DeletedUser3
Hehe, alright you two, take the U.N. debate to a new thread.
You seriously going to spam the D&D simply because you don't agree with my reasoning? Or rather be a big boy and say....Dom, I just don't have a good grasp of what you are saying so can you clarify. I am perfectly capable of having "rug time" with you and explaining it.
OR
Are you saying you understood and just flat don't agree, in which case, why spam the thread at all with something as redunkulous as
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.
The Arms Trade Treaty aims to set standards for all cross-border transfers of conventional weapons. It would also create binding requirements for states to review all cross-border arms contracts to ensure that arms will not be used in human rights abuses, terrorism or violations of humanitarian law.
"The agreement of the Arms Trade Treaty sends a clear message to arms dealers who supply warlords and dictators that their time is up," said Anna Macdonald of the global development group Oxfam.
Amnesty International's Frank Jannuzi said the NRA, which claimed credit last year for persuading the United States to block the treaty in July 2012, failed this time.
"Iran, Syria and North Korea blocked consensus at the U.N., while the NRA cynically, and ultimately unsuccessfully, tried to erode the U.S. government's support through a campaign of lies about the treaty," Jannuzi said.
The main reason the arms trade talks took place at all is that the United States, the world's biggest arms trader, reversed U.S. policy on the issue after President Barack Obama was first elected and decided in 2009 to support a treaty.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/02/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE9310MN20130402
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.
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.
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.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?
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.
Personally however, I think the UN is a much larger threat. But that is a topic for another thread.
Wow, that read like something a politician would have written. *chuckle*
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.
I agree 100% Especially since the OIC took control.
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.
I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice.
Their suffering will not last forever, because our collective shame and failure of not doing anything to alleviate it cannot either.
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.