| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mr. Peabody
Joined: 24 Sep 2010
Location: here
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| oldtrafford wrote: |
Not anti western, oh dare you old boy, I'm proud of our nation who fought against Nazism. Not so proud over the Falklands though. Am I still anti British?!!  |
You sound rather anti western to me. Also, learn to quote. Your posts resemble your opinions: messy and confusing. |
+1
Why is using the "quote" function so difficult for you oldtrafford? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shifty
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
@Oldtrafford
Yeah the Soviets also had an alliance with Hitler and were happy to divide Eastern Europe with him. They also supplied the Nazis with resources such as aviation fuel which was used to bomb British cities. Plus the Russians are the ones that gave Kim il-Sung North Korea, in a matter of months they had arranged for the smearing of a genuine local war hero. All so that they could place their man in Pyongyang, a man who had spent so little time in Korea that he had to have lessons to brush up his Korean. |
I subscribe to above.
Stalin never wanted to help the allies fight the nazis. He was really wanting them to take each other out, whilst he could put forward his mischief making amongst the more vulnerable states.
The Russians fought a good fight, b/c they had to, the Allies didn't owe them anything for doing the bulk of the fighting. Where were the Russians when Britain was alone? They were busy pacifying their share of Poland. The Brits even warned Stalin repeatedly of the exact date of the German attack on them, but he ignored the warning, b/c he thought it was Britain being perfidious again.
As far as the USA goes, I don't know why it has been a commonly held belief in the UK that the Americans should have helped earlier. Britain and France had made such a mess with their foreign policy and missed many opportunities to preemt Hitler. Moreover, it was their harsh Versailles Treaty that largely created Hitler. This was a treaty that the Americans had tried moderate, but the French in particular were hell-bent on it.
The French even had the nerve to become anti-American when their bacon had been saved for them by USA and UK.
It wasn't easy for Roosevelt to jump in with so many isolationists on his back. And the isolationists had good reason to be so.
Since the war, the USA has attracted a lot of criticism of its conduct in foreign affairs. To me they seem heavy handed at times with some big botches like Vietnam.
But I must say, I personally can't stand the sight of someone like Saddam always in military dress. I always feel like saying,'take that damn uniform off and put a suit on'. I'm glad he's gone and I think the same as Christopher Hitchens.
As far as the USA actually producing people like him in the first place goes, well, I think it's not good. But it must be difficult to get eveything right with all what human beings get up to. I wonder what is meant by the phrase 'we were made in God's image'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Peabody
Joined: 24 Sep 2010
Location: here
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow...that was worth looking at. Thanks for the link. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ThingsComeAround
Joined: 07 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aq8knyus wrote: |
If the US and UK were able to mould Iraq and Afghanistan exactly as they want, with all the investment and trade opportunities, then those states would be far better than they were under Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. The only reason they are struggling is because they are losing the military struggle. Although in truth the only losers will be the people themselves if the 'insurgents' take power.
|
You must be joking here.
What really makes you believe that the interests of the US & UK governments is to improve the lives of the people in Iraq or Afghanistan? Insurgents aren't the real problem- they are local people resisting foreign occupation, something that has been going on even before Romans tried to control all of Europe.
I think the best option (many of you won't agree, but just my opinion) would have been to let Korea remain part of Japan- rather than the Chinese who demanded 'tribute' from the ruling class. Keeping Korea together as part of another country is better than splitting it and giving the two halves opposing political ideologies.
Edit:
The US was okay with Japan in Korea until after WW2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Portsmouth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifty
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ThingsComeAround wrote: |
| aq8knyus wrote: |
If the US and UK were able to mould Iraq and Afghanistan exactly as they want, with all the investment and trade opportunities, then those states would be far better than they were under Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. The only reason they are struggling is because they are losing the military struggle. Although in truth the only losers will be the people themselves if the 'insurgents' take power.
|
You must be joking here.
What really makes you believe that the interests of the US & UK governments is to improve the lives of the people in Iraq or Afghanistan? Insurgents aren't the real problem- they are local people resisting foreign occupation, something that has been going on even before Romans tried to control all of Europe.
Edit:
The US was okay with Japan in Korea until after WW2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Portsmouth |
Well, I don't think aq8k is joking. It boils down to whether you consider the USA and UK to be benign powers in this world or not.
In order to help others, you must first ensure that you yourself are strong. Which might account for all the realpolitik and hiccoughs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| How about South Korea? Is that an American puppet regime by the metric you outlined? If not, how is a North Korea going to be any more a puppet regime when reunited with the South, than the South is now? |
Certainly the dictatorships / military / autocratic governments between 1960-1987 would be classed as American puppet regimes (typical of the era).
|
So you say, so how is it that they are worse than the North Korean track record in terms of how it abuses it's citizens? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Squire
Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Location: Jeollanam-do
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shifty wrote: |
Well, I don't think aq8k is joking. It boils down to whether you consider the USA and UK to be benign powers in this world or not.
In order to help others, you must first ensure that you yourself are strong. Which might account for all the realpolitik and hiccoughs. |
Not entirely. Even with the greediest intentions it would never be in our interests to set up a state as repressive as North Korea. Based on Iraq and Afghanistan the policy would most likely be to achieve a democratically elected government. The fact that NK is so homogenous removes some of the obstacles faced in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with free access to information how long do you think the cult of Kim Il Sung/Jong Il would last? I don't think it would take long to collapse like a house of cards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifty
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Squire wrote: |
| shifty wrote: |
Well, I don't think aq8k is joking. It boils down to whether you consider the USA and UK to be benign powers in this world or not.
In order to help others, you must first ensure that you yourself are strong. Which might account for all the realpolitik and hiccoughs. |
Not entirely. Even with the greediest intentions it would never be in our interests to set up a state as repressive as North Korea. Based on Iraq and Afghanistan the policy would most likely be to achieve a democratically elected government. The fact that NK is so homogenous removes some of the obstacles faced in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with free access to information how long do you think the cult of Kim Il Sung/Jong Il would last? I don't think it would take long to collapse like a house of cards. |
I think you, I and aq8 are in broad agreement.
However, the USA has gained a rep for clumsiness and greed and I think it needs someone like Ron Paul for a fresh look at things.
The USA should stop spending money on wars and aid to the Pakistans and Egypts of the world. Rather redirect all that cash to a makover of its own economy, incentives for the manufacture of goods.
And let the world stew for a while. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not saying the US and UK would do it out of the goodness of their hearts but more as quid pro quo. Obviously stable propersous nations in resource rich areas would be of enourmous benefit to US/UK interests.
In the way the Marshall plan was not alturistic yet still had an incredibly positive effect for Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
It's true, America had a rotten history of intervention in the 20th century. I would have to disagree with you on the assumption that North Korea is better off under Kim Jong Il, though. In this case we're looking at a slave state that couldn't be made any worse. I don't think the US would be attempting to withhold food from a desperate population, as their dictator is doing, for instance. The threat of nuclear weaponry would also be expunged. The bastard maintains power by maintaining a helpless population that is kept on the brink of starvation as a ploy for continually sucking in foreign aid. Haven't you read about what a 1984 replica that place is?
You can learn from history but it can also blind you to the present. |
So somehow the 14 million "suffering" North Koreans are different than the 9.4 million homeless and hungry Americans?
| aq8knyus wrote: |
| I am not saying the US and UK would do it out of the goodness of their hearts but more as quid pro quo. Obviously stable propersous nations in resource rich areas would be of enourmous benefit to US/UK interests. |
So, just another country to pillage and plunder for cheap resources?
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@ttompatz
The problems facing the poor in the US are indeed severe, however, again its not in the same league as North Korea. Even the most conservative estimate of the famines by Chinese organisations put the death toll close to one million.
Considering that the South gets exactly the same weather generally and does not experice such privations surely points to the structure of the North Korean state as being the cause.
I also wouldn't characterise the interventions as pilage and plunder, just a continuing failure to succeed militarily against the insurgencies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Squire
Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Location: Jeollanam-do
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ttompatz wrote: |
So somehow the 14 million "suffering" North Koreans are different than the 9.4 million homeless and hungry Americans?
|
The 14 million North Koreans you refer to make up 58% of their population. The 9.4 million Americans are only 0.03% |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Squire wrote: |
| ttompatz wrote: |
So somehow the 14 million "suffering" North Koreans are different than the 9.4 million homeless and hungry Americans?
|
The 14 million North Koreans you refer to make up 58% of their population. The 9.4 million Americans are only 0.03% |
I think you've got to brush up on your basic math. 9.4 million / 300 million = 3% (you've got to times that number in the calculator by 100). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ttompatz
Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Location: Kwangju, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Squire wrote: |
| ttompatz wrote: |
So somehow the 14 million "suffering" North Koreans are different than the 9.4 million homeless and hungry Americans?
|
The 14 million North Koreans you refer to make up 58% of their population. The 9.4 million Americans are only 0.03% |
14 million is the entire population of North Korea but in absolute terms...
how is 14 million (not all of whom are starving in relative or absolute terms) "suffering" in an impoverished nation any different or worse than almost 10 million in what is supposed to be the "most prosperous nation" on the planet.
| aq8knyus wrote: |
@ttompatz
The problems facing the poor in the US are indeed severe, however, again its not in the same league as North Korea. Even the most conservative estimate of the famines by Chinese organizations put the death toll close to one million.
Considering that the South gets exactly the same weather generally and does not experience such privations surely points to the structure of the North Korean state as being the cause.
I also wouldn't characterize the interventions as pillage and plunder, just a continuing failure to succeed militarily against the insurgencies. |
That 1 million was almost 15 years ago...
The weather and topography of N.Korea is NOT the same as that in S.Korea (who also imports a majority of its food) and if it was embargoed (polite term for blockade) would also be starving.
As to plunder... how are the actions of companies like Halliburton (just an example and not an exclusive list) not considered plunder and pillage.
.
Last edited by ttompatz on Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hokie21
Joined: 01 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| isisaredead wrote: |
| Squire wrote: |
| isisaredead wrote: |
| Squire wrote: |
| Wow, wooden scaffolding. I look forward to the day these people are liberated. I'd love to see Kim Jong Il tried and hanged like Saddam |
american, i presume? |
No, and I take it from your response you feel the North Korean people are better off under Kim Jong Il than they would be under an American puppet government? |
i just assumed you were an american judging from your bloodlust.
no other nation gets such indignant bloodlust for killing people than americans seem to. the reaction to bin laden's death was barbaric.
but, as you said, you're not american. so, there ya go.
my underlying point was, why would you want to kill someone, even if they are a pretty horrific leader? besides, the north korea of today is not the same place it was twenty years ago.
taking someone to an international court to recognise their crimes in a logical, cold mindset is what civilisation is all about. hanging them after the trial is not. |
LOL what a BS comment. The Brits sure have a short memory. (Not saying you're a Brit) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
