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

2

Comments

  • 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.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • PaperPlatesPaperPlates Posts: 1,745
    I'll go with that. An insane, evil, messed up person. For sure.
    Why go home

    www.myspace.com/jensvad
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    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.
  • 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.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    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?
  • 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?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    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.
  • 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?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    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?
  • 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.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    But the deciding to take a shit wouldn't be crazy if you were trapped in a room w/ no doors...the extreme situation is what is crazy.


    But, being trapped in a room with no toilet and no doors is an unlikely scenario, requiring further elaboration in order for a third party to make an assessment of that person's sanity.

    Like I said, I asked for elaboration. I got whipper snapper attitude in response. Do you agree with that? Or are you just arguing for the sake of being a postwhore?
  • sponger wrote:
    But, being trapped in a room with no toilet and no doors is an unlikely scenario, requiring further elaboration in order for a third party to make an assessment of that person's sanity.

    Like I said, I asked for elaboration. I got whipper snapper attitude in response. Do you agree with that? Or are you just arguing for the sake of being a postwhore?

    I edited.

    I think you deserve any attitude you got. You seem so pissy and nasty. Have fun with that.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    I You seem so pissy and nasty.

    That's how people tend to sound, I guess, when they're telling you right from wrong. Truth hurts. Thanks for playing.
  • sponger wrote:
    That's how people tend to sound, I guess, when they're telling you right from wrong. Truth hurts. Thanks for playing.

    playing what?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    playing what?


    exactly. We are playing a game of back and forth, except you don't realize it's just a game.

    Every game has rules. In the game called life, those rules are reality. As long as you keep remembering the rules, you'll never lose your way.

    But, you forgot this was just a game. You thought it was something much more serious, so you did whatever it took (said whatever you had to say) in order to get the last word. And, in doing so, you deviated from the rules. That is, you deviated from reality. And that explains the twisted and nonsensical hogwash that compromises a majority of your posts in this thread.

    PJ&T forgot this was a game too. And that's why he was afraid to play. That's where the "I'm not saying it's right or wrong" comes from. It really translates to, "This is too scary for me." He handed in his chips, so to speak.
  • LikeAnOceanLikeAnOcean Posts: 7,718
    Hey!!!


    No fighting in my thread!
  • sponger wrote:
    exactly. We are playing a game of back and forth, except you don't realize it's just a game.

    Every game has rules. In the game called life, those rules are reality. As long as you keep remembering the rules, you'll never lose your way.

    But, you forgot this was just a game. You thought it was something much more serious, so you did whatever it took (said whatever you had to say) in order to get the last word. And, in doing so, you deviated from the rules. That is, you deviated from reality. And that explains the twisted and nonsensical hogwash that compromises a majority of your posts in this thread.

    PJ&T forgot this was a game too. And that's why he was afraid to play. That's where the "I'm not saying it's right or wrong" comes from. It really translates to, "This is too scary for me." He handed in his chips, so to speak.


    ummmm...oooooook

    I hope you got a good nights sleep
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • HinnyHinny Posts: 1,610
    Isn't it obvious?

    "You're either with us or against us"
    The doctrine of pre-emptive strike, waging war against Iraq without much fact-based justification
    The axis of evil speech
    The lack of commitment to a peace agreement after 50 years of a lapsed cease fire
    Dismissing calls for direct 2-way discussion

    God forbid they get scared and think they need to arm themselves quicksmart in order to protect their power.
    Binary solo..000000100000111100001110
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    People - Common Sense = Congress. *

    Politics are great, esp. the fun stupid kind Congress gives us every day.


    if pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of congress?

    :D

    politics

    poli can mean 'many' in latin

    we all know what ticks are...
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • It's all pretty simple to me:

    We haven't found Osama yet...

    We're stuck in Iraq, which was not an immediate threat...

    And we've let N. Korea get to a point where they are testing nuclear devices and threatening "strong countermeasures" against any country who places sanctions on them...

    Worst. Foreign. Threat. Handling. EVER.
  • moeaholicmoeaholic Posts: 535
    NakedClown wrote:
    It's all pretty simple to me:

    We haven't found Osama yet...

    We're stuck in Iraq, which was not an immediate threat...

    And we've let N. Korea get to a point where they are testing nuclear devices and threatening "strong countermeasures" against any country who places sanctions on them...

    Worst. Foreign. Threat. Handling. EVER.

    who's the "we" that let n. korea get to that point?
    "PC Load Letter?! What the fuck does that mean?"
    ~Michael Bolton
  • El_Kabong wrote:
    if pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of congress?

    :D

    politics

    poli can mean 'many' in latin

    we all know what ticks are...
    hahaha

    I might steal that from you... and whoever you stole it from :p
    Come on pilgrim you know he loves you..

    http://www.wishlistfoundation.org

    Oh my, they dropped the leash.



    Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!

    "Make our day"
  • sponger wrote:
    lol...still dancing.

    Let's go over your original statement one more time:



    I don't know where you learned to speak english, but if you think the above statement means that you understand where he's coming from, but don't agree with it, then you learned wrong.

    Like I said before: If you want to eliminate confusion, just say exactly what you mean. And if someone down the line asks for clarification because you don't know how to communicate, then don't be a baby about it.

    I think any rational person would have no problem answering a simple question without making defensive remarks such as, "Do you really need to ask?" and "I thought I made myself pretty damn clear."

    I asked that simple question, and you went out of your way to try to make me look like an idiot. That only leaves me with the suspicion that you just want to dance your way around your own stupid comment. My advice is to own up to it and change yourself for the better before you get caught in another situation like this one in the future. It's really for the benefit of your own state of mind and out of courtesy to others.

    "He's still insane"... meaning I think he's.. insane.. could mean anything. Very vague but I wasn't aiming to make any specific argument,, he's oppressive, kills a lot of people, etc etc etc. Everyone knows why he's insane and I disagree with every bit of the way he's dealing with the US.

    "But he has reason to fear the US"... His fears are still legitimate so I understand why he does what he does,... just don't agree with it.

    Clear enough?

    let's drop it now..
    Come on pilgrim you know he loves you..

    http://www.wishlistfoundation.org

    Oh my, they dropped the leash.



    Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!

    "Make our day"
  • moeaholic wrote:
    who's the "we" that let n. korea get to that point?

    We = the Unites States who felt it was more important to police a possible threat in Iraq rather than a lunatic with nuke capabilities in N. Korea.
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    "He's still insane"... meaning I think he's.. insane.. could mean anything. Very vague but I wasn't aiming to make any specific argument,, he's oppressive, kills a lot of people, etc etc etc. Everyone knows why he's insane and I disagree with every bit of the way he's dealing with the US.

    "But he has reason to fear the US"... His fears are still legitimate so I understand why he does what he does,... just don't agree with it.

    Clear enough?

    let's drop it now..

    I know what you were trying to say. Maybe it slipped your mind,but I just spent the last 3-4 pages making it very clear that your point of view is crystal clear as day now that you've elaborated on what was originally vague and indecisive.

    What I don't get is what could possibly possess you to say, "Does this really need to be asked?" and "I thought I made myself pretty damn clear," after only saying, "but, he has reason to fear the US."

    At least you now admit that you think his fears are legitimate instead of, "I'm not saying it's right or wrong." That is, you really believe that if he doesn't have nukes, he the US will attack him and take his country from him. That is what "legitimate" fears means.

    That is what you believe, isn't it? Without nukes, KJI is the next Saddam Hussein...
  • beachdwellerbeachdweller Posts: 1,532
    we failed, because we thought we could do something in the first place, China has to lead the way, but don't hold your breathe
    "Music, for me, was fucking heroin." eV (nothing Ed has said is more true for me personally than this quote)

    Stop by:
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
  • Ahnimus wrote:
    There is no such thing as evil :p
    There's no god either
    Support the Troops
    Go Cubs!
  • 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
    Dont forget other nations are here in S. Korea as well with their own interest in N. Korea. I dont agree with what you said though about it's not the US responsiblility to do anything about it because when it affects the entire world then yes, we and our allies should do something ...and it's not always a combat mission we do many humanitarian missions here. We should go in based on the simple fact that people should be at least be able to be free and not be controlled by on person who only is concerned about the money in his pocket rather then the well being of the people.
    Support the Troops
    Go Cubs!
  • NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
    What about the USA isn't a threat to a country like North Korea?

    From Kim's point of view the USA rules the world with an iron fist (which is true to an extent). We're bullies who love to take the position "do what I say or else". And even if you do'nt believe that, from North Korea's point of view it makes a lot of sense.

    That's not saying it's right or that Kim isn't a crazy mother fucker, but the fact that he has anti-american sentiments makes perfect sense even without the crazy.

    Did you really have to ask that question?

    Kim's point of view is he needs to hold on to his power. His country is in economic ruin and is ostricized from the world, in no small part to his leadership.

    Kim is not worried about being invaded by the US. Everybody knows that America is not going to bomb North Korea or land ground forces there in an effot to topple the North Korean government.

    Kim is using that excuse becuase people will believe it. It's popular opinion that the US is a bunch of bullies, and Kim is using that to his advantage.

    Kim knows that having a nuclear weapon will help him keep power and will strengthen his negotiating power. he is a professional blackmailer.
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    NCfan wrote:
    Kim's point of view is he needs to hold on to his power. His country is in economic ruin and is ostricized from the world, in no small part to his leadership.

    Kim is not worried about being invaded by the US. Everybody knows that America is not going to bomb North Korea or land ground forces there in an effot to topple the North Korean government.

    Kim is using that excuse becuase people will believe it. It's popular opinion that the US is a bunch of bullies, and Kim is using that to his advantage.

    Kim knows that having a nuclear weapon will help him keep power and will strengthen his negotiating power. he is a professional blackmailer.

    The voice of reason speaks. But, you see, this is where the "I'm not saying it's right..." and "From Kim's point of view..." and "...it makes perfect sense even without the crazy" all come in handy.
Sign In or Register to comment.