[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MT [/i]
I don't feel any reason to be afraid of anything...[/QUOTE]
Regarding this matter, neither do I.
However, when a government undermines essential guarantees for civil rights like...
-- The guarantee of not being held without charges.
-- The guarantee of not being compelled to testify against oneself.
-- The guarantee of not being tortured, or extradited to countries which do so.
-- The guarantee of receiving a timely and fair trial.
...then, instead of being afraid, I become notably disappointed, annoyed and obstructive. I write the names of such governments into my little grey list (there is also a black list, for governments which go further).
I carefully avoid visiting such countries (since some irrational consideration could lead such a country to hurt me, and it could deny me opportunity to argue for myself)... and I carefully observe my activities, so I wouldn't do something which needlessly or specifically benefits those governments (blanket sanctions against countries are not applied on the grey list).
First of all the economic analysis of ET has some valid points, but thats because I believe the US isnt a capatalist country any more, it like Europe has regressed into a form of merchantilism like that prevalent in the late 19th century, only a bit less obvious then it was in that time.
Secondly the "decadent western world" is so not responsibly for the social ills of the world.
The european colonies have been gone for 40 years, The US's ability to destroy nations has been highly over rated. failed states failed because of internal problems. Did the US and Soviet Unions chess game during the cold war hurt things? hell yes, but in as many cases that it speeded up collapses it also delayed them.
Secondly as for america turning into an oppressive and brutal police state.
Most foreigners dont understand the nature of the american legal system.
Most individuals, including many criminals will never, deal with a federal law enforcement officer, period.
theft, (except robbing banks) assualts, even murder are all crimes delt with at the state level. Individuals who run afoul of the law will tend to encounter Local police, as in City/municiple authorties, or County level authorties.
These authorites are invested with the power to inforce STATE law, NOT federal. Yes sometimes these laws overlap, so that in violating a federal law you also violate a state law, but your local cop in most states not going to arrest you or fine you for downloading MP3's, because there are no state laws against it.
another example is that school with its little tracking system? thats entirely local, not a part of state or federal law at all.
There are 51 seperate legal systems at work in the United States, and most of the time you only pay attention to 1, the only time most individuals worry about the other one is when it comes close to tax time :D
Now onto another important subect.
North Korea, has been governed by the past 50 years by selfish, vain, and powerhungry bastards, who's only redeaming quiality is that they are not completely crazy.
North Korea has repeatedly made incrusions into its neighbor to the south violating the '53 armistace, and has most notablly engaged in a practice of kidnapping Japanese citizen at random, for god knows what reason.
The truth of the matter is North Korea has NO allies. China doesnt want to see Korea unified PERIOD, because either if Seoul runs things That means that pro democratic reformers will have a safe base of operations to the south, along with a an american presence.
If Pongyongyang runs things they have a unified Korean peninsula under a obnoxious self centered bastard who might try stirring things up.
Historicly China has had to fight more wars with Korea, then Japan.
One thing people dont realize is only about 60% of North Korea's totall military strength is on the DMZ, the rest is on another fortified line up at the Yalu river staring at the chinese.
Hell, my personaly belief is that if things get really ugly its going to be the Chinese doing the invading.
Things in North Korea are getting ugly and desperate, the population is barely eaking by at subsistance levels. The economic policies of the state are so criminaly incompetant that its amazing the whole country hasnt starved to death yet. The is being forced into drastic actions in order to maintain control.
In Iran the situation is different, but the end results the same. Iran's mullahs are becoming a victom of the Iranian secular goverments success. The economic situation in Iran has been improving over the past decade, and the population is beginning to clamor for more secularism, and less theocratic control. they want their satalite TV so they can watch Sex in the City like everybody else. The Mullahs are having to take more drastic responses to maintain control.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]North Korea has repeatedly made incrusions into its neighbor to the south violating the '53 armistace, and has most notablly engaged in a practice of kidnapping Japanese citizen at random, for god knows what reason.[/B][/QUOTE]
I think I saw something that basically said they kidnapped Japanese citizens so that they could learn how to act Japanese to spy on the country. Sounds kind of crazy, but before I studied abroad in Spain, we were told that the locals would be able to tell that we were Americans just by looking at us.
Im with Tyvar for the most part at least on the Korean subject.
Economically a united Korea means that China would lose its two greatest markets. A unified market would mean less of a monopoly.
The Korean Army is not in any condition for a long drawn out fight. Anything longer than 2 weeks & they are done. I mean seriously they still use T-34s.
[quote] I mean seriously they still use T-34s.[/quote]
That is probably because North Korean political leaders don't even hope... that occurrence of conventional warfare would leave them any chances.
They know that upgrading something like tanks or planes would exceed their financial ability. They are investing their money elsewhere.
They want it asymmetric... but they want their system of asymmetric warfare to likewise be centralized -- controlled only by the select few. They cannot afford to prepare their system for decentralized resistance... because that would risk preparing their own people to remove them from power.
As such... maintaining a high degree of centralization... they *ought* hopefully remain within reach for a technically more advanced party to incapacitate (in case the crisis should escalate, leaving no other option). But maintaining odds this way... requires figuring out reliable ways to neutralize their nuclear deterrent (as well as steeply limit capability of hitting important locations in South Korea with *any* significant number of chemical weapons).
In this matter, preparation cannot hurt. But to anyone speaking of things like "two weeks"... I must remind that basing on recent experience... there are other focal points for an intervention than defeating opposing forces using conventional tactics. In Iraq, such a focal point was ability to deploy a critical number of peacekeepers per resident to prevent insurgent activity (and generally guarantee elementary supervision of justice).
In a hypothetical escalation of conflict in North Korea, another strong focal point would exist -- preventing the launch of strategic weapons before conventional war. This demands ability to interfere with missile launches, track submarines at sea (and engage them at short notice), and prevent artillery from firing a significant number of chemical weapons at South Korea.
Because, if the worst comes to happen... and a conflict does occur (or North Korea does something which *demands* an intervention)... then nobody wants it to become a mess where nuclear weapons fly.
Only *after* that would come the question of how well technology can be leveraged in conventional fighting... and after that the question of how many trained peacekeepers are available (and are they equipped with reasonable plans).
The situation in North Korea is even starker then that.
If it came down to a military conflict the biggest casualty will be that things are probably so irritrivalbe that the loss of valuable supplies plus what little external aid they are recieving would probably leave most of the civilian population dead of starvation.
If the US and North Korea went to war, and we were stupid enough to launch a land attack across the DMZ It would be a meat grinder. However if the US takes time to first eliminate NK's air defenses via use of undmanned drones, and then shatter the C4 networks ability to communicate, then invades at a location at its choosing things get different.
A amphibious invasion will force North Korea to start repositiong its forces which brings them out of hiding and their dug out locations and exposes them to aerial interdiction and distruction.
The problem is any military option invites immediate retaliation against a major population center. Seoul.
However despite what you people think the Bush administration is not seriously considering "invading" North Korea. Whats going to happen is North Korea is going to be increasingly isolated, hell even the Chinese are not amused now. And with its population starving the country is either going to litteraly die off, or so many people are going to flee to China it will provoke to execute a regieme change on its own.
[QUOTE]
Iran to aid Syria against threats
Syria and Iran said they were facing "numerous challenges"
Iran has vowed to back Syria against "challenges and threats" as both countries face strong US pressure.
"We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref said after meeting Syrian PM Naji al-Otari.
[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1107985917194670.xml&storylist=alabamanews]Bills would make pledge, Ten Commandments mandatory in schools[/url]
US fundamental extremists are definitely seeing some good in practises of NK and other dictatorships.
Here's nice article about founding fathers of US
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/04/opinion/main671823.shtml[/url]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by E.T [/i]
[B][url=http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1107985917194670.xml&storylist=alabamanews]Bills would make pledge, Ten Commandments mandatory in schools[/url]
US fundamental extremists are definitely seeing some good in practises of NK and other dictatorships.
Here's nice article about founding fathers of US
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/04/opinion/main671823.shtml[/url]
First of all number one is in the State of Alabama.
Secondly, thats what happens when you pick and choose founding fathers.
Alaxander Hamilton is a particuarly netorious individual and not one we like to discuss.
He was a neo monarchist who despised the bill of rights. He was probably an atheiest, and he definatly didnt believe that all men were created equal.
He believed in a defiante social higherarchy in which the upper classes dominated the lower.
The only reason we honor him is the bastard did do an excellent job in putting a fledgling nation on sound financial and economic footing. But other then that everybody sighed in relief when Burr shot him, because he was a trouble maker.
The rest of the stuff in the CBS article is somewhat misleading. Yes the most "famous" founding fathers were diests at best.
However if you look a the signatories of the Declaration of Independence an over welming majority of them were definatly christian, in fact 24 of the 54 were the head of seminaries.
If you look at those Present at the consitutional convention in philidelphia, and those who worked on the constitution itself, you end up seeing that vast majority of them were christian. Hell the word god itself appears in the declaration of independance. Lastly in the first congress of the United States fully 50% of those who were sworn in were members of the clergy.
Honeslty US education focuesus on big names like hollywood stars, and ignores the fact that there were well over 200 some odd promininte men who are considered to be "Founding fathers." Hell Washington would havent gotten anywhere if it wasnt for Nathnal Greene who commanded the southern armies and was definate christian.
Another factoid not understood by many, espeically those outside the United States, is that post revolutionary war and prior to the consitution you had essentialy 13 seperate nations, much like Europe, with only an organization looser then the EU binding them togeather. (That being the Articles of Confederation) The continental congress's actual power was limited greatly.
Each one of those states had an official religion, and if you read the notes on the constitutional convention, the reason why the US first amendment was adopted was to prevent the federal government from infringing on the states established religions!
It is a mistake to think that the Founding Fathers fathers gave us a country, or that they had all these radical beliefs to "impress" upon the nation.
Americans have been electing their officials for 150 years prior to the revolution. Hell the only caviat was you had to own land, And that wasnt that hard after the plagues whiped out the indians in the 1500's and early 1600's, there was plenty of empty land avalible at the time.
The revolution in 1776 was NOT an actual revolution, but to maintain the status quo against a crown that was becoming increasingly interventionist in domestic affairs of the colonies.
And lastly as for the treaty of Tripoli. That treaty was worthless, it was repeatedly Violated both sides, (we decided to pay tribute straight to the ottomans then not at all, technicaly Tripoli was ottoman territory, even if they couldnt really police it. In the end we eneded up sacking Tripoli in 1804 :D
Comments
I don't feel any reason to be afraid of anything...[/QUOTE]
Regarding this matter, neither do I.
However, when a government undermines essential guarantees for civil rights like...
-- The guarantee of not being held without charges.
-- The guarantee of not being compelled to testify against oneself.
-- The guarantee of not being tortured, or extradited to countries which do so.
-- The guarantee of receiving a timely and fair trial.
...then, instead of being afraid, I become notably disappointed, annoyed and obstructive. I write the names of such governments into my little grey list (there is also a black list, for governments which go further).
I carefully avoid visiting such countries (since some irrational consideration could lead such a country to hurt me, and it could deny me opportunity to argue for myself)... and I carefully observe my activities, so I wouldn't do something which needlessly or specifically benefits those governments (blanket sanctions against countries are not applied on the grey list).
First of all the economic analysis of ET has some valid points, but thats because I believe the US isnt a capatalist country any more, it like Europe has regressed into a form of merchantilism like that prevalent in the late 19th century, only a bit less obvious then it was in that time.
Secondly the "decadent western world" is so not responsibly for the social ills of the world.
The european colonies have been gone for 40 years, The US's ability to destroy nations has been highly over rated. failed states failed because of internal problems. Did the US and Soviet Unions chess game during the cold war hurt things? hell yes, but in as many cases that it speeded up collapses it also delayed them.
Secondly as for america turning into an oppressive and brutal police state.
Most foreigners dont understand the nature of the american legal system.
Most individuals, including many criminals will never, deal with a federal law enforcement officer, period.
theft, (except robbing banks) assualts, even murder are all crimes delt with at the state level. Individuals who run afoul of the law will tend to encounter Local police, as in City/municiple authorties, or County level authorties.
These authorites are invested with the power to inforce STATE law, NOT federal. Yes sometimes these laws overlap, so that in violating a federal law you also violate a state law, but your local cop in most states not going to arrest you or fine you for downloading MP3's, because there are no state laws against it.
another example is that school with its little tracking system? thats entirely local, not a part of state or federal law at all.
There are 51 seperate legal systems at work in the United States, and most of the time you only pay attention to 1, the only time most individuals worry about the other one is when it comes close to tax time :D
Now onto another important subect.
North Korea, has been governed by the past 50 years by selfish, vain, and powerhungry bastards, who's only redeaming quiality is that they are not completely crazy.
North Korea has repeatedly made incrusions into its neighbor to the south violating the '53 armistace, and has most notablly engaged in a practice of kidnapping Japanese citizen at random, for god knows what reason.
The truth of the matter is North Korea has NO allies. China doesnt want to see Korea unified PERIOD, because either if Seoul runs things That means that pro democratic reformers will have a safe base of operations to the south, along with a an american presence.
If Pongyongyang runs things they have a unified Korean peninsula under a obnoxious self centered bastard who might try stirring things up.
Historicly China has had to fight more wars with Korea, then Japan.
One thing people dont realize is only about 60% of North Korea's totall military strength is on the DMZ, the rest is on another fortified line up at the Yalu river staring at the chinese.
Hell, my personaly belief is that if things get really ugly its going to be the Chinese doing the invading.
Things in North Korea are getting ugly and desperate, the population is barely eaking by at subsistance levels. The economic policies of the state are so criminaly incompetant that its amazing the whole country hasnt starved to death yet. The is being forced into drastic actions in order to maintain control.
In Iran the situation is different, but the end results the same. Iran's mullahs are becoming a victom of the Iranian secular goverments success. The economic situation in Iran has been improving over the past decade, and the population is beginning to clamor for more secularism, and less theocratic control. they want their satalite TV so they can watch Sex in the City like everybody else. The Mullahs are having to take more drastic responses to maintain control.
[B]North Korea has repeatedly made incrusions into its neighbor to the south violating the '53 armistace, and has most notablly engaged in a practice of kidnapping Japanese citizen at random, for god knows what reason.[/B][/QUOTE]
I think I saw something that basically said they kidnapped Japanese citizens so that they could learn how to act Japanese to spy on the country. Sounds kind of crazy, but before I studied abroad in Spain, we were told that the locals would be able to tell that we were Americans just by looking at us.
Economically a united Korea means that China would lose its two greatest markets. A unified market would mean less of a monopoly.
The Korean Army is not in any condition for a long drawn out fight. Anything longer than 2 weeks & they are done. I mean seriously they still use T-34s.
That is probably because North Korean political leaders don't even hope... that occurrence of conventional warfare would leave them any chances.
They know that upgrading something like tanks or planes would exceed their financial ability. They are investing their money elsewhere.
They want it asymmetric... but they want their system of asymmetric warfare to likewise be centralized -- controlled only by the select few. They cannot afford to prepare their system for decentralized resistance... because that would risk preparing their own people to remove them from power.
As such... maintaining a high degree of centralization... they *ought* hopefully remain within reach for a technically more advanced party to incapacitate (in case the crisis should escalate, leaving no other option). But maintaining odds this way... requires figuring out reliable ways to neutralize their nuclear deterrent (as well as steeply limit capability of hitting important locations in South Korea with *any* significant number of chemical weapons).
In this matter, preparation cannot hurt. But to anyone speaking of things like "two weeks"... I must remind that basing on recent experience... there are other focal points for an intervention than defeating opposing forces using conventional tactics. In Iraq, such a focal point was ability to deploy a critical number of peacekeepers per resident to prevent insurgent activity (and generally guarantee elementary supervision of justice).
In a hypothetical escalation of conflict in North Korea, another strong focal point would exist -- preventing the launch of strategic weapons before conventional war. This demands ability to interfere with missile launches, track submarines at sea (and engage them at short notice), and prevent artillery from firing a significant number of chemical weapons at South Korea.
Because, if the worst comes to happen... and a conflict does occur (or North Korea does something which *demands* an intervention)... then nobody wants it to become a mess where nuclear weapons fly.
Only *after* that would come the question of how well technology can be leveraged in conventional fighting... and after that the question of how many trained peacekeepers are available (and are they equipped with reasonable plans).
[B]I see alot of bullshit in this thread. :D
[/B][/QUOTE]
I consider myself a pinko liberal bleeding-heart and I agree with that statement...
now back to "Mercenaries"
If it came down to a military conflict the biggest casualty will be that things are probably so irritrivalbe that the loss of valuable supplies plus what little external aid they are recieving would probably leave most of the civilian population dead of starvation.
If the US and North Korea went to war, and we were stupid enough to launch a land attack across the DMZ It would be a meat grinder. However if the US takes time to first eliminate NK's air defenses via use of undmanned drones, and then shatter the C4 networks ability to communicate, then invades at a location at its choosing things get different.
A amphibious invasion will force North Korea to start repositiong its forces which brings them out of hiding and their dug out locations and exposes them to aerial interdiction and distruction.
The problem is any military option invites immediate retaliation against a major population center. Seoul.
However despite what you people think the Bush administration is not seriously considering "invading" North Korea. Whats going to happen is North Korea is going to be increasingly isolated, hell even the Chinese are not amused now. And with its population starving the country is either going to litteraly die off, or so many people are going to flee to China it will provoke to execute a regieme change on its own.
Iran to aid Syria against threats
Syria and Iran said they were facing "numerous challenges"
Iran has vowed to back Syria against "challenges and threats" as both countries face strong US pressure.
"We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref said after meeting Syrian PM Naji al-Otari.
[/QUOTE]
yep...
US fundamental extremists are definitely seeing some good in practises of NK and other dictatorships.
Here's nice article about founding fathers of US
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/04/opinion/main671823.shtml[/url]
[url=http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/aggressive_fundamentalists/]"Aggressive Fundamentalists"[/url]
[B][url=http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1107985917194670.xml&storylist=alabamanews]Bills would make pledge, Ten Commandments mandatory in schools[/url]
US fundamental extremists are definitely seeing some good in practises of NK and other dictatorships.
Here's nice article about founding fathers of US
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/04/opinion/main671823.shtml[/url]
[url=http://stupidevilbastard.com/index/seb/comments/aggressive_fundamentalists/]"Aggressive Fundamentalists"[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
First of all number one is in the State of Alabama.
Secondly, thats what happens when you pick and choose founding fathers.
Alaxander Hamilton is a particuarly netorious individual and not one we like to discuss.
He was a neo monarchist who despised the bill of rights. He was probably an atheiest, and he definatly didnt believe that all men were created equal.
He believed in a defiante social higherarchy in which the upper classes dominated the lower.
The only reason we honor him is the bastard did do an excellent job in putting a fledgling nation on sound financial and economic footing. But other then that everybody sighed in relief when Burr shot him, because he was a trouble maker.
The rest of the stuff in the CBS article is somewhat misleading. Yes the most "famous" founding fathers were diests at best.
However if you look a the signatories of the Declaration of Independence an over welming majority of them were definatly christian, in fact 24 of the 54 were the head of seminaries.
If you look at those Present at the consitutional convention in philidelphia, and those who worked on the constitution itself, you end up seeing that vast majority of them were christian. Hell the word god itself appears in the declaration of independance. Lastly in the first congress of the United States fully 50% of those who were sworn in were members of the clergy.
Honeslty US education focuesus on big names like hollywood stars, and ignores the fact that there were well over 200 some odd promininte men who are considered to be "Founding fathers." Hell Washington would havent gotten anywhere if it wasnt for Nathnal Greene who commanded the southern armies and was definate christian.
Another factoid not understood by many, espeically those outside the United States, is that post revolutionary war and prior to the consitution you had essentialy 13 seperate nations, much like Europe, with only an organization looser then the EU binding them togeather. (That being the Articles of Confederation) The continental congress's actual power was limited greatly.
Each one of those states had an official religion, and if you read the notes on the constitutional convention, the reason why the US first amendment was adopted was to prevent the federal government from infringing on the states established religions!
It is a mistake to think that the Founding Fathers fathers gave us a country, or that they had all these radical beliefs to "impress" upon the nation.
Americans have been electing their officials for 150 years prior to the revolution. Hell the only caviat was you had to own land, And that wasnt that hard after the plagues whiped out the indians in the 1500's and early 1600's, there was plenty of empty land avalible at the time.
The revolution in 1776 was NOT an actual revolution, but to maintain the status quo against a crown that was becoming increasingly interventionist in domestic affairs of the colonies.
And lastly as for the treaty of Tripoli. That treaty was worthless, it was repeatedly Violated both sides, (we decided to pay tribute straight to the ottomans then not at all, technicaly Tripoli was ottoman territory, even if they couldnt really police it. In the end we eneded up sacking Tripoli in 1804 :D