadhafi's forces — which Landler says Obama probably would not have done otherwise — Gates resisted, arguing that Libya was not a vital U.S. interest and that there was no telling what would happen next. "In meetings, I would ask, 'Can I just finish the two wars we're already in before you go looking for new ones?'" he wrote later.

Clinton has gotten endless criticism for her handling of the 2012 attacks on a U.S. facility in Benghazi. She deserves more, but has gotten far less, for recommending an intervention that led to that attack and left Libya in violent turmoil that continues today.

The question is why a child of the 1960s, whose husband strenuously avoided being drafted for the Vietnam War, would grow so fond of military power. Obama needs a compelling reason to use force. Clinton needs a compelling reason not to.

from "Why Is Hillary Clinton a Hawk?" Chicago Tribune, July, 2016
 

johnsmith

Moderator
Staff member
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed." - Sen. Hillary Clinton talking about the Iraq War Resolution that she voted for.
and at the time the US intelligence services were adamant they had evidence to support Hillarys conclusions ... would you rather she ignored it?

If they had found WMD's you would have been applauding her. It was the intelligence that was flawed.
 
I don't believe the people of Iran or N. Korea are evil, and I don't want a war with either country. Where I agree with Auggie is in keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of those countries. Yes, I know it is believed that NK already has a few of them. If that is the case, then I believe that NK should not have ICBMs. Protected by China and Russia, NK has no good reason to need nuclear ICBMs.

I also don't think anyone really wants a war with Iran. Not Israel, not Trump, not the American people. The Iranians also have no good reason to try to acquire nuclear weapons. And, if they did, it would greatly upset the balance of power in the region. I also don't think the Israelis would be able to tolerate the existential threat that would pose to their survival.

So it's best that those two countries' nuclear ambitions be held back.

I always find it interesting when people write about the evil, nuclear-armed USA, but they are fine with an ultra-conservative religion-based country or an isolated, poor, family-run personality-cult government having nuclear weapons.
Firstly nuclear weapons ARE in the hands of N. Korea(40-50 nukes). Secondly, there are no nukes in the hands if Iran. Remember the treaty that America walked away from? A treaty that Iran was complying with totally. Thirdly, no one chooses the country of their birth. No one. So, stop judging people, or whether they are evil or not. Fourthly, America is certainly NOT the moral policeman of the world. Fifthly, maybe America should practice what it preaches at home first, before advising other countries what they should be doing. Sixthly, NO COUNTRY wants a nuclear war with the US, it would be suicide(40 nukes vs. 4-5,000 nukes). Seventhly, no country could launch a nuclear strike without America knowing about it through it satellites. And, finally, America has a piss-poor track record of being a trustworthy nation. Even before Trump. America will always continue to speak out of both sides of its mouths, to protect the interests of Big Business, Wall Street, and to protect its own economic and self-serving interests.

Here's a radical idea. MYOB. Stop meddling in the affairs of sovereign countries. Stay out of the politics of other countries. Stop creating proxy wars between countries, setting up puppet government loyal to US interests, and sanctioning countries that only effects the poor. Stop financing and arming rebels to mount coups to tumble governments, or the stealing of the natural resources of sovereign countries. Stop demonizing countries by inferring you have the moral high ground. Stop setting up American bases all over the world(800 in 70 countries). Stop lying to the gullible public about WMD's, fake attacks(Gulf of Tonkin), and chemical weapons attack on innocent people(hoax in Syria). Thank God for the freedom of information act, so we can actually see the truth behind the lies we've been fed.

All countries are sovereign, and not children. They should be treated with respect, and respect will be given.
 
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed." - Sen. Hillary Clinton talking about the Iraq War Resolution that she voted for.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In an era of endless military conflict, anti-war sentiment abides among Democrats. In 2004, their presidential nomination went to John Kerry, who was strongly critical of George W. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. In 2008 they chose Barack Obama, largely because he had opposed that war. This year, 12 million people cast ballots for Bernie Sanders, who voted against it.

According to Gallup, 68 percent of Democrats think the Iraq War was a mistake — compared with just 31 percent of Republicans. Two out of 3 reject the use of ground combat troops against the Islamic State.

Then there is Hillary Clinton, who will be this year's nominee. Few Democrats have more consistently favored the use of military force. She voted for the Iraq War. As secretary of state, she urged Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

New York Times correspondent Mark Landler, author of the new book "Alter Egos: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Twilight Struggle Over American Power," told me her aides have told him she favored shipping lethal defensive military equipment to the government of Ukraine after the Russian invasion, something Obama rejected.

She pushed for U.S. intervention in Libya. She proposed similar action in Syria. She has recounted her advice to her husband in dealing with Serbia in 1999: "I urged him to bomb."

Most Democrats, particularly Obama, have learned to be wary of entangling the United States in wars of choice. But not Clinton. Despite the disaster in Iraq, the failure in Afghanistan and the chaos in Libya, she remains a hawk at heart.

June 28, 2016: Editorial: What the Benghazi report reveals about Hillary Clinton

Landler, who covered Obama and Clinton for the Times, sees a clear difference between her approach to foreign policy and that of the president she served. Obama believes "the United States resorts too readily to military force to defend its interests," he writes. Clinton thinks "that American intervention does more good than harm, and that the writ of the United States properly reaches, as George W. Bush once declared, into 'any dark corner of the world.'"

Robert Gates, who was defense secretary under Obama, likes and admires Clinton. But when she pressed Obama to bomb Moammar Gadhafi's forces — which Landler says Obama probably would not have done otherwise — Gates resisted, arguing that Libya was not a vital U.S. interest and that there was no telling what would happen next. "In meetings, I would ask, 'Can I just finish the two wars we're already in before you go looking for new ones?'" he wrote later.

Clinton has gotten endless criticism for her handling of the 2012 attacks on a U.S. facility in Benghazi. She deserves more, but has gotten far less, for recommending an intervention that led to that attack and left Libya in violent turmoil that continues today.

The question is why a child of the 1960s, whose husband strenuously avoided being drafted for the Vietnam War, would grow so fond of military power. Obama needs a compelling reason to use force. Clinton needs a compelling reason not to.

from "Why Is Hillary Clinton a Hawk?" Chicago Tribune, July, 2016

Totally agree, and well said.. Not only is she the candidate for Wall St., but she is the candidate for the Military Industrial Complex.


If anything, you are being too kind to this monster. The only difference between her and Bolton, is the level of transparency.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Firstly nuclear weapons ARE in the hands of N. Korea(40-50 nukes). Secondly, there are no nukes in the hands if Iran. Remember the treaty that America walked away from? A treaty that Iran was complying with totally. Thirdly, no one chooses the country of their birth. No one. So, stop judging people, or whether they are evil or not. Fourthly, America is certainly NOT the moral policeman of the world. Fifthly, maybe America should practice what it preaches at home first, before advising other countries what they should be doing. Sixthly, NO COUNTRY wants a nuclear war with the US, it would be suicide(40 nukes vs. 4-5,000 nukes). Seventhly, no country could launch a nuclear strike without America knowing about it through it satellites. And, finally, America has a piss-poor track record of being a trustworthy nation. Even before Trump. America will always continue to speak out of both sides of its mouths, to protect the interests of Big Business, Wall Street, and to protect its own economic and self-serving interests.

Here's a radical idea. MYOB. Stop meddling in the affairs of sovereign countries. Stay out of the politics of other countries. Stop creating proxy wars between countries, setting up puppet government loyal to US interests, and sanctioning countries that only effects the poor. Stop financing and arming rebels to mount coups to tumble governments, or the stealing of the natural resources of sovereign countries. Stop demonizing countries by inferring you have the moral high ground. Stop setting up American bases all over the world(800 in 70 countries). Stop lying to the gullible public about WMD's, fake attacks(Gulf of Tonkin), and chemical weapons attack on innocent people(hoax in Syria). Thank God for the freedom of information act, so we can actually see the truth behind the lies we've been fed.

All countries are sovereign, and not children. They should be treated with respect, and respect will be given.
Just because a country is a country does not entitle it to respect. Respect is something that is earned.

I believe that there is ample evidence on record to conclude that the North Korean regime is evil, with no redeeming qualities.

If I were the POTUS, I would treat the North Koreans with civility and politeness and with the usual customary trappings that go along with international relations and contacts. But ...

A quick check of the online dictionary ...

respect
1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.


Sorry, but I cannot apply that word to my thinking of the North Korean government. The North Korean government hasn't earned that.

I really don't care if satellites could tell us that North Korean ICBMs were on the way. I don't really care that the U.S. would retaliate and destroy North Korea. I don't care because what difference would either of those things make?

What I do care about is not allowing them to have the capability to decimate my country in the first place.

I can hear it coming .... "But Russia and China could destroy you with their weapons! Why are you picking on North Korea?"

You are an intelligent person. I need not over explain it. Answer: Because I don't trust North Korea. The way he runs his country, and his apocalyptic vision of the future has too many parallels with people we've already known in history. And secondly, the territorial security of North Korea is guaranteed by nuclear powers Russia and China. Nobody in the world is seeking to ignite a war with North Korea. So why would North Korea need nuclear ICBMs capable of destroying the U.S.? What is their true motive? I do not believe it is to guarantee their security.
 
respect
1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.
Some people think that respect must first be earned. Of course nobody expects any need to earn the respect of a 7 year old, first. Respect also means, "due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others.". This means that respect is not only what you have for something, but also what you give to something. N. Korea is a sovereign nation in the world, with a responsibility for looking after the same size population as in Australia.

I agree that N. Korea only goes through the motions of a Parliamentary Democracy, but in reality, operates as a theocratic Dictatorship. But I was not born there, or live there. So, my opinions are irrelevant. And, their country poses zero threat to me. Do you think that any Theocratic Dictatorship will ever bow to the will of another country, because of sanctions? Do you really think that imposing UN sanctions, including,
  • banning the trade of arms and military equipment, dual-use technologies, vehicles, industrial machinery, and metals;
  • freezing the asset of individuals involved in the country’s nuclear program;
  • banning the import of certain luxury goods;
  • banning the export of electrical equipment, coal, minerals, seafood and other food and agricultural products, wood, textiles, and stones;
  • capping North Korean labor exports;
  • capping imports of oil and refined petroleum products;
  • banning natural gas imports;
  • restricting fishing rights;
  • restricting scientific and technical cooperation with North Korea; and
  • prohibiting UN members from opening North Korean bank accounts and banking offices.
will have any effect in bullying N. Korea into submission? Do you think that the US will stop at just having a treaty with N. Korea, even if they did agree? They didn't with Iran. They just move the goal posts and walked out. Look what the US did to Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussain, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Jose Gomez, Fidel Castro, Harmodio Matrid,, Saddam Hussein Bashar al-Assad, Hassan Rouhani, Jacobo Arbenz, and to the Kurds, American Indians, Japanese Americans, Mexico, Haiti, Laos, Chile, Brazil and the Dominican Republic. Not to mention to so many African countries. Do you think that N. Korea is not looking closely at the history of US aggression, its CIA insurgencies, and latent regime-change policies? Of course they are!! And, the only thing that most countries of the world already know is, that America is NOT to be trusted. Therefore, we are the last country on this planet to claim any moral highroad, to ever claim any right to judge if a country is evil, or have any redeeming qualities.

If I was N. Korea(Like Iran), surrounded by the US and other unfriendly military bases, and continually being told just how evil I was, I would also think that having nukes, might be the only deterrent to becoming a puppet to the US. I might also choose to be a dead man, rather than a yes man. Especially to a country, that is only a friend, as long as I am useful to them. I believe that their fears are completely and absolutely justified.

How Kim Jung-un runs his country is none of my business. What his apocalyptic visions are, is also none of my business. Even a madman would not choose mutually assure destruction, over an ideology. Especially, when the odds are 40 nukes to over 4,000 nukes. Or, a hundred times more assured destruction. At best they could produce 5-6 nukes per year, or a thousand years to catch America. So, why don't we try leaving them alone, and stop provoking them like we do to Iran? Show them the respect for their sovereignty as a nation.

Russia and China, can not only destroy me, but can easily destroy the entire planet. With almost a 1,000 more nukes than America between them, America will definitely leave them alone. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat . Russia still provides over $24M in trade with N. Korea, and China provides over 2.5 Billion in trade. I don't see any relevance here since the US won't ever pick on these two well armed nuclear nations, and risk destroying the world. So, it can only flex its muscles, on a country with a political ideology it doesn't like. And, a country with the smallest number of nukes(30-40), out of the 9 nuclear countries, out of a total of 195 countries. Why such fear and demonization? What has this country actually done to you? Calling the people and the country evil? Really? One can claim Australia as evil, for the killing of Aboriginals in Tasmania. Or, the "Stolen Generation". My rule is not to judge anyone(let alone a nation), until I walk a mile in their shoes.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Some people think that respect must first be earned. Of course nobody expects any need to earn the respect of a 7 year old, first. Respect also means, "due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others.". This means that respect is not only what you have for something, but also what you give to something. N. Korea is a sovereign nation in the world, with a responsibility for looking after the same size population as in Australia.

I agree that N. Korea only goes through the motions of a Parliamentary Democracy, but in reality, operates as a theocratic Dictatorship. But I was not born there, or live there. So, my opinions are irrelevant. And, their country poses zero threat to me. Do you think that any Theocratic Dictatorship will ever bow to the will of another country, because of sanctions? Do you really think that imposing UN sanctions, including,
  • banning the trade of arms and military equipment, dual-use technologies, vehicles, industrial machinery, and metals;
  • freezing the asset of individuals involved in the country’s nuclear program;
  • banning the import of certain luxury goods;
  • banning the export of electrical equipment, coal, minerals, seafood and other food and agricultural products, wood, textiles, and stones;
  • capping North Korean labor exports;
  • capping imports of oil and refined petroleum products;
  • banning natural gas imports;
  • restricting fishing rights;
  • restricting scientific and technical cooperation with North Korea; and
  • prohibiting UN members from opening North Korean bank accounts and banking offices.
will have any effect in bullying N. Korea into submission? Do you think that the US will stop at just having a treaty with N. Korea, even if they did agree? They didn't with Iran. They just move the goal posts and walked out. Look what the US did to Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussain, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Jose Gomez, Fidel Castro, Harmodio Matrid,, Saddam Hussein Bashar al-Assad, Hassan Rouhani, Jacobo Arbenz, and to the Kurds, American Indians, Japanese Americans, Mexico, Haiti, Laos, Chile, Brazil and the Dominican Republic. Not to mention to so many African countries. Do you think that N. Korea is not looking closely at the history of US aggression, its CIA insurgencies, and latent regime-change policies? Of course they are!! And, the only thing that most countries of the world already know is, that America is NOT to be trusted. Therefore, we are the last country on this planet to claim any moral highroad, to ever claim any right to judge if a country is evil, or have any redeeming qualities.

If I was N. Korea(Like Iran), surrounded by the US and other unfriendly military bases, and continually being told just how evil I was, I would also think that having nukes, might be the only deterrent to becoming a puppet to the US. I might also choose to be a dead man, rather than a yes man. Especially to a country, that is only a friend, as long as I am useful to them. I believe that their fears are completely and absolutely justified.
I don't. There territorial integrity and sovereignty is absolutely guaranteed by Russia and China, and nobody in the U.S. wants a war with NK. Nobody.

How Kim Jung-un runs his country is none of my business. What his apocalyptic visions are, is also none of my business.
They are your business when his apocalyptic vision is the destruction of your country in a nuclear holocaust.

Even a madman would not choose mutually assure destruction, over an ideology.
I don't believe that.

Especially, when the odds are 40 nukes to over 4,000 nukes. Or, a hundred times more assured destruction. At best they could produce 5-6 nukes per year, or a thousand years to catch America.
It doesn't matter if they have 40 or 4000 nukes. Forty nukes falling on 40 cities in the U.S. would kill us all.

So, why don't we try leaving them alone, and stop provoking them like we do to Iran? Show them the respect for their sovereignty as a nation.
It takes two to tango, Shell. North Korea could take a big step in that tango by signing a permanent peace agreement with the South. The rulers of NK could embrace peace, friendship, and cooperation rather than the opposite.

Russia and China, can not only destroy me, but can easily destroy the entire planet. With almost a 1,000 more nukes than America between them, America will definitely leave them alone. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat . Russia still provides over $24M in trade with N. Korea, and China provides over 2.5 Billion in trade. I don't see any relevance here since the US won't ever pick on these two well armed nuclear nations, and risk destroying the world. So, it can only flex its muscles, on a country with a political ideology it doesn't like. And, a country with the smallest number of nukes(30-40), out of the 9 nuclear countries, out of a total of 195 countries. Why such fear and demonization? What has this country actually done to you? Calling the people and the country evil? Really? One can claim Australia as evil, for the killing of Aboriginals in Tasmania. Or, the "Stolen Generation". My rule is not to judge anyone(let alone a nation), until I walk a mile in their shoes.
It is not what "the country" has done to us. Other than a small number of elites, "the country" is just millions of peasants. It is the decades of murderous, paranoid, hysterical, irrational behavior of the cult that is the government that makes it impossible to allow them to have the ability to destroy us. It's the same reason why the Israelis and other nations in the area don't want Iran to have nukes.

The behavior of that regime is reminiscent of the Jim Jones cult. It is reminiscent of the Hitler cult of death and ultimately, national suicide. And it is not my responsibility to view that government differently. Rather, it is the job of that government to convince me otherwise by its words and deeds.

If you have a hysterical, irrational neighbor who spends years telling everybody that he is going to blow up your house with you and your family in it when he gets some dynamite, do you not object to his getting dynamite? And if there is no one to stop him, and you can't move away, then what do you do? Do you tell your neighbor that if you blow up my house and kill my family, I'll do the same to you? Does that make you feel safe? Or do you try to stop him from getting dynamite?
 

DonDeeHippy

Active member
Agreed. But as has been pointed out in this thread, they already have nukes. What the don't have (yet) are delivery systems that can strike the continental U.S.
Quick build the wall, they might try to strap a few of them on the back of peasants sneaking in !!!!!!!
 
Top