North Korea attacks and sinks South Korean ship, killing 46 people

[213374U]

It's common knowledge, man...

"Common knowledge", if you ask lord of flies, or use his sources.

 

From your GlobalResearch link:

 

For 40 years the NATO military alliance was comprised of wealthy, industrialized imperialist countries that had prospered from generations of colonial plunder. It was essentially an anti-Soviet alliance to halt the spread of socialist revolutions in Europe. NATO used military might, nuclear blackmail, economic sabotage, espionage and terror to protect and expand the private corporate wealth of its members.

 

Really, Global"Research"?

[ramza]

Hey, if you have the time, then make a research on your own... I couldn't find better sources in the given time. I was just looking for links, so I just read the titles and not the contents. Your quote made me laugh though... I shall be more careful when posting links in the future.

Edited May 26, 2010 by ramza

[vault_overseer]

OK, here we go:

 

North Korea will never start a war or be a real threat to anyone outside of Seoul. South Korea will never attack North, because it would effect their trade, which SK's economy is VERY dependend on, oh and the fact that North has rockets right on the border, aimed at Seoul.

 

US just talking crap.

 

Georgians are great, Saakshvili is a bastard, who would invade south ossetia, as he promised to get it back at any price.

 

Russians are drunks and should not be trusted under any circumstances.

 

Iraq under Saddam was a lot less dangerous to the world than Iraq under USA.

 

Have I missed anything?

[ramza]

Is that a summary of this thread's posts or is it your personal opinion?

[Gorgon]

I'm curious, what do Russians call Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan if not imperialism ?.

[vault_overseer]

fact

 

*ahem*

 

It's personal opinion

[vault_overseer]

I'm curious, what do Russians call Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan if not imperialism ?.

 

Czechoslovakia yes, but Afghanistan is a whole different story.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Hey, if you have the time, then make a research on your own... I couldn't find better sources in the given time. I was just looking for links, so I just read the titles and not the contents. Your quote made me laugh though... I shall be more careful when posting links in the future.

Yes, why don't you do that instead of constantly spewing commy propaganda.

[Thorton_AP]

It's common knowledge, man...

"Common knowledge", if you ask lord of flies, or use his sources.

 

From your GlobalResearch link:

 

For 40 years the NATO military alliance was comprised of wealthy, industrialized imperialist countries that had prospered from generations of colonial plunder. It was essentially an anti-Soviet alliance to halt the spread of socialist revolutions in Europe. NATO used military might, nuclear blackmail, economic sabotage, espionage and terror to protect and expand the private corporate wealth of its members.

 

Really, Global"Research"?

 

 

Seems pretty impartial to me!

[Volourn]

"Thank you, virumor. That's what I meant to say and I apologize if I wasn't clear. The US told Iraq "go on, attack Iran and we will back you up" but the US never held their word."

 

Don't blame others for Hussein's choices.

 

 

"Iraq under Saddam was a lot less dangerous to the world than Iraq under USA."

 

O RLY? How is the new Iraq more dangerous to the rest of the world than Saddam's was? Saddam attacked two soverign nations. He paid others to attack other nations. The new Iraq has attacked nobody.

 

So, again, how is the new Iraq a bigger threat to the world than Saddam's Iraq? Silly talk.

 

 

"US just talking crap."

 

How is the 'US' talking crap? It's SK that is pushing things, and nobody in power in any country has said we should go to wwar with NK pronto. Don't make stuff up.

[ramza]

"Iraq under Saddam was a lot less dangerous to the world than Iraq under USA."

 

O RLY? How is the new Iraq more dangerous to the rest of the world than Saddam's was? Saddam attacked two soverign nations. He paid others to attack other nations. The new Iraq has attacked nobody.

 

So, again, how is the new Iraq a bigger threat to the world than Saddam's Iraq? Silly talk.

 

I can answer that: under Saddam, there wasn't as much religious fanaticism as there is today. No suicide bomb attacks and nothing similar to the Taliban's regime (there were a few similarities in the severe punishments but those were inflicted for disloyalty against Saddam and not Islam). Al Qaeda was not that much present in Iraq. Now, it has rooted itself and uses the American invasion as a justification to start a holy war and get new recruits. Expect Iraq to become another Afghanistan with its own version of the Talibans, once the Americans leave.

[vault_overseer]

O RLY? How is the new Iraq more dangerous to the rest of the world than Saddam's was? Saddam attacked two soverign nations. He paid others to attack other nations. The new Iraq has attacked nobody.

 

So, again, how is the new Iraq a bigger threat to the world than Saddam's Iraq? Silly talk.

 

Because it was a lot more stable. instability breeds discontent, which creates terrorism and extremism. Crazy arab dictators attacking each other is nothing new, it existed before saddam and it will exist after him. A huge country without stable government or agenda is a perfect environment for growing terrorist cells.

 

 

How is the 'US' talking crap? It's SK that is pushing things, and nobody in power in any country has said we should go to wwar with NK pronto. Don't make stuff up.

 

US is always talking crap, that's its job - to bully other nations with tough talk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncUSZ13T3pQ NSFW

[Volourn]

"I can answer that: under Saddam, there wasn't as much religious fanaticism as there is today. No suicide bomb attacks and nothing similar to the Taliban's regime (there were a few similarities in the severe punishments but those were inflicted for disloyalty against Saddam and not Islam)"

 

1. Suicide bombings are not a new occurance. In fact, Saddam paid families on behalf of dead suicide bombers. Let's also not forget that the m mkost famous suicide attack occured before Saddam was ousted. Let's also not forget that the vast,. vast, vast majority of terrorist attacks are usually perpetrated by non Iraqis. Iraqis tend not to target outside their country.

 

2. And, what does the fact that violence under Saddam was for him and not religion matter? Violence is violence no matter the reasoning.

 

3. Saddam's regime was very much like the Taliban's. Both were dictatorships, and both ruled with iron fists.

 

4. While Saddam was no no super religious freak himself, he surely used religion to benefit himself and moitivate others to do his bidding. Just check in the whole Sunni vs Sh'ite mess, the way the Kurds were treated unde rhis rule, how other religions weretrounced until theyw ere such a small minority they no longer mattered, etc, etc.

 

 

"Al Qaeda was not that much present in Iraq."

 

And?

 

"Now, it has rooted itself and uses the American invasion as a justification to start a holy war and get new recruits."

 

That doesn't make sense. Iraq didn't create this or AQ. AQ existed well before the Iraqi invasion. To make the argument that AQ uses Iraq as the excuse for a 'holy war' is silly since the so called holy war was already on. or did you forget that 9/11 occurred BEFORE the Iraq invasion... right? Kind of ruins your entire message that Iraq is the cause of it.

 

 

" Expect Iraq to become another Afghanistan with its own version of the Talibans, once the Americans leave."

 

So... it'll be just like itn was under Saddam. Religious or not, Saddam wa sno better than the Taliban. The fact you think he was some awesome dude is silly. HE DESTROYED IRAQ.

 

 

"Because it was a lot more stable."

 

No, it wasn't. This is a myth perpetrated by Saddam apologists.Iraq was anything but a stable country under Saddam. Saddam didn't have control of the entire country... that's how pathetically weak he was, and how pathetically poor of a ruler he was - dictator or otherwise.

 

 

" instability breeds discontent,"

 

Yup. Which is why there were A LOT of unhappy Iraqis under Saddam hence his need for body doubles, and the number of asassination attempts.

 

" which creates terrorism and extremism."

 

Yup. And, Saddam was an extremist himself. Just ask yourself how he gained power - by murdering his predessor. *shrug*

 

 

" Crazy arab dictators attacking each other is nothing new, it existed before saddam and it will exist after him."

 

Stating obvious doesn't mean anything.

 

" A huge country without stable government or agenda is a perfect environment for growing terrorist cells."

 

I agree. Hence why Iraq was in a hjorrible place under Sddam.

 

The new Iraq is a better Iraq. For Iraq, and the world. But, hey, come talk to me when Iraq starts another multi year war with Iran. K?

 

Iraq is not is Pakistan.

 

 

P.S. Saudi Arabi has been 'stable' for many years yet many terrorists come from there. Kinda ruins your logic.

 

 

Just Saddam love is hilarious.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Volourn

[HoonDing]

Frying pan > Fire?

 

Discuss!

[Volourn]

CODEXER ALERT!

[Calax]

Power Vacuums rarely ever are good for global peace.

[Zoraptor]

Oddly enough, the exact same thing happened with Georgia in 2008. The US promised Georgia that it would help it protect its sovereignty but when the Russians invaded, the US immediately withdrew their promises. They wanted to cause prejudice to Russia but their plan backfired.

I think there was an understanding (at least on the US side) that this excluded protection in the case of stupidities like attacking the Russians which was -of course and according even to OSCE, albeit belatedly and mealy mouthedly- exactly what happened.

[Gorgon]

I'm curious, what do Russians call Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan if not imperialism ?.

 

Czechoslovakia yes, but Afghanistan is a whole different story.

So, satellite wars are not imperialism. Well that should get the US off the hook for a whole lot.

[Humodour]

Have I missed anything?

 

Common sense?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Maybe they didn't incite the war, but the Reagon administration was petty enough to support Saddam in his mad war, perhaps as revenge for the US humiliation at the Teheran embassy hostage crisis at the end of the 80s.

To the extent US supported Iraq, it probably had nothing to do with pettiness and everything to do with the disaster that would follow in the Middle East had Iran overrun Iraq.

[Rostere]

O RLY? How is the new Iraq more dangerous to the rest of the world than Saddam's was? Saddam attacked two soverign nations. He paid others to attack other nations. The new Iraq has attacked nobody.

 

So, again, how is the new Iraq a bigger threat to the world than Saddam's Iraq? Silly talk.

 

Because it was a lot more stable. instability breeds discontent, which creates terrorism and extremism. Crazy arab dictators attacking each other is nothing new, it existed before saddam and it will exist after him. A huge country without stable government or agenda is a perfect environment for growing terrorist cells.

 

The US has little or no goodwill in the Middle East, for lots of reasons. Primarily because of the unconditional support for Israel but also because of the support for the dictatorial regime in Saudi Arabia. Now, the core issue today in the Middle East is a conflict between Western culture and economical interests, and their "indigenous" counterparts. One of the (quite sane, I think everybody here can agree on that) objectives of Western countries is to topple governments which support terrorism or are making war. Now once again, look at the root of the problem. Why are all these people in turbans so angry? We've got two things: (1) Awkward policy in Middle East matters by Western powers in the past and (2) A Muslim cultural inferiority complex. Now none of those issues have ever been seriously given resources by any Western nation.

 

Who actually supports the extremist governments? We want to culturally assimilate those, and we want to end the Israel/ Palestine conflict (which, due to years of negligence from Western powers has become one hell of a problem) in order to resolve the differences. So, what do the Western governments actually do?

 

They send soldiers down to countries like Iraq, inflicting directly and indirectly massive civilian casualties and increasing the resentment felt for Western countries in the Middle East. I mean, imagine the reception of American soldiers in countries like Iraq. When the people see the American flag they will be like "**** no, it's the ****tards who keep the imperialist Israeli government in place" or perhaps with a slight islamist touch "OMG, it's the cultural enemies of my religion. Out with the infidels!". Now these kinds of quarrels can never be solved by guns. How are you going to gain these people on your side? Shoot them? Are you ****ing serious?

 

It's exactly the same with North Korea. A war would result in immense casualties. Any embargoes are not only harmful for the population, but harmful for the democratic process. I say, try to smuggle into the country as much Coca-cola, hamburgers, Western movies and culture that is possible. The North Koreans don't know what they're missing. Honestly, looking at their state media Americans could as well be some kind of evil aliens as far as they are concerned. Remember how the Soviet Union fell? That had nothing to do with military might, the Soviet Union fell because when it's populace saw the Western lifestyle they wanted their share of it as well. If the North Koreans realize they can have a working economy and fashionous clothes if they overthrow the government, Kim-Il Jong will have no power.

 

If you want to avoid people hurting themselves, simply avoid violence yourself. It's so ****ing easy. Violence is for really, really ****ing stupid people.

[~Di]

Meanwhile, I suppose the South Koreans are supposed to suffer in silence while the North torpedos it's navy one ship at a time. Great plan!

[Humodour]

I'd just like to point out that Iran is neither Arabic nor Middle Eastern. They are Persian and Asian respectively.

[Humodour]

Yeah it's not just the cost in lives here - warships like the Cheonan are multi-million dollar expenses. If this were a regular occurence it would quickly become a case of attrition warfare which South Korea would be forced to act upon.

[Gorgon]

Meanwhile, I suppose the South Koreans are supposed to suffer in silence while the North torpedos it's navy one ship at a time. Great plan!

A comparable military response would end in war and the North holds the population of Seoul hostage. The North boasts an estimated 13000 artillery pieces, the largest concentration anywhere in the world, already dug in and pointing at the South's cities. There is no effective counter against such a threat against the civilian population. The South would win with their American allies but the cost would be incalculable.

 

This is where the North's supreme confidence comes from. They know that starting a war is unthinkable for the South since its leaders are obliged to actually care what happens to its citizens.