|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| sharkey wrote: |
just becuase they arent doing what america tells them to do doesnt mean theyre breaking the law? |
Actually, America broke the law when it invaded Iraq, so you are quite right there. And maybe the reasons for it aren't so good (though I think you are stretching there). But the moon landing (and all the tech from it) was for nothing other than pride  A horrible reason too.
I think having missles that can shoot small things down could be very useful. Asteroids (meteorites actually) or space junk for starters. Also, the better guidance systems couldn't hurt. There does come a point when too much is too much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sharkey wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| sharkey wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| sharkey wrote: |
| these things rarely work, waste of money, give the money to some american social programs |
I'm curious what you mean by "these things" as last I checked, this is the first time in history someone has tried to create this. I guess some people might have tried to set up a sling shot defence system to ballista, but I don't know.
I feel this could actually have some very useful properties. It just sounds like you are the type to say stop exploring the Atlantic Ocean because it hasn't worked yet back in the 1500s... |
the fact that america is making this makes me feel uneasy about where they are headed. They seem paranoid to the max and the very fact that they are trying to build these anti missiles shields is a dark path they are leading the world. These missiles have failed numerous times, the patriot missiles have failed in Israel, Iraq, you name it. Waste of money for something that even if it does work, people will wish it didnt work ebcause they will be the ones alive during the nuclear winter, radiation in the wind, rain etc etc. Completely useless, but, it gives the americans comfort becuase its them vs us. |
Right, its completely irrational to build a nuclear missile shield in E. Europe and in Japan, because, you know, all the countries in those regions are responsible and int'l law-abiding. |
just becuase they arent doing what america tells them to do doesnt mean theyre breaking the law? |
No.
Its because they're in violation of the NPT, which is more than a mere agreement. Its reached the status of customary international law (except as to persistant objectors India, Pakistan, and Israel).
Also, consistant with the CTBT, an unanimous advisory decision of the Int'l Court of Justice held that as a matter of customary int'l law, all states have an obligation to pursue in good faith the ultimate goal of the disarmament of nuclear weapons.
| laigaiguk wrote: |
sharkey wrote:
just becuase they arent doing what america tells them to do doesnt mean theyre breaking the law?
Actually, America broke the law when it invaded Iraq, so you are quite right there. |
How does one infraction by one state actor excuse an infraction of a different kind by other state actors? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sharkey: they oppose our interests, and they do so by threats and force. No further explanation necessary. If you wish to side with their cause, then do so. But do not deceive yourself that that is what you are doing, especially when you look at Iran and North Korea and merely see that "they do not act as America tells them to," etc. Nonsense.
Laogaiguk: which law was that, exactly, Kellogg-Briand? Laughably naive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
How does one infraction by one state actor excuse an infraction of a different kind by other state actors? |
It doesn't excuse it, but it does make one party hypocritical. That's what I felt Sharkey was trying to say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| It doesn't excuse it, but it does make one party hypocritical. That's what I felt Sharkey was trying to say. |
Sharkey was not saying that at all. Sharkey was complaining that (a) missile defense does not work; and that (b) America should spend that R&D money on social spending, something he would be more inclined to approve of.
He also took the position that Iran and North Korea do not represent actual threats to anyone; they merely exist as countries who refuse to do what America tells them to do.
I lose patience with this simplistic nonsense, Laogaiguk. People who defiantly prove their "objectivity" by opposing all things American are idiots who cannot and therefore do not think independently at all. Not on one single thing in world affairs. Their position on missile defense or this or that remains entirely, and boringly, predictable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
How does one infraction by one state actor excuse an infraction of a different kind by other state actors? |
It doesn't excuse it, but it does make one party hypocritical. That's what I felt Sharkey was trying to say. |
It makes one party hypocritical as an infractor. But again, I fail to see how this is relevant to the legality or efficacy of the US's missile shield.
I guess its easy to summon Iraq whenever you find yourself cornered in arguing against US action. But its incredibly weak, and as time goes on, it will be more and more apparent just how pathetic a strategem it really is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
How does one infraction by one state actor excuse an infraction of a different kind by other state actors? |
It doesn't excuse it, but it does make one party hypocritical. That's what I felt Sharkey was trying to say. |
It makes one party hypocritical as an infractor. But again, I fail to see how this is relevant to the legality or efficacy of the US's missile shield.
I guess its easy to summon Iraq whenever you find yourself cornered in arguing against US action. But its incredibly weak, and as time goes on, it will be more and more apparent just how pathetic a strategem it really is. |
Having a bad day? Check what I quoted from his post. I didn't make a link between the missle shield and Iraq. I was commenting on how hypocritical it would be to say someone is doing something illegally when you did so yourself. Threads do go on tangents you know. I even added the bolded just incase. The rest shows no link between Iraq and the missle shield (I talk about how it might have bad motives). I guess I should have put them in separate paragraphs (ending the first paragraph with the first sentence), but I suggest you leave your persecution complex elsewhere.
Incase you didn't notice, I think the missle shield is a good idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
How does one infraction by one state actor excuse an infraction of a different kind by other state actors? |
It doesn't excuse it, but it does make one party hypocritical. That's what I felt Sharkey was trying to say. |
It makes one party hypocritical as an infractor. But again, I fail to see how this is relevant to the legality or efficacy of the US's missile shield.
I guess its easy to summon Iraq whenever you find yourself cornered in arguing against US action. But its incredibly weak, and as time goes on, it will be more and more apparent just how pathetic a strategem it really is. |
Having a bad day? Check what I quoted from his post. I didn't make a link between the missle shield and Iraq. I was commenting on how hypocritical it would be to say someone is doing something illegally when you did so yourself. Threads do go on tangents you know. I even added the bolded just incase. The rest shows no link between Iraq and the missle shield (I talk about how it might have bad motives). I guess I should have put them in separate paragraphs (ending the first paragraph with the first sentence), but I suggest you leave your persecution complex elsewhere.
Incase you didn't notice, I think the missle shield is a good idea. |
Who said you didn't? I was using the 2nd person in its hypothetical usage.
Yes, I noticed that you said the missile shield is a good idea.
Now its my turn: I suggest you leave your persecution complex elsewhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
How does one infraction by one state actor excuse an infraction of a different kind by other state actors? |
It doesn't excuse it, but it does make one party hypocritical. That's what I felt Sharkey was trying to say. |
It makes one party hypocritical as an infractor. But again, I fail to see how this is relevant to the legality or efficacy of the US's missile shield.
I guess its easy to summon Iraq whenever you find yourself cornered in arguing against US action. But its incredibly weak, and as time goes on, it will be more and more apparent just how pathetic a strategem it really is. |
Having a bad day? Check what I quoted from his post. I didn't make a link between the missle shield and Iraq. I was commenting on how hypocritical it would be to say someone is doing something illegally when you did so yourself. Threads do go on tangents you know. I even added the bolded just incase. The rest shows no link between Iraq and the missle shield (I talk about how it might have bad motives). I guess I should have put them in separate paragraphs (ending the first paragraph with the first sentence), but I suggest you leave your persecution complex elsewhere.
Incase you didn't notice, I think the missle shield is a good idea. |
Who said you didn't? I was using the 2nd person in its hypothetical usage.
Yes, I noticed that you said the missile shield is a good idea.
Now its my turn: I suggest you leave your persecution complex elsewhere. |
uh huh... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
How does one infraction by one state actor excuse an infraction of a different kind by other state actors? |
It doesn't excuse it, but it does make one party hypocritical. That's what I felt Sharkey was trying to say. |
It makes one party hypocritical as an infractor. But again, I fail to see how this is relevant to the legality or efficacy of the US's missile shield.
I guess its easy to summon Iraq whenever you find yourself cornered in arguing against US action. But its incredibly weak, and as time goes on, it will be more and more apparent just how pathetic a strategem it really is. |
Having a bad day? Check what I quoted from his post. I didn't make a link between the missle shield and Iraq. I was commenting on how hypocritical it would be to say someone is doing something illegally when you did so yourself. Threads do go on tangents you know. I even added the bolded just incase. The rest shows no link between Iraq and the missle shield (I talk about how it might have bad motives). I guess I should have put them in separate paragraphs (ending the first paragraph with the first sentence), but I suggest you leave your persecution complex elsewhere.
Incase you didn't notice, I think the missle shield is a good idea. |
Who said you didn't? I was using the 2nd person in its hypothetical usage.
Yes, I noticed that you said the missile shield is a good idea.
Now its my turn: I suggest you leave your persecution complex elsewhere. |
uh huh... |
Face it, you misunderstood my post, I understood yours. I began a conversation with you, and you assumed that I was another touchy American stereotype. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Missle Defense Shield
VS
Making MORE Nukes as a deterrant.
Hmm... I think I'll choose the missle defense shield. Remember, Defense wins Championships. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sharkey
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Sharkey: they oppose our interests, and they do so by threats and force. No further explanation necessary. If you wish to side with their cause, then do so. But do not deceive yourself that that is what you are doing, especially when you look at Iran and North Korea and merely see that "they do not act as America tells them to," etc. Nonsense.
Laogaiguk: which law was that, exactly, Kellogg-Briand? Laughably naive. |
how many wars are NK and Iran in right now ? zero
How many wars is America in ? No wonder these countries want nukes ... not hard to see who the real aggressor is. And to quote you good sir, " No further explanation necessary". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
