LustfulAngel Posts

And here I would like to ask you: Isn't this proof of the position North Korea has taken, relative to our own? Our U.S. Officials have come out and have stated the drill that took place in Early March was a routine one, in no way meant to threaten or bolster our forces against North Korea.

We haven't announced propaganda that would blow up Pyongyang, or obviously threaten civilian lives nor have we announced some grandiose plan for the South to take over the North.

How much longer can a nation openly threaten us and our allies, position itself to make good on those threats(such as moving its missiles) and us just sitting there?

The INTL.Community proclaimed that if there's a clear and obvious danger than it is not considered a pre emptive act. I believe North Korea now represents a clear and obvious danger to the region, to America and to the world at large.

Perhaps addressing someone directly would denote 'respect' in a sense, but this is a forum and not a chatroom. It makes it difficult then, to address several people at once. So what do you do? You try to address as much as you can in one post.

I made my position clear on what I'd do, why I'd do it. And perhaps my 'how' wasn't completely clear. But as I would say later, it's quite obvious that I'm not in the position to do these things. But I believe they have to be done.

I don't think we can have this problem with North Korea indefinitely, nor am I of the belief that packing our bags and going is going to bring "lasting peace".

It didn't for Britain, it didn't for Norway, Greece or Finland. Taking a stand is the most difficult thing to do in life, but god damn it it has to be done. Especially if one believes in 'freedom'.





He was debasing them to justify his mistranslation(at best), at worst he openly misrepresented what was there to be read in plain english.(The sentence in question referenced to class privilege in North Korea. Jacob proclaimed that
the doctor's 'sister' was part of that elite. When clearly, the article stated no such thing)






Point taken, I'll certainly try to address everyone's post in the future but do take into consideration the difference between a forum and a chatroom. The kind of back and forth we're having isn't well equipped in a forum setting in general.(Lest I double post)

Actually Fiery did a good job of separating his responses and I could do things that way. I'll try that.

Now, there's not that much of a difference, it's still a significant statement and it's still borderline false. As I said earlier, those words never appeared in the article....at all...

Uh, I did point out precisely where you said it. Hell, you quoted yourself! Dude, this is just hilarious now. Just stop it.

Fiery misinterpreted some of my positions(And I, his positions) in no case did I dodge any of his questions(Plus I can't even recall when he used the specific words 'dodging question'). He had accused me of flip flopping, I clarified that I didn't state my positions clearly enough.

My position being that whereas I don't believe we should be the 'policeman' of the world, but I also don't believe we should leave our allies in harms way, nor most importantly the fragile yet hard fought system that we currently have.

When a nation positions missiles that have considerable range, makes constant threats and above all targets your citizens in said propaganda, I'm taking that very seriously. As have our elected officials, thank GOD.

And I really couldn't care for what you or 623 have had to say, I've been back and forth with you two for the majority of the time only to get absolutely nowhere.

It would do you both some good to eat some humble pie, you've brought absolutely nothing, zero, zip to the conversation. Especially you, Jacob. You who tried to interpret for other people and to create a story that didn't even exist.

Then yell that I should be paying attention to your fantasies based off your inability to grasp what you've read.

Great, another worm crawled out of a hole. You're just as foolish as he is, name just ONE time in this entire conversation have I "dodged" a question.

Knowing you, you'll reference how I supposedly didn't answer about defending my Coup, oh but I did, in the larger context of the conversation with Fiery. It's not my fault that like Jacob, your reading comprehension needs work.


I'm currently learning Japanese myself, and I'll admit that I didn't quite nail it with the example but that wasn't the point. The point was to teach our friend that those translators make their living off of what they do, and he can't debase their efforts just on his opinion alone.

I can choose to answer directly or indirectly, that doesn't mean I didn't answer. It just means for the sake of efficiency I'd rather not have one big ass post.

I highlighted it for your incompetent pleasure. Normally, I'd hate to bring myself down to someone else's level but I still haven't found a way to stop myself from being annoyed at perpetual stupidity.





How many times do I have to explain that your words are absolutely meaningless? Like, who are you? You're not directly quoting the article, you're not even paraphrasing it. You're making a miserable assumption that isn't accurate.

Never once in the article did the man say the 'elite' had unlimited access to information, or anyone for that matter. In fact, the words 'unlimited access' don't appear in the article, AT ALL.




There isn't a subject, all you've spoken of is false conjuncture from your inability to interpret plain english! It's not even that complicated of an article,
every word in that article I swear I learned in the third grade. The 'subject', if there is one is trying to correct your miserable interpretation.

Your false conjecture is meaningless, it cannot be a 'subject' because it does not exist. The story is not being told from YOUR narrative. Far from "twisting" the subject, I've actually responded to your inane stupidity which is the 'subject' of the moment. To me, I feel like I've far exceeded what I should've done. I gave you a freaking english lesson, show some gratitude.










Yeah, we are done. You see, dealing with you takes a lot out of my time, energy and frankly passion. About the only thing you got right here, is that the Korean Language is obviously different from the english language, and misinterpretation is certainly possible.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean you can add your OWN interpretation in its place(unless you can share us the secret that you are a native Korean speaker). That's not all, while its true that different languages have different meaning to their words, capturing that meaning is what's more important than say the structure of the sentence.

Let's use Japanese as an example, I could call Fiery, "Fiery-san", and there are multiple interpretations:

"The Honorable Fiery"
"Mr. Fiery"

Or even "Senior Fiery"

Knowing the texture of the conversation, and the words used allows one to pick the roughly correct translation.

(In case you missed it, 'The Honorable' refers to a Judge. 'Mr' is the closest thing to san. And 'Senior' would refer to the unlikely event that Fiery's an old man)

Don't take the authors lightly, while a mistake is possible I believe in their reading comprehension a lot more than yours. That much, has been self evident.

You yourself said it, there's no point in us discussing since you can't even read. I didn't dodge you, I answered you. You're just NOT CAPABLE of reading. That's not my fault, if anything I blame your teachers and education system.

I thought I told you that what you write is absolutely irrelevant. Especially since you can't refer to your own pieces of evidence properly.

Let's see if we can revisit the actual quote and ontop of that, I'll try to teach you how to read. It's a token of friendship since your teachers laughingly failed at it.



Okay, note the sentence structure. The words "Sister" and "Highest class" don't come together at all, in fact they're part of separate sentences altogether.

Secondly, note the word "People", if he were referring to his older sister, he could've added her into the sentence. But he didn't. "People", in this context is used to mean generalities.

Not relatives, not close associates or anyone he knows. He's talking specifically about class differences.

And so ends today's lesson on reading comprehension. With this knowledge, you can go back, re read my post and know that in fact I responded to you.

Good job, you quoted one part of the article. Now can you manage to read the whole thing? Or hell, read the sentence you quote "Have an idea" is not the same as a complete understanding, and I gave you psychological reasons as to why the higher classes wouldn't necessarily want change.

I've had a college level reading comprehension since the 9th grade, now that's not to brag but it is to put your insults into context. Please, just stop it.

Understand this: What you write is irrelevant, it's your opinion(not even based on facts, but on what you stretched out to be the 'truth'.).

To that same extent, if you wish, I'll say that what I write is also irrelevant. My opinion on this matter matters none, because I'm neither a senior official or hell, any type of official at all.

That said, others have participated in the discussion because of its intellectual integrity. If you wish to be productive, please read the finer points of the articles you post and comprehend them.

How is it possible for you to read an article, and yet be grossly misleading? The NK Doctor clearly stated that he had access to some foreign material, but far from "unlimited"

He stated that the regime far from a republic, nor a democracy but was Feudal in intents and purposes. That the general public would like to aspire towards a better future in the North, but they have no templates with which to follow. And like in any other walks of life, the higher upper class do have it better, as such why would they complain?

Psychologically, there's a difference between security and eagerness. That is to say, they may not find a reason to move forward but that doesn't mean they would oppose the idea.

Like all other developing countries, NK simply needs a push in the right direction. And to be sure, it won't come easy. But a few decades later, we'll be thankful if we made such a push.

The opportunity is there for us to do so, I'm sure Fiery (very logically) hadn't expected the severe negative response by both China and Russia to Un's bolstering and postering in the region.

They've both benefited from a global, open economy. A transformed North Korea would be to their economic advantage. There's an unprecedented opportunity to save lives, to further transform the world to a model of future prosperity and peace.

We feared a Chinese and Russian response, but both are leaning towards reform. If there's any time to push North Korea into the 'New Age of Reality', it's now.

I think we overstate the North Korean response, or that is to say the devotion with which the North Korean has to the leadership, to the state. It's one thing if they perceived stability, success, prosperity, etc. But when you're freaking hungry, you're hungry.

When your government bolsters military threats, rather than fulfill promises of engagement, outreach, etc. Yeah, I believe there might be a vocal minority in that country that'd like to see the North be more like the South.

Perhaps it doesn't spell world destruction, but it does spell radiation and contamination after said weapons were shot down. This is also another reason why previously I was against an Iranian attack, it would be no different from setting a bomb off.

So why would I change my position here? Not "Diplomatic bullshit", but the fact that it's different from the risk of actually having a bomb go off, as compared to destroying one. Also, this 'war' isn't against the North Korean civilians. Precisely because they are trapped and taken hostage by this regime, is why I believe dialogue has reached its limits.

If we went to war, it's for the North Korean citizens, its for Asia, for America and for the World. The speculation, the dollars that are played, the fragile global economy. For all of these results to come at the hands of one petty dictatorship is frankly unacceptable.

As Kerry and Hagel have said, if NK wants to avoid the worst they know what they need to do. If, however they want to bring turmoil to the world stage they should know that they will not be successful. Even if through the ultimate sacrifice, we will hold on to the international ideals that have brought the world closer together.

Actually, no, it's analyzing the situation. Who knows, perhaps with more land and resources 'Mexico' becomes a more prosperous place? I don't think it's likely, the more you have to manage, the more you have to govern the more difficult it becomes.

More likely, Mexico's decay would've been far more widespread(and it's still widespread even in Northern States) than it is right now. The risk of a civil war would be significant the more populous and closer Mexico is to the homeland.

We industrialized Japan as a token of friendship, because, yes alliances are a good thing. We're back at the WWII thing again, so let's go to some major Japanese grievances:

Sanctions, an economy in a recession, a need for raw materials as well as political opportunism set the field in motion. But mostly, we could've avoided the war through neutrality or even better yet on the Part of Axis powers. Had we done so, we still would've maintained influence in China

It should be noted that just as Chinese trade is significant, so too is our trade with the Japanese. Have you ever seen Sakura Blossoms? As have I, those were gifts of appreciation from the Japanese nation. We get them every so often.

With the exception of a spat here or there, quite to the contrary of our useless political pundits currently running Washington to the ground, Japan has historically been our closest ally. Its an alliance that spans over a century after all.

I had never linked the Sabine expedition to the Louisiana Purchase. But rather,
I wanted to point out that most expeditions, sending volunteers to other places and discovering them isn't a bad thing.

You could also argue that our wars against Mexico were a good thing(given Mexico's later development, gang problem, etc).There's acquiring territory, and then there's being held back.

In much the same way the failed economies of Detroit, California and Philadelphia(I can attest, living in the subburbs of the city) are holding back the development of the U.S.

Not only good for us, but probably good for Mexico as well.If they can't govern
their territory to the shore than they probably couldn't have governed the mainland either.








No need to feel that way, I used it in that definition mainly from the perspective of being a sports fan(Free agents some times "re sign" contracts to their original team).

Also, I'd like to take the quick note to say that I don't see my proposal as "inevitable" to North Korea. It's an offer, either they take it or leave it. I'd stand by my word to withdraw 75% of our forces from the area, leaving 5,000 troops
to help block or delay any kind of North Korean insurgency.







I believe the leave it alone approach is no longer one the world can afford. If North Korea believes they can be belligerent with the military technology that they have now, what if this issue again rises in 5 to 10 years? We could be faced with a far more difficult and complex situation.

The leave it alone approach is a gamble, one that hasn't worked over the past decades. It's still an oppressive regime against its own citizens, while it complains of hunger its military ruling class are treated like kings.


Economic Considerations? You and I have went back and forth and we've acknowledged both sides of the argument. We surely could be more wide open with our senior officials. But as I said earlier, that doesn't guarantee anything. And it's not as though we haven't tried.

You say the regime could collaspe on its own, but you later dismiss the prospects of a North Korean rebellion(quite logically, a well trained military vs a nourished people always ends in genocide)

China should see the incredible benefit it has gotten from its relationship with the U.S. in spite of diplomatic differences, as well as the benefit of the global economic system. Taking those things into consideration, a more prosperous Pyongyang should be China's ultimate goal. And the military dictatorship won't lead
there.

If we should so declare the independence and unification of the Korean States, I cannot see China opposing to getting rid of a 'leadership' that hasn't successfully been able to lead.





Except it isn't, I still believe in our influence in these areas. I just believe we haven't used them to their ultimate advantage. To what does China fear of Japan?
U.S. Involvement? That won't change, our alliance will be as thick as thin.

But by increasing the arms of Japan, and thereby the security of Japan we would have halted Chinese expansion. An independent Korean state would indeed take a proxy away from us, but my plan foresees the independence taking away from China as well as Russia. It strips both of a proxy influence state.

As I said, centralization is the key to my policy. To centralize everything, to max out it's efficiency is what will lead to peace. It's not about "red tape", its about giving direction to that which lacks direction.

Freedom without purpose is slavery, here in America we have freedom but we have no purpose. Giving ourselves purpose, a reason for living and reasoning on how to live will strengthen our social union.






Not so, I was hostile to the idea of taking a passive solution to the North Korean problem. I was hostile to the idea of us withdrawing our troops and having no means of defending the South's subjugation or later on, hostility towards Japan.


I thought about the South Problem, and the solution was to peacefully disarm North Korea and to peacefully, if not subtly unify both nations under a code of independence to strip the neighboring nations from their previous influence.

However, that solution pends on North Korean agreement to my hypothetical treaty,
if not I can make an argument to the world community and to you: I vowed to remove
75% of my forces,even so far as to resume aid. What is lacking? What is lacking is cooperation on the North's side.

You've simply made me think of more ways to centralize power within Eurasia to protect not only our interests, but the interest of prosperity within the Asian Sphere.







I used to believe that, and I do believe it to a good extent. I believe Netanyahu to be warmongering in the region for example, when Iran hasn't used its revolutionary guard nor its naval forces. If Iran isn't even posing a strategic military threat, but merely through proxies and groups. It should put into question how far away they are, if they've even attempted at all to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Yet Iran has declared through executive order that it wouldn't pursue the nuclear option

However, looking in history towards Stalin's Soviet buildup against all of Europe. Looking now at North Korean aggressive rhetoric. The war against Iraq itself(or rather the reasoning), wasn't flawed but the faulty intelligence behind it.

If it were me, we would have cooperated with intelligence agencies across the world for systematic world strikes against terror organizations, rather than the nation states in question.

I've now come to believe in the face of failed dialogue, and in the face of an expanding adversary, if it looks as though its leading to warfare, why wait to be the first to register casualties?

I'm sure Napoleon Bontaparte first started with small conquests, before building his massive French army.

Peace is good, peace is great, peace is the foundation on which to build the world. But there are those, like the dictators of the past and present who don't feel the same way you or I, or many Human Beings do. In order to properly face such threats, we have to take resolve to do whatever it takes and if necessary that means going toe to toe with such a foe.







Actually, I feel as though later our government has ignored our allies across the world. How much attention have we paid to Asia? You've noted Japan's open displeasure to our troops on the ground there, Washington's position has been
to "suck it up", very disgracefully our relations with Japan couldn't be any lower.

Just as we said "we're indifferent" to the recent Japanese-Chinese spat on territory. To hell, we aren't. The land was long recognized as Japanese, that legal recognition shall remain by law whether China likes it or not.

The same too, can be said of European nations and other nations of interest who've asked the U.S. to lower the debt. As you've pointed out, the world community is at somewhat odds with us.

Perhaps geopolitically, but I believe the rational is more national and more economic.

And addressing third, it's not that I don't understand,it's your opinion that they are different. A noninterventionist foreign policy grants us a temporary peace from our aggressors. But sooner or later, we'd be dragged in(See Finland and Norway brought into the second world war. Despite their neutrality)

When faced with a constant threat, can we truly avoid it for much longer?




Actually, I implied you were traitorous because you were defending a regime that was hostile to ours. Hell, not just ours. A regime that's hostile to our allies, to all of Asia. A regime that presents a clear threat to everything we've tried to build.

I still don't think the North Korean Problem can be solved diplomatically. I'm not Neville Chamberlain. An enemy has stated its prepared to use weapons of deterrent as weapons of aggression. The time for diplomacy has just about run out, as Chuck Hagel said, I don't want to be wrong.

And even if I am "wrong"(in launching warfare), I know that the enemy has been crippled and that our citizens have been protected.

But I believe myself to be on the right side of history, by crippling this oppressive regime and assuring the safety of our citizens, a more prosperous North Korean government will be born forth. As the NK Ciitzens get to know of our civilian task forces and our diplomatic people, the case will be clear on who is looking out for their best interest.





Because it IS appeasement, this situation is holding the entire Korean Peninsula at hostage. Arguably, it holds China at hostage, Japan at hostage and above all our American Citizens have been taken at hostage.

Perhaps there might've been hope that this was old saber rattling, but the farther and farther North Korea declares hostilities, the more obvious it becomes that North Korea intends to increase military hostilities.

Fighting a small scale war, or a temporary peace is what our enemies are hoping for. The time to build up their forces even larger. Just as the non aggression pact did for Soviet.

Also, those proxy wars(and especially in Afghanistan) is what brought the Soviet engine to its knees. As you point out, where is the resistance? Where are the "freedom fighters"?

The developed nations, the Allies are the North Korean citizen's freedom fighters and above all, our soldiers are our freedom fighters.










That's if we can launch the culture war(IE: If the current repressive regime will allow it. One such photo indicates children in kindergarten are propagandized to think that the U.S are basically butchers who deliberately kill North Koreans)

North Korea is built behind a wall from the rest of the world, and it's not the DMZ Zone. It's the North Korean military elite regime.









Of course, a ground war would be to our downfall. But as I pointed out earlier
Our supremacy lies in the Air and in the Water

Quick strikes, and precision along with utterly heavy numbers will deplete the enemy of his tactical ground advantage. We'll halt any advances towards the South while systematically eliminating their nuclear weapons program.

As far as the ground is concerned, all we have to do is fight North Korea to a standstill. As long as the North doesn't gain any territory, we've won.





First, the founding fathers would be classified as Libertarian by today standards..which is a liberal philosophy. Since Liberalism is defined by ideas of liberty, equality, justice plus advocating civil liberties, political freedom, limited government, rule of law, and belief in free market.

As for Corporatism, it depends on what definition you want to work with. One definition goes back to Plato in ancient Greece. Progressive Corporatism comes from the 1800's and gave rise to the syndication economic system. Then we have the system that was prototyped by the Charter of Carnaro. Finally we have Neo Corporatism which came about after WW2 (and was promoted in the U.S. by Robert Reich during the Clinton Administration).





We're 'arguing' over it, because in my opinion to declare Fascism as a 'right wing ideology' is to piss over the entire idea. Neither paux conservatism nor ultra liberalism served national interests. Both sold nations out to foreign banks and interests.

Fascism is a fusion of both conservative and liberal ideology. What, exactly is wrong with a Social Welfare program? Self-dependence? What if we aligned welfare with a jobs training program, getting unemployed people connections and the opportunity to get back to work as quick as possible?

In ensuring that Welfare is only given to those who need it.(IE: Social Security main beneficiaries should be those who are above the retirement age, or many years of experience), after that the cases are debated on a case by case basis. If it makes it feel any better,I've no qualms with handing that authority down at the state level.

After all, the idea that a Federal government can overlook 300 million Americans is a fallacy. Nor would we want to, we want our citizens to reach out, to explore and to achieve. But we want them to do so in a way that's constructive, understanding and developing our nation as a whole.

The argument is that Social Welfare takes from one and gives to another. In a self-sufficient government, whereas "Health Care", "Pensions" and the "military" gain the most economic benefits on the federal level, our welfare investment is actually pretty poor.

The time has come to significantly invest in our social programs. Despite upholding itself as a "middle class party", Obama's budgets have progressively attacked the middle class.

We needn't take from the rich to give to the poor, but rather we should expand opportunities so that all become rich. We want to create a metropolis society, there are millions of Americans who are homeless. This isn't acceptable, and only by raising our citizens, our community and our local governments can we achieve real meaningful reform.

Self sufficiency, this isn't more "red tape", this is cutting off the tape that has hampered programs from being developed, kept juveniles from opportunities.






We both aspire for prosperity of the citizenry, we both believe socio political corruption has disrupted the daily lives of ordinary americans. We both would like very much to remain at peace with the rest of the world.

Discouraging Capitalism, isn't the same as discouraging the free market. But rather it is the understanding that these corporations can't make the top buck at the expense of the community or at the expense of the citizen.

Even at the height of a recession, CEOS continue to game the system to the disadvantage of the working class

Workers can still feel free to find work wherever they so choose, it should be notable that after an earlier position of denying worker unions, Hitler found that those same unions are in fact necessary to protecting workers.

However, just as we can't let corporate slimeballs cheap out American Workers, we cannot allow unions to become politicized and to marginalize and control the very people they are supposedly 'representing'.

Here, then, the Government should act as a third party to alleviate corruption, promote cooperation and its through this kind of interaction that then, is it possible for us to even remotely consider "bailouts" in the future(god forbid should they be necessary)

This is the essence of Fascist economic model, there is freedom, but not ultimate freedom. There is a guided principle through action, namely the aim of prosperity.





Except, I don't believe I've flip flopped on any issue. I maintain that a belligerent North Korean state cannot be left alone, or appeased with some half assed agreement only to fade at worst a few months later or at best a few years, and neither scenario is actually a 'best' case, except for the NK Regime.

The more time to build arms, the better. And when I spoke of a 'Conservative Authoritarianism' What I had meant is that I don't intend to have the military parade the streets, and have people live in fear. Nor do I intend to centralize things to the point of government control.

But rather, I intend to make everything self sufficient as to avoid the tragedies we've seen in the past two decades regarding our economic and social life, through reckless spending endeavors and capitalistic favors to corporations, treating workers(that is, their fellow citizens) as collateral.



That's merely semantics, as a patriot you feel the same fervor, the same devotion. The Nationalist feels the same, Germany didn't want war but a combination of being disarmed, and a desire to return previous colonies led to that faithful, tragic episode in mankinds history.

But let's not be led to believe that irrationality led to those decisions, they were all cold and calculated and specific on all sides.

Nationalism is a disease only to the person who feels no individuality. I am me first, an American second. Or rather, my Americanism is a part of my individuality.

The Communist believes the person is subject to a state's whim, and the whim to a few. The nationalist is no different from the patriot, in that he believes in the glory of the homeland, the community of his brothers and sisters and wishes to defend them.

We ask, we don't take. Why should we take from our brothers? If we do 'take', it's in the old fashioned belief of give and take.

Fascism is in the same spirit as the Republic, but in the understanding that perhaps not everyone should hold the same political authority. For it was in that naive optimism that allowed the decay from the Republic to the 'Democracy'.

We are on the same side, with the same wishes. Our only difference is that I believe centralization, and optimization of our best resources and our most capable men and women will keep foreign influences from ever dictating the fate of America ever again.

Yes I do know my own history(In fact, through acknowledgment of various independent sources I never would've considered. I got an even clearer view of history). Let's take for starters, U.S. involvement in WWII.

Officially, it was under the premise of the Japanese kamikaze attacks. The history article you posted softly points it out(And based on your dealings with me, you most likely didn't notice it, but)

We were already a significant part of the Allies. We already were at war as early as 1940

Secondly, I didn't ignore you. If you see a part of my post, I used it to overall explain to you Soviet atrocities and exactly why a significant minority of Russians wanted to free themselves from the horror of Bolshevism.

The accepted version of history is that Stalin was surprised of a German attack,
but

Or in the words of Itachi, people live to their perception of what the 'Truth' is

Oh, all 'cold war' discussions were pertaining to FPOD as I argued that our military record wasn't as bad as he pointed out. And certainly most recently, we've engaged in, at worst self sabotaging warfare for corporate interests, and at best what we can acknowledge to be a failed defensive front.

I've never proclaimed us to be the only innocent country. But it's important to note you make this 'list' worse than it really is by extending out the EXACT same wars over a yearly period.

A big a list it is indeed, I don't want to take the time to go through it all but we probably fought 30 or so wars, taking out all of the extras give or take maybe a few.

Also, I'd hesitate to call an expedition a 'war' or even an illegal action. If not for that, we'd never make the Louisiana Purchase and we'd probably remain in our
13 colonies.

And looking over our war history, I'd argue the last war we fought that was economic and commerical in general(and thereby, imperialist) were the Banana Wars.

We were brought into WWI and WWII through lobbying, special interests and depending on some accounts, President Roosevelt was aware of the Japanese planning of attack on Pearl Harbor. I'll neither side on true or false, I'll acknowledge the possibility.

The Cold war was in acknowledgement of the Soviets, and since I don't want to bother myself with Jacob's post again, I'll just use this post to acknowledge Soviet history

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003413/Soviets-supported-Christian-crusader-Nazis-World-War-II.html

Bolshevism was also a socio political theory that treated these Russians(and indeed all human beings) as little more than cattle, Jacob. Due to this, and their having stolen nuclear technology we took to a defensive position against the
Soviets

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/science/30bomb.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

We all acknowledged the Cold War as a mistake, and it was a mistake in assuming that the leadership would follow Stalin's reign. Also in thinking a governmental ideology alone threatens the existence of a nation state.

We later would see defensive wars against the rogue elements created to fight the Soviets(The Mujahideen) in the Iraq wars, as well as the Afghanistan war.

Interesting twist though: Via the Libyan/Syria civil wars(and the Muslim Brotherhood coup in Egypt), we're actually supporting many of these same elements.

I feel like we're going back and forth, and mostly due to economic war racketeering. Not national security priorities.








This is the fourth definition of "Resign"

4. resign - accept as inevitable; "He resigned himself to his fate"

North Korea broke free from the NPT, I am saying if I were in the position and offered to remove up to 75% of our forces from the region, I would like them to re sign the deal and join the international community.

I'd also like confirmation of their shutting back down their plutonium reactors.

I'll also state this: I don't care what Jong and his military ruling party desires.
I care about the prosperity of both Koreas, the prosperity of Asia and the safety and security of the American State.

I'm sure the majority of the NK People would like to see their national economy improve. They surely would like to "Westernize".

A free, dignified and proud Korean state should be the goal of us all, for that will surely lead to peace.








The reasons we didn't completely uphold our end of the bargain, is that neither did the North: http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/agreedframework


And we did uphold the significant part of it, as you can see with North Korean bolstered military technology, we didn't threaten the North in anyway. We merely had a security pact with the South. In the same way that we have one in Japan.

And I don't eagerly want nor long for war, I fully understand it's consequences. A world without war is everyone's great goal. But that goal is in peril when a nation threaten our citizens with nuclear weapons.

Our soldiers at the front are well equipped to deal with the dangers, you can
argue that our front should be a national one and not an international one. I'd agree, in that these constant military obligations weaken us at home and abroad.

To accomplish this, we have to let go of our so called "proxy" states, which are weakened in their proxy form. Just as an independent Korea would be best for all,
I've called for a strengthened, and significant Japan in world affairs just as
in times past.

With newly found understanding in peace, a stronger Japan can only lead to great
things in Asia. Also, a stronger Japan would serve as a far greater presence in Asia against a Chinese expansion.

But, whereas our soldiers at the front are well equipped, the average jane and joe shouldn't have to worry about their existence. That is at the bane of my foreign policy as an American pursuing a political career.





Except, we've made outreach attempts

Including this one

Of course, as your link states it probably would be significant if we sent higher ranked officials such as President Obama, or current secretary of state John Kerry or even Vice President Biden for current peace talks.

But it certainly is not for a lack of effort of diplomacy on our part, that I believe is sincere.







You can certainly make that argument and we may never know, but it looks like this alliance wasn't as significant as first thought.

It appears the closest Soviet came to assisting NK's nuclear program was finding uranium(that they themselves sought for their own project). Perhaps we jumped the gun, George Bush style?







Japanese hostility towards our troops has been an longstanding issue, as a man who believes American-Japanese alliance is utmost crucial, indeed if there is a nation that is our "best friend" and shares our cultural, political and social views its this nation.

Reworking the Treaty of San Francisco and giving Japan the military authority
to defend itself from modern day threats, will allow for Japan to be an even greater ally to us. I said before, these proxy states are more akin to frozen chess pieces.

It'll improve our relations and geopolitical influence to unfreeze these assets and
actually 'use' them.

I'm all for removal of troops from these areas, provided they can defend themselves and their defense is our gain.







Ignorant about what? Ignorant as it pertains to your belief that we're colonizing the world? Several corporations have used the geopolitics of the time to expand into 'developing' countries, but when the global economy ships off jobs to Mexico, China, etc. And when these plants state they foresee more of their labor shipped off to foreign nations, I hardly see the U.S. colonizing other nations.

What I see, is our politicans and our military, bought and paid for by lobbyists helping to quicken the U.S.'s downfall, globalization has brought the U.S. down.

We haven't fought a successful economic war, not since the Banana Wars IMO. Our wars have mostly been defensive, and universally we all believe it to be self sabotaging.






Peace through resolution of conflicts. Let's take this North Korean situation for example, we could send our senior officials to negotiate and I'd like to hope that we make such diplomatic moves to resolve the situation. But what if North Korea spites our senior leadership and decides to go ahead in spite of our best efforts?

The threats may be nothing more than that, but they're recently backed them with action such as banning South Korean workers from crossing the border:

See this

A future prosperous North Korean state may only exist with a future government that doesn't aspire to threats, blackmail and violation of its neighbors. I know you'd like us to hold hands with everyone but we simply can't. It's not feasible, its feasibility only evident through the righteousness of man.

The current NK Regime isn't on the right side of history, and the further down the wrong path they travel, the dimmer the prospects of a future for that regime.





I'll watch the video later, and you are certainly right there are other options, mainly by encouraging a populist revolt. One way to do this, could be to give unprecedented aid to North Korea, and if NK doesn't distribute the significant aid in a way that ends the malnutrition problem, we can say 'Hey, this government clearly doesn't have your best interests in mind'(Even though that should be self evident by now).

The risk of that, is if indeed that government redirects the aid, we know exactly where that aid is going: To its weapons program.

If this needs to be resolved, let us resolve it. Our half assed attempts both at negotiation and putting it behind our rear view mirror has put us in a grave situation today.





The CIA'S support and thereby dispatching of authoritarian regimes is sadly a well documented fact in a bloody part of our history that many Americans don't know of. But it's true that Iranian-American relations were once great once upon a time.

And what we'll discuss later, look at one of the positions of the Imperial Shah:
Israeli Recognition





As I first entered politics(or if you rather me say, when the idea of politics occurred to my mind) at age 14, I did so as a Liberal and I was rather neutral towards Israel. I didn't care, nor did I find the need. All I wanted was for us to stop sending money to foreign nations.

My neutrality on a basis of self respect ended during attacks on Gaza in
2009:

And until now, I didn't know the attacks were preceded by months of planning

To me, it was a discriminate blatant abuse of power against a much weaker nation.
And to see their plight of imprisonment. Here, we can concur with Libertarian geopolitical mindset, of course the Palestinians would vote for Hamas, that is to say discriminate force of their own if they are to be annihilated, subjugated and treated as secondary citizens.

To think that we're funding this with taxpayer money is something that can only be an eyesore to any passionate American.

History is often overstated, and while crimes have been committed, Germany was correct in identifying the shrude and crude methods of the Jewish Community, which is but unfortunate.

To me, I seek neutrality. And while it may be morally right to return the Palestinian State to the Palestinians, geopolitically and morally currently the media will make a stronger argument for the 'Jewish state', so at best hopefully a two state solution becomes apparent to us.

And that'a what I would aim for, a two state solution with U.S. Neutrality. This is in agreement with Libertarian ideas about a solution.









Its important to note that the "war on terror" as a whole lost significant credibility once it was proven that there were no WMD. It's also important to note that many of these nations initially sent logistic and troop support in the form of a Coalition.

In other words, their opposition is also nationalistic in purpose, not wanting to be involved in a costly and a war whose goal and objectives becomes more and more
unclear.

But your point is taken, these high numbers aren't specific and to the point.





Well, let's play some more war games. Let's assume that we've successfully destroyed the enemy's nuclear weapons. This has taken away the enemy's element of surprise, their ability to pose a threat. Should they retaliate, it becomes a tactical warfare. In which case, we have superiority through the air.

Our allies Japan, have a very impressive naval fleet. And South Korea has close proximity, which allows us to draw in at the very least, some distraction from the ground.

If we strike quick, and with precision then Russian/Chinese assistance could be rendered fruitless. And as I pointed out earlier, such assistance is no longer a guarantee under the aggressive and yet delusional state in which North Korea has acted.

Our only goal however, is the destruction of the enemy's nuclear weapons and if it comes to it, a regime change. However, in the name of 'peace', I'm more than willing to offer the regime the chance to stay in power and a full retreat after destroying their nuclear facilities as long as they commit to the international community.







I won't deny Fascism's opposition to democracy and liberalism(So too, were the Founders opposed), but historically the right wing has not supported corporatist policy(If we should look at the past decade, it was George Bush who passed the Housing Act. And it was Obama(a democrat) who granted Wall Street and the Federal Reserve unprecedented powers)

See this

Fascism, as its founders have said, is the unison of social structure(The community is of the greater goal) as well as individual prosperity. The combination of all elements into a new political, philosophical if not spiritual approach to mankinds problems.

Its characterization as a 'far right wing ideology' is one purported by political scientists who spent about as much time looking into it, as the economic experts who prattle on TV about our 'economic recovery', which you and I both agree to be bullcrap.

Fascism, in short to me is the ideological brother of Libertarianism. The only things we disagree on, is my desire of centralization and self sufficiency. In short, authoritarianism.

I've come to believe that a 'conservative authoritarianism' is the best course of action. To direct ourselves, to guide ourselves on the right path and to ensure that businesses, corporations do not exploit the consumer market.

Universal Freedom IMO, is a flawed concept. As I've posted in some other forums before, I believe in 'Guided' Freedom. Freedom, understanding its consequences, its dangers and opportunities.






You certainly are right that Fiat money has no relation to regulation, that is precisely the reason for our current crisis. My economic belief and policy should be that our GDP is 2-to-3 times that of our National Debt.

In other words, if we make today 16 trillion in GDP, the Government is only allowed a 4 trillion budget. If nominated today, I would propose cutting the deficit in half within a full term(4 years).

This in comparison to Democrats(1 Trillion per 10 years) and Republicans(4 trillion per 10 years). So I shall state it one more time: A self-sufficient government, and an ideology around our economic prosperity is the furthest thing from mainstream Republicanism.(And certainly, the furthest thing from mainstream Liberalism. Which has called for increased taxation to pay for its bills)






So you're a marine? Regardless, your decision to serve our country is met with the utmost admiration and respect. Even though I've philosophically seen little point into war, that doesn't make the sacrifice any less significant.

The decision to go to war isn't an easy one(and it shouldn't be one), but I find that we've fought mainly defensive wars in the later part of the 20th/21st century. And if this war were to happen, it too would be defensive.

Be assured, Its long been my intention(and hasn't changed since my conversion to Fascism) to withdraw our forces to the homeland's border. A strong defense is centered at home. The terrorists were able to attack, not merely because of a base of operations but because our defenses were weak at home.

This is especially true today, as both Democrats and Republicans speak of "immigration reform", in other words legalizing illegal aliens. A vocal minority pointed out that this was supposed to be resolved with Reagan's Amnesty in 1986. But that action resulted in more breaches of the border.

The strength of a nationalistic party, is that I consider our border to be very significant. A innovative and robust plan to make our legal immigration easier and less costly to legal immigrants would promote legal immigration! Concept.

And at the same time, in the manner of self-sufficiency, we don't want just any legal immigrant crossing the borders. We want only the best and brightest immigrants to come to the nation.

I'm for immigration, but I'm against mass immigration. The masses of developing nations for the most part have a ton of issues that they'd like to resolve here, but it becomes our problem. Thanks, but no thanks.



I believe Fascism to be the evolution, that if war hadn't broken out the world would have recognized. Leadership through the most qualified of men and women, inspiring millions of others to reach their best selves. Self sufficiency as to make everything optimal.[/quote]



Except, that isn't quite the entire view(or the correct interpretation)

Nationalism, or in other words the self respect of your community.

Just as Germans had the right to feel about their national pride(and we Americans have that same right), so does Britain, France, Italy, etc. al have that same consideration.

In a nationalistic world, with a sense of self respect for all nations and understanding their right to self respect. That might actually lead us far closer to world peace than ever thought possible.

We all have inherent selfishness and it prevents us from striving to the ideal to the fullest. In that extent, you could say that the social ideal of self sufficiency is roughly the same as the failed dream of communism.

But I believe that yes, it can work. People can be driven to believe, to strive and to excel. It sure as hell beats being reactive and passive, and believing that there's nothing we can do.

I already went over this with FPOD. The Soviets connected with the North, far before we moved into the South. And while he states that the U.S. Government at that time didn't provide 'proof', I believe the current existence of their state. The history of their aggression is proof of where North Korea historically has been.

So try as you may, we didn't initiate conflict in this region, and infact:

The South doesn't even have Nukes at the present day if this is to be believed



We didn't move nuclear weapons, we moved B-2 aircraft, which is capable of carrying such weaponry. But capable and actually carrying it are two different things. And let me give you a couple of reasons why we probably aren't carrying.

It would be a big blow to America's international image if we nuclear attacked North Korea. The blowback from Bush's refusal to corporate with the U.N would be childsplay compared to the U.S., a state that declared out in the open that it wouldn't use nukes in the future to use nukes.

Following on that, any pressure on Iran regarding its nuclear program would be obsolete. Why should Iran listen to America when it openly uses nuclear weaponry?

Also, we moved said carriers and ships to Asian positions in response to the threats by North Korea, not only to its Southern neighbor but to our American Citizens





Did you just compare American media to North Korean media? Lets put it into perspective: Very recently, there was a T.V show called the Conspiracy Theory(admittedly, it got canceled or did it start back up again? I didn't really watch, but just heard from a few friends.)

I can guarantee you, North Korean media won't allow a THING that criticizes North Korean political, social and economic way of life.

I believe I did, whether you're actually capable of reading or not is not my concern. There may be initial resistance, followers, sympathizers of the current regime but there would be just as many North Koreans who see the prosperity of the South who say 'Freedom!'

There may well be political chaos, confusion, etc. But that's better than a 'stable' regime that threatens its neighbors, the region and American Citizens.

Even the 'worst case' scenario in the event of an attempted coup is better than allowing the current regime to continue to take power. Allowing dissent to rise in the North, will give this regime vulnerability. It will make it possible for the citizens to think 'Yes, we can do this.'

At this point, I just want to see if you can read the following reason. If you disagree with it, actually debate it. If not, what are you doing in the thread? Like, seriously?

At least FPOD does have a political thesis, and political disagreement on how to handle the situation. All you've done is foam at the mouth.

It was relevant, don't go judging what you deem 'relevant' or not, just because you don't agree with it, or more likely you didn't even have a response to it.

I gave you direct reasons for why taking action would be positive, and that just as there was Russian support for the German 'invasion', so too would many North Korea defectors come out once they feel they have the logistical support of the U.S.

Given an actual choice, many North Koreans probably aspire for a world with an abundance of money, food and technology.

Uh, no considering I did in fact respond to it.(Please try to read). I said a response was absolutely necessary. I believe this regime has also lost the "credibility to lead."

So the NK Citizens believe the propaganda they are fed. Guess what? The same is for every other oppressive regime in the world. If you don't believe or put on the act of believing, well, I mentioned it before but they face the threat of death, imprisonment, etc.

It was so bad in Soviet Russia with Stalin and his Gulags and work Factory slavery that the Russians were delighted the Nazis invaded.

And we're no Nazis. A unified Korea is the goal, just the same as a two state solution in Israel(former Palestine) has long been U.S. Policy.

There will be sacrifices, but the long term benefits to the end of N.K's terrorist, rogue government far outweigh these sacrifices.

Actually, let me be truthful. Most soldiers really don't have a strong political thesis, neither do you. Your basic thesis is that we're this bad evil country, we need to leave everyone alone and everything will be okay.

Naive if not outright childish, unfortunately we are involved and we were involved.
Withdrawing from the South leaves it open to subjugation. The North has implied as much as recently as 48 hours.

Here's an offer I would propose for our forces to leave:
I'd withdraw 15,000 of our 20,000 men from the Korean Territory. In exchange, North Korea must resign the NPT, shut down its reactors and the negotiations must be laid out for a Korean State.

Afterwards, it should be an open democratic process to elect the new leaders of this Korean State.

If North Korea were to refuse this fair offer, we know then that interest is not in driving away the so called "Imperialist" forces, nor in stabilizing the lives of North Koreans. But in remaining a military power that abuses its own people.





You know, I really should ignore you when you keep on saying I'm "sexually aroused" by the idea of this country going into warfare. It implies I'm unaware of the sacrifices on the ground. To the contrary, I am fully aware of the sacrifices these heightened tensions could bring.

But I'm also far more aware of the sacrifices that could be brought by doing nothing, or worst yet appeasement. You actually want us to twiddle our thumbs before a nation state that has declared it will use nuclear weapons against civilians.

Sanctions haven't worked, leaving them alone will only embolden them to think more aggressively towards the U.S. Believing in their own propaganda, recently stating we'd like a nuclear war out in North Korea!

Anyone who knows American history, knows that we avowed from the use of nuclear weapons since we first used them against Japan in WW2. Knowing then what a devastating force they would be. They are weapons of deterrents, not weapons of warfare.

Also, seeing as NK has nukes and seeing Russia's interest in the region, it wouldn't be so farfetched to state that Soviet did indeed place nukes in the North.
Why would the U.S. release classified information?





Actually, it just shows we have vastly different thoughts on what a Proxy State is.
It doesn't matter whether a country leans pro communism, or pro "democracy" or pro anything at all. A proxy state, would act on behalf of the host nation. When
we weaken and in fact disable the Japanese army, its use as a proxy state has
dwindled.

Despite the South being our "proxy state", its not as though we've assimilated the North. Nor have we made any moves to encroach China. They are very literally chess pieces that are "frozen", they are assets just for the purpose of being an asset.

And to what? Certainly not to the military in their frozen state. And they aren't assets to the people. South Korea and Japan share one thing in common: Should we move forces from those regions, hostile states won't hesitate to expand(see:China)

The North Korean leadership has abducted civilians of our great ally Japan:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/north-korean-spies-snatched-sister-1711093

Do you think they'd hesitate if we were to leave Japan more vulnerable?

Is this the behavior of a nation state on the world stage? This isn't a mere matter of economics. If this is the way they view the region in the world, we know damn well what they think of us.

We cannot, and it has been a grave mistake in the past to have looked away from them. General MacArthur said as much back then, and it's true now.





This quote, ladies and gentleman at a time where the aforementioned poster proclaims I have a lust for warfare. He now claims that because I'm inane, childish and uneducated that I'm better off dead.

Yes, North Korea already has nuclear weapons. Because of a failed policy of containment. That the current leadership has threatened to use these weapons, not against an army or against a blockade or any advance of military forces but American cities shows their unprecedented danger to the world community.

I could say just the same to you, do you have any idea how the situation has escalated over the past month? The past 72 hours? A nation state that said its life, wasn't in the prosperity of its people but in the prosperity of its nuclear program.

I've nothing against the North Korean citizens, in fact they are victims of their own authoritarian government to whom if they don't comply they themselves will meet death. As I said, the opposition towards a tyrannical and diabolical government is for the betterment of the Koreas, for Asia and for world stability.

So much so, if South Korea is a "proxy state", I am more than willing to give up that status. What's important is prosperity in the Korean Peninsula, what's important is stabilizing these regional conflicts.

If we remember, both WWI and WWII started not with a bang, but with unresolved regional conflicts.

This regional conflict is one of the most significant, peace in the Asian Region will give outlook to peace in the Middle Eastern region. And resolving this conflict and eliminating a nuclear threat to the world will lead us closer to a world without war.





To be fair, there are some economic considerations in this struggle(when aren't there any?) but the far more significant point of North Korea not wishing to "Westernize", is the obvious behavior of theirs which is still in the Old Asia where conflicts brewed and tragedies such as the Rape of Nanking were but a second thought.

Its a country that has absolutely no access to the internet, no access to the outside world. Its a nation whose military has grown stronger and its people have grown poorer. Not only is it a threat to other nations, its a threat to its own survival and North Korean people.

There's only so much aid international countries can give. Look at Africa and its famine problem. How long have we tried to give aid in that situation? At some point, you've gotta help yourself.

A true a statement individually, as in geopolitics. If North Korea wants improved relations, improved status, etc. Its going to have to look at itself very critically and say that threatening the world over with nukes is not the way to go about improvement. Nor is espionage and kidnapping civilians of other countries.









I'm saying your defending a regime who quite frankly doesn't care about the prospects of peace. Their very actions(which you're justifying) clearly states that. And when haven't we upheld the deal? North Korea got a big victory in negotiations when they said we could only investigate their main facilities. We said 'okay' and we let them off the terror list.

More hawkish neo cons such as John McCain opposed it, noting that we got raped in the process. We've constantly sent aid and support to the North Korean territories. It was NK who in spite of all this said it had the right to its nuclear weapons program, and clearly(through their own statements and fact) they hold their program more dear than the citizens with which they are obligated to protect.





No case more clearer than Iran, whereas we were former allies with Iran and much of the Middle Eastern world before supporting Jewish Hegemony in the Middle Eastern regions. Rather than think of the U.S. as the big bad, know that whereas the Israelite can brag about the political power that is Zionism, we can't acknowledge that very restricting power.

In fact, Chuck Hagel was grilled over acknowledging it. Former defense secretary Panetta also didn't like Israel's aggressive tone, noting that its counterproductive to peace talks.

And while we're talking about nuclear states, here's this:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/israeli-political-insanity-the-samson-option-israeli-letter-poem-to-grass-if-we-go-everyone-goes/30460

The "unconfirmed", dirty little secret. Unlike Iran, Israel is NOT a signee of the NPT.

If I were commander in chief, if Israel wants me to pressure the Iranian state, it has to sign the NPT and commit to a world without nuclear weapons. Only an Israeli commitment can inflame tensions in that part of the world.

Also, your notion that the world sees us as Imperialist? Not so much:

http://www.pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=1

Or if we are imperialists, they seem to be satisfied with our form of imperialism.






See above, the only nations who significantly harbor dislike of the U.S are the aforementioned regions where conflicts are currently involved. Its for this reason that you suggest that we leave it alone. But the risk upon leaving it alone is it growing into a wider, more national confrontation.

The investment of the development of many of these second and third world warring regional states is quite heavy and Bush was quite arrogant to think it would be a matter resolved in a few months, let alone a few years. But in a couple of decades, as the Iraqi democracy evolves and the corruption is fought successfully by their own people(as well as other parts in the Middle Eastern world), we may finally see a more modern and moderate approach to religion and understanding.

But I'm not under the delusion that'll come anytime soon.






Uh, my idea involves around crippling the enemy's nuclear firepower. Before we can even think about regime or policy change in a volatile region like this, we have to disable the enemy's capability of inviting disaster into the region, into the world.

I'm the kind of guy who always has my eye on the ball, and the 'ball' so to speak is the North Korean Government's access to Nuclear Weapons.





Actually, it was propaganda that appointed Fascism as a right wing ideology. None of its proponents, whether it was Hitler in Germany or Mussolini in Italy ever thought of it as part of the mainstream, but rather a revolution.

One in which understanding that government by its nature is intended to be a structure, a pillar on which the nation is built. The combination of "Clay and Steel". Social programs such as welfare, medicaid, etc have a place in America for example but by making them self sufficient and reliable, we will allow these security programs to live for several generations more.

It is self sufficiency, it is in short how businesses run their operations. Whereas the government currently believes we can print money out of thin air and we don't have to manage anything.





I led myself here, it was a poor choice of words. Shall I say we've avoided civilian casualties? Fiery, you said you're a soldier so you should know full well that a western thinking government prioritizes its citizens above its soldiers.

You've taken on the self sacrificial duty of fighting wars, that is to say to undertake hell itself. Its up to those of us who aim to be politicians, philosophers to put our best spirits into action to some day eliminate that hell.

Though it might not be fully optimal, but peace through the prosperity of the people has led us to a world where we've experienced relative peace. Now, the greatest challenge in front of us is creating prosperity in these war torn, politically and religiously abused regions.

I believe Fascism to be the evolution, that if war hadn't broken out the world would have recognized. Leadership through the most qualified of men and women, inspiring millions of others to reach their best selves. Self sufficiency as to make everything optimal.

I will create a self sufficient America and aim to create a self sufficient world.