emprworm Posted December 25, 2002 Author Share Posted December 25, 2002 What part of "I don't think ANYONE should have nukes" do you not understand? Disarm NK, China, Pakistan, India, Russia, France, Britain, and before you're finished, disarm yourselves. fine. glad to know that you would support the forcible disarming of North Korea. France having nukes does not worry me. Neither does the UK. Pakistan does. North Korea does. Iraq does. nuclear weapons at the whim of one mans decision is an intolerable situation. One man cannot decide to launch a nuke in the US or France or the UK. In NK, however, one man would be all it takes. And that one man (Kim Jong) just happens to be a ruthless Hitler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurlyPIG Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 its rather absolutely correct. What human being supports the idea of having another human being be his master? Slavery is bad. PERIOD. that you are "open minded" to human subversion, persecution and slavery is utterly deplorable. where, o where, Ace are your moral values? Aren't you the same guy that was against discrimination? And here you are now saying that dictatorship could = good? Give one man absolute power and Acelethal says that is not necessarily bad???? What the??Who's talking about slavery? Are you starting another topic about slavery? Because I was talking about dictatorships. And no it isn't necessarily bad. The political opression in Yugoslavia during Tito's regime was nothing compared to the hateful slaughter of people during the war that errupted after he died and all the little minorities declared independance.Now think to yourself do you pick:A) A totalitarian dictator that controls social order and represses political opinion orB) Supposed democratic factions taking power and starting a giant blood-bath of a war in which you are killed.It's rare but it's happened...But 99 times of 100 a democracy is far better for the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurlyPIG Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 Nuclear holocaust is coming and i bet you just cant wait....Why do I bother... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted December 25, 2002 Author Share Posted December 25, 2002 It's rare but it's happened...But 99 times of 100 a democracy is far better for the people.100 out of 100 times, Ace. A dictatorship IS servitude by definition. There is NO FREEDOM under a dictatorship, all people must submit to the single will of the dictator. This is precisely equal to slavery. Using your argument, we can then say that all that medical knowledge the world gained through the use of Nazi human expirimentation on Jews - conjoined twins, altitide/pressure effects, poison effects, lethal radiation doses....look at all the lives that were saved because of the knowledge we gained from the Nazi expiriments. I guess that made it all ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted December 25, 2002 Author Share Posted December 25, 2002 The political opression in Yugoslavia during Tito's regime was nothing compared to the hateful slaughter of people during the war that errupted after he died and all the little minorities declared independanceand thus, the problem with your argument is that you attribute the post-dictatorial anarchy to "democracy" when its very cause is soley attributed to the dictatorship itself. Those angry people would not have been so angry had they not been slaves for so long, now would they? All the blood spilt after the end of the dictatorship was due to the dictatorship. Slavery has a way of making people angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurlyPIG Posted December 25, 2002 Share Posted December 25, 2002 Sometimes a democracy lacks the access to force to disarm volatile political situations. In Africa, usually, the most out of control countries are democracies. Of course, the military regimes are always far worse than the civil disorder but that isn't always the case. Sometimes, a true democracy just can't do anything about it, and an interim government is needed to make the transition to assure peace. Sort of like Gorbachev before the breakup of the USSR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted December 26, 2002 Author Share Posted December 26, 2002 anarchy usually results after the collapse of a prior dictatorship. We seen it a thousand times throughout history. basically people are enslaved, they revolt. All the bloodshed that occurs during the revolt is attributed to the dictatorship and the oppression put on the people by the slave state. Its the DICTATORSHIP that is to blame for the post-dictatorial bloodshed. Again, people do not take to well to slavery, and that is what happens when you put your people under slavery. They will spill their own blood fighting for freedom. And a bloody mess indeed it will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 Back to the point...What Emprworm wants is to throw bombs on nuclear installations in North Korea. Damn N. Koreans deserve to die! It's their own god damn fault of being born in a dictatorship ::) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted December 26, 2002 Author Share Posted December 26, 2002 hmmm...earthnuker i see your point there. I am a reasonable person. Do you know of any other way to disarm those power plants? I seek not to disarm NK's army or to bomb their cities, only its nuclear plants (2 of them I think). Having those plants exist is intolerable. What do you suggest then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 "Hey, will you please stop?" Hitler: "No.""Uh, ok"and many were martyred because of their peaceful ways. Malcome X in his early civil rights campaigns was like you. He despised Martin Luther King. Thought that he didnt know how to get the job done and sometimes things resort to violence. A trueism is that if a man strikes us on the cheek we offer the other. No exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted December 26, 2002 Author Share Posted December 26, 2002 TMA lets imagine a man was sitting on your mother pinning her to the ground and stabbing her. (forgive the harsh image, but the question is a serious one) You see his back as he raises high a knife to bring it down in her chest. Having only seconds, there is a gun on the table and his head is an easy target. would you not bring him down? Honestly, what would you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 You can always wound the arm in which he holds the knife Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted December 26, 2002 Author Share Posted December 26, 2002 so if you aim for his arm- a skinny dark target that is moving and not his big fat motionless head, and you miss, your mother is dead as the knife penetrates her heart. Do you still aim for the arm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 I say, send Sam Fisher into the plants to shut them down! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted December 26, 2002 Author Share Posted December 26, 2002 cmon, Aikricu, your comments are most welcome, but please seriously what do you suggest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 You can also run over to him and kick him the head. It takes about as much time as picking up a gun and shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 Tell them to allow inspectors in their country, otherwise invade the bastards and take the uranium by force. But exposing the innocent population to harmful radiation shouldn't even be considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted December 26, 2002 Author Share Posted December 26, 2002 you cant reach him. your foot is broken. Cmon, no more of these alternatives. Listen to me: YOu either KILL THE GUY or YOUR MOTHER DIES there is no other choice. This is a valid question, one which many people have faced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted December 26, 2002 Author Share Posted December 26, 2002 earthnuker, if that is indeed your stance, i would support it. I hope that the UN will back such an effort. The US cannot do this alone, but I forsee no problem in the UN supporting the adamant ceasing of NK's current actions. Perhpas bombing the plants might cause undue loss of life, I hadn't originally considered all the fallout that might occurr. Regardless, they just cannot be allowed to make nukes using UNITED STATES NUCLEAR PLANTS! (that is something I am ashamed of) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 you cant reach him. your foot is broken. Cmon, no more of these alternatives. Listen to me: YOu either KILL THE GUY or YOUR MOTHER DIES there is no other choice. This is a valid question, one which many people have faced.Well then:Shoot the guy 8 times in the back of the head - then reload and shoot 8 more times. After than go to his funeral, jump up and down on his grave and laugh.Sorry for the violence - I had to make my point clear ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 US can actually just dispatch troops in there and take over the plants without destroying them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted December 26, 2002 Author Share Posted December 26, 2002 ok fine, I'm convinced. a few of you changed my mind. bombing the plants wouild cause needless deaths. they must be disarmed either through immediate UN demands (and I mean immediate- no stalling), invasion or covert ops.however, invasion would be extremely lethal. NK has a huge...HUGE army. doing nothing is not an option, however. i'd rather bomb the plants than do nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 Sorry was playing Splinter Cell too much last night. Anyways, with the question (didn't read because I had to read 4 pages of interesting backandforth's), I would shoot the man in the head once, which will either kill him or incapacitate him. Better a man with evil intentions than an innocent woman. And my mom. My feelings would prompt me too much to kill the man in the heat of the moment. If anyone else doesn't, well they just don't love their mommy that much. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted December 26, 2002 Author Share Posted December 26, 2002 yes, for me, let there be no doubt, I would be mopping up brain off of my floor. I wouldn't hesitate. he would be toast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted December 26, 2002 Share Posted December 26, 2002 Mmmm.... brain on toast... Huh? I must have dozed of there for a second ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts