RE: New "Abuse" Photo's

[seinfeldrules]

Many could say the same about this war.

And I could also say that it's ironic that while the right couldn't have given a shit about Iraq back in the day, they suddenly do now.

BTW I'm not trying to say that one political group was better than the other. I just don't think that this kind of blame should be put exclusively on one. Me at that time? I was too young to have an informed opinion about what exactly what went on Iraq.

Do you protest over NK's treatment of their citizens? I'm not accusing you of anything if you dont, just pointing out that the US receives a disproportionate amount of blame in my eyes.

And I could also say that it's ironic that while the right couldn't have given a shit about Iraq back in the day, they suddenly do now.

And it could also be said for the left too...

 

[Bait]

Do you protest over NK's treatment of their citizens? I'm not accusing you of anything if you dont, just pointing out that the US receives a disproportionate amount of blame in my eyes.

Obviously, considering the context of most of the discussions going on here.

Personally, I'm not all to sure about the situation in NK, so I won't comment on it. But, if things are so bad as to the fact that innocents are being killed by Kim Jong (?) then that is definately a problem.

 

[seinfeldrules]

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040803-122618-7502r.htm

SEOUL — North Korea is spending as much as 40 percent of its gross domestic product on its military, including its nuclear-weapons program, to give its 1.2-million-man army key advantages over better-armed U.S. and South Korean forces, said Army Gen. Leon J. LaPorte, the U.S. Forces Korea commander.
North Korea's conventional forces — including the world's largest special operations commando force and 12,000 artillery pieces near the border — pose a continuing "credible military threat," but have some limitations, Gen. LaPorte said.

The four-star general said North Korea, despite its poor economy, continues to invest between 35 percent and 40 percent of its gross domestic product in what Pyongyang calls a "military first" policy — building up military forces at the expense of the civilian sector.

All this is happening while his people are starving to death because they lack food and basic services. No need to execute somebody when they are going to starve to death.

 

[Eg.]

anither thing to note: america provides enough food in aid to Nkorea to feed everybody, but for some reason only the military gets food.

the NY Times (liberal) and the Discover Channel (owned by BBC) have this collective documentries on channel 113 in Ny. they had a good one on Nkorea, turns out in the prison camps they gut the pregnant(8months) women to teach the other not to have sex

 

[CptStern]

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040803-122618-7502r.htm


All this is happening while his people are starving to death because they lack food and basic services. No need to execute somebody when they are going to starve to death.

the sudanese are more deserving of military intervention. Set your crosshairs elsewhere

 

[seinfeldrules]

the sudanese are more deserving of military intervention. Set your crosshairs elsewhere

Sudanese arent also threatening another nation with thousands of guns aimed at their capital. Suren it would be great to see peace break out in Sudan, but why should the US kick it alone? Why not lobby to send in some Canadians? Both countries are deserving of serious UN attention. Possibly military attention. I feel that NK has always been more of a threat than Iraq, and did feel so back when we invaded Iraq.

 

[CptStern]

sudanese are more deserving, they are being slaughtered by the thousands. Dont think for a minute I'm not critical of canada's lack of a military prescence ..but the truth is we really dont have the resources what with Haiti and Afghanistan ..our army is a fraction of yours.

there that was easy, now lets see you admit to being critical of america's lack of intervention in Sudan ....not going to happen is it?

 

[seinfeldrules]

sudanese are more deserving, they are being slaughtered by the thousands. Dont think for a minute I'm not critical of canada's lack of a military prescence ..but the truth is we really dont have the resources what with Haiti and Afghanistan ..our army is a fraction of yours.

there that was easy, now lets see you admit to being critical of america's lack of intervention in Sudan ....not going to happen is it?

I also agree that the US should be in the Sudan. I think an 'army' consisting of about 3,000 US soldiers coupled with an equal amount of Canadian troops would go a long way. This still does not put NK off the hook. I feel that they are a great danger to themselves as well as the world.

 

[CptStern]

I dont think we have 3000 troops to give


you have no right to judge other countries. NK poses no threat to you

 

[seinfeldrules]

you have no right to judge other countries. NK poses no threat to you

It poses a clear danger to SK, Japan, and yes even the US. Its nukes could reach a Western state such as HI or even CA if NK's ballistic missles perform up to their expectations. Furthermore, NK is believed by many to be the greatest threat to world peace because of the condition their country is in. Their leaders would not hesitate to launch an attack if they felt pressured enough either economically or politically.

 

[CptStern]

It poses a clear danger to SK, Japan, and yes even the US. Its nukes could reach a Western state such as HI or even CA if NK's ballistic missles perform up to their expectations. Furthermore, NK is believed by many to be the greatest threat to world peace because of the condition their country is in. Their leaders would not hesitate to launch an attack if they felt pressured enough either economically or politically.

the same can be said about the US, that's not enough justification for invasion. They pose no direct threat. BTW china is notoriously brutal with their political prisoners, are communist to boot and possess enough nukes to level the US ..I guess you'll take care of them as well?

 

[seinfeldrules]

the same can be said about the US, that's not enough justification for invasion. They pose no direct threat. BTW china is notoriously brutal with their political prisoners, are communist to boot and possess enough nukes to level the US ..I guess you'll take care of them as well?

1. The US is nearing economic collapse? Really, you must be in on some knowledge the rest of the world is missing. Is the US run by a dictator with a fetish for military power (40% of gov't spending)? Sure, I see the opening for a Bush bash to the liberals out there, but there is no realistic comparision. While on paper the US and NK can be compared using your argument, there is none in the real world, and we both know it. It would be akin to comparing Nazi Germany to the 1940 GB because both had weapons and declared war on others without being attacked themselves.

They are slowly making strides towards democracy on their own. However, I do believe they will pose a threat down the road (10 years), this is a purely personal, gut feeling and it is one of the main regions I will pursue in college.

 

[CptStern]

1. The US is nearing economic collapse? Really, you must be in on some knowledge the rest of the world is missing. Is the US run by a dictator with a fetish for military power (40% of gov't spending)? Sure, I see the opening for a Bush bash to the liberals out there, but there is no realistic comparision. While on paper the US and NK can be compared using your argument, there is none in the real world, and we both know it. It would be akin to comparing Nazi Germany to the 1940 GB because both had weapons and declared war on others without being attacked themselves.

They are slowly making strides towards democracy on their own. However, I do believe they will pose a threat down the road (10 years), this is a purely personal, gut feeling and it is one of the main regions I will pursue in college.

I meant your last line

"Their leaders would not hesitate to launch an attack if they felt pressured enough either economically or politically."

 

[seinfeldrules]

"Their leaders would not hesitate to launch an attack if they felt pressured enough either economically or politically."

Thats what I was responding to.

 

[CptStern]

Thats what I was responding to.

"Their leaders would not hesitate to launch an attack if they felt pressured enough either economically or politically."

..and that fits the US ...ummm Iraq!

 

[seinfeldrules]

hahaha you are taking it too literally.

1. It did not help us economically
2. It did not help Bush politcally.

Again, I mean that NK would be faced with economic collapse or the inevitable fall of their regime through either perceived foreign intervention or a domestic uprising.

 

[CptStern]

hahaha you are taking it too literally.

1. It did not help us economically
2. It did not help Bush politcally.

Again, I mean that NK would be faced with economic collapse or the inevitable fall of their regime through either perceived foreign intervention or a domestic uprising.

"1. It did not help us economically"

true, only a select few benefited economically :E


"2. It did not help Bush politcally."

sure it did, he was re-elected wasnt he? his popularity rose (in certain circles *cough*christian right*cough*)

 

[seinfeldrules]

sure it did, he was re-elected wasnt he? his popularity rose (in certain circles *cough*christian right*cough*)

Sigh, if you dont realize that this was caused by his push for the anti Gay Marriage ammendment then you are beyond hope. His popularity dropped big time because of Iraq and it almost cost him the election. It was the sole reason Kerry came so close to winning.

Iraq was a 73/26 split for Kerry and it was the main issue for 15% of Americans.

true, only a select few benefited economically

Has nothing to do with the overall argument of NK. You know they are different circumstances.

 

[CptStern]

Sigh, if you dont realize that this was caused by his push for the anti Gay Marriage ammendment then you are beyond hope. His popularity dropped big time because of Iraq and it almost cost him the election. It was the sole reason Kerry came so close to winning.

really?

Has nothing to do with the overall argument of NK. You know they are different circumstances.

alright back to NK ...never been a threat to the US. And dont try to say that they may attack the US, justifying a pre-emptive strike because using that logic I can legitamize 9/11

 

[seinfeldrules]

really?

Most Important Issue...
Bush Kerry

Iraq (15%) 26% n/a 73%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Yes, really.

Notice this is actual fact instead of a blatantly biased article written by Progressive extremists.

alright back to NK ...never been a threat to the US. And dont try to say that they may attack the US, justifying a pre-emptive strike because using that logic I can legitamize 9/11

They are a disticnt threat to SK and others in the region. Attacking the US if they felt their back was against the wall isnt that unthinkable either.

 

[seinfeldrules]

And again, here

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/karl.rove/index.html

Bush had something going for him besides religion.

When asked what mattered most to them in deciding how to vote, Bush voters put strong leadership and clear stands on the issues, not religion, at the top of the list.

Most voters on November 3 said they support abortion rights, which was about the same as in 2000.

Sixty percent favored some form of legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

 

[CptStern]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

from your own link:

VOTE BY RELIGION:

BUSH: 59%

Notice this is actual fact instead of a blatantly biased article written by Progressive extremists.

:upstare: your entire government is made up of regressive extremists, that doesnt seem to bother you in the least

They are a disticnt threat to SK and others in the region. Attacking the US if they felt their back was against the wall isnt that unthinkable either.

newflash!!! sudanese are a distint threat to other sudanese!

..so? china executes it's political prisoners ...I guess you'll be going there as well?

Attacking the US if they felt their back was against the wall isnt that unthinkable either.

you mean like what you did to iraq? Trust me Iraq is a cake walk next to NK ..it wont take weeks like in Iraq, but years with casualties in the millions on both sides ...are you prepared to see american body counts in the 100's of thousands? I guess you should enlist now cuz I hear the US may need more patriots (I call them expendable pawns) willing to die for the cause of "freedom" everywhere

 

[seinfeldrules]

from your own link:

VOTE BY RELIGION:

BUSH: 59%

Yes, you said Iraq helped Bush. I posted a link which disproved this. I then posted links which explain that abortion and gay marriage played a much larger role to Christians than the War in Iraq.

newflash!!! sudanese are a distint threat to other sudanese!

Yes, I also said we should help them too...

You should look back over the discussion.

.so? china executes it's political prisoners ...I guess you'll be going there as well?

As mentioned, they are slowly becoming a more democratic society in which this will likely not happen in a few more years. NK isnt doing this. China is only a threat to Taiwan, but they dont have much of a navy so invasion is unlikely.

Trust me Iraq is a cake walk next to NK ..it wont take weeks like in Iraq, but years with casualties in the millions on both sides

I would agree. I have read the war scenarios and battle plans that are likely to be played out.

are you prepared to see american body counts in the 100's of thousands?

I doubt it would be that large.

I guess you should enlist now cuz I hear the US may need more patriots willing to die for the cause of freedom everywhere

I've already mentioned my plans in life to you.

 

[CptStern]

Yes, you said Iraq helped Bush. I posted a link which disproved this. I then posted links which explain that abortion and gay marriage played a much larger role to Christians than the War in Iraq.

read between the lines, the same 59% are the ones that support bush's war

Yes, I also said we should help them too...

You should look back over the discussion.

it's not going to happen ...just look at Haiti

As mentioned, they are slowly becoming a more democratic society in which this will likely not happen in a few more years. NK isnt doing this. China is only a threat to Taiwan, but they dont have much of a navy so invasion is unlikely.

nope, human rights is still a big problem, so is freedom of the press, religious freedom, freedom of speech ..and they're communist to boot ..China poses a far greater threat as they're fast becoming a US rival for superpower ..meh we need a balance anyway

I doubt it would be that large.

Korean war 1950, 54,246 american servicemen dead ..and they didnt have nukes back then

I've already mentioned my plans in life to you.

you're more likely to get into that line of work if you've been in the military ..your country needs you

 

[seinfeldrules]

read between the lines, the same 59% are the ones that support bush's war

Do you have any evidence to support that? The two figures may or may not be related, you are just making assumptions at this point. My factual information shows that Iraq drasticallly hurt Bush politically.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/karl.rove/index.html

The voters this year were no more religious than before. Were religious voters more for Bush?

In 2000, Bush carried 59 percent of the vote among churchgoers. This year? Sixty-one percent. A two-point gain.

Now look at non-churchgoers.

Their vote for Bush went up by 3 percentage points.

Bush had something going for him besides religion.

it's not going to happen ...just look at Haiti

Then it is the fault of not only America, but of the entire world. Including Canada.

nope, human rights is still a big problem, so is freedom of the press, religious freedom, freedom of speech ..and they're communist to boot ..China poses a far greater threat as they're fast becoming a US rival for superpower ..meh we need a balance anyway

Yes, but they are slowly improving. You dont seem to understand that. In NK's case, there is no improvement and there is a clear danger to the outside world as well as their own peope.

you're more likely to get into that line of work if you've been in the military ..your country needs you

I can make up my own mind, no need to have somebody else tell me what to do. I know you like that whole idea, but it doesnt fly for me.

Korean war 1950, 54,246 american servicemen dead ..and they didnt have nukes back then

It was also a different war in a different time. Comparing that would be like comparing WWI to WWII. The technology gap and strategies have changed over time. There would likely be no intervention by China either, who pretty much saved NK last time around. Even you should realize that stern.

 

[burner69]

It was also a different war in a different time. Comparing that would be like comparing WWI to WWII. The technology gap and strategies have changed over time. There would likely be no intervention by China either, who pretty much saved NK last time around. Even you should realize that stern.

Actually much of military tactics and weaponary for the average solider are very similar to the 50's. The best weapon you're likely to have as a solider is a medium calibre machine gun, same as the 50's.

Although there are changes in tactics, particulary the whole "blow the crap out of a town then send the boys in", when it comes to down on the ground tactics little has changed.

And it sounds like NK could do a lot of extra damage than in the 50s with all this money being spent on weapons and defenses. Maybe they'd start flinging bombs onto your own soil if you did it to them.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Actually much of military tactics and weaponary for the average solider are very similar to the 50's. The best weapon you're likely to have as a solider is a medium calibre machine gun, same as the 50's.

Are you kidding me? Forms of communcation are 1000X better. Aerial support is made much easier as is artillery barrage. Tanks are far superior to their predecessors, munitions are 'smarter'. Rifles are superior (M16), training is better. The list goes on and on. And while NK may spend loads on their military, the US spends more on our military then the rest of the world combined. Just think about that.

 

[burner69]

Are you kidding me? Forms of communcation are 1000X better. Aerial support is made much easier as is artillery barrage. Tanks are far superior to their predecessors, munitions are 'smarter'. Rifles are superior (M16), training is better. The list goes on and on. And while NK may spend loads on their military, the US spends more on our military then the rest of the world combined. Just think about that.

1000x hey? Are radio ops that different from satalite comms? They're better, but I don't see how that will stop a bullet coming towards you at 900 metres per second.

Aerial support is easier; it still happened in the 50s.

Artillery is better; they still had it in the 50s.

Tanks are better, but stil have the same limitations and weaknesses as their 50's counterparts. Lay a few LAWs into the side of a Challenger two and it'll stop functioning.. why? Cuz altho the tank may not necessarily be destroyed, the crew will be dead.

"The US spend more on their military than the rest of the world combined"

And you wonder why countries like NK feel pressured to sacrifice the quality of life of their citizens to spend on weapons, especially with the way you use all these weapons. Don't you see why so many countries hate you? You spend THAT MUCH on weapons, which could be used to feed, clothe and educate the entire world - how many terrorists do ya think would attack you if you just brought their country out of poverty? Hmm?

 

[seinfeldrules]

1000x hey? Are radio ops that different from satalite comms? They're better, but I don't see how that will stop a bullet coming towards you at 900 metres per second.

Well the actual radio technology is all connected through GPS now. That is what makes all the difference. You instantly know your location and the smart bombs can pinpoint exactly where you want them.

Plus, we have MOAB :sniper:

And you wonder why countries like NK feel pressured to sacrifice the quality of life of their citizens to spend on weapons, especially with the way you use all these weapons.

Yeah, I do. Switzerland doesnt have the biggest army, they arent scared of us.

You spend THAT MUCH on weapons, which could be used to feed, clothe and educate the entire world

Its our money, honey. We still spend loads on charity though, to say otherwise is foolish.

how many terrorists do ya think would attack you if you just brought their country out of poverty? Hmm?

One of the reasons Osama hates the west is because of how much influence we have over there. Not meaning militarily, but culturally.

 

[burner69]

1. Well the actual radio technology is all connected through GPS now. That is what makes all the difference. You instantly know your location and the smart bombs can pinpoint exactly where you want them.

2. Plus, we have MOAB :sniper:

3. Yeah, I do. Switzerland doesnt have the biggest army, they arent scared of us.

4. Its our money, honey. We still spend loads on charity though, to say otherwise is foolish.

5. One of the reasons Osama hates the west is because of how much influence we have over there. Not meaning militarily, but culturally.

1. "Charlie one, this is Charlie three, requesting air strike at *Bang* *thump*

2. ???

3. Neither is Britain (not strictly true) or Austrailia. But many other countries are terrified.

4. Compared to weapons its bugger all. Shows where your priorities lie.

5. You mean the fact we're always muscling in on their politics. Bombing them. Setting up cheap labour there, forcing people to work for jack shat. Manipulating governments over there. Ignoring attrocities being committed if it isn't profitable to help out.

You really think Osama would attack you if you'd just invested money in clean water systems for all the arab nations, with no strings attached? Do you?

 

[seinfeldrules]

1. "Charlie one, this is Charlie three, requesting air strike at *Bang* *thump*

2. ???

3. Neither is Britain (not strictly true) or Austrailia. But many other countries are terrified.

4. Compared to weapons its bugger all. Shows where your priorities lie.

5. You mean the fact we're always muscling in on their politics. Bombing them. Setting up cheap labour there, forcing people to work for jack shat. Manipulating governments over there. Ignoring attrocities being committed if it isn't profitable to help out.

1. You lost me. If you are claiming that GPS is useless then I really have no rebuttal as there is no hope for you.

2. Mother Of All Bombs . It is the largest conventional warhead in existence. Just a big muscle flexer.

3. Look at the countries which are. Iran, Syria, and North Korea. I really dont want those countries (gov'ts) to be my friend in the first place.

4. Yes, we provide the best equipment and defense for our country that we can offer. You still cannot argue over our enormous contributions to charity.

5. No, as in they despise our treatment of females, our openess, our denim jeans, movies etc. etc.
It isnt always our job to deal with their atrocities. Is it too much to ask that they deal with even a few of the situations themselves? Are we their parents or something?

You really think Osama would attack you if you'd just invested money in clean water systems for all the arab nations, with no strings attached? Do you?

Yes.

 

[CptStern]

1. Well the actual radio technology is all connected through GPS now. That is what makes all the difference. You instantly know your location and the smart bombs can pinpoint exactly where you want them.

all this pinpoint technology yet 7000 civilians died as a result of coalition bombing ...smart bombs? Indiscriminate bombing more like it

 

[Eg.]

idiscriminate bombing would be carpet bombing, which i think is mopre effective beacuse it instills fear. we should have leved fallujah in one day

 

[Absinthe]

idiscriminate bombing would be carpet bombing, which i think is mopre effective beacuse it instills fear. we should have leved fallujah in one day

Man, I can't wait until your neighborhood is blown up by a kamikaze. That would be a real kick in the balls.

 

[seinfeldrules]

all this pinpoint technology yet 7000 civilians died as a result of coalition bombing ...smart bombs? Indiscriminate bombing more like it

More like terrorists hiding in with the civilian population. Korea would be a more conventional war, if it were to happen.

 

[Eg.]

Man, I can't wait until your neighborhood is blown up by a kamikaze. That would be a real kick in the balls.

and then their nation will burn with the heat of atomic fire. and i think i would be laughing

 

[Bait]

and then their nation will burn with the heat of atomic fire. and i think i would be laughing

You are reaaaallllll low, you do realize that right?

seinfeldrules, why do you think bin Laden organized the attack on the States? Do you think he picked it out of a hat? Do you think he picked a number between 1 and 10 and ended up being the US? Something like 9/11 doesn't just pop out of the blue. It's not like bin Laden poped out of bed one day and said "Gosh, I feel like killing me some infidels" (Although I have a sneaking suspicion that Bush may feel something like this). A deep hatred was developped for the States because of its atrocious international policies and disregard for human life.

If the States would just open its eyes and realize the problem won't go away by killing and destroying, then solutions could be made. You don't cleanse away hatred with death and destruction; any civilized and intelligent person will tell you that.

 

[seinfeldrules]

seinfeldrules, why do you think bin Laden organized the attack on the States?

Sigh. He hates our culture. He hates everything America stands for. He feels that we are 'corrupting' the 'great nations of Islam' and all that jazz. If he really cared about Muslim lives all that much, why didnt he kill Saddam?

5. No, as in they despise our treatment of females, our openess, our denim jeans, movies etc. etc.

 

[Bait]

Sigh. He hates our culture. He hates everything America stands for. He feels that we are 'corrupting' the 'great nations of Islam' and all that jazz. If he really cared about Muslim lives all that much, why didnt he kill Saddam?

Don't think for a second that I condone what he did, but his hatred was founded on the fact that the States were interfering with things that had nothing to do with them. Most notably the backing of Israel. As for killing Saddam, enough muslims kill muslims in this world. It digusts me and is more of a problem than the US poses right now, in my opinion. I suppose bin Laden figured that, and did not want to be a hypocrit in going after Saddam.

Another point I would like to add is during bin Laden's latest speech, he said "Leave us alone, and we will leave you alone." I honestly believe he meant the truth, and that if the US decides to back out of business that isn't theirs, that would be one less thing to hold against it. That is more reasonable than anything I've ever heared Bush say.

 

[CptStern]

More like terrorists hiding in with the civilian population.

well maybe you shouldnt bomb the area till after the civilians have gotten to safety ...btw I meant during the war, there were no terrorists during the war, only legal combatants.