DeletedUser3
Hehe, alright you two, take the U.N. debate to a new thread. 
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
North Korea. Should we worry about them?
- Thread starter *Arturis*
- Start date
DeletedUser34
hmmm...I don't want to start a new thread about the UN
I dislike the UN, as you well know, but in this conversation, I was in fact implying a point that pertains to this topic
I was actually just poking with my last post. That humor some people get offended by...you know how it goes...
ok, no more digs at the minnows.
My point about the UN, is they are wanting the US to sign that arms agreement which is absolutely HORRIBLE for the US, and will down the road mess with our constitutional rights as well as those we choose to support. (For you specifically, Let me throw in, Dear ole Obama is pushing for congress to accept this) Anyway, how this relates to N. Korea. They are going to tell us who we can support and what constitutional rights we are allowed to "observe", and yet their track record for dealing with troublesome governments is down right Sucky! If they tell the rest of the world what they can and can't do, and they abide by such rules, and then the "Kim's" come into the picture, do you really think they are going to give a damn what the UN says? No. Ergo, The UN might be a larger threat to the world that Kim is, simply in the fact that HE is an obvious and visible threat, and we can plan for him....the UN is actually a snake in the tall grass, and we can't prepare for that which we can't see.
I dislike the UN, as you well know, but in this conversation, I was in fact implying a point that pertains to this topic
I was actually just poking with my last post. That humor some people get offended by...you know how it goes...
ok, no more digs at the minnows.
My point about the UN, is they are wanting the US to sign that arms agreement which is absolutely HORRIBLE for the US, and will down the road mess with our constitutional rights as well as those we choose to support. (For you specifically, Let me throw in, Dear ole Obama is pushing for congress to accept this) Anyway, how this relates to N. Korea. They are going to tell us who we can support and what constitutional rights we are allowed to "observe", and yet their track record for dealing with troublesome governments is down right Sucky! If they tell the rest of the world what they can and can't do, and they abide by such rules, and then the "Kim's" come into the picture, do you really think they are going to give a damn what the UN says? No. Ergo, The UN might be a larger threat to the world that Kim is, simply in the fact that HE is an obvious and visible threat, and we can plan for him....the UN is actually a snake in the tall grass, and we can't prepare for that which we can't see.
DeletedUser
hmmm...I don't want to start a new thread about the UN
I dislike the UN, as you well know, but in this conversation, I was in fact implying a point that pertains to this topic
I was actually just poking with my last post. That humor some people get offended by...you know how it goes...
ok, no more digs at the minnows.
My point about the UN, is they are wanting the US to sign that arms agreement which is absolutely HORRIBLE for the US, and will down the road mess with our constitutional rights as well as those we choose to support. (For you specifically, Let me throw in, Dear ole Obama is pushing for congress to accept this) Anyway, how this relates to N. Korea. They are going to tell us who we can support and what constitutional rights we are allowed to "observe", and yet their track record for dealing with troublesome governments is down right Sucky! If they tell the rest of the world what they can and can't do, and they abide by such rules, and then the "Kim's" come into the picture, do you really think they are going to give a damn what the UN says? No. Ergo, The UN might be a larger threat to the world that Kim is, simply in the fact that HE is an obvious and visible threat, and we can plan for him....the UN is actually a snake in the tall grass, and we can't prepare for that which we can't see.
Oh, i stand by the "What the...??" comment. Its wasn't spam, it was a response of sheer incredulity at the unexplained and unpackaged comment, that had in fact no reasoning behind it. Big boys don't generally use ad hominems when responding...fyi.
Moving on to your point however. 'That arms treaty' as you so casually call it, is seeking to keep weapons out of the hands of human rights abusers. 154 nations were in favour of it. 3 against.
Iran, Syria, and North Korea were the three countries that forced the U.N. to have to take it to the General Assembly to vote on it, because they prevented the treaty drafting conference to adopt the resolution.
You speak of your 'rights' but by flailing against this treaty because you have some unknown fear about some unknown and made up irrationality about the U.S somehow being unable to enforce or hold true to their own Bill of Rights and Constitutional rights for its citizens, only shows that you don't have a clear understanding of how the U.N actually works, or why the American Constitution cannot be overridden by International treaties, if the two ever came into conflict without ratification of the Constitution....which again, only shows how little you know about the Constitution and its place as the supreme legal document for the U.S.
Forget about the fact that you'd tacitly be supporting Iran, Syria and NK in this effort, which is mind-boggling ironic in a thread where you're speaking out against NK....which is awesomely ironic by the way, but you're essentially, and, this is the part where it seems you're not seeing the moral forest for the trees, why would you be against a treaty that essentially wants to stop the worst countries in the world from not having their ability to import more guns and other weaponry into their countries, which will be used on its own innocent civilian populace, and absolutely be used against troops from your own country, should they have the need to finally do something about these countries if they become a threat to you and your countrymen? Hmm, like say North Korea! Lol.
The cognitive dissonance is truly spectacular.
By the way, the U.S. is one of, if not the largest arms exporter in the world. So yeah, cry us a river for not getting all up in arms about not wanting more innocent people dying from guns that originate in the good ol' U S of A.
Let's arm the North Koreans before we may have to defend ourselves from them!
Minnow indeed.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser34
I am well aware about the "intent" of the agreement. I also happen to live in Texas, a state proudly getting ready to sue the administration should they accept this "agreement". I agree with their reasons to fight it. So call it what it is....I am not one to jump on a bandwagon that down the road my chop off my nose...just saying.
I still stand, Kim is a threat, in that he is unpredictable. He has to prove himself to the military as a worthy leader. The UN is useless in doing anything in the past against perpetrators of world violence other than "sanctions" and financial, crap....forgot the word I was thinking...but it doesn't matter. The UN uses money to attempt to put people under its power, and it fails more times than not. So if Kim does become a threat, as I suspect he will become, this topic is rather moot as there is nothing anyone is willing to do about it at this time.
I still stand, Kim is a threat, in that he is unpredictable. He has to prove himself to the military as a worthy leader. The UN is useless in doing anything in the past against perpetrators of world violence other than "sanctions" and financial, crap....forgot the word I was thinking...but it doesn't matter. The UN uses money to attempt to put people under its power, and it fails more times than not. So if Kim does become a threat, as I suspect he will become, this topic is rather moot as there is nothing anyone is willing to do about it at this time.
DeletedUser
If you know the intent of the Treaty, then why are you against it?? You're not making any sense.
What nose of yours is going to be chopped off by this treaty down the road?? The treaty is simply looking to make sure guns can't cross nation's borders without ensuring that they won't be going to terrorist organizations, their proxies, or countries like Syrian, NK, and Iran, which are known for arming these groups.
What part of that has you all riled up and anti-U.N.??
What the heck are some of you being fed down there in Texas?? Do your critical thinking faculties a favour, and turn off Fox News and whatever conspiracy theorists that may happen to be on your radio and favourite internet site. They're filling your head with gobbledy-gook.
DeletedUser34
Get rude with me much more and watch me get nasty..just FYI. I have never in all my years of participating in debate insulted anyone other than Aurave. However, talk down to me much more and watch me get another round of infractions.
Since this is not a thread about the arms agreement, I won't be discussing it in depth. However, the reason that Kim is going to be such a threat down the road is because of Arms agreements such as this. Either start up another thread on the treaty, or leave off with discussing WHY I am against it.
Since this is not a thread about the arms agreement, I won't be discussing it in depth. However, the reason that Kim is going to be such a threat down the road is because of Arms agreements such as this. Either start up another thread on the treaty, or leave off with discussing WHY I am against it.
DeletedUser
How could Kim Jong Un be more of a threat, if he's not able to purchase weaponry from other nations, as is the focus of the U.N. treaty that you seem to be against?
Again, i'm not trying to insult you, but your argument doesn't hold water in relation to your desire in not wanting NK as a threat down the road. It's simply an illogical juxtaposition. It's like saying you're against Al-Queda being able to purchase weapons to use against your military, but you don't support a legal mechanism that prevents weapons from reaching them directly, or indirectly, because you think it will impinge on your right to purchase and own a weapon for self-defense/hunting.
I mean honestly, you really don't see the flaw of your two positions?
DeletedUser34
Who is going to enforce this embargo on countries such as North Korea? There always needs to be a stronger power than the bad guy. The UN is not that power. They are a bunch of countries filling the room with hot air. It is pretty simple actually. I have never liked the UN. So no I don't see the problem with my position. Maybe if the US wasn't so concerned with the UN they could have dealt with him already.
Instead, and this is the reason he is a threat, all anyone has done is watch what he has done and talked about it around the water cooler. Knowing he has to prove himself, knowing he means business, and yet....rather than be eliminated, we instead have dinner conversation...and he knows this. Ergo, he is a threat. I don't see how my stands are so hard to understand.
If you think that having this Arms agreement is going to stop people such as Kim, I simply don't agree. It gives him even more power because he will disregard it, while everyone else is bound by it.
DeletedUser3
The beginning to any resolution is to impose a rule. To begin the process of preventing arms from getting to nations who are in violation of existing treaties (human rights violations, etc), you first have to set down rules and consequence for violating those rules. There is the process of posing rewards and those of posing penalties. A unified front to address these things is far better than what has been happening, whereby one nation finds at issue the actions of a country and tries to obtain support for their efforts to change the actions of that nation within its own borders.
Meh, I guess i'm on the wordy bend today. What i'm trying to say is, you can't stop someone by saying, "stop." You need a stick to smack them on the head. Imposing rules, and attaching consequence for violating those rules, is a better deterrent than good samaritans trying to impose their ethical views upon others (you know, like how hopeless it would be to get people to behave in chat if there weren't rules posted, reports received, and bans to be imposed). You have to start somewhere, and rules are a good place to start.
Meh, I guess i'm on the wordy bend today. What i'm trying to say is, you can't stop someone by saying, "stop." You need a stick to smack them on the head. Imposing rules, and attaching consequence for violating those rules, is a better deterrent than good samaritans trying to impose their ethical views upon others (you know, like how hopeless it would be to get people to behave in chat if there weren't rules posted, reports received, and bans to be imposed). You have to start somewhere, and rules are a good place to start.
DeletedUser3422
Some ideas look good on paper but do not hold water in the real world. To think NK will not get arms because of a UN treaty is just plain wrong. I do not believe NK to be a threat because it is not in their best interest to attack us. Where my beliefs could be wrong is assuming NK power players think the same way as I. I have no idea what Kim needs to do to keep his power or what his priorities are. I would consider it insane to attack the US and face retaliation, Kim might think it insane not to. I am not sure any of this matters considering the path we are on here at home. We can blame whomever we want but there are some serious issues likely to come together at the same time.
DeletedUser3
Wow, that read like something a politician would have written. *chuckle*
DeletedUser
I agree 100% Especially since the OIC took control.
DeletedUser3422
I am practicing, if we are going down that road it is better to be part of the privileged class
DeletedUser
The international community. You know, the ones that are successfully enforcing an embargo on Iran, Syria and other hostile nations.
Oh geez...so we've taken the Wayne Lapierre lunacy of "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" nonsense to the international level of how to resolve problems before other measures have been attempted? Ask Moamar Gaddafhi if the UN is full of 'hot air'. I don't think the UN is entirely effective either, but that's because of the mechanisms that's its burdened under, but they do a lot of good around the world as well...unless you have a problem with UNICEF too.
You've never liked the UN? Why not? What did Yosemite Sam tell you about them that's made you not like them for so long? So you want the US to not cooperate in an international manner, but go it alone when they decide it's in their best interest? You may want to pick the book, "Making Friends And Influencing People", because you're doing it wrong big guy. Seriously though...Texas has always struck me as not very UN friendly. I mean, many there want to secede from the United States of America, nevermind the United Nations Organization. And lastly, it's not the UN that the US is concerned with, and that's why they haven't dealt with Kim Jong Un....it's their ally to the North of them....you know the one that President Bush borrowed nearly a trillion dollars from to start 2 wars that he didn't put on the US books. You know, that whole lie about 'weapons of mass destruction' and how Saddam was an imminent threat myth, that made companies like Haliburton, Cheney's old company, immeasurable more wealthy as a result of the Iraq War? Yep, so basically the US is pretty much handcuffed by China currently in that region, because, well....would you want to piss off those who are your largest creditors whom you're in debt to? Trust me...the US doesn't run on Dunkin Donuts...it runs on the yuan....but I digress.
So, you want to just rush in and 'eliminate' him? Tell me, how do you plan on doing that without getting mired in another long and protracted conflict that will cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars, at a time when the country is barely fiscally recovering from the last 'Adventures in Eliminating'? I mean, you don't want to be part of a United international group of nations, so naturally you want to pay for it alone, right? I mean, he's such an imminent threat with all his posturing and rhetoric and carrying on like his father before him and his grandfather before them. It couldn't possibly be anything other than an imminent attack on the US right? I say screw it, go for it. Borrow another trillion from China, and go get em! By that way, what's your plan for the NK people afterwards? They'll need some major help once they're free from that gov't. And since you don't want to be part of the U.N., how do you plan on paying for the reconstruction of NK? Or do you just plan on making the place a parking lot and letting everyone fend for themselves? I can't wait to hear your plans General.
Great, you don't agree...fair enough. Now, tell me why you don't agree? What about this treaty is so problematic for you?
It won't give him any more power, because the treaty is to ensure nations, such the ones signing it, like the US, Russia, China, etc, will ensure they're not selling anymore weapons to countries like NK, Syria, Iran...either directly, or indirectly. Seriously, what possible problem do you have with that?
- - - Updated - - -
Lol, great...another one.
DeletedUser5129
I strongly believe no one should be underestimated on the world stage be it allies, enemies or unknowns. Taking this into consideration I would say be PREPARED for the worst but HOPE for the best.
DeletedUser
The BBC Panorama programme showed a documentary last night on North Korea. Reporters gained access to the country under the umbrella of the London School of Economics student field trip there has been a big kerfuffle over BBC using students as a human shield since any filming by secret cameras discovered would probably have had dire consequences for all involved. It showed a completely brainwashed population totally militarised, empty hospitals, abject poverty and starvation in the countryside, constant interruption to electricity. They have a saying that every time a light bulb goes out the US is to blame. Kim Il Sung, the founding father is regarded as a God, continues to lie in State in a mausoleum and who oversees his people and his grandson. If anyone is capable of original thought, (unlikely since the are brainwashed from birth) and dares to question it is an instant death sentence. If anyone mentions someone might have said anything adversarial then its the concentration camp for the family for life. There is no getting away from the propaganda which is everywhere, even on the underground loudspeaker system. I needn't go on, you get the picture. A very sinister country. Hitler is revered and his Nuremberg rally style of display is repeated every year. The reporters mentioned the only hope is that mobile phones can get a signal from South Korea despite the states attempts to cut them off completely. Not much hope at all then.
DeletedUser
BBC always does a great job with their reports. One of the last bastions of actual journalism that's not bought and paid for by multi-national corporations, unlike CNN, FOX and MSNBC.
As for N.Koreans, i've made my thoughts known already about their suffering, and i'll just add:
Their suffering will not last forever, because our collective shame and failure of not doing anything to alleviate it cannot either.
DeletedUser34
Slange,
Of course it can...especially if the rebels that DO rise up can't be armed to defend themselves because it is illegal to supply them with arms.
Of course it can...especially if the rebels that DO rise up can't be armed to defend themselves because it is illegal to supply them with arms.
DeletedUser
Which rebels are you speaking of? N.Korean rebels?? If there was a rebel group in N.Korea, they're long gone....and forever is a very long time...so no, it won't last forever.
DeletedUser34
There are always rebels in every country. Please. And as long as people are unable to arm themselves (ergo why we have gun rights) they may be there, but they won't step out. And if, and I say IF, it becomes illegal to arm people, then those that do end up eventually banding together and rising up, they won't have a leg to stand on, unless you can beat a gun with a pitchfork. Last I checked, that was mighty difficult to do. But then hey, I am a crazy right winger.