PDA

View Full Version : Should the USA bomb North Korea and Iran ?



stewart38
11th-February-2005, 02:49 PM
I agree, as a none smoker it is alot more pleasant to be in an none smokey room but surely we can think of something else to talk about!!!! :whistle: :whistle:


How about this one ?

Are USA spoiling for a fight or do they have the worlds interests at heart ?

Dreadful Scathe
11th-February-2005, 05:05 PM
Or alternatively - should China side with north korea and bomb the USA ? Is it in the worlds best interests to force the US to worry about its own affairs over other peoples ?

stewart38
11th-February-2005, 05:36 PM
Or alternatively - should China side with north korea and bomb the USA ? Is it in the worlds best interests to force the US to worry about its own affairs over other peoples ?


But surely the world will be much safer when the USA nuke those that dont agree ?

Gus
11th-February-2005, 05:38 PM
Or alternatively - should China side with north korea and bomb the USA ? Is it in the worlds best interests to force the US to worry about its own affairs over other peoples ?It would be an interesting analysis about who is causing most of the worlds unrest? aAlot of it seems to stem from the Israel/Arab thing (but I may be totaly, wrong ... corrections would be deeply appreaciated).
If the US wanted to play fair it would invade Isreal and stop them carrying out all the atrocities they seem to enjoy carrying out. If the UK had taken the same approach in Ireland I think the US would have bombed us .... oh sorry, forgot .. they did by funding the IRA :sick:

Lou
11th-February-2005, 07:10 PM
It would be an interesting analysis about who is causing most of the worlds unrest?
You lot are getting far too serious. Let's just invade France, instead. :wink:

ElaineB
11th-February-2005, 07:18 PM
You lot are getting far too serious. Let's just invade France, instead. :wink:


Yeah, because we in Bristol have done Wales, haven't we Lou! :wink: :rofl:


Elaine

Lou
11th-February-2005, 07:39 PM
Yeah, because we in Bristol have done Wales, haven't we Lou! :wink: :rofl:
I'm a bloomin' prisoner of war, missus! :na:

Clive Long
11th-February-2005, 07:45 PM
You lot are getting far too serious. Let's just invade France, instead. :wink:

How about if England brutally subjugates the fair Scots?

Oh, sorry we did.

Come on guys. Envoke the spirit of the Hastings brothers and give us the wooden spoon this year. (Don't worry girls, it's a guy thing)

CJ
11th-February-2005, 10:59 PM
How about if England brutally subjugates the fair Scots?

Oh, sorry we did.


Can someone please help Clive, he seems to be drivelling uncontrolably....

El Salsero Gringo
12th-February-2005, 01:11 AM
Alot of it seems to stem from the Israel/Arab thing (but I may be totaly, wrong ... corrections would be deeply appreaciated).

If the US wanted to play fair it would invade Isreal and stop them carrying out all the atrocities they seem to enjoy carrying out.(my emphasis)
OK. I'll rise to this. Just one time.

Anyone who (by their own admission) doesn't know what they're talking about would do well to resist making 'clever' off-the-cuff remarks that those of us who have lived in Israel, or have Israeli family, or friends - are going to find utterly offensive.

Just stop.

Baruch
13th-February-2005, 12:27 AM
If the US wanted to play fair it would invade Isreal and stop them carrying out all the atrocities they seem to enjoy carrying out. :
Isn't it strange how the world sees things? How come when western countries such as the USA retaliate for terrorist atrocities they are applauded for it, while Israel is condemned for the same thing? That's double standards in my book.

If someone was going around bombing restaurants, shopping centres, wedding venues etc in the UK, we'd expect our government to do something about it. No difference.

azande
13th-February-2005, 01:00 AM
OK. I'll rise to this. Just one time.

Anyone who (by their own admission) doesn't know what they're talking about would do well to resist making 'clever' off-the-cuff remarks that those of us who have lived in Israel, or have Israeli family, or friends - are going to find utterly offensive.

Just stop.

:sick:

State Of Human Rights In Palestine (http://www.phrmg.org/)
Palestinian Rights Programme (http://www.palestinian-rights.org/index1.html)
or visit
www.amnesty.org and search for Palestine and Israel!


Isn't it strange how the world sees things? How come when western countries such as the USA retaliate for terrorist atrocities they are applauded for it, while Israel is condemned for the same thing? That's double standards in my book.

If someone was going around bombing restaurants, shopping centres, wedding venues etc in the UK, we'd expect our government to do something about it. No difference.

And what about these (http://www.musalman.com/news/musalman-UN%20resolutions%20against%20Israel.htm) (list of dozens of UN resolutions that Israel has not complied with) as a glaring example of double standards?

under par
13th-February-2005, 01:19 AM
:sick:

State Of Human Rights In Palestine (http://www.phrmg.org/)
Palestinian Rights Programme (http://www.palestinian-rights.org/index1.html)
or visit
www.amnesty.org and search for Palestine and Israel!



And what about these (http://www.musalman.com/news/musalman-UN%20resolutions%20against%20Israel.htm) (list of dozens of UN resolutions that Israel has not complied with) as a glaring example of double standards?

Now! Now! where does this take us as far as the thread is concerned?

Way OFF!

Please deal with the topic! :angry: ( start your own thread otherwise :devil: )

Gus
13th-February-2005, 11:59 AM
Please deal with the topic! :angry: ( start your own thread otherwise :devil: )Well said. (OK .. Iwas guilty of erring in the first place :blush: )

Re the US taking on an aggressive role .... one can look at the moral justification (there isnt one) or the practical outcome ... it will fail to stop further coflict. In modern warfare where one size has overwhelming force of numbers, the smaller paryt has no choice but to resort to terrorist type actions. If the Yanks cant take over Iraq propely, what chance do they stand with Iran and Korea. Personal view is that the amount of terror attacks and the sophistication will increase dramaticaly. In this day and age I dont think gun-boat diplomacy is appropraite.

2leftfeet
13th-February-2005, 04:11 PM
Perhaps Saudi might be a better option!

MartinHarper
13th-February-2005, 07:23 PM
How come when western countries such as the USA retaliate for terrorist atrocities they are applauded for it, while Israel is condemned for the same thing?

You can't move round here without bumping into someone applauding a US invasion of somewhere or other, and it'll only get worse when they invade Iran. It's enough to make me rip up my "more blood for oil" T-shirt.

Andy McGregor
13th-February-2005, 07:42 PM
My own opinion is that I don't know enough to form an opinion on this subject. Perhaps those people who've expressed an opinion on here could explain their reasoning to those of us who know too little to be opinionated.

Ste
14th-February-2005, 03:17 AM
I find the title of the thread quite interesting in that it shows what a USA centric Universe we live in. They are the immediate point of refererence once a major political issue is raised. If we do protest, it is as one who is a son or daughter in a family protesting against the actions of an errant parent, not as a true opponent.

We are concerned about whether USA should or should not invade a foreign country because of its perceived threat to world peace.

Power legitimises military action?Might is right?

I have a different view of the West. I was educated partly to respect communism and have an alternative world view:

1. The USA acitively engages in a policy of military encirclement.

a)Strangely these strategies are reflected in their films about aliens invasions
( e.g. 1. Independence Day:Create a network of starships above major cities thereby being able to control military operations above those cities.)

2. Do you remember "V"...eekk, don't lie about your age. It was on in the late eighties.That was interesting in that the aliens here befreinded these people on the pretext of scientific exchange of information ( cures for cancer etc if I remember correctly..I was too young to take notes...hehe). Then they used sycophantic humans in high places to represent them. Hmmm reminds me of Mr Alawi in Iraq..... He is the man with the good boy face. I know nothing about him politically. I am just referring to the way he appears to me.)

b) THey have military bases in all corners of the world with a view to creating a network around the world. This is quite clever because it sets out their stall and makes people familiar and comfortable with the idea of American planes flying 20 km from their countries. Of course they will be free to collect information and spy on the countries that they encircle.

How would people feel if CHina flew reconnaissance planes up and down the Est and West Coast of America and around Europe?The answer is jolly uncomfortable. Lack of familiarity. A few years ago there was a massive diplomatic row when a CHinese fighter pilot was involved in a collision with an AMerican plane some kilometres from China. The Yanks clamied that they were flying in international waters and that gave them the right to fly their military spy planes up and down the South CHina Sea. This was not the view of some US academics who published letters or articles in the TImes expressing a view, as I understand, that these types of flights could not claim the same privileges as domestic flights. Strangely enough, at about that time, I was watching a BBC2 programme about US pilots making routine flights up and down the South China Sea.This again is clever, because this means that the US already has collected huge amounts of military info about any country, where it is vulnerable, and the military terrain.No other country has this kind of information because no other country is given such free access to fly aorund other countries. The most important thing is is that people in the world, including the Far East think it is OK.

Now they are in Afghanistan and Iraq. ( As an aside I sensed the weapons of mass destruction argument for the invasion was a false premise, within a few days of the invasion. This is because I heard Rumsfeld saying that even if no WMD were to be found later, the invasion was justified because of the other benefits for the invasion. He was clearly, clearly covering himself against the possibility that there might not be WMD. If he had expressed those doubts before the invaision as he should have done, then he would not have been able to justify the invasion. I believe that he knew that he was not telling the truth. )

Next port of call North Korea?

What right do they have to invade? How about an alternative :Maybe China should invade on the pretext of world peace. What gives one country ( as opposed to another ) the right to invade countries at will ?

My alternative scenario is one that this would fill most Western Hollywood/MTV watching/ McDonalds eating people with horror and cause widespread offence. But why should it? Our reasons for fearing such a predicament show the level of presupposition that we bring to consideration of such political issues and therefore I ask the question again:

Do we not live in a US centric world?

As I see it, the USA consider that China will be the dominant economic power by 2020. Americans are now setting in place mechanisms that will preserve their power, be it military or even the perception that their world view is the correct one. Spread Americanisation far and deep through media and maybe they will help people to see things their way for a lot longer!

God bless America!

Clive Long
14th-February-2005, 10:30 AM
My own opinion is that I don't know enough to form an opinion on this subject. Perhaps those people who've expressed an opinion on here could explain their reasoning to those of us who know too little to be opinionated.

:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

I was going to approach this thread by listing all the pre-conceived ideas (prejudices really) that I have about world geo-politic and then try to understand WHY and FROM WHERE I get those ideas. But I realise that would take far too long - and Andy has crystallised the issue behind the issue for me.

Clive

Ste
14th-February-2005, 02:27 PM
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

I was going to approach this thread by listing all the pre-conceived ideas (prejudices really) that I have about world geo-politic and then try to understand WHY and FROM WHERE I get those ideas. But I realise that would take far too long - and Andy has crystallised the issue behind the issue for me.

Clive

1. I think it would be a really interesting excercise to see where you got your prejudices form because if you have them, then it is likely that large chunks of the population have them as well ( That's the psychologist in me......open ended!) and that would be a lot of political clout.

2. I can understand why people think others should be well informed in order to express a political view. The problem is that many people don't have the resources to fully investigate things. I am not a political animal and am not sophisticated in that arena but I still think my views have some validity particularly the theory of policy of encirclement and the putting into place of perceptions that will protect the US model of democracy and its political economic interests given the growing power of China on the world stage.( That in itself could be a new thread...does anyone know how to get a job there?)

stewart38
14th-February-2005, 04:11 PM
My own opinion is that I don't know enough to form an opinion on this subject. Perhaps those people who've expressed an opinion on here could explain their reasoning to those of us who know too little to be opinionated.


But we can say that about most subjects. I could show you scinetific papers that say global warming is made up .

We express 'opinions' on what we read or know and maybe sometimes thats only based on 20% of the 'facts' ?

Ste
15th-February-2005, 12:33 AM
Should unimformed people be allowed to express an opinion? That is an interesting moot point.

As a former psychology student it appears to me that much of our decision making is made on the basis of small snippets of information. Outlines, fragments. If you are driving and in the corner of your eye see something red coming your way, you will probably assume it is another vehicle and possibly take evasive action. However, it might be something totally different ie a paper hankie.

The survival of organisms is linked to their ability to receive a bare outline ( eg with their eyes) and then respond without an opportunity to examine the stimulus in detail. That is why we are programmed to react to tiny snippets of information and that is why there are strange anormalies such as optical illusions. You create the whole from little bits.

I think that it is the same with politics. You bring to a political question your own template/schemata and then make a decision in response to a little bit of information. For example we do not need to make detailed studies as to policies to postulate that the Labour Party will be slightly more inclined to protect or increase Inheritance Tax rates and the Conservatives more inclined to lower them.

One might argue that because people, like me, are politically ignorant then we should not be allowed to vote. ( And the right to vote can be of greater significance than the right to express an opinion).

But I wonder whether we need to do detailed research. From what sources would you get the information? Perhaps these sources would be biased with underlying agendas.

I remember that in University days there was a lot of political discourse and there is no way that i could have won the toss never mind a political debate. I wonder how can people who are so informed come to such divergent opinions? Much studying of books maketh the body weary.

Sorry, I am just a thick Scouser.

Intuition rules!

MartinHarper
15th-February-2005, 01:32 AM
We can say that about most subjects.

Such as dance?

stewart38
15th-February-2005, 10:34 AM
Such as dance?


Of course. If there was a dance questionnaire with 200 questions about all types of dance around the world would anyone score more then 20% ?

Clive Long
15th-February-2005, 12:32 PM
Of course. If there was a dance questionnaire with 200 questions about all types of dance around the world would anyone score more then 20% ?

OK agree with the idea people may disagree about dance preferences and taste but rarely does this threaten thermo-nuclear annihilation (Although it's come close a couple of times on the forum).

Can we get back on-topic please?

I'm still working on my "USA: a benevolent or malign influence?" thesis. Don't hold your breath.

(although I thought Martin's diversion was witty).

CRL

stewart38
15th-February-2005, 12:59 PM
OK agree with the idea people may disagree about dance preferences and taste but rarely does this threaten thermo-nuclear annihilation (Although it's come close a couple of times on the forum).

Can we get back on-topic please?

I'm still working on my "USA: a benevolent or malign influence?" thesis. Don't hold your breath.

(although I thought Martin's diversion was witty).

CRL

But what we say on this forum is hardly, likely going to effect USA foreign policy ?

The topic was 'should' they.

Starlight Dancer
14th-June-2005, 03:09 PM
Should unimformed people be allowed to express an opinion? That is an interesting moot point.

As a former psychology student it appears to me that much of our decision making is made on the basis of small snippets of information. Outlines, fragments. If you are driving and in the corner of your eye see something red coming your way, you will probably assume it is another vehicle and possibly take evasive action. However, it might be something totally different ie a paper hankie.

The survival of organisms is linked to their ability to receive a bare outline ( eg with their eyes) and then respond without an opportunity to examine the stimulus in detail. That is why we are programmed to react to tiny snippets of information and that is why there are strange anormalies such as optical illusions. You create the whole from little bits.

I think that it is the same with politics. You bring to a political question your own template/schemata and then make a decision in response to a little bit of information. For example we do not need to make detailed studies as to policies to postulate that the Labour Party will be slightly more inclined to protect or increase Inheritance Tax rates and the Conservatives more inclined to lower them.

One might argue that because people, like me, are politically ignorant then we should not be allowed to vote. ( And the right to vote can be of greater significance than the right to express an opinion).

But I wonder whether we need to do detailed research. From what sources would you get the information? Perhaps these sources would be biased with underlying agendas.

I remember that in University days there was a lot of political discourse and there is no way that i could have won the toss never mind a political debate. I wonder how can people who are so informed come to such divergent opinions? Much studying of books maketh the body weary.

Sorry, I am just a thick Scouser.

Intuition rules!

Ste I agree with your analysis and I also agree that many of the problems the world faces are actually an information problem of either communication or perception. It is worth asking ourself through what filters and controlling mechanisms do we receive the information we base our opinions and decisions on. I actually step back from everything and try to base my opinions and decisions on the evidence of my personal experience and the natural laws inherent in systems.