North Korea developments - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-24-2009, 08:03 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Like this guy below?

YouTube - Clinton: Iraq Has Abused Its Final Chance

"the hard fact is, that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat, once and for all, is with a new Iraqi government. A government ready to live in peace with its neighbors. A government that respects the rights of its people."

Bill Clinton December 16, 1998
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy
In general, neo-cons always seem to be looking for excuses to make war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow
Like this guy below?
Well, yes. Clinton was, like Blair, an interventionist liberal, a heartbeat away from being a neo-con. He didn't kill as many as the neo-cons, but he tried hard.

Why did you even bring up Clinton in response to my post? Can't you see that people like Clinton have more in common with Bush/Cheney than with traditional libertarian conservatives such as myself?

The world isn't as Manichean as you think.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 08:07 PM   #32
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobo13 View Post
They might be some kind of bully in their little corner of the world, but any sustained conflict would tax them greatly.
Also, in modern warfare, if you can't control your skies you're in very deep shit. I don't care how big you're army is.
Thats no comfort to the 10 million people who live in Seoul South Korea. They only have minutes or seconds to react to any type of a North Korean attack. The level of destruction in a country that is important to the global economy would be massive. In addition, the ability to hit targets with ballistic missiles in Japan or the sea lanes around Japan with Chemical, Biological, or nuclear warheads can drastically impact the ability of forces inside or outside the area to respond to the crises. The issue here is not what would happen in the long run in any conflict, but the level of destruction that North Korea could cause in the opening minutes, hours, and days of any conflict in an area vital to the global economy.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 08:10 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Avoiding military action at all costs led to the deadliest conflict in history, World War II. When military action is a necessity is something that should be judged on a case by case basis and NEVER beholden to some arbitrary rule. The failure to take military action can have its own devastating consequences. Thats true whether your a die-hard liberal, real conservative, moderate Republican, conservative democrat, communist, liberatarian etc.
Many historians disagree with that judgement regarding WWII. Also, it is simply historically inaccurate to imply that not immediately declaring war on Germany following the coming to power of Hitler constituted 'avoiding military action at all costs'. There were very good reasons for Chamberlain to pursue the so-called 'appeasement' policy.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 08:12 PM   #34
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Well, yes. Clinton was, like Blair, an interventionist liberal, a heartbeat away from being a neo-con. He didn't kill as many as the neo-cons, but he tried hard.
What about Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt?


Quote:
Why did you even bring up Clinton in response to my post?
To show you that the world is not as manichean as you think, and your use of the term neocon really has no meaning at all.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 08:17 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Regardless of what part of the political spectrum you think you fall under, its not wise to throw around useless labels like "Neocon" which has really become a term, used by some, to describe ANYONE who supported military action in Iraq at any point in time or favors a strong defense.
Neo-'conservatism' is by no means a useless label, but a defined, well-documented political philosophy. It is also well documented that most of the politicians, writers, journalists who supported the Iraq conqest identified with either the neo-'conservative' philosophy or the interventionist liberal analysis, (as represented by Blair).
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 08:17 PM   #36
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Many historians disagree with that judgement regarding WWII. Also, it is simply historically inaccurate to imply that not immediately declaring war on Germany following the coming to power of Hitler constituted 'avoiding military action at all costs'. There were very good reasons for Chamberlain to pursue the so-called 'appeasement' policy.
The point is that when military action is a necessity is something that should be judged on a case by case basis and NEVER beholden to some arbitrary rule. The failure to take military action can have its own devastating consequences.

There are not many people who argue in favor of the "allies" actions in the 1930s VS Hitler, and I doubt there will be many people in the future who will argue that the security of the Persian Gulf and the world as well as the Iraqi people would be better off with Saddam still in power in Iraq.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 08:19 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
What about Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt.
If you could point out to me where any one of the above pursued a doctrine of pre-emptive war, I'd be grateful.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 08:23 PM   #38
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Neo-'conservatism' is by no means a useless label, but a defined, well-documented political philosophy. It is also well documented that most of the politicians, writers, journalists who supported the Iraq conqest identified with either the neo-'conservative' philosophy or the interventionist liberal analysis, (as represented by Blair).
Unfortunately, too many people have used and abused the term to the point that it has little meaning at all. Just to remind you the majority of the US population supported the invasion of Iraq, as well as nearly all Republicans in congress and a majority of Democrats in congress. In terms of support, it was one of the most popular US military actions taken in US history.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 08:24 PM   #39
Refugee
 
MadForIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2,232
Local Time: 12:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
The point is that when military action is a necessity is something that should be judged on a case by case basis and NEVER beholden to some arbitrary rule. The failure to take military action can have its own devastating consequences.

There are not many people who argue in favor of the "allies" actions in the 1930s VS Hitler, and I doubt there will be many people in the future who will argue that the security of the Persian Gulf and the world as well as the Iraqi people would be better off with Saddam still in power in Iraq.
Well if the allies were not so harsh with Germany at the treaty of Versailles then Hitler would not have been so determined to lead Germany.

and we should have left Saddam. He posed no threat to Europe so should have let him be. If he destroyed Middle East, i couldnt care less.
__________________
MadForIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 08:26 PM   #40
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,666
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Just to remind you the majority of the US population supported the invasion of Iraq, as well as nearly all Republicans in congress and a majority of Democrats in congress. In terms of support, it was one of the most popular US military actions taken in US history.
Well, yes, they supported it, but it was under false pretenses.
__________________

BoMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 08:27 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadForIt View Post
Well if the allies were not so harsh with Germany at the treaty of Versailles then Hitler would not have been so determined to lead Germany.
I think this is a legitimate point. The Nazis were the most damnable bunch of scum that ever acceded to power, but it's important to look into why they came to power in the first place.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 08:28 PM   #42
The Fly
 
Hobo13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sunny San Diego
Posts: 72
Local Time: 04:37 AM
Boy was that late.
__________________
Hobo13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 08:32 PM   #43
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
If you could point out to me where any one of the above pursued a doctrine of pre-emptive war, I'd be grateful.
Every single one of them would not hesitate to enter one if necessary to protect the United States or its interest.
__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 08:35 PM   #44
The Fly
 
Hobo13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sunny San Diego
Posts: 72
Local Time: 04:37 AM
__________________
Hobo13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 08:36 PM   #45
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,666
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Every single one of them would not hesitate to enter one if necessary to protect the United States or its interest.
Isn't this a requirement of any president regardless of political affiliations or beliefs?
__________________

__________________

BoMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
North Korea (Compared to Iraq) Klaus Free Your Mind Archive 4 08-02-2003 07:43 PM
The War "In A Nutshell" oliveu2cm Free Your Mind Archive 30 04-06-2003 12:44 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com