-
This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:
1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.
2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.
3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.
Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.
Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.
Thank you!
North Korea...
- Thread starter Hyun
- Start date
goal_machine84
Senior Squad
i think he supports Mush 
Rob said:
Sorry Rob...I thought you knew man...... :funny:
I'm not a big fan of bullying nations throwing their weight around as if "Might is Right".
Not a fan of US, UK, UN or EEC foreign policy either. I don't think I'm alone on this planet with those opinions mate. There are millions that feel the same way, and they are not all "looney leftists" as the "thought police" would have us believe.
Anyway, I'm off to the game mate. Time to get priorities in order and Chelsea beating Reading is my priority right now.
Not much I can really do about world domination or Chelsea mate . All I can do with both issues is watch how things pan out, voice my opinions and remain positive.
C'MON YOU BLUES
I also talk to Americans who do think that it IS America's fault, although that is NOT was I was implying at all. Although the US Government foreign policy and their overt and covert escapades across the globe do leave much to be desired I think.
If you are just a paranoid yank who believes that anything goes if your President says so then its time you opened your eyes and educated yourself with reality.
To defend a country with blind loyalty whatever the situation, is not patriotic. A patriot loves his country and would despair to see it dragged through the s.h.i.t time and time again. A true patriot would stand up to a Government that uses their beloved country and indeed themselves as an ass wipe.
I am English but I rarely defend anything any of our Governments do any more as regards foreign policy. We, like America are indeed still entrenched in imperialism worldwide. I dont agree with that so I oppose it. My Government do not regard me as unpatriotic, they might not like my opinions, but thats tough.
In reply to "scooter" and his inane one liners. Would you go as far to say that the US are not to blame in any way at all then funny guy?
If you are just a paranoid yank who believes that anything goes if your President says so then its time you opened your eyes and educated yourself with reality.
To defend a country with blind loyalty whatever the situation, is not patriotic. A patriot loves his country and would despair to see it dragged through the s.h.i.t time and time again. A true patriot would stand up to a Government that uses their beloved country and indeed themselves as an ass wipe.
I am English but I rarely defend anything any of our Governments do any more as regards foreign policy. We, like America are indeed still entrenched in imperialism worldwide. I dont agree with that so I oppose it. My Government do not regard me as unpatriotic, they might not like my opinions, but thats tough.
In reply to "scooter" and his inane one liners. Would you go as far to say that the US are not to blame in any way at all then funny guy?
Agreed.pede54 said:
I’m a bit confused but I’m not sure who you’re addressing here. Bobby opposes Bush vehemently and nobody else blindly defending America’s policies in this thread, or anywhere else on this forum.
No, of course not. But I don't go as far as to compare North Korea, an oppressed dictatorship to Israel, a modern democracy. Many of Israel's actions have been questionable but their actions are not as despicable or dangerous to the free world as Kim Jung Il and North Korea. You're also right that sanctions are not the best thing... you lose me as soon as you compare Bush/Rumsfeld to Kim Jung Il.
What do you advocate the policy should be towards North Korea?
Well first up I responded to the glib " Ah yes, America is to blame 
" comment. That led me to think that you were implying that the US Government are blameless, which is rot. If the comment was simply sarcasm, then its not worth discussing.
Regarding UN resolutions. Resolutions are issued to countries for many reasons and the Governments concerned are obliged to fullfil the resolutions within a given time span. Whatever your opinion or my opinion might be about a certain situation,for instance Israel, is irrelevant. The resolutions are handed out and if they are not fulfilled then sanctions begin. That rule applies to everyone. Or at least it should.
I did not compare Israel with North Korea in any other way but to point out that some Nations are free to ignore UN resolutions and some are not. There should not exist a two tier system where "friends" of the US carry on regardless while "non- friends" of the US have to toe the line. Its a transparantly hypocritical practice.
You don't think that the Israel / middle east situation is a threat to the free world? You think this has nothing to do with anything? Terrorism and unrest that is evident around the world at the moment has EVERYTHING to do with it. Unfortunately, the US Government's policy on the Middle East problem seems to be simply, "Fu<k the Arabs".
Why do you have the opinion that North Korea, is or has ever been, a threat to the "free world" Is it because it stands up to the US and tells them to butt out? The US Government has been overtly and covertly destabilising that country for decades.
North Korea aint exactly somewhere I would choose to live but there are many other ways to integrate Nations into the fold than with threats and suchlike.
I would think its quite plausible that the North Korean Government has watched the goings on in Afghanistan and Iraq and the sabre rattling towards Iran, and thought, " You know, we need something pretty scary and real soon, because WE are next on the list and we need to be prepared".
Why did NK feel the need to have a Nuclear device? The same reason that western nations give for theirs. Defence.
Do the west drop Nuclear bombs on countries every day for whatever reason. No they dont, so why assume that NK are about to do that.
NK has made no bones about the fact that, if the US want to get heavy and just might be thinking of an invasion, then they are prepared to fight it out to the end. Wouldn't your country have that attitude if it feared it faced an invasion? I think England would.
You cant just go around the world destabilising or invading countries just because you do not like that nation's politics, or because they do not think like you would want them too. If a country is forcibly isolated from the rest of the outside world for decades, then its no surprise to find that the host Nation are a little paranoid and untrusting of outsiders. This is where DIPLOMACY comes in. I dont mean going to a country and saying" Do what we want or there will be big trouble mate". I mean real diplomacy, the kind of diplomacy that was used with China eventually.
Now China was treated with kid gloves in the diplomacy department, simply because there was no way that anyone would have wanted a war with this massive nation. They were too powerful to try the ol' bully boy tactics, so a more diplomatic solution was sought. Now China is regarded as a friendly nation as it continues to embrace capitalism.
Maybe NK didn't scare anyone enough to continue with a softer approach. The illusion was that these guys could be sorted out pretty quick and with not too much trouble. Well that aint the case any more. NK now have their defence and now the "diplomats" are having to think again.
See, if you dont give a country reason to feel threatened, then there would be no reason for that country to feel that it needed defending from anyone. It did not help the NK question when the US Government told them outright, that if they began constuction of nuclear reactors that the US would consider stopping them by whatever means.
Now this is a country that, as we have all seen here, has not got enough power to light up it's cities at night. At a certain time, everything shuts down. So we can see the need for improved energy sources I think. The US considers that the next step up from having nuckear power, is having nuclear weapons. That may well be possible, but why is that always assumed to be the case?
Now its no secret that Rumsfeld in his previous capacity as a nuclear industry bigwig, sold millions of dollars of equipment and expertise to North Korea, pertaining to the North Koreans developing a nuclear industry. He personally sat with NK's despot leaders, and made himself and the IRS, millions of dollars. The US knew exactly what NK had and didn't have, they made sure that NK only had as much as they needed for powering up the country. Then when the pressure was on and NK began to feel threatened, they went shopping elsewhere.
If you believe that Israel has a right to exist, which I do by the way, then so has North Korea that right. They are both surrounded by countries that wish to destroy them. Although having the US on your side, other than opposing you, does give Israel a little extra muscle. NK do not have the luxury of having anyone fighting their corner for them, but still, the situations that excuse (if thats possible), both nations having nuclear capabilities are identical. Forget the leaders, forget the politics. The situations are the same. Both are surrounded by nations that would like to see them no longer exist.
Eventually, whatever the situation, people end up sitting around a table and thrash out some kind of compromise that both sides are perhaps satisfied with. Thats the only way that issues get resolved. You can fight for years but eventually you will be sitting opposite each other, talking towards a solution. Thats diplomacy. Thats what always happens eeventually.
" comment. That led me to think that you were implying that the US Government are blameless, which is rot. If the comment was simply sarcasm, then its not worth discussing.Regarding UN resolutions. Resolutions are issued to countries for many reasons and the Governments concerned are obliged to fullfil the resolutions within a given time span. Whatever your opinion or my opinion might be about a certain situation,for instance Israel, is irrelevant. The resolutions are handed out and if they are not fulfilled then sanctions begin. That rule applies to everyone. Or at least it should.
I did not compare Israel with North Korea in any other way but to point out that some Nations are free to ignore UN resolutions and some are not. There should not exist a two tier system where "friends" of the US carry on regardless while "non- friends" of the US have to toe the line. Its a transparantly hypocritical practice.
You don't think that the Israel / middle east situation is a threat to the free world? You think this has nothing to do with anything? Terrorism and unrest that is evident around the world at the moment has EVERYTHING to do with it. Unfortunately, the US Government's policy on the Middle East problem seems to be simply, "Fu<k the Arabs".
Why do you have the opinion that North Korea, is or has ever been, a threat to the "free world" Is it because it stands up to the US and tells them to butt out? The US Government has been overtly and covertly destabilising that country for decades.
North Korea aint exactly somewhere I would choose to live but there are many other ways to integrate Nations into the fold than with threats and suchlike.
I would think its quite plausible that the North Korean Government has watched the goings on in Afghanistan and Iraq and the sabre rattling towards Iran, and thought, " You know, we need something pretty scary and real soon, because WE are next on the list and we need to be prepared".
Why did NK feel the need to have a Nuclear device? The same reason that western nations give for theirs. Defence.
Do the west drop Nuclear bombs on countries every day for whatever reason. No they dont, so why assume that NK are about to do that.
NK has made no bones about the fact that, if the US want to get heavy and just might be thinking of an invasion, then they are prepared to fight it out to the end. Wouldn't your country have that attitude if it feared it faced an invasion? I think England would.
You cant just go around the world destabilising or invading countries just because you do not like that nation's politics, or because they do not think like you would want them too. If a country is forcibly isolated from the rest of the outside world for decades, then its no surprise to find that the host Nation are a little paranoid and untrusting of outsiders. This is where DIPLOMACY comes in. I dont mean going to a country and saying" Do what we want or there will be big trouble mate". I mean real diplomacy, the kind of diplomacy that was used with China eventually.
Now China was treated with kid gloves in the diplomacy department, simply because there was no way that anyone would have wanted a war with this massive nation. They were too powerful to try the ol' bully boy tactics, so a more diplomatic solution was sought. Now China is regarded as a friendly nation as it continues to embrace capitalism.
Maybe NK didn't scare anyone enough to continue with a softer approach. The illusion was that these guys could be sorted out pretty quick and with not too much trouble. Well that aint the case any more. NK now have their defence and now the "diplomats" are having to think again.
See, if you dont give a country reason to feel threatened, then there would be no reason for that country to feel that it needed defending from anyone. It did not help the NK question when the US Government told them outright, that if they began constuction of nuclear reactors that the US would consider stopping them by whatever means.
Now this is a country that, as we have all seen here, has not got enough power to light up it's cities at night. At a certain time, everything shuts down. So we can see the need for improved energy sources I think. The US considers that the next step up from having nuckear power, is having nuclear weapons. That may well be possible, but why is that always assumed to be the case?
Now its no secret that Rumsfeld in his previous capacity as a nuclear industry bigwig, sold millions of dollars of equipment and expertise to North Korea, pertaining to the North Koreans developing a nuclear industry. He personally sat with NK's despot leaders, and made himself and the IRS, millions of dollars. The US knew exactly what NK had and didn't have, they made sure that NK only had as much as they needed for powering up the country. Then when the pressure was on and NK began to feel threatened, they went shopping elsewhere.
If you believe that Israel has a right to exist, which I do by the way, then so has North Korea that right. They are both surrounded by countries that wish to destroy them. Although having the US on your side, other than opposing you, does give Israel a little extra muscle. NK do not have the luxury of having anyone fighting their corner for them, but still, the situations that excuse (if thats possible), both nations having nuclear capabilities are identical. Forget the leaders, forget the politics. The situations are the same. Both are surrounded by nations that would like to see them no longer exist.
Eventually, whatever the situation, people end up sitting around a table and thrash out some kind of compromise that both sides are perhaps satisfied with. Thats the only way that issues get resolved. You can fight for years but eventually you will be sitting opposite each other, talking towards a solution. Thats diplomacy. Thats what always happens eeventually.
