|
|
Post by Merkuri on Dec 4, 2003 14:51:00 GMT -5
Okay, I'll ceede the point. Not much to do about North Korea for now.
I still think we should stop waving our guns around, though, and trying to be the world's police force. It's not gonna work until everybody agrees on the rules we can enforce, which I very much doubt will happen in my lifetime. Bush is too trigger happy. He hears hints about weapons in Iraq (which are later proven innacurate) and he dives in, crying "terrorist" and (intentionally or not) linking Saddam with 9/11.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Dec 4, 2003 21:20:14 GMT -5
Again, to clear up a few points.
This is untrue. The Coalition forces invaded Afghanistan with the mission of disposing of the Al Queda network. The removal of the Taliban was never a goal prior to the invasion. And, even if it was, considering the government that has been installed ends at the city limits of the capital, I would say that it is still a complete and utter failure.
About Bosnia. The UN was in Bosnia for four years before they could manage to convince the Americans that they didn't have the manpower to get the job done. How do I know this? Because there were Canadian peacekeepers on the ground in 1990. The Americans didn't bother to get involved despite repeated calls, for another four or five years.
Let's stick with Bosnia for a second shall we? Hmm, the UN forces, with the help of the Americans, has installed a democratic government with free elections and a prospering society. All within about 3 years after the end of hostilities. Afghanistan has been up in flames for about 3 years, and, without American support, the UN hasn't got a hope of setting it. Why? Because they simply don't have the manpower.
North Korea. Wyrmfire is essentially correct. Although, they do not need to nuke California and are unlikely to be able to do so, since the Taepodong missile can barely reach Alaska. However, there are 30000 American troops in South Korea and Seoul, a city of 15 million people, is within shelling distance of the DMZ. I know because I've been there.
It is a point though. Is nuclear deterance the only way a country can protect itself from America? North Korea considers America to be a great threat. Militarily, it cannot stand up to the Americans. So, it builds nukes. Isn't this precisely why we had a cold war with Russia?
|
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Dec 4, 2003 23:34:31 GMT -5
Being in the Marine Corps for seven years and travelling to many countries. I found people from other countries have hated the US for many year if not decades before President Bush. Why Because we have something alot of countries don't have, freedom. If President Bush or any other American president worried about what others think of us, nothing would get done in this world. we woulds still have terrorist running around bombing who they like. If the price for getting rid of terrorist is having a few countries hate us, I can live with that and this country has lived with it for many decades. Of course we could wait for the UN to talk about things for decades and do nothing, or wait for countries in Europe to do things, which excect for a couple of countries. Europe has done very little to improve this world. But it seems funny the first country they turn to is the US to fix anything military. I would like to see more action out of Germany and France and less useless complaints. Talk is cheap. Oh we in the US are sorry we don't have time to win a popularity contest and go to other countries just to have coffee and cookies and smlie at every one just to make them happy. [rant] I'm not sure that I agree with this. Having done quite a bit of traveling in my life (actually, for most of my life) I find that people in other countries don't like Americans not because we have freedom, but because we're too damn proud of everything we've "acheived". We have stricter drinking, smoking, and driving laws than anywhere in Europe. We have a weaker currency than the Euro, and believe that our puny 200 year old "culture" is the pinnacle of human evolution. This would all be good if the US just didn't advertise it at every turn. It is because Americans don't care about other countries that terrorists hate us. It is because we are so high and mighty on our pedastal, installing and funding dictators and wreacking havoc in other countries that people are willing to die in order to bring us down a step. China has the world's oldest culture, the most developed intellects, and a strong economy, but you don't see them declaring it as if its their national motto. They at least have the peace of mind to embrace their fellow man and see the problems of human society in general instead of focusing strictly on themselves - perhaps one of the best lessons that communism can teach. [/rant] |
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Dec 4, 2003 23:43:52 GMT -5
Embrace their fellow man. Right. Tianamen Square, anyone? Tanks? Ordinary citizens? Or what about live-birth abortions? Killing babies while they're being born is always fun.  Sorry, I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but I really think you're confusing good spin with actual decency. The leader of china is a rather brutal dictator, not a role model. He doesn't deserved to be compared with the Oklahoma City Bomber! |
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Dec 5, 2003 0:25:17 GMT -5
Yuppers, right up there with imprisoning hundreds of people without trial or access to thier families or visitors for two or three years.
Right up there with executing more citizens than any other country, with the exception of China.
Right up there with the highest prison population in the world.
Before you start ranting about China's human rights abuses, let's not forget your own.
Although, to be fair, having traveled in China, the Americans are hardly alone in being ultra proud of their accomplishments. You do get that in many other countries. What you don't get though, is such visibility. You don't have a Chinese McDonald's, or Coke, or IBM flaunting American products across the globe. It's not that Americans are any worse than anyone else, it's just they have better publicists.
And, just for the sake of accuracy, the leader of China is an elected official who serves a four year term. Granted, because it is Communist, there is only one party, but, officials are still elected. He is hardly a "brutal dictator".
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Dec 5, 2003 21:12:11 GMT -5
Damn, another decent thread killed by the board gremlin. We need to name that gremlin. Any takers?
|
|
