What the world needs now is a new kind of tension. Cause the old one just bores me to death.

Egoy

I'd like to think - and all the evidence seems to support me - that the "whiny liberals" support the troops. The treatment of the soldiers returning home from Vietnam shamed this country, shamed the liberal way of thought, and has not been - and will probably never be - repeated. I've never seen a single actual liberal person, not even a poster on Fark, say that they hated or did not support the troops and want them to come home safely. I support the troops wholeheartedly, and want them to come home safely. I think most liberals support the troops more than the neocons do, because we don't want them used as cannon fodder for bullshiat reasons like "Iraqi WMD".

Egoy

the war is about protecting americans, not forigners. If we can possibly help others along the way then by all means we should.



How does knocking over a Middle Eastern Dictator who had NO WMDs, wasn't a present danger to the USA, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars doing it fit into your definition of "protecting americans".

Just curious.

..."freedom"...is what we call....the "GOAL".

"Freedom", is under "f" in the dictionary.

Look it up, and you'll read about something the United States is trying to bring to the middle east.

If this doesn't answer your question, then you're thinking too hard...

or ...you don't want to accept that as the answer, BECAUSE its to simple.

I highly doubt Bush reads Marcus Aurelius, but nice try.

baraqel
Ah, gotcha... I must cease making baseless assumptions based on baseless assumptions!

Didn't read this absurdly long thread, so I'm sure it's been said before - This is old news. Pakistan sold nuke secrets to N.Korea, Libya, and Iran.

And when pressed to name some of our allies overseas, I once heard Bush specifically mention Musharraf.

With friends like these, indeed.

Sorry,

Complete accuracy is not 8.9+ = 9.0 magnitude earthquake. But, from around the globe, it's pretty damn close.

As for those that tell me to lighten up...why not counter people that are in here with bunk information who are only trying to scare other people? I am shedding light on the scariest weapons ever. Information about the capabilities of these weapons must first be understood before any action should ever even be considered.

Lastly, as it has been mentioned in informed Farker posts already, a missle originating from N. Korea would have the response of N. Korea being erased...as would some parts of China. Therefore, it's in China's best interest to keep their Buicks (number 1 car in China) running without fallout from our retaliatory missle strike.

hillbillypharmacist
who knew that one day, two completely opposing groups would come together to form that Grand Old Party. Fatcat CEOs and venture capitalists with no scruples, no love for God and no care beyond keeping every penny they earn teaming up with poor, salt-of-the-earth people who worship Jesus and are happy with no insurance and a used car. who knew they both loved war so much, they would cooperate?

Heh, you can say the same thing about the political left and the ABB crowd, espousing both anarchists who despise any government as a tyrannical restraint on humanity and the stereotypical hippies who espouse WORLD government as the only hope to bring humanity together.

2005-01-27 11:53:40 AM barjockey
hubiestubert
Enough pseudo intellectualism. Offer me a solution.

lesse here. long term:

1) create a more sustainable economy at home that is not completely dependent on cheap foreign (Chinese) labor. It's hard to do what you want when you potential enemies make all you electronic doodads and components. And when they have a significant portion of our Treasury bonds, and the resulting capacity to sink our economy at any point, it's hard to have a free hand.

My problem with the Bush administration is that they have failed to shore up what is becoming a economy that produces virtually no wealth, only redistributes it. And their failure to reign in spending in any form.

2) Get off the oil tit. Somehow. Anyhow. I don't care. But dependency on resources that are outside your country for the survival of your economy and military is just retarded. And cheaper energy that we control gives you much more leverage in the world than even the biggest military.

My problem with the Bush administration is that I have seen virtually no work in this area, and certainly not the Manhattan Project-scale effort that I would put into a gaping security hole of this magnatude.

3) Nuclear interception. This includes both missiles (unlikely) and covert delivery programs (more likely). You can have your missile defense, if you actually test the damn thing rigorously before buying and deploying it. And we need to beef up border inspection like a mofo.

They've made at least a token effort, but as far as I can tell, that's been it. I'd take all the kids playing dress-up for the TSA and put them somewhere where they'd actually do some good. You don't like it, farking drive.

4) Lunch.


5) Space. Space is the ultimate high ground, and by far the most pivotal factor in the development of the humand race. I'd rather have us doing it than funny looking tin dictators in bad suits. We need the capacity to look down on these nations, and take them out as needed. See The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for details. Plus, spin-off technology is guaranteed to help otehr factors above.

They've said some nice words on the subject, not sure what's actually been done.


6) Work to make the US a more benevolent force in the world. Sure, crazy people will always hate us, just the same as you could always be killed by a psycho. But that doesn't mean that if you're the richest and biggest kid on the block you should walk around with an attitude and generally act like an asshole 24-7. The more we try and strengthen our support for the poor and underclasses in the world, the more popular support we'll have when we do go into a country. Oh, and consistent ethical principles and respect for the people rather than treating them as pawns would be a nice touch.

You have been paying attention, right?



Short term? Jump in bed with China. Let them know that this is their guy, and their problem, and they need to fix it. Unfortunately, until we fix # 1, we don't have much leverage with them. But collaring this crazy midget is in their best interests as well.

Also, get in bed with every other intelligence service. As much as we like saying "War of Terror", it's much more of a coordinated law enforcement across continents against particlarly vicious thugs. The more we know, the better we are able to fight this thing.

Mr_Fabulous

Aww, you're very welcome. I hope you had fun. :)

And I hear you about that productivity thing. I've always been a liter, and I still tend to get a bit distracted on here.

Infinity threads notwithstanding!

Richard_Feynmans_Big_Toe

1) Is Iraq a threat to US safety?
As a "neocon" I can say... they never were. Or at least in 2003 they weren't. However Saddam was a prick and unless he had a change of heart, he will always be one. He had been a threat to the security of the US before in the past, and it was out mistake in putting him in power. I feel that if we didn't invade in 2003, we would have invaded anyways, because sooner or later Saddam or his kids would have done something mighty against the US (and again, there were no signs of them having a change in heart). That is unless the Iraqi people themselves would have revolted against the Hussains, saving us the trouble. But what's done is done.


2) Is North Korea a threat to US safety?
Right now, no. The only thing keeping them at bay is Mutually Assured Destruction. The North and South Koreans don't see each other as absolute enemies, more like two brothers; where one brother is witnessing the other brother self destruct. North Korea isn't going to invade South Korea any time soon, and definately not unless provoked by a US invasion. Also North Korea is doing this nuclear scare just to get the US to pony up some money to help it out, but the US won't negotiate. Kim is crazy enough to use nukes (or at least use an artilery strike against Seoul), which is why the US hasn't invaded yet and is currently trying to negotiate.

3) Should we be worried about terrorism?
Why not? Terrorism has always been a problem to the world, at least around the days of President Jimmy Carter. I think it's about time the US woke up to this international problem. In my perspective though, I'm wondering when the rest of the world will wake up to it too...

4) Is pre-emptivly attacking North Korea a good/fair plan?
Not unless being responsible for the deaths of at least a million South Korean civilians (as well as potentially the destruction of Beijing and Tokyo, provided Kim has nukes) is "a good/fair plan". There's no way to invade, and the reluctance of a US invasion is NOT because North Korea lacks oil. (I can't take anyone seriously who claims that's the reason why we haven't invaded.)

5) If attacking NK isn't a good idea, why does it matter that our troops are tied up in Iraq?
It's not a big issue to me, but on a grander scale, our forces are a bit thinned out... an invasion of other countries that threaten the world (like Iran for example) isn't a possibility until we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and regroup.

6) If the Iraq war was over WMD and protecting America, why doesn't this apply to Pakistan/N. Korea/France?
Even if Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction, who would he have used it against? The invasion cost about 1,300 American lives and >17,721 Iraqi lives, and this is over the course of almost two years. In military terms, this is one HELL of an acceptible loss.

If we invaded North Korea, we put Seoul and potentially Beijing, Tokyo, Kyoto and maybe even San Francisco in range of North Korean weaponry, which each city having a population of well over 10 million. If >17,721 civilian deaths in Iraq is "a disaster", then a million South Korean deaths is... well, disaster squared.

NCg8r Is this why I've had a feeling that Seoul will be destroyed?

Reading that made me sad; I hope you won't be proven right. I like Seoul, and Koreans in general. That's one city I'd miss.

/recommends everybody visit South Korea.

TellarHK I never intended to say that not supporting the troops was the provice of all liberals. Rereading I can understand where you get that idea. It's not all liberals and I'm sure of bible bashing rights have done it (read about the jeep armor nonsense...not naming names). I just stuck that in to get it out there I hate seeing it happen and it is happening. Which is terribly sad. I just thought of it while typing about the war no insult aimed at any political affiliation.

I highly doubt Bush reads Marcus Aurelius, but nice try.

Less big words/names.... try taking more quotes from this book for arguing with Mike_71

This may seem like I'm a bigot but if I was in charge a million dead forigners is much better than one dead american.

In a sense, you already are "in charge." Seriously.

Skasteve:

People people people....you are going about this whole invasion thing all wrong. Don't invade the country with nuclear weapons. Take out the nuclear weapons.

Step one: Paratroop in navy seals (watch navy seals starring Sheen)

Step two: find nukes


Hrm. I had heard that might have been what happened to his Yongjo-ri facility in Ryanggang back in mid September. Or something like it. Supposedly he had some if not all of his separation equipment and missile maggots there as well as a lot of his Tae'Po-Dong materiel.

For sure, the scuttlebutt was that the DPRK was testing nukes in Pakistan's test area a couple of years ago because NK's aquifer system doesn't lend itself to underground shots.

I wonder if the weapon he got (if he got one) was from this period, because I had also heard that Musharraf was now our "ally" and was letting the SF do basically whatever they wanted now in exchange for us not nabbing his little buddy A.Q. Khan.

I think it would be very interesting if at the bottom of every Fark thread, there was a listing of every misspelled word, in every post, in order of occurence.

I have a feeling that if you didn't want to read through every single preceding post to get a feel of where the thread had been and was going, this handy list would give you a nice summary without having to waste hours reading outdated posts and getting farther and farther behind the bleeding edge.

And then, if there could be a quick ranking of the posters with the most misspellings, that would add even more to your understanding of the general thread.

/my new Fark dream feature

This may seem like I'm a bigot but if I was in charge a million dead forigners is much better than one dead american.

Well, let's not go crazy now... there are several Americans we could easily spare.

or add spellchecker Skleenar?

/easier Fark dream

Egoy
Where is it happening? I haven't seen anything - not one serious post, ever - that said "I don't support the god-damn troops!"

I feel as though people who bring up the "support the troops!" angle are just playing up a major straw man. Everyone supports the troops... so why complain about people not supporting them? :)

We spend a shiatload of money to have one of the most powerful armies in the world. That is a good enough reason to go to war. If we are paying so much money we should have our army do something. Kicking a$$hol3 dictators out and killing terrorists sounds like a good thing for them to be doing, so I believe they should continue. Besides no one here has access to any intel info so none of us are really qualified to make any sort of military decisions. The only people who can are the generals.

i've gone back and forth on the iraq war, i could be labelled as a flip-flopper, but one question has always lurked in my mind: what makes something an iminent threat?

a) they attacked the US
b) have the capabilities and motive to attack the US
c) have the motive and are seeking to acquire capabilities to attack the US

if it's a) they we were too late.
if it's b) we are too late, bc as soon as we act then they will likely attack out of desparation or in an attempt to deter the US.
situation c) seems like the justification for iraq, saddam definitely had the motive, and most agreed he was seeking the capabilities to attack. however, many now say this is not enough to justify a threat.

if you act in situation c), then there is no way to prove that NOT acting would have led to a) or b)

/i think i've gone cross-eyed

2005-01-27 11:48:17 AM mark12A

Relax. All the Koreans got was a bomb casing filled with pinball machine parts...

Great Scott!

neocon! neocon! neocon!....liberal! liberal! liberal!
Clinton's fault! Clinton's fault!....Bush's fault! bush's fault!
Iraq is wrong!....Iraq is right!
Great taste! Less filling!

Open your eyes, people. We don't need to worry about N. Korea's nukes. We're doing a pretty good job of self-destructing ourselves.

/taking the torches away from the "neocons" so they don't burn all of the "liberals" at the stake for disagreeing with them (oh, wait, better clear that plan by Rush. It's a capital offense to go over his head)
//taking down all of the crosses so the "liberals" can't crucify themselves for their self-righteous morality (oh, bad reference. I forgot that all of Christianity is evil)

I'm not saying supporting the troops mean absolution of all war crimes, and i agree tribalism is a bad ideal. A great ideal present in the US and elsewhere is the innocent until found guilty idea. I understand that if something happens it should be investigated and if any wrong doing should be prosecuted. I mean general support from the general populace. Not suport from military police and government (who posses the job of makeing sure that abu greab never happens again, or not in the first place) I might be wrong I have been out of country for a year but last time i was there it seemed soldiers were gettng the cold shoulder.

/not a soldier so i very well might be wrong
//any soldiers care to comment?

"He who throws the first punch is not necessarily the aggressor, grasshopper."

Totally worships the ground laxr15 walks on for pointing out the obvious.

Pakistan is an ally of the United States.
Pakistan sold a nuclear weapon to North Korea.
North Korea is not an ally of the United States.

This is a diplomatic failure on someone's part.

Sinister Minister

Open your eyes, people. We don't need to worry about N. Korea's nukes. We're doing a pretty good job of self-destructing ourselves.

People have been having heated political arguments in America, oh.... forever. And yet, we're still here. For some reason, I find being nuked somewhat more pressing of an issue.

The War on Terror....am I the only one that laughs and cringes at the folks who believe this to be an actual thing that can actually be won?

I think the answer to that laxr15 is boasting to the world that you have the power to attack them if need-be... but if you follow that logic the US is the biggest culprit of all

/head starting to spin on own logic
//need more coffee

Skleenar:

And then, if there could be a quick ranking of the posters with the most misspellings, that would add even more to your understanding of the general thread.

Might be interesting, but on the other hand, I know Farkers on both sides of the issues that are educated, intelligent and well-read, (even if I don't always agree with them) who mis-spell words when they are agitated and trying to fire a rebuttal off quickly. So I don't know if it's a valid metric.

tarvuz--The War on Terror....am I the only one that laughs and cringes at the folks who believe this to be an actual thing that can actually be won?

Is it something that we want lost?

wow. even n. korea is outsourcing nowadays. looks like if i wanna work i gotta move to either india or pakistan.

Um, this is the United States, not a banana republic.

Yeah... banana republics have, at least, bananas...

Here we go again. Same issue. Different location. Those who are devout to their President will Die following his beliefs and those who won't will stay at home or by dodging a potential draft. All in all, more americans will eventually die, whether they believe in what they'll be fighting for or whether they're just doing their job. Lets see how all of this is viewed 50yrs from now.

underdog
No you missed it completely....if i were the Prime minister of Canada then a million dead americans is better than one dead Canadian and visa versa It's the the President's job to protect citizens of other countries.

The worst part about all of this is that countries are gearing up their nuclear capabilities. N Korea apparently has nukes. It has been reported that Russia is working on its' nuclear program again. For a while there, it looked like we were going to get beyond this nuclear fear, but not anymore.

In my opinion, yes, it has a LOT to do with the US administration's policy on pre-emptive strikes. We got away with invading another country that did not pose a serious threat to us. Do you Bush-backers have any idea at all how scary of a concept that is to non-American countries?

If I were a foreign country, I'd be very worried about how safe my country is from this new policy. It makes sense that nuclear-weapon countries will get avoided and non-nuclear-weapon countries are at risk. All the more reason for owning a nuke or two.

Why didn't we just invite Saddam to Brussels or something and when he showed up, just captured him and tried him for crimes against his people?

That's what Brian Boytano would have done.

pvd021--Here we go again. Same issue. Different location. Those who are devout to their President will Die following his beliefs and those who won't will stay at home or by dodging a potential draft. All in all, more americans will eventually die, whether they believe in what they'll be fighting for or whether they're just doing their job. Lets see how all of this is viewed 50yrs from now.


Are you threatening me? It sounds like you want everyone in the United States to perish? I really hope you didn't waste time in a public school to come out with that attitude.

underdog
I never said i supported bush in any way. I do on many things but being conservative doesn't mean believing the giant talking head in every instance. get over yourself if kerry had won would you now be supporting everyone of his dipshiat ideas? probably not but somehow in your mind a bush supporter loves everything the guy does, bullshiat.

Wow, Mike_71 is making less and less sense as the thread goes on.

I've come to enjoy him more and more now that I've started thinking of him as a sort of "Theatre of the Absurd" version of an apologist for this administration's failures.

I think a Mike_71 drinking game would be a blast:
1) everyone drinks when he puts something in caps for now apparent reason.
2) everyone drinks when he blames Clinton
3) everyone drinks when he criticizes "liberals"
4) everyone drinks when he makes up parts of the constitution that don't really exist.

Anything else anyone can think of?

\wondering why he was left off of Mike_71's list of the damned.
\\feels strangely slighted

Between Russia signing an arms deal with Syria and now this, I think it's a safe bet to assume that we'll be in another war by next year considering Bush wants to have the troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. All we need is Israel to jump in on the fun and we'll have Dubya Dubya 3.

North Korea = nuked from orbit.

underdog nothing seeing as Canada does not have any nuclear weapons. You are missing my point once again, how many canadians would die in the un avoidable war the would insue from that action? more than one. So no i wouldn't/couldn't anyway. But i would be not doing it for the sake of Canadian lives not american lives.