NationStates Jolt Archive

N. Korea Insists U.S. Apologize For Remark
Washington Times (SEOUL MAR. 03)

North Korea demanded yesterday that the United States apologize for designating the communist state as an "outpost of tyranny" and threatened to resume long range missile tests. However, the North also held out the possibility of returning to nuclear disarmament talks if Washington agrees to coexist with the communist country. North Korea declared on Feb. 10 that it had nuclear weapons and was boycotting six nation talks aimed at ending its nuclear ambitions. At the time, it cited Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's designation of North Korea as one of the "outposts of tyranny," during her Senate confirmation in January.

They ARE an "outpost of tyranny!" :mad:

True, but if the US wants them to cooperate we might have to bite the bullet.

I've said it before. We should immediately hit all their air defenses and destroy all of their runways. Just to show them we mean business.

I've said it before. We should immediately hit all their air defenses and destroy all of their runways. Just to show them we mean business.
I suspect you may be right. The North Koreans are past masters at obfuscation, misdirection and manipulation. The real problem is China. They don't like the idea of the US poking around in their "back yard."

I've said it before. We should immediately hit all their air defenses and destroy all of their runways. Just to show them we mean business.
Yeah, I live in range of what they are supposed to have, so...no, if it's all the same to you all....

And then they launch the nukes. Good plan.

And then they launch the nukes. Good plan.
The turn the friggin' place into a glassed-over parking lot! Sigh ... just kidding, but it's soooo tempting!

They ARE an "outpost of tyranny!" :mad:
Calling them names, though, is rude.

And then they launch the nukes. Good plan.
No, Lil' Kim doesn't want to rule a radioactive parking lot, he wants to rule a nation. If he sees we're serious, he will negotiate. He just thinks he can get away with extortion right now because nobody has ever taken a truly hard line with him.

The turn the friggin' place into a glassed-over parking lot! Sigh ... just kidding, but it's soooo tempting!

Tempting?

You [personally] have WMD?

They ARE an "outpost of tyranny!" :mad:

Why? because they're willing to stand up to the world tyranny that is the US? I'm proud of them for this!

Tempting?

You [personally] have WMD?
Everybody in the US does. Did you think the second ammendment only applied to small arms?

Why? because they're willing to stand up to the world tyranny that is the US? I'm proud of them for this!
Ok, The US is tyrannical? Try this little experiment. Visit NY, badmouth bush to everyone you meet. Then fly to Pyongyang, badmouth Lil' Kim to everyone you meet. Then tell me who's tyrannical.

Everybody in the US does. Did you think the second ammendment only applied to small arms?

I think the size of your biceps is irrelevant to the second amendment.

Ok, The US is tyrannical? Try this little experiment. Visit NY, badmouth bush to everyone you meet. Then fly to Pyongyang, badmouth Lil' Kim to everyone you meet. Then tell me who's tyrannical.

I believe in this case "tyranny" means to the world, i.e. an agressive nation.

No, Lil' Kim doesn't want to rule a radioactive parking lot, he wants to rule a nation. If he sees we're serious, he will negotiate. He just thinks he can get away with extortion right now because nobody has ever taken a truly hard line with him.
The problem in that the US doesn't want to see South Korea and Japan being converted into radioactive parking lots too. And, of course, they don't want to get China too upset either.

They ARE an "outpost of tyranny!" :mad:

If you really believe they are an outpost of tyranny, why did you put outpost of tyranny in quotes?

How about:
[SIZE=4]They ARE an outpost of tyranny!! :mad:

I think the size of your biceps is irrelevant to the second amendment.
LOL :D

Why? because they're willing to stand up to the world tyranny that is the US? I'm proud of them for this!
One thing is standing up to the US like Canada and France do, another thing is starving your population to death and rule a country like a divine king.

Why? because they're willing to stand up to the world tyranny that is the US? I'm proud of them for this!
North Korea is starving to death, their people live are killed for trying to leave the country, and the man running the show now has nukes and is waving them around in front of its neighbors. They are NOTHING to be proud of. And you better watch what you say or Canada's next, buddy! ;)

I believe in this case "tyranny" means to the world, i.e. an agressive nation.
Since when is that the definition?
According to dictionary.com
1 A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power (N. Korea)
2 The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler (also N. Korea
3 Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly (A definition of Lil' Kim himself)

I've said it before. We should immediately hit all their air defenses and destroy all of their runways. Just to show them we mean business.


you do not try to spank the child that has his finger on the trigger!

idiots like you get hundreds of innocent people killed.....'we mean business', ha! stupid, stupid people...

and people wonder why dickwaving contests turn into wars...arrogance!

argh

:headbang:

It's a little surprising to me that some people are so anti-American that they'll support a dictator who imprisons his political opponents for life in labor camps, and who's policies starve his people while he lives a very rich lifestyle just because he's against the USA.

you do not try to spank the child that has his finger on the trigger!

idiots like you get hundreds of innocent people killed.....'we mean business', ha! stupid, stupid people...

and people wonder why dickwaving contests turn into wars...arrogance!

argh

:headbang:
Ok, so what do you propose? More meaningless talks while he continues to build his nuclear arsenal? It's best to stop such an enemy before he gets too strong.

Ok, so what do you propose? More meaningless talks while he continues to build his nuclear arsenal? It's best to stop such an enemy before he gets too strong.

And the best way to stop them is to provoke them into flattening your west coast?

It's a little surprising to me that some people are so anti-American that they'll support a dictator who imprisons his political opponents for life in labor camps, and who's policies starve his people while he lives a very rich lifestyle just because he's against the USA.

Not to be flaming but in the last century that could have been applied to the other side too...

Wasn't South Korea's responce to the announcement that NK has nukes the diplomatic equivilant of, "meh"?

Kim Jon Il is the bad guy here, but we don't need to go in and do a bunch of high risk tactical strikes. For starters, if they don't work, Seoul and Tokyo are toast.

Second, China really wants to be our trading partner. The last thing they want is to get into a nuclear war with us. They will hold KJI's leesh to make sure he doesn't do anything too stupid.

Why? because they're willing to stand up to the world tyranny that is the US? I'm proud of them for this!
get a new hero! :rolleyes:

you do not try to spank the child that has his finger on the trigger!
Kissing his ass won't help either!


idiots like you get hundreds of innocent people killed.....'we mean business', ha! stupid, stupid people...
It's idiots like Kim, Hitler, and Stalin that get millions of people killed!


and people wonder why dickwaving contests turn into wars...arrogance!
I wonder why a country(N.Korea) has the money/funds to restart/upgrade a nuclear weapons program, yet doesn't have a dime to spend on food for his starving nation?

And the best way to stop them is to provoke them into flattening your west coast?
No, the best way to stop them is to hit them now while they are incapable of flattening our west coast. If not that then at least take some drastic action, like I mentioned in my first post on this thread, that will make them reconsider their current nuclear ambitions.

No, the best way to stop them is to hit them now while they are incapable of flattening our west coast. If not that then at least take some drastic action, like I mentioned in my first post on this thread, that will make them reconsider their current nuclear ambitions.

The problem is that you don't know for sure they're incapable of hitting you back. Also, if they ARE incapable of hitting back, you don't think they'd just lash out at the nearest major target? Like Japan, for example?

The reason they're talking with N. Korea is that no one is willing to gamble on that many lives just to prove their dick is bigger.

It always strikes me that other than as a force multiplier of some small utility, the B2 bomber is a waste.

If it really is stealth, why don't we just load it with some stolen french bombs, fly over and blow up the weapons plant. Then when N. Korea et al point fingers, we can just shrug and say "I don't know, wasn't us, be we did warn you those things are tricky, try and be more careful next time, okay."

And even if they did find bomb casings, we could just look at them and say, "those aren't our bombs, this has absolutely nothing to do with us."

The problem is that you don't know for sure they're incapable of hitting you back. Also, if they ARE incapable of hitting back, you don't think they'd just lash out at the nearest major target? Like Japan, for example?

The reason they're talking with N. Korea is that no one is willing to gamble on that many lives just to prove their dick is bigger.
It's not a matter of proving who's dick is bigger. They're asian for fuck's sake (Just kidding there). It's a matter of stopping them from gaining more nuclear weapons and selling them to the highest bidder. The more people with nukes, the more likely a nuclear war becomes and the more damage it will do. We need to disarm N. Korea somehow, and talking has done jack shit.

I'm *hoping* that the U.S. can use diplomocy to win this one, because we really, really, don't need another war to fight. I'm afraid diplomocy won't work, though. Kim Jong needs to go, their people need food, their people need to have the freedoms entitled to all human beings. Kim isn't a very nice guy. He's like a little kid. He'll fuss and fuss until he getws his way, and then he'll go back on his word. I say we should send some Spec ops into North Korea, and take out their government. I usually don't agree with assassination as a means of political reform, but it seems to be the only viable solution in this case.

North Korea is starving to death, their people live are killed for trying to leave the country, and the man running the show now has nukes and is waving them around in front of its neighbors. They are NOTHING to be proud of. And you better watch what you say or Canada's next, buddy! ;)


Actually, no, Iran is next, and Bush will slowly move his way east until his appetite is satisfied...the guy's trying to play Risk and attempting to take Asia, the boy's got high hopes...unfortunately, this is the real world, and everyone but the US thinks Bush is a nutjob for trying to take over the Middle East and possibly beyond. He's trying to be frickin' Ceasar! And you think N. Korea is a problem?

Bush would never attack Canada. All we'd do is remind him of the War of 1812, and he'd forget about it. Besides, it's not like the US could survive without all the power, lumber, drinking water, among other essential resources that the US sucks from Canada. My god, the US takes lumber from us and refuses to give us any money for it! WTF? Last I checked, that's called stealing. Talk about frickin' pirates! And people wonder why we don't trust the US.....When you have a woman like Anne Coulter speaking for Republicans across America, it really gets our hackles up. :)

I say the UN should be dissolved so the US can't keep veto-ing everything, and Canada should join the EU. Then, the EU charges Bush and all his 'minions' with war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the enivornment. The US was the only one to not sign the Kyoto agreement, what does *that* say to the rest of the world? It says 'screw you, we're gunna play with the environment all we want, and if you try to stop us, we'll bomb you'

Ya know what? Have fun, it won't last long....

It always strikes me that other than as a force multiplier of some small utility, the B2 bomber is a waste.

If it really is stealth, why don't we just load it with some stolen french bombs, fly over and blow up the weapons plant. Then when N. Korea et al point fingers, we can just shrug and say "I don't know, wasn't us, be we did warn you those things are tricky, try and be more careful next time, okay."

And even if they did find bomb casings, we could just look at them and say, "those aren't our bombs, this has absolutely nothing to do with us."


just to be clear, you want to go in with stolen weapons, bomb them, and then deny it?

are you fucking insane?

I'll say again...and the US wonders why no one trusts them....case in point!

You're right. The hell with world peace - let's start World War Three!

By the way, Canada isn't in Europe. Can't join the EU if you aren't in Europe. Guess you're stuck with no trees. :P

Actually, no, Iran is next, and Bush will slowly move his way east until his appetite is satisfied...the guy's trying to play Risk and attempting to take Asia, the boy's got high hopes...unfortunately, this is the real world, and everyone but the US thinks Bush is a nutjob for trying to take over the Middle East and possibly beyond. He's trying to be frickin' Ceasar! And you think N. Korea is a problem?

Bush would never attack Canada. All we'd do is remind him of the War of 1812, and he'd forget about it. Besides, it's not like the US could survive without all the power, lumber, drinking water, among other essential resources that the US sucks from Canada. My god, the US takes lumber from us and refuses to give us any money for it! WTF? Last I checked, that's called stealing. Talk about frickin' pirates! And people wonder why we don't trust the US.....When you have a woman like Anne Coulter speaking for Republicans across America, it really gets our hackles up. :)

I say the UN should be dissolved so the US can't keep veto-ing everything, and Canada should join the EU. Then, the EU charges Bush and all his 'minions' with war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the enivornment. The US was the only one to not sign the Kyoto agreement, what does *that* say to the rest of the world? It says 'screw you, we're gunna play with the environment all we want, and if you try to stop us, we'll bomb you'

Ya know what? Have fun, it won't last long....

I can't help but laugh. First of all, Bush would never attack Canada, nor does he want to. You're right, we need all the lumber and power we get from Canada. It would be outright stupid to attack them, Canada is like America Jr. Also, I'd like you to prove that we steal Canada's lumber. Too bad Canada can't join the EU, they're not in Europe....

And charge him with crimes against humanity? Come on. If giving two countries democratic governments is a crime against humanity, then by all means charge the man.

Actually, no, Iran is next, and Bush will slowly move his way east until his appetite is satisfied...the guy's trying to play Risk and attempting to take Asia, the boy's got high hopes...unfortunately, this is the real world, and everyone but the US thinks Bush is a nutjob for trying to take over the Middle East and possibly beyond. He's trying to be frickin' Ceasar! And you think N. Korea is a problem?

Bush would never attack Canada. All we'd do is remind him of the War of 1812, and he'd forget about it. Besides, it's not like the US could survive without all the power, lumber, drinking water, among other essential resources that the US sucks from Canada. My god, the US takes lumber from us and refuses to give us any money for it! WTF? Last I checked, that's called stealing. Talk about frickin' pirates! And people wonder why we don't trust the US.....When you have a woman like Anne Coulter speaking for Republicans across America, it really gets our hackles up. :)

I say the UN should be dissolved so the US can't keep veto-ing everything, and Canada should join the EU. Then, the EU charges Bush and all his 'minions' with war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the enivornment. The US was the only one to not sign the Kyoto agreement, what does *that* say to the rest of the world? It says 'screw you, we're gunna play with the environment all we want, and if you try to stop us, we'll bomb you'

Ya know what? Have fun, it won't last long....
Are you delusional?

The US is not trying to take over the middle east.
The US won't attack Canada because Canada is harmless and inoffensive.
The US vetos alot of things in the security council because they go against US interests. Every member of the security council does the same thing.
And finally, the US was under no obligation to sign Kyoto. You may think it's a good idea, but that doesn't matter.

I suspect you may be right. The North Koreans are past masters at obfuscation, misdirection and manipulation. The real problem is China. They don't like the idea of the US poking around in their "back yard."
China doesn't like North Korea either.

Are you delusional?

The US is not trying to take over the middle east.
The US won't attack Canada because Canada is harmless and inoffensive.
The US vetos alot of things in the security council because they go against US interests. Every member of the security council does the same thing.
And finally, the US was under no obligation to sign Kyoto. You may think it's a good idea, but that doesn't matter.

I thought you were a lefty?

China doesn't like North Korea either.
No, but they see it as part of their sphere of influence.

No, Lil' Kim doesn't want to rule a radioactive parking lot, he wants to rule a nation. If he sees we're serious, he will negotiate. He just thinks he can get away with extortion right now because nobody has ever taken a truly hard line with him.
I think this is true.

I thought you were a lefty?
Sure am, I was against the Iraq war, I'm in favor of restrictions on corporations, I'm in favor of getting big moneyed interests out of political campaigns, I beleive in equality of sex and race, I'm a beleiver in using taxation to redistribute income so everyone can have a living wage, I'm in favor of an absolute barrier between church and state. I am a liberal.

Liberals stand for liberty, no? Lil' Kim and despots like him rob people of their liberty.

I thought you were a lefty?
lefty doesn't = anti-american person.

I thought you were a lefty?

If he is i am glad that he has stepped beyond partisanship and seen the way it is, not the way it should be.....people that brand themselves universally left or right are nothing more than tools of their respective parties.

Tempting?

You [personally] have WMD?
LOL! Ya don't know, do ya! Mwahahahahaha! :D

Why? because they're willing to stand up to the world tyranny that is the US? I'm proud of them for this!
Appears I was correct in thinking most Canadians had lost their friggin' minds! :(

And the best way to stop them is to provoke them into flattening your west coast?
Hmmm. Given that Hollywierd is on the West Coast, this might not be such a bad idea! :D

lefty doesn't = anti-american person.

I know, but he was just taking a somewhat conservative stance, but I'm glad he's on the correct sides. Kim does indeed infringe on the freedom of his people and should be as such removed.

The reason they're talking with N. Korea is that no one is willing to gamble on that many lives just to prove their dick is bigger.
That is so mindless. :(

It always strikes me that other than as a force multiplier of some small utility, the B2 bomber is a waste.

If it really is stealth, why don't we just load it with some stolen french bombs, fly over and blow up the weapons plant. Then when N. Korea et al point fingers, we can just shrug and say "I don't know, wasn't us, be we did warn you those things are tricky, try and be more careful next time, okay."

And even if they did find bomb casings, we could just look at them and say, "those aren't our bombs, this has absolutely nothing to do with us."
Not a bad plan, not bad at all! :D

Actually, no, Iran is next, and Bush will slowly move his way east until his appetite is satisfied...the guy's trying to play Risk and attempting to take Asia, the boy's got high hopes...unfortunately, this is the real world, and everyone but the US thinks Bush is a nutjob for trying to take over the Middle East and possibly beyond. He's trying to be frickin' Ceasar! And you think N. Korea is a problem?

Bush would never attack Canada. All we'd do is remind him of the War of 1812, and he'd forget about it. Besides, it's not like the US could survive without all the power, lumber, drinking water, among other essential resources that the US sucks from Canada. My god, the US takes lumber from us and refuses to give us any money for it! WTF? Last I checked, that's called stealing. Talk about frickin' pirates! And people wonder why we don't trust the US.....When you have a woman like Anne Coulter speaking for Republicans across America, it really gets our hackles up. :)

I say the UN should be dissolved so the US can't keep veto-ing everything, and Canada should join the EU. Then, the EU charges Bush and all his 'minions' with war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the enivornment. The US was the only one to not sign the Kyoto agreement, what does *that* say to the rest of the world? It says 'screw you, we're gunna play with the environment all we want, and if you try to stop us, we'll bomb you'

Ya know what? Have fun, it won't last long....
I find it ironic in the extreme that you have the word "wisdom" in your nation's name. :(

Man If I had my own contry I would shoot nukes at Nk just for them being d**ks!

Then I would travel to the moon to begin my theme park :)

I find it ironic in the extreme that you have the word "wisdom" in your nation's name. :(

I found his speech funny I take it you did not

Man If I had my own contry I would shoot nukes at Nk just for them being d**ks!

Then I would travel to the moon to begin my theme park :)
I'm sooo not voting for this guy!

I'm sooo not voting for this guy!


Who ever said I'm running a democracy?

I can't help but laugh. First of all, Bush would never attack Canada, nor does he want to. You're right, we need all the lumber and power we get from Canada. It would be outright stupid to attack them, Canada is like America Jr. Also, I'd like you to prove that we steal Canada's lumber. Too bad Canada can't join the EU, they're not in Europe....

And charge him with crimes against humanity? Come on. If giving two countries democratic governments is a crime against humanity, then by all means charge the man.


the US didn't give them anything....well, not anything useful

prove that the US stole Canada's lumber? I rechecked my sources, and found that it didn't actually happen, but that a North Dakota justice minister was proposing that they keep all the money from duties collected from our lumber. It may not have happened, but they sure as hell wanted it to.

as far as Bush's crimes go, how about we scratch the surface with a little place called Bohemian Grove? Look *that* up and see what you find :P If you need any proof that these people are nutjobs, it's right there...of course, be smart enough to weed out the crap, but the mere idea this organization actually exists is scary enough...when I say crimes against humanity, I don't just mean against other countries, I mean what he does to the people he's supposed to be taking care of.....make the man accountable for his actions! Just because he's in the white house doesn't make him untouchable as a human being! Then again, if the world doesn't make him accountable, his Karma will...

I find it ironic in the extreme that you have the word "wisdom" in your nation's name. :(


you would

Maybe we should show these americans how serious WE are. They think they can just come in here and tell us what to do, and now they are trying to drop bombs on our country? Who the fuck do they think they are. Launch the nukes. We need to show the US we mean business.

Do you guys seriously think that if the us tries to show a country that it has big balls, the other country will just run away with its tail between its legs? This is a dictatorship we are talking about fighting. He doesn't necessarily give a fuck about his people, while the US president has all kinds of checks and balances.

The principle that is supposed to be in effect with nuclear weapons is called mutual assured destruction. This means that nobody uses nuclear weapons, because if they do, the other side will fire their weapons too, and the whole world goes up in smoke. If you find out that your country is about to be leveled, and you are going to die soon, wouldn't you want to fuck over the people that did it?

I bet Kim Jong Il would.

Seriously people, we are talking about weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION here. The reason so many little countries want them is because if they have even one, they MUST be taken seriously. This is what that whole kid with a gun thing meant. You don't want to piss them off, because you could get seriously hurt.

you would
I find it ironic that you have taoist in your name. They weren't a bunch of pacifist hippies.

Who ever said I'm running a democracy?
oh go on I'll give you a cookie.

I've said it before. We should immediately hit all their air defenses and destroy all of their runways. Just to show them we mean business.
But why? They don't have oil. Actual existence of WMD's is irrellavant....

Are you delusional?

The US is not trying to take over the middle east.
The US won't attack Canada because Canada is harmless and inoffensive.
The US vetos alot of things in the security council because they go against US interests. Every member of the security council does the same thing.
And finally, the US was under no obligation to sign Kyoto. You may think it's a good idea, but that doesn't matter.

lalalalala

lalalalala

lalalalala


:headbang:


oh great! now my opinion (and many other countries' around the world) doesn't matter because the US disagrees with what I have to say! well spoken! you're really endearing me, here...

i support covert ops to assasinate key leaders instead of full fledged wars or nuclear options.

Personally I think small countries just fight wars with the u.s just so that they can get a "band aid" kinda like a free moeny thing. Take ww2 germany lost all its old cruddy houses then u.s. gives em moeny and look now there doing dandy. Now look at iraq and Afgh same thing they have houses now not mud and brick huts!

But why? They don't have oil. Actual existence of WMD's is irrellavant....
What's oil got to do with it? If you really think we went into Iraq for oil, think about this. The ammount of money spent on Iraq, and the ammount we will have to spend in the future is astronomical. We would need exclusive rights to Iraq's oil for many years to make it a worthwhile investment. If we don't force them to give up the rights to their oil, and we haven't, then we obviously didn't go in for profit.

I find it ironic that you have taoist in your name. They weren't a bunch of pacifist hippies.


you think I'm being pacifist? LOL!!! wow, you have no idea what that word means if you think I'm being pacifist...oh, and well done, you really managed to divert attention away from the real matter at hand by insulting me...good job!

oh go on I'll give you a cookie.

Wow....

I'm amazed a cookie!
This is sooo going to change my mind!
Why would I want to run a country and spend all the time in a office talking to old people who smell old?

I want to run a country by myself! I'm sure youlle disagree or give me some whitty sob answer wont you?

you think I'm being pacifist? LOL!!! wow, you have no idea what that word means if you think I'm being pacifist...oh, and well done, you really managed to divert attention away from the real matter at hand by insulting me...good job!
I wouldn't call being pacifist an insult.

you think I'm being pacifist? LOL!!! wow, you have no idea what that word means if you think I'm being pacifist...oh, and well done, you really managed to divert attention away from the real matter at hand by insulting me...good job!
Dude, that was hardly an insult. My insults contain obscenities. Just a little observation.

RE: Pacifism

I was under the impression that you were against war in general. If I'm wrong, please clarify.

http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/bohos/bohofact.html

Heh, heaven forbid wealthy people actually enjoy the fruits of their labors. Although I have no doubt that this place exists, I have an incredible amount of trouble believing the credibility of these 'homosexual acts', pagan rituals, and using prostitutes. Aside from there being NO source, this article has a heavy, heavy bias.

Wow, just, wow.

What's oil got to do with it? If you really think we went into Iraq for oil, think about this. The ammount of money spent on Iraq, and the ammount we will have to spend in the future is astronomical. We would need exclusive rights to Iraq's oil for many years to make it a worthwhile investment. If we don't force them to give up the rights to their oil, and we haven't, then we obviously didn't go in for profit.


what makes you think Bush doesn't want exclusive rights to their oil? He may not have said it yet, or tried to enforce it, but here's the thing...no one would let him anyway. :)

oh, and not going in for profit in general..uhm, that's crap...you really have to stop watching Fox News and read something...intelligent :)

no, he is favor of power mad dictators who starve their own people and threaten his neighbors with nuclear holocaust. The kind of guy who kidnaps people to entertain him and makes dissidents disappear.

Wow....

I'm amazed a cookie!
This is sooo going to change my mind!
Why would I want to run a country and spend all the time in a office talking to old people who smell old?

fine no cookie for you!

I want to run a country by myself! I'm sure youlle disagree or give me some whitty sob answer wont you?
When did you start being serious??

Dude, that was hardly an insult. My insults contain obscenities. Just a little observation.

RE: Pacifism

I was under the impression that you were against war in general. If I'm wrong, please clarify.


ok fine...*trying* to insult me...

so, you're saying that being against the war equals being passive? that's kinda stupid...

I think I understand Bush's strategy. If he moves east quickly, he can seize everything to Siam then cut to Kamchatka and kill off Red with their last country being the Ukraine. With Australia cowed he can hold all of Asia with only three entrypoints (Ukraine, Middle East and Kamchatka). Then he gets 7!!!! extra armies next turn plus killing off Red gets Bush all his cards (and he's been saving. Next round turn in two sets of cards and get 22 more armies meaning he'll get about 35. Then he can subjugate Australia and move into Africa for another 5!!! armies a turn. He'll be unstoppable. His plan can't fail.

what makes you think Bush doesn't want exclusive rights to their oil? He may not have said it yet, or tried to enforce it, but here's the thing...no one would let him anyway. :)

oh, and not going in for profit in general..uhm, that's crap...you really have to stop watching Fox News and read something...intelligent :)

You'd think that if we went in for oil, there would have been a significant drop in gasoline prices. I'm not sure about you, but I sure as hell haven't seen this happening, in fact, gas prices have skyrocketed.

Oh, and fox news is intelligent, it's quite possibly the only network without a bias. You only think it slatns to the right because the others slant pretty far to the left.

ok fine...*trying* to insult me...

so, you're saying that being against the war equals being passive? that's kinda stupid...
Pacifists are against violence and war. I thought that was your position. I guess you're just anti-American then?

Maybe we should show these americans how serious WE are. They think they can just come in here and tell us what to do, and now they are trying to drop bombs on our country? Who the fuck do they think they are. Launch the nukes. We need to show the US we mean business.

Do you guys seriously think that if the us tries to show a country that it has big balls, the other country will just run away with its tail between its legs? This is a dictatorship we are talking about fighting. He doesn't necessarily give a fuck about his people, while the US president has all kinds of checks and balances.

The principle that is supposed to be in effect with nuclear weapons is called mutual assured destruction. This means that nobody uses nuclear weapons, because if they do, the other side will fire their weapons too, and the whole world goes up in smoke. If you find out that your country is about to be leveled, and you are going to die soon, wouldn't you want to fuck over the people that did it?

I bet Kim Jong Il would.

Seriously people, we are talking about weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION here. The reason so many little countries want them is because if they have even one, they MUST be taken seriously. This is what that whole kid with a gun thing meant. You don't want to piss them off, because you could get seriously hurt.

well said!

Wow....

I'm amazed a cookie!
This is sooo going to change my mind!
Why would I want to run a country and spend all the time in a office talking to old people who smell old?

I want to run a country by myself! I'm sure youlle disagree or give me some whitty sob answer wont you?
I am so fuckin' SICK of this "old" shit some people dish out! Why not just call it "****** people" and "****** smell?" Or maybe "spick" or "wetback" or "female" people/smell? How the hell can you justify being so biggoted? :headbang:

Pacifists are against violence and war. I thought that was your position. I guess you're just anti-American then?


it is my position, but it doesn't mean that I'm passive....god, talk about linear thinking... :headbang:

ok fine...*trying* to insult me...

so, you're saying that being against the war equals being passive? that's kinda stupid...
The adjective pacifist has one meaning:

Meaning #1: opposed to war
Synonym: pacifistic

Dictionary!

You'd think that if we went in for oil, there would have been a significant drop in gasoline prices. I'm not sure about you, but I sure as hell haven't seen this happening, in fact, gas prices have skyrocketed.

Oh, and fox news is intelligent, it's quite possibly the only network without a bias. You only think it slatns to the right because the others slant pretty far to the left.


go here, you must go here, please for love of god, go here!

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html

anyone, watch the *whole thing* PLEASE!!!!!!

you must save your country from itself!

Maybe we should show these americans how serious WE are. They think they can just come in here and tell us what to do, and now they are trying to drop bombs on our country? Who the fuck do they think they are. Launch the nukes. We need to show the US we mean business.

Do you guys seriously think that if the us tries to show a country that it has big balls, the other country will just run away with its tail between its legs? This is a dictatorship we are talking about fighting. He doesn't necessarily give a fuck about his people, while the US president has all kinds of checks and balances.

The principle that is supposed to be in effect with nuclear weapons is called mutual assured destruction. This means that nobody uses nuclear weapons, because if they do, the other side will fire their weapons too, and the whole world goes up in smoke. If you find out that your country is about to be leveled, and you are going to die soon, wouldn't you want to fuck over the people that did it?

I bet Kim Jong Il would.

Seriously people, we are talking about weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION here. The reason so many little countries want them is because if they have even one, they MUST be taken seriously. This is what that whole kid with a gun thing meant. You don't want to piss them off, because you could get seriously hurt.
Lil' Kim will accept some damage to his armed forces and not launch a nuclear attack so long as he can keep control of his country and maintain his lifestyle. Hitting his air defenses and airstrips will not trigger a nuclear war. It will, however, show him that we are serious, and that he's messing around with the biggest dog in the yard. He may not care about his people, but he sure as hell cares about maintaining his power and wealth. He's not going to let a few non-nuclear airstrikes goad him into throwing it all away.

it is my position, but it doesn't mean that I'm passive....god, talk about linear thinking... :headbang:
It does mean you need to work on your vocabulary.

The adjective pacifist has one meaning:

Meaning #1: opposed to war
Synonym: pacifistic

Dictionary!


that's one meaning...give me more than that to prove your point...besides...this is all based on the fact that you think you know me!

I am so fuckin' SICK of this "old" shit some people dish out! Why not just call it "****** people" and "****** smell?" Or maybe "spick" or "wetback" or "female" people/smell? How the hell can you justify being so biggoted? :headbang:


I agree..then again, the US is run by old white men that are not that pleasent....:P

that's one meaning...give me more than that to prove your point...besides...this is all based on the fact that you think you know me!
You said pacfist= being passive
That is incorrect and if a dictionary meaning isn't enough for you...

Thats the meaning. And we know what you have presented here.

You are a teenager from Canada who talks about things he knows nothing about, misuses big words he thinks makes him sound cooler, and tries pathetically to backtrack when caught.

That about sum it up?

Lil' Kim will accept some damage to his armed forces and not launch a nuclear attack so long as he can keep control of his country and maintain his lifestyle. Hitting his air defenses and airstrips will not trigger a nuclear war. It will, however, show him that we are serious, and that he's messing around with the biggest dog in the yard. He may not care about his people, but he sure as hell cares about maintaining his power and wealth. He's not going to let a few non-nuclear airstrikes goad him into throwing it all away.


he's already threatening the US in subtle ways, you think that smaking him will make him not bite back....you are sadly mistaken...try it...go ahead...see what happens ;)

he's already threatening the US in subtle ways, you think that smaking him will make him not bite back....you are sadly mistaken...try it...go ahead...see what happens ;)
I've dealt with people like him before. Show them that you're serious, and that you can hurt them and they are more than willing to negotiate.

http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/bohos/bohofact.html

Heh, heaven forbid wealthy people actually enjoy the fruits of their labors. Although I have no doubt that this place exists, I have an incredible amount of trouble believing the credibility of these 'homosexual acts', pagan rituals, and using prostitutes. Aside from there being NO source, this article has a heavy, heavy bias.

Wow, just, wow.


well yeah...you have to go to more than one site to get all the info...kind of a 'duh' thing :P

I've dealt with people like him before. Show them that you're serious, and that you can hurt them and they are more than willing to negotiate.


I think that's called bullying

I think I understand Bush's strategy. If he moves east quickly, he can seize everything to Siam then cut to Kamchatka and kill off Red with their last country being the Ukraine. With Australia cowed he can hold all of Asia with only three entrypoints (Ukraine, Middle East and Kamchatka). Then he gets 7!!!! extra armies next turn plus killing off Red gets Bush all his cards (and he's been saving. Next round turn in two sets of cards and get 22 more armies meaning he'll get about 35. Then he can subjugate Australia and move into Africa for another 5!!! armies a turn. He'll be unstoppable. His plan can't fail.


LOL, right on! LOL! :)

I think the size of your biceps is irrelevant to the second amendment.
I think you missed the small print, RPP.

I've dealt with people like him before. Show them that you're serious, and that you can hurt them and they are more than willing to negotiate.

I can understand where you're coming from with this, but the fact is that no matter how much we want to hurt him and "show him we're serious", we simply cannot take the risk that he WILL be willing to throw it all away in a bright flash.

Actually, its how you deal with bullies. Once they realize it won't be easy to knock you around, they back off.

the US didn't give them anything....well, not anything useful

prove that the US stole Canada's lumber? I rechecked my sources, and found that it didn't actually happen, but that a North Dakota justice minister was proposing that they keep all the money from duties collected from our lumber. It may not have happened, but they sure as hell wanted it to.

as far as Bush's crimes go, how about we scratch the surface with a little place called Bohemian Grove? Look *that* up and see what you find :P If you need any proof that these people are nutjobs, it's right there...of course, be smart enough to weed out the crap, but the mere idea this organization actually exists is scary enough...when I say crimes against humanity, I don't just mean against other countries, I mean what he does to the people he's supposed to be taking care of.....make the man accountable for his actions! Just because he's in the white house doesn't make him untouchable as a human being! Then again, if the world doesn't make him accountable, his Karma will...


i know what bohemian grove is, i would like to know though what evidence you have to suggest that bush is a member. and i don;t want you to direct me to some conspiracy theory nutjob site. i could make a website saying that clinton raped my mother and it doesn;t make it naymore true. gimme a news source, even bbc, or cnb....something other than a conspiracy website.

I think that's called bullying
Bullying? No, we're not trying to hurt him for fun, nor are we trying to shake him down for money. We're trying to keep him from spreading nuclear technology to even more unstable regimes and possibly non-state actors like Al Quaeda. He's shown that he is more than willing to break laws in order to make money. N. Korea is one of Asia's leading methamphetamine dealers. What makes you think he won't sell nuclear weapons for hard currency?

I can understand where you're coming from with this, but the fact is that no matter how much we want to hurt him and "show him we're serious", we simply cannot take the risk that he WILL be willing to throw it all away in a bright flash.
Better to take that risk now when he has only a handfull of tactical nukes than later when he has perhaps thousands of thermonuclear warheads and the missile technology to deliver them anywhere.

http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/bohos/bohofact.html

Heh, heaven forbid wealthy people actually enjoy the fruits of their labors. Although I have no doubt that this place exists, I have an incredible amount of trouble believing the credibility of these 'homosexual acts', pagan rituals, and using prostitutes. Aside from there being NO source, this article has a heavy, heavy bias.

Wow, just, wow.
But it's up on teh intarwebs!
It must be true!!!

Thats the meaning. And we know what you have presented here.

You are a teenager from Canada who talks about things he knows nothing about, misuses big words he thinks makes him sound cooler, and tries pathetically to backtrack when caught.

That about sum it up?

no, I'm an educated adult from Canada that reads more than Playboy, and watches more than one news station....I think that human life is sacred and that everyone is entitled to their opinion whether I agree with them or not. I'm what Republicans call 'evil' for being Liberal. I smoke up, and I don't take bullshit from people. I do not tolerate crap that makes the world a worse place to live. I find a new reason every single day to be thankful I live in Canada. I do not live under a rock, and I do not think one way of thinking is right. I do not think that only one religion in the world 'has it right'. I do not think that invading a country for no reason is justifiable.

If that makes me passive, then fine, I'm passive. But trust me, if you hit me, I will hit you back....

Better to take that risk now when he has only a handfull of tactical nukes than later when he has perhaps thousands of thermonuclear warheads and the missile technology to deliver them anywhere.


all it takes is one

i know what bohemian grove is, i would like to know though what evidence you have to suggest that bush is a member. and i don;t want you to direct me to some conspiracy theory nutjob site. i could make a website saying that clinton raped my mother and it doesn;t make it naymore true. gimme a news source, even bbc, or cnb....something other than a conspiracy website.


give me what you think conspiracy is, then I might be kind enough to direct you somewhere...besides, what makes you think Bush *isn't* a member?

Bullying? No, we're not trying to hurt him for fun, nor are we trying to shake him down for money. We're trying to keep him from spreading nuclear technology to even more unstable regimes and possibly non-state actors like Al Quaeda. He's shown that he is more than willing to break laws in order to make money. N. Korea is one of Asia's leading methamphetamine dealers. What makes you think he won't sell nuclear weapons for hard currency?


obviously, there is no convincing you...you're gunna beat the wardrum til you're blue in the face...have fun!

no, I'm an educated adult from Canada that reads more than Playboy, and watches more than one news station....I think that human life is sacred and that everyone is entitled to their opinion whether I agree with them or not. I'm what Republicans call 'evil' for being Liberal. I smoke up, and I don't take bullshit from people. I do not tolerate crap that makes the world a worse place to live. I find a new reason every single day to be thankful I live in Canada. I do not live under a rock, and I do not think one way of thinking is right. I do not think that only one religion in the world 'has it right'. I do not think that invading a country for no reason is justifiable.

If that makes me passive, then fine, I'm passive. But trust me, if you hit me, I will hit you back....

Teacher help you with that?

There is no point lying over the inernet, we don't care.

How educated can you be to back the likes of Kim Jong Il? To misunderstand Toaism and pacifism? You also don't understand the finer points of debate. Like how name calling and hyperbole shoots it all to hell

How if you present us with some sort of point, you have to present evidence to back it up, not tell us to look it up.

give me what you think conspiracy is, then I might be kind enough to direct you somewhere...besides, what makes you think Bush *isn't* a member?

didn;t i give you my requirements. gimme a viable news website with a story on the bohemian grove. I don;t want someohting that looks like somone used "MS frontpage for dummies" to create it.

And until somone definitively IS something, they aren;t...that is the way i beleive. unless proven that you are something, you aren't. innocent until proven guilty.

Why? because they're willing to stand up to the world tyranny that is the US? I'm proud of them for this!

sigh

...the world tyranny that just ended tyranny in Iraq.

Teacher help you with that?

There is no point lying over the inernet, we don't care.

How educated can you be to back the likes of Kim Jong Il? To misunderstand Toaism and pacifism? You also don't understand the finer points of debate. Like how name calling and hyperbole shoots it all to hell

How if you present us with some sort of point, you have to present evidence to back it up, not tell us to look it up.

ok you know what...you have no right to say anything to me that even resembles that..fuck you and the horse you rode in on..learn how to spell: Taoism...it was right in front of you and couldn't spell it properly...how dare you assume I back Kim Jong...quote me when I said I backed him....you have no place to say that to me, you have no idea who I am, then again I'm sure you don't give a shit....

I'm done with you people...you make me sick

Taoist Wisdom

Do you think that wanting to depose Saddam Hussein and give a people their first free elections in 50 years is a good reason to invade a country?

Or are you a Saddam loyalist?

Because if you're against Saddam... then the work we've done in Iraq is a good deed.

-snip-
If that makes me passive, then fine, I'm passive. But trust me, if you hit me, I will hit you back....
Why are you being so stuborn about the meaning of pacifist

pas·sive (păs'ĭv) pronunciation
adj.

1. Receiving or subjected to an action without responding or initiating an action in return: the mind viewed as a passive receptacle for sensory experience. See synonyms at inactive.
2. Accepting or submitting without objection or resistance; submissive: a passive acceptance of one's fate.
3. Existing, conducted, or experienced without active or concerted effort: “Although tick paralysis is a reportable disease in Washington, surveillance is passive, and only 10 cases were reported during 1987-1995” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). “[Many parents believe] that computers are educational and, at the least, less passive than television” (Tamar Lewin).
4. Of, relating to, or being certain bonds or shares that do not bear financial interest.
5. Of, relating to, or being a solar heating or cooling system that uses no external mechanical power.
6. Grammar. Of, relating to, or being a verb form or voice used to indicate that the grammatical subject is the object of the action or the effect of the verb. For example, in the sentence They were impressed by his manner, were impressed is in the passive voice.
7. Chemistry. Unreactive except under special or extreme conditions; inert.
8. Electronics. Exhibiting no gain or contributing no energy: a passive circuit element.
9. Psychology. Relating to or characteristic of an inactive or submissive role in a relationship, especially a sexual relationship.

n.

1. Grammar.
1. The passive voice.
2. A verb or construction in the passive voice.
2. One that is submissive or inactive. Often used in the plural: “And the rest of us, we passives of the world, proceeded . . . as if nothing untoward had happened” (Martin Gottfried).

[Middle English, from Old French passif, from Latin passīvus, subject to emotion, the passive, from passus, past participle of patī, to suffer.]
pas'sive·ly adv.
pas'sive·ness n.

Thesaurus
pacifist

adjective

Inclined or disposed to peace; not quarrelsome or unruly: irenic, pacific, pacifical, pacifistic, peaceable, peaceful. See peace/conflict.


WordNet
Note: click on a word meaning below to see its connections and related words.

The noun pacifist has one meaning:

Meaning #1: someone opposed to violence as a means of settling disputes
Synonyms: pacificist, disarmer

The adjective pacifist has one meaning:

Meaning #1: opposed to war
Synonym: pacifistic

Sure am, I was against the Iraq war, I'm in favor of restrictions on corporations, I'm in favor of getting big moneyed interests out of political campaigns, I beleive in equality of sex and race, I'm a beleiver in using taxation to redistribute income so everyone can have a living wage, I'm in favor of an absolute barrier between church and state. I am a liberal.

Liberals stand for liberty, no? Lil' Kim and despots like him rob people of their liberty.

But as a liberal, how can you judge Kim Jong-Il as a despot? Surely the ultimate expression of liberty is to allow absolutely everyone else to act as they see fit?

Call me stupid, but if life in N. Korea were so bad it would be much less stable, and completely incapable of producing the level of technology needed to build nuclear weapons! Remember that to sustain that level of technology requires serious investment. Personally, I think that although conditions in N. Korea are less than desirable for its' inhabitants, a substantial amount of spin is introduced by the Western media - inherently biased toward a dictatorship such as North Korea or Iraq.

Remember - Iraq was a blooming country when the U.S.A. decided to bomb it for ten years; no surprise that it was pretty much a wreck by the time they finally took Baghdad.

all it takes is one
One tactical nuclear weapon will do alot of damage if it manages to land in a city, but it's nothing compared with what a thermonuclear warhead would do. Have you read Tao Te Ching? If I'm not mistaken there's at least one passage in it about solving problems before they appear. If we don't want to deal with a N. Korea that has hundreds of thermonuclear weapons and a reliable delivery system for them, the time to take care of it is now. There's some Taoist wisdom for you.

obviously, there is no convincing you...you're gunna beat the wardrum til you're blue in the face...have fun!
When war is the best option, and sometimes it is, you have to go into it determined and resolved to win. War is sometimes justified.

But as a liberal, how can you judge Kim Jong-Il as a despot? Surely the ultimate expression of liberty is to allow absolutely everyone else to act as they see fit?

Call me stupid, but if life in N. Korea were so bad it would be much less stable, and completely incapable of producing the level of technology needed to build nuclear weapons! Remember that to sustain that level of technology requires serious investment. Personally, I think that although conditions in N. Korea are less than desirable for its' inhabitants, a substantial amount of spin is introduced by the Western media - inherently biased toward a dictatorship such as North Korea or Iraq.

Remember - Iraq was a blooming country when the U.S.A. decided to bomb it for ten years; no surprise that it was pretty much a wreck by the time they finally took Baghdad.
We have reports from N. Korean defectors. They tell stories of vast death camps where political dissidents are sent to work themselves to death. They tell stories of food shortages, and show signs of malnutrition. N. Korean adults are tiny compared to S. Korean adults. Why? They have the same genes. It's because of malnutrition during childhood. Anybody who goes to N. Korea is assigned a person to watch him and make sure he doesn't talk to the locals. The government strictly controls what it's people see and hear. It's a horrible place to live. The people who live there deserve better.

When war is the best option, and sometimes it is, you have to go into it determined and resolved to win. War is sometimes justified.

Violence cannot be justified.

Violence cannot be justified.
Those who refuse to consider violence in defense of their principles usually have either no principles or nothing worth defending.

Tell that to a Holocaust survivor.

Or a would be rape victim that fought off her attacker.

Violence cannot be justified.
Sure it can. If it has the effect of preventing future violence and liberating people. Look at WWII. Had not the allies used violence to deal with Hitler there might be no more Jews or Gypsies in the world. All of Europe might be oppressed by a NAZI empire.

Why? because they're willing to stand up to the world tyranny that is the US? I'm proud of them for this!

wow, proud of a nation that still has concentration camps? :rolleyes:

wow, proud of a nation that still has concentration camps? :rolleyes:
This comming from a guy that goes by Hitlerreich?

This comming from a guy that goes by Hitlerreich?

there seems to be a difference between a game like NationStates, and reality, as it is in North Korea... but I can't quite put my finger on what it is...hmmm.... :rolleyes:

there seems to be a difference between a game like NationStates, and reality, as it is in North Korea... but I can't quite put my finger on what it is...hmmm.... :rolleyes:
Ok, Ok. I was just curious because there was a guy who went by Hitlerjungen who used to post here and he was actually a nazi.

Sure it can. If it has the effect of preventing future violence and liberating people. Look at WWII. Had not the allies used violence to deal with Hitler there might be no more Jews or Gypsies in the world. All of Europe might be oppressed by a NAZI empire.

Hey, I don't have much more to say because total pacifism is incompatible with the idea of defence. But I'll leave you with this;

"Two wrongs still don't make a right."

When war is the best option, and sometimes it is, you have to go into it determined and resolved to win. War is sometimes justified.


sometimes...the rest of the world is now realizing that they are justified in holding the US accountable or even attacking them because they are a threat to world Peace. Taking Saddam was good, occupying their country for god knows how long after (and before) that is not.

So, just leaving and letting a power vacuum occur would be a good thing?

lalalalala

lalalalala

lalalalala


:headbang:


oh great! now my opinion (and many other countries' around the world) doesn't matter because the US disagrees with what I have to say! well spoken! you're really endearing me, here...

your popularity has to do with

a)the fact that you're a moron who believes every way-left-nut-job web site you can get your hands on (although i can't imagine any left-wing periodical would be that much against FREEDOM for OTHER COUNTRIES)

b)the fact that you will not listen to reason. you come with total BS and act like everyone else is dumb for not falling for it.

dude, you're tapped into Anti-USA.com and you need to get a few facts and a logic base with which to improve your stance.

The US isn't trying to take over Asia, much less the Middle East

The US isn't trying to take over Canada, nor will the US ever try this

Bringing freedom to oppressed people is a good thing, NOT SOMETHING TO HATE (your paradox: you want people to have civil rights, yet when we give it to the Iraqis you don't honor that)

I think that's enough. Anyone else wanna take a shot?

sometimes...the rest of the world is now realizing that they are justified in holding the US accountable or even attacking them because they are a threat to world Peace. Taking Saddam was good, occupying their country for god knows how long after (and before) that is not.
I guess you'd rather see those nice boys with the kalashnikovs, RPGs and car bombs take over. Perhaps Iraq could be partitioned into a Syrian puppet government in the sunni triangle, and an Iranian puppet in the rest of Iraq. Iraq's government and military isn't yet strong enough to stand alone.

sometimes...the rest of the world is now realizing that they are justified in holding the US accountable or even attacking them because they are a threat to world Peace. Taking Saddam was good, occupying their country for god knows how long after (and before) that is not.

newsflash:
WE NEED TO BE THERE SO THE INSURGENTS DON'T SLAUGHTER ALL THE GOOD CIVILIANS OF IRAQ.

... i mean, we need to be there at least until the Iraqis can defend themselves from the terrorists/insurgents.

btw, i don't really think that you're a moron... i just strongly disagree with you.

Why are you being so stuborn about the meaning of pacifist

"1. Receiving or subjected to an action without responding or initiating an action in return: the mind viewed as a passive receptacle for sensory experience. See synonyms at inactive.
2. Accepting or submitting without objection or resistance; submissive: a passive acceptance of one's fate."

*That* is what I had a problem with...labelling a person by a word that does not describe them is wrong. I stand up for myself, therefore, I am not passive. I learned the basics of linguistic fallacies in high school, and this is a prime example. They are trying to put me into a tiny little box that is a tiny little part of the concept behind a word. That's not only irritating, but it's ridiculous...if you can't understand that linear thinking gets you nowhere than there's no hope for you.

your popularity has to do with

a)the fact that you're a moron who believes every way-left-nut-job web site you can get your hands on (although i can't imagine any left-wing periodical would be that much against FREEDOM for OTHER COUNTRIES)

b)the fact that you will not listen to reason. you come with total BS and act like everyone else is dumb for not falling for it.

dude, you're tapped into Anti-USA.com and you need to get a few facts and a logic base with which to improve your stance.

The US isn't trying to take over Asia, much less the Middle East

The US isn't trying to take over Canada, nor will the US ever try this

Bringing freedom to oppressed people is a good thing, NOT SOMETHING TO HATE (your paradox: you want people to have civil rights, yet when we give it to the Iraqis you don't honor that)

I think that's enough. Anyone else wanna take a shot?


I do not get any of my sources from the internet, I just watch CBC. It's all right there. This has nothing to do with left or right. It has to do with caring about humanity. This world is going to crap so much that I've reconsidered having a kid. I can't justify bringing a child into the world the way it is right now. It would scar them. I truly wish you the best in your endeavours and hope and pray that someday you will see the err of your ways.

I hope that you someday manage to get your head out of the sand and break way from the brainwashing your government has put your country through. 30-90 thousand Americans have fled from the US because they either fear for their freedom, or fear for their life:(http://argentina.indymedia.org/news/2005/02/263491.php) since I don't have the channel that allows me to watch argentina's news station, figured I'd read it.

Every single person that I have seen interviewed that has left the US has said that they never realized how free and wonderful Canada really is. They said that they would never go back because they feel less axiety about saying what they feel. They don't get smacked for having an opinion that's contrary to the government. I don't think that Canada is perfect, but it's a better alternative to the festering dump of corporate propaganda and fundamentalist dogma that comes out of the US.

your popularity has to do with

a)the fact that you're a moron who believes every way-left-nut-job web site you can get your hands on (although i can't imagine any left-wing periodical would be that much against FREEDOM for OTHER COUNTRIES)

b)the fact that you will not listen to reason. you come with total BS and act like everyone else is dumb for not falling for it.

dude, you're tapped into Anti-USA.com and you need to get a few facts and a logic base with which to improve your stance.

The US isn't trying to take over Asia, much less the Middle East

The US isn't trying to take over Canada, nor will the US ever try this

Bringing freedom to oppressed people is a good thing, NOT SOMETHING TO HATE (your paradox: you want people to have civil rights, yet when we give it to the Iraqis you don't honor that)

I think that's enough. Anyone else wanna take a shot?


As a note, I'm not here to be popular....

Oh, and you should know that telling us you respect the views and opinions of other and then tell them their "heads are in the sand" and they are "brainwashed" are mutually exclusive.

You might want to make sure you go to tomorrow's class on debating so you get the rest of those terms, sport.

You misspelled ass

You misspelled ass
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=azz&r=f

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=azz&r=f
4. azz
Thought to be a cooler way of spelling Ass on the Internet.

Invented and most comonly used by Gay Thick Dutch people, who thought it be clever to play with the English Language by replacing the letter S with the letter Z to achieve plural sound (See examples below) which many people do to a cooler way of making a word plural. Unfortunately the Double Z spelling does not work due to pronouncement.

However due to the Dutch being Dutch and not English, they failed to see this mistake, yet use it anyway to not be proven wrong and mock the English Language.

Words that work by replacing S with Z
- Hiyaz Coolz Gangstaz Brotherz Friendz Boyz Girlz
Your a stupid Azz

Im Dutch, therefore Gay and I take it up the Azz
:mad:

:mad:
:eek:
THAT WEBSITE IS MEAN.

:fluffle:

No, Lil' Kim doesn't want to rule a radioactive parking lot, he wants to rule a nation. If he sees we're serious, he will negotiate. He just thinks he can get away with extortion right now because nobody has ever taken a truly hard line with him.
Oh yes because bombing him outright for no specific reason will really convince him that we mean business as opposed to blowing something to hell.

N. Korea Insists U.S. Apologize For Remark
Washington Times (SEOUL MAR. 03)

North Korea demanded yesterday that the United States apologize for designating the communist state as an "outpost of tyranny" and threatened to resume long range missile tests. However, the North also held out the possibility of returning to nuclear disarmament talks if Washington agrees to coexist with the communist country. North Korea declared on Feb. 10 that it had nuclear weapons and was boycotting six nation talks aimed at ending its nuclear ambitions. At the time, it cited Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's designation of North Korea as one of the "outposts of tyranny," during her Senate confirmation in January.

They ARE an "outpost of tyranny!" :mad:

Outpost! OUTPOST?!?

No wonder they're outraged! North Korea isn't an outpost! THey are a full-fledged Fortress of Tyranny.

I'd be pissed too. :p

Calling them names, though, is rude.


Was Reagan calling the Soviet Union the evil empire rude too?

Oh ya, bring Reagan into it. Thats going to make them happy.

They ARE an "outpost of tyranny!" :mad:



So are the US. Period.
Only difference: NK doesn't bother me.

So are the US. Period.
Wow. Typical anti-Americanism....


Only difference: NK doesn't bother me.

I guess your definition of tyranny is distorted.

"Amnesty International and other independent human rights monitors do not have direct access to North Korea. Nor does the organization have direct access to the border regions of China where North Koreans have fled to in pursuit of food. Suppression of freedom of expression, association, information and movement in North Korea makes investigation of the human rights situation on the ground extremely problematic. Detailed information is very difficult to obtain and verify.

North Korea has existed in self-imposed isolation for many decades. The country is nominally communist, but also influenced by its own Juche (self-reliance) ideology. Its leader Kim Jong-il is the son of the founder of North Korea Kim Il-sung, who established the country's institutions and pattern of highly repressive government, in which the rights to freedom of expression, association and movement have never been upheld. Political opposition is not permitted, and anyone expressing opinions contrary to the position of the ruling Korean Workers' Party is liable to severe punishment."

http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/document.do?id=3A85FB1357C97BA080256E1B00478D0B

So are the US. Period.

Period? Oh, well, thats different.


OK, people, discussion's over. Thats it. Anthil closed it off. He didn't even need to back his argument up. Solved the whole issue and everything.

Good job. I'm so glad you were able to clear it up.


Only difference: NK doesn't bother me.


Ah, citing the famous case of Sight v Mind Re: Out Of

I must say, that is one hell of an argument. You should go before the Supreme Court some time.

send Team America to NK