{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/11/2013 11:47:36 AM
23
We should stop provoking them and mind our own dang business. The moment they become a threat we can firmly defend ourselves and retaliate, but we also shouldn't be the aggressors and giving them justification to attack us.
English
-
Editado por Ahhsenberg: 3/11/2013 12:50:27 PMThey've been threatening us with a nuclear strike, so I would imagine that they're a threat.
-
We've been giving them a reason, we are not innocent here.
-
Just because they make threats, does not mean that they are a threat
-
But by being a threat, surely they would need to have sufficient power to challenge the US with a chance of winning? It's not like they're going to attack before they have a fighting chance.
-
Editado por Cam: 3/11/2013 11:58:35 AMThey have absolutely no chance, though. Hahaha, you give North Korea way too much credit.
-
They have no chance at the moment. Who knows, in fifty years they could be spewing robots and lasers like you wouldn't believe.
-
Haha, I chuckled.
-
But the problem is if they attack first. What if they nuke Seoul? Causalities would be in the millions!
-
We are not mind readers. Their nuke is a piece of S compared to what we dropped on Japan, and we have bombs now hundred times more powerful than that even. There's a large chance they couldn't even hit us and an even greater one we could stop it if it could. That does not give us justification or the authority for us to do what we are doing, it's actually only causing great tension and giving them justification for what they are doing, which is what we once did ourselves.
-
You do know if the south is attacked then the first to die is American's right? Also the south has done nothing wrong, North is just pissy because of a wargame that takes place every year between America and South Korean. BTW before you call me a stupid America...I'm not from America.
-
>bombs I think you mean ICBMs. No one in the right mind would send a bomb, let alone a nuclear one, in a plane in the last 40 years. Also a nuclear weapon is still a nuclear weapon. They can send it to SK. That's enough for them to be a threat.
-
That's for South Korea to worry about.
-
Editado por Xizor14: 3/11/2013 8:57:20 PMSK is a very strong ally of the US. And the UN won't allow something like that to happen and not get involved. They would send joint UN troops, probably mostly consisting of US troops, to assist South Korea. It'll be exactly what happened in the Korean War in the '50s all over again. The UN is in existence to keep peace and they won't let a tyrannical government overrun a well-developed, allied member nation. China will likely not side with NK given their current irritation with them either. That would likely leave them to fight against them or to take neutrality. The last thing China wants, however, is a border with a US-allied nation. That would possibly mean a USSR-esque alliance that will be pushing from the North. NK would fail and China would use the former NK territory they win as a buffer zone between SK and China.
-
My god...I love you! you understand why China still cares about N.Korea! even if it is only as a buffer state.
-
We shouldn't have allies, and the UN is a complete joke which causes a lot of tension. "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." -Thomas Jefferson
-
Hey I know that! but isn't that very outdated like when it took you months instead of a hours to get to the other side of the atlantic?
-
...uh-huh Using nearly 300 year-old political philosophies that were formed because of centuries of foreign oppression is good and dandy, but you obviously have no idea how intergovernmental relations work. We are living in the era of the evolution of the global community, something that is a new concept after centuries of national competition from the old European superpowers. The US is a global power and has been since the end of WWII because we took up the old mantle that Europe lost when it was reduced to ash. And we can't remain a global power unless we have allies with whom we share our power and resources and comradery with. Catch my drift? We, along with the participation of the UN in the 1950s, assured the South Korean peoples' right to live lives of freedom. The UN helps developing nations to help their people when needed. The ones who cause tension are the leaders and people who refuse the sanctions and policies that are meant to keep the world and her people safe. And the UN is not an aggressor and is prohibited from proceeding with military actions unless in defense of a member nation that needs it. tl;dr: South Korea as an ally is good and UN is not a joke because it stabilizes the global community. And now I realize why political discussion used to be a bannable offense.
-
Principle is timeless, and intergovernmental relations cause nothing but trouble. We aren't supposed to be the world's police, especially when our monetary system is about to collapse and we cause a lot of trouble. (As shown with how we have treated North Korea) Trade is what promotes peace, and we often hinder that with ridiculous sanctions which provoke people to want to kill us justifiably. The United Nations is a complete joke.
-
That principle you're talking about is nationalism, which needs to be thrown out. The purpose of the UN is to achieve unity through peace. That's why their requests are only requests, not demands. The nations they make requests of can deny them. The US policies on being world police is not the best motive, I'll agree with you on that. And the sooner we agree to stop being loyal to simple, idiotic nations, the sooner we can have a singular unified world with a single currency and actually get some shit done. Nationalism is a dated system that needs to be swept away in exchange for thinking of ourselves of a single world. Then we will have a truly global economy filled with your peace-promoting trade, no petty wars that slow our way to progress, and no more land disputes. Nationalism was founded on the beliefs that ethnic groups isolated in a certain region should band together with a single language and cultural background. But now we have technology that can move people across the entire planet in mere hours instead of weeks or months as in the time of Nationalism's birth. We need to adapt and not hold on to these old beliefs or we will be hindered as a species. And now we're completely off topic. I'm done with this discussion, thank you.
-
Except the UN doesn't achieve unity, it hinders it. A singular world with a single currency wouldn't be that great, we should just mind our own dang business and worry about ourselves and then we could truly progress. We are not going to convince anyone out their to change with force, we need to lead by example and let other countries handle themselves.
-
Editado por Xizor14: 3/11/2013 9:43:20 PMWasn't going to respond, but I had to. [quote] We are not going to convince anyone out their to change with force....[/quote] *there
-
That is just pathetic and sad of you.
-
Spanx, babe. <3
