The Official Religious/Political Debate Thread (country, house, American, effect)

[DontRunMeOver]

I don't know what will go down, although I found it quite funny that all of the countries on the news which had issued statements about how irresponsible North Korea were for developing nuclear weapons... were the same countries that already have nuclear weapons.

If our countries are allowed to possess nukes, I don't see why North Korea shouldn't be allowed also.

[boo boo]

The primary difference is, North Korea is known to be pretty agressive in military terms, they're not just building weapons for defence, they also want to be feared, like I said earlier, I really doubt NK will actually attack, but better safe than sorry.

However, I'm all opposed to having another war, I think there are other ways of compromising with them.

[DontRunMeOver]

Originally Posted by boo boo

The primary difference is, North Korea is known to be pretty agressive in military terms,

Compared to the UK and US? Really? I don't remember North Korea invading any middle Eastern countries recently.

[boo boo]

Oh thats right, I forgot, we just randomly invade neutral countries and kill innocent people for no reason.

Don't be a dumbass, NK has posed as a threat to the entire western world for well over a decade, because we've let them get away with so much thats pretty much why they're at the level they are now, and this no Iraq, they DO have WMDS, and they HAVE threatened to use them, that's a big ass difference.

But no, if they actually did launch an attack on American (or English) soil and we respond in some way or another, then that makes us the bad guys, we're all f*cking nazi's, you caught us.

Using Iraq to justify North Korea's actions is goddamn foolish, it's two completely different scenarios, yes, the war on Iraq was based on faulty logic, but using that war as a reason not to attack North Korea IF WE HAVE TO pretty much strips you of all credibility on this topic, we're not talking about terrorist attacks, we're talking about invasion, theres a difference, if a country invades another, theres not gonna be a damn argument about it afterwards, it's already a well established fact, and it is a well established fact that not only has NK threatened to use it's nukes, but most countries actually DO take them seriously as a threat, so once again, drawing paralels between NK and Iraq is pointless... Hell, if we do anything at all, it will probably be a counterstrike, because we're so reluctant to go to war, and we're giving NK the benefit of the doubt in that we think we can reason with them, but if we go to war based on a counterstrike, we certainly won't be the only country involved, but I take it that even if 40 countries invade NK you will still say it's our fault, because thats pretty much the way extremist liberals are, they won't admit they are wrong even when they know it.

Overall your logic is bad, most countries earn the right to bare nukes because it's simply for defensive purposes, and that's the big difference between these countries and North Korea, who many times have threatened to cast the first stone, I'm not saying they will do it (once again, I personally doubt it) but a threat is a threat and it should be treated as such.

[DontRunMeOver]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Using Iraq to justify North Korea's actions is goddamn foolish.

How was I doing that? I wasn't.

The examples of Iraq AND AFGHANISTAN showed that your statement.

The primary difference is, North Korea is known to be pretty agressive in military terms,

Was completely flawed as you were inferring that the difference between North Korea and the US and UK is that North Korea is 'pretty aggressive' and our two countries are not, in terms of military.

Invading other countries IS aggressive military action. Therefore to say that the UK and US are not 'pretty aggressive' military forces is completely untrue.

I said nothing about the ethics involved in responding to a North Korean attack and the ethics behind allowing them, or stopping them, from developing nuclear weapons. Once again, what ethical position are we in to argue against them developing and possessing weapons that we have already developed and already possess?

However, on a practical level its perfectly fine by me for our countries to threaten North Korea and stop them from developing advanced weapons, as it seems to be in own political interest to do so. I certainly don't believe that there would be anything righteous about doing so. Its just level-headed, businesslike selfishness.

Extremist liberal? Wtf??? When I say that I don't see why North Korea shouldn't be allowed to develop the same nukes we already have, I mean that on an international level I don't think it would be easy to argue against them having the nukes (any more so than you could argue against the other countries having them).

[boo boo]

Oh yeah I forgot, we certainly had no reason to invade Afghanistan, I mean afterall, it was nothing more than the HQ for the very people that blew up a few skyscrappers and threatened to do it again and again... What we did was obviously unjustified.

You disgust me, portray the US as you will, but we (nor the UK) don't threaten to attack other nations while unprovoked (which is what North Korea are doing)... I use the term aggressive as in being focused on "Offense" rather than "Defense"... Thats a big difference, North Korea are threatening to attack nations that have no intention of invading or attacking North Korea unless North Korea strikes first, so of course we don't think they should have nuke weapons, because they're actually threatening to use them on us and the many other nations that have demanded North Korea discontinue it's development and production of WMDs, so yes, that's our f*cking ethical position.

[DontRunMeOver]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Oh yeah I forgot, we certainly had no reason to invade Afghanistan, I mean afterall, it was nothing more than the HQ for the very people that blew up a few f*cking skyscrappers and threatened to do it again and again... What we did was obviously unjustified.

Well, we did invade a pretty big country. Now that I think about it, it seems like overkill taking over a whole nation to get a bunch of guys but I guess its just as much hassle to invade a bit of a country for the same reason. Anyway, I think the main disagreement is that we were arguing with reference to different meanings.

I use the term agressive as in being focused on "Offense" rather than "Defense"...

By my original use of the word 'aggressive', I was definitely right. If I use you definition, then the definition of US and UK as aggressive military forces can still be appropriate. It depends on whether you count a little man mouthing off or nutters living in caves within a certain country as attack or possible attack by that country itself.

In my mind, if your country attacks another country - one that hasn't physically attacked you - then you are the aggressor. Maybe this attack is right, maybe its wrong. If its in a country's own interest to perform the attack then it might be smart for them to do so.

[boo boo]

I don't really recall invading the whole country, I don't recall overthrowing any goverment either, we just came after the terrorists.

And faulty logic from the CIA and whatnot aside, we invaded Iraq on the belief that they were a threat and that they were involved with 9/11 in some way or another... And overall Iraq was simply a ruthless dictatorship that needed to be overthrown anyway, regardless of our actual intentions of invasion... But no I won't be making a whole bunch of excuses for the mistakes we made, but they were mistakes, and everybody makes mistakes.

Overall, Iraq and North Korea are still two completely different situations.

[DontRunMeOver]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Overall, Iraq and North Korea are still two completely different situations.

I was talking to my housemate and her friends about this at lunch, as they are all studying international relations, and one made an interesting point about the similarities and differences between the Iraq situation and the North Korea situation. It went like this (by 'the west' I mean the US, with the UK and whoever else is supporting us at that time):

1. Kim Jong-il (or whatever his name is) is a dictator of a country, a dictator who Western leaders clearly do not trust or respect. His attitude towards the west has been deemed potentially threatening and the benefit of his leadership to his own people is constantly called into question in western media, if not directly by the leadership of western nations. Him and his country are seen as a possible threat to the security of other, richer and more powerful nations and were described as part of the "Axis of Evil" by George W. Bush.
2. Exactly the same description could have been applied to Saddam Hussein before the invasion of Iraq.
3. Now, Iraq was invaded under the pretence of it being a nation in which WMD's were being developed. One of the main features of these "Axis of Evil" countries is that they are meant to be developing WMDs, so it doesn't take a genius to identify that the US, UK and other places like this might use the same reasoning to invade another country, such as North Korea.
4. Now, Iraq was invaded because it had WMDs. Or that was the official justification we were told by our Prime Minister at the beginning. The Iraqi regime said they had no WMDs, it turned out that they indeed had no WMDs, but they were invaded anyway.
5. So put yourself in the position of Kim Jong-il. The west don't like you, you are officially "evil" and even if you have no WMDs and tell them this, they will invade you to destroy your non-existent WMDs. What do you do? Well, if you're a bit crazy, you do what any sensible crazyman would do... go on make some WMDs, tell everybody you have them and tell them that you are just dying to use them. NOW he's not in the same position as Saddam Hussein was, and you know what? Saddam Hussein was overthrown, he is incarcerated and probably on track for a death penalty, so maybe in terms of his own personal benefit, Kim Jong-il isn't doing himself any real harm with these nukes.

Allowing his country's infrastructure and economy to go down the ****ter, now that's a different story.

[boo boo]

You're an idiot.

Absolutely no one doubts that North Korea have nuclear weapons, they are not even denying it, they have openly admitted to having a nuclear weapons program, and they have been repeatedly told the UN "well, what are you gonna do about it?"... But oh gee, maybe they don't, we still have to give them the benefit of the doubt, right?... Just because they say they have them dosen't mean they do, so lets just not believe them and wait and see for ourselfs if they have any or not when they leave a bigass hole where Manhattan used to be.

They just had a f*cking nuclear weapons test two days ago, a goddamn nuclear weapons test, of course they don't have any weapons.

Your friends are communist retards, don't listen to what they say.