I don't get how we failed with North Korea???

moeaholic

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i don't see it as a failure. a sovreign nation is entitled to do whatever it wants. it is beholding nothing to us. its not the responsibility of the US to stick our noses into their business and prevent them from doing anything. IMO it was bound to happen sooner or later. it is the great equilizer. knowing they have the bomb and will use it on us if we invade is a pretty good deterrent to keep us from invading them. it gives them leverage in world affairs now i am sure.


** edit grammar

as far as i'm concerned, they hold no leverage if they can't get a missle to fire more than a couple hundred feet off the launchpad.

enharmonic

We didn't fail with N. Korea

So they have nukes. Big deal.

enharmonic

moeaholic wrote:

as far as i'm concerned, they hold no leverage if they can't get a missle to fire more than a couple hundred feet off the launchpad.

On the contrary, a missile is not the only way to deliver a nuclear payload. Shipping channels from the far east would present a particularly difficult scenario, that could end up costing hundreds of millions of dollars in additional security checks and sensory/detection equipment in far east ports.

Even then...no guarantees that they couldn't just float a nuke into the San Diego harbor. :(

moeaholic

enharmonic wrote:

On the contrary, a missile is not the only way to deliver a nuclear payload. Shipping channels from the far east would present a particularly difficult scenario, that could end up costing hundreds of millions of dollars in additional security checks and sensory/detection equipment in far east ports.

Even then...no guarantees that they couldn't just float a nuke into the San Diego harbor. :(

true, never thought about that. it's just with their failed missle tests in the past year that's all that was on my mind.

Cosmo

Our policy is:
You got no nukes... we'll attack you.
You got nukes... we'll negotiate with you.
...
Summary: You better get nukes, or else, we will attack you.

rebornFixer

Cosmo wrote:

Our policy is:
You got no nukes... we'll attack you.
You got nukes... we'll negotiate with you.
...
Summary: You better get nukes, or else, we will attack you.

Except that if this were 100% true, North Korea would have been attacked ages ago, before they had working nukes. Instead, round after round of talks did nothing. I am not saying that an attack would have been a good idea ... Just that this theory of countries protecting themselves is not quite on the mark. Diplomacy was tried with North korea for quite a long time, and it did nothing to stop this latest nuclear test.

Cosmo

reborncareerist wrote:

Except that if this were 100% true, North Korea would have been attacked ages ago, before they had working nukes. Instead, round after round of talks did nothing. I am not saying that an attack would have been a good idea ... Just that this theory of countries protecting themselves is not quite on the mark. Diplomacy was tried with North korea for quite a long time, and it did nothing to stop this latest nuclear test.

...
I'm saying, tongue in cheek, that this is the message we are sending out.
Korea now has a bargaining chip in the big game.
They know we would be insane to attack them militarily... sitting next door to fucking China. He HAVE to deal with them now, only difference... we are holding all of the chips anymore.
This also goes for Iran. When they get their nukes, they know they will have much more leverage against us.

rebornFixer

Cosmo wrote:

...
I'm saying, tongue in cheek, that this is the message we are sending out.
Korea now has a bargaining chip in the big game.
They know we would be insane to attack them militarily... sitting next door to fucking China. He HAVE to deal with them now, only difference... we are holding all of the chips anymore.
This also goes for Iran. When they get their nukes, they know they will have much more leverage against us.

Which is why I am concerned. Crazy fucks need less leverage, not more.

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

he's insane, but he has reason to oppose fear the usa...

And those reasons are strictly his point of view, uh, not your own....even though they're the opposite of "insane" as the "but" in your comment indicates. So, his fears are not insane, but they are not views that you share.

And you think you made that clear from the onset?

I think the problem is that you think his fears are legitimate, but you don't want to admit it's what you think. So, the end result is the garbling that you've been posting thus far in this thread. This garbling is the "from N Korea's standpoint, it makes sense" combined with the "I'm not necessarily saying it's right or wrong." Way to dance around having to be accountable for your own point of view.

You got caught with your pants down. Just live with it and stop trying to make a jerk out of me for being the one who caught it.

Every policy comes from someone's point of view. What, you think they use a magic 8ball? You can understand a point of view without sharing it, as well.

PaperPlates

LikeAnOcean wrote:

"Evil" is just a simplified explanation for stupid people.

If you can't understand what somebody does its easier for your mind to just give them a label. "Evil" works for alot of people.

Jon wing II or whatever his name is not evil. Just another messed up person.

Was hitler evil? Or was he just a messed up person? OR whas he an evil messed up person?

Abookamongstthemany

PaperPlates wrote:

Was hitler evil? Or was he just a messed up person? OR whas he an evil messed up person?

I'd have to go with insane.

PaperPlates

I'll go with that. An insane, evil, messed up person. For sure.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Every policy comes from someone's point of view. What, you think they use a magic 8ball? You can understand a point of view without sharing it, as well.

wtf? did everyone just happen to fail communications 101?

I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm saying he failed to make a distinction. The burden is on him to do so. This is common sense communication. When I asked for clarification, I got a bunch of defensive rhetoric and confused jargon.

Generally speaking, when we say that a person's views are sane, we are implying that we agree with those views. By placing the word "but" after the phrase "he is insane", he implied that Kim Jong's Il's fears of the US are, in fact, sane and therefore legitimate.

It is not impossible to disagree with someone whose views we consider to be sane, but in the event when that is the case, it is common sense to make note of this exception - as it is very much an exception to the implied logic.

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

Generally speaking, when we say that a person's views are sane, we are implying that we agree with those views. By placing the word "but" after the phrase "he is insane", he implied that Kim Jong's Il's fears of the US are, in fact, sane and therefore legitimate.

It is not impossible to disagree with someone whose views we consider to be sane, but in the event when that is the case, it is common sense to make note of this exception - as it is very much an exception to the implied logic.

So a lunatic can't get defensive if he's being threatened? Insanity does not take away reason. You can believe an insane person has good reason to feel the need for defense. The craziness comes in where I don't agree with his extreme measures of attaining security.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

So a lunatic can't get defensive if he's being threatened? Insanity does not take away reason. You can believe an insane person has good reason to feel the need for defense. The craziness comes in where I don't agree with his extreme measures of attaining security.

By saying "good reason", you are implying those reasons are sane. And by implying that those reasons are sane, you are also implying that you agree with those reasons.

Although you may not realize it, what you're really saying is that when a person has "good reason", those reasons are not ones that you would necessarily agree with. I'll have to make note of that the next time I read your posts. As far as you're concerned, good = not something you necessarily agree with.

And that's fine by me, but I think you can at least understand that it is out of the ordinary. In which case, it is only common sense to make that distinction. That distinctin was not made, and when I asked for clarification, I got a bunch of a smart-ass remarks that I would expect from a 12 yr old who can't seem to remove his foot from his mouth.

Now you've come along to help him remove that foot, leaving me with no choice but to explain common sense to two people instead of just one. Anyone else need spoon feedings of common sense?

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

By saying "good reason", you are implying those reasons are sane. And by implying that those reasons are sane, you are also implying that you agree with those reasons.

You mean to say that when a person has "good reason", those reasons are not ones that you would agree with? I'll have to make note of that the next time I read your posts. As far as you're concerned, good = not something you agree with.

And that's fine by me, but I think you can at least understand that it is out of the ordinary. In which case, it is only common sense to make that distinction. That distinctin was not made, and when I asked for clarification, I got a bunch of a smart-ass remarks that I would expect from a 12 yr old who can't seem to remove his foot from his mouth.

Every decision a crazy person makes is not reasonless. How about when they decide to take a shit? Is that crazy?

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Every decision crazy person makes is not reasonless. How about when they decide to take a shit? Is that crazy?

Do you disagree with taking a shit? Or are you going to act like PJ & T and say utterly ridiculous nonsense such as, "I'm not saying it's right or wrong."

At least with taking a shit you know that KJI is probably not doing so out of insanity....and you're willing to stand by it.

Why do you bother defending such empty rhetoric? We can go in circles until you get it. Or you can just admit that you have no grounds for the arguments that you make.

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

Do you disagree with taking a shit? Or are you going to act like PJ & T and say utterly ridiculous nonsense such as, "I'm not saying it's right or wrong."

At least with taking a shit you know that KJI is probably not doing so out of insanity....and you're willing to stand by it.

Why do you bother defending such empty rhetoric? We can go in circles until you get it. Or you can just admit that you have no grounds for the arguments that you make.

I would if he took a shit all over the floor. See the difference?

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I would if he took a shit all over the floor. See the difference?

Do you? What if there wasn't a toilet around and he was trapped inside of a room with no doors?

doesn't matter, though, because you're still just proving my point for me.

shitting on the floor is typically an act of insanity. In which case, you would not have preceded it with the word "but" after calling KJI insane. You would not have said, "KJI is insane, BUT he takes shits on the floor."

Do you get it?

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

Do you? What if there wasn't a toilet around and he was trapped inside of a room with no doors?

doesn't matter, though, because you're still just proving my point for me.

shitting on the floor is typically an act of insanity. In which case, you would not have preceded it with the word "but" after calling KJI insane. Do you get it?

But deciding to take a shit isn't crazy. It's the extreme manner in which a person acts which is crazy.