LustfulAngel Posts

Here, a silent coup: We'll even ask our 'good friends', the Mossad to help along with the CIA. Plan an assassination of every senior North Korean official. With a more sane and open government in North Korea, we can dissolve the situation without any lives lost. Which is what people want.

Didn't the Soviets violate that same Agreement by arming the Northern Side with Nukes? Or, in typical Soviet fashion they didn't sign the agreement? It didn't show that we lacked integrity, it showed that we were looking out for our own interests.

If the North/South have a problem with it, they could try emulating Sweden, Norway, etc.(Nations of neutrality). But since the North did in fact invite Soviet involvement, how could it not expect American involvement?







I really can't believe you'd go this far to support an authoritarian regime. I know whose side your on if the winds blow in troubled times and I doubt its the United States. Don't you notice anything wrong with the word 'Demand'? Having broken from the Non Proliferation Treaty, the demands that were made to allow them to be a nuclear state in spite of that were legitimate in my mind.

Secondly, North Korea isn't at war with America but with South Korea. If this authoritarian state wants peace, it needs only conceive of possibility with peace with the South.

South Korea is not a proxy state( as in the way of NS Germany's colonies) and if it is a proxy state, what has it accomplished? Same thing with Japan, the Treaty of San Francisco limiting Japan to mainly defensive weapons and unable to declare war,
it's not much of a proxy state.

To put it in comparison, Benjamin Netanyahu aspired for a Japanese like solution to the Palestinian "State". So please stop referring to them as proxy states, perhaps their governments may be favorable to the U.S, but that isn't the same as a proxy state.







Laughable, we're not practicing extortion with North Korea. Given the North's history, its alliances the position that previous U.S. leaders had, and the one I have is that I'd sooner slit my throat than give them access to a nuclear weapon.

All the North has to do is give up its nuclear ambitions, look at former foes today: Japan, Germany and Italy. All are major members of the G8, members of the U.N. Security Council with significant say in world affairs. If those three nations can become a significant part of the International Community, so too can North Korea.

And Big Bad America ain't stopping them FPOD, but rather the family dictatorship that's ruled for many years and decades now.







Your arrogance is befuddling for one who uses the word "repeatedly" in spite of the fact that North Korea may have made but a few concessions. Your acting as though the authoritarian state upholds the value of a Republic.

I noted a CNN article earlier, that pointed out that the North only having its main facilities open to inspection was(and is) a major win as the enemy has developed the capacity to attack the American Homeland.

All that time, money and devotion to the North Korean military elite could've been better served for their own people. Which should show our North Korean friends where their government stands on the side of history: It sure as hell isn't for them.

It was non-intervention to begin with, that allowed terrorists to plot in secrecy in Sub-african nations to kill 3,000 Americans 13 years ago. Of course, you could argue that in creating the terrorist bloc in the first place, we led to our own downfall.

It was intervention(France) that assured the creation of the United States! All the more irony. The wisdom of a Non interventionist foreign policy is to avoid conflict. But in reality, it also robs us of our international connections.

In truth, it's somewhere in the middle where we should hold strong ties to significant allies. And we should judge when and if we should get involved militarily.

A nation has threatened us with nukes, its past and its complaints are honestly irrelevant. At the very least, I would deploy our drones and systematically target the enemy's main nuclear branch.







When have I ever said I was a conservative? I identify as a Fascist. I believe in centralizing the U.S. Economy. I believe in economic productivity over the mere value of the dollar alone. And I believe our military exists primarily to defend the homeland.

So when a nation threatens us, I'm not going to just sit there twiddling my thumbs.

Why don't we pick the entire timeline, since you seemed to bring it all into view? Yes, we armed the South with nuclear weapons. But obviously, that was a deterrent to Soviet advances during the aforementioned Cold War. If we really intended to use the South as a proxy state, its a proxy state that's accomplished absolutely little in Eurasia.

Furthermore, despite our supposed hostility after every such incident, did we not resume aid? The important factor you highlight is that we took North Korea off the terror list, and no less than a year later they resume the very same activities.

Again, I repeat to you: North Korea has threatened American cities, it has threatened American bases to the Pacific, South Korea and its actions by nature threaten stability in the region and its neighbors.

When did America threaten North Korea? And I don't mean our deployments in Response to NK's threats. I mean, what did we do to make North Korea engage in yet another nuclear test, and insofar as to declare targeting American cities?

Did we declare targeting of North Korean citizens? Did we declare we'll wipe Pyongyang off the face of the earth?

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/31/17539256-north-korea-nukes-are-our-countrys-life

This regime has constituted the greatest threat America's faced since the end of the cold war. And you can take your naive Neville Chamberlain approach and save it for somebody who wants to take that risk.

My message to Jong would be a simple one: Dismantle your arms, come to the table with South Korean and American representatives and let's see if a solution can be found. If not, your regime will be destroyed where it stands.

Just as NK doesn't believe its nukes are a political bargaining chip, american lives aren't a bargaining chip. Any enemy to the nation will face the wrath of our armed forces. From the air, to the ground to the ocean.

True, its ironic in that despite diplomatic disputes especially towards China's one child policy and human rights record, the U.S. and China share significant ties.

The Chinese feelings towards America is merely in regards to our "encroachment" in Eurasia. But I don't think our policy is one of encroachment, but rather a stabilizing force in the region. We'd like to see a peaceful nation like Japan continue to be the rising sun, or at least I would.

I see the world being led by the leaders of Europe, Americas and Asias. And every other country following. Stability by order has always been the best way to success.

That might've been the longest post ever, and yet with so very few points made.

Firstly, North Korea is not Iraq. Whereas Bush pushed the idea of "intelligence" of Iraq's "chemical programs", we know for a fact that North Korea possesses nuclear weapons. Secondly, whereas the State of Iraq never threatened the U.S., North Korea did.

FPOD goes on and on about the deployments to the Pacific, the training exercises. Never once acknowledging the North's agitation for the reason being. If the north engaged honestly with the South on dialogue and an agreement were to come, do you honestly think we would oppose that or control said peace agreement?

And do you think we can up and leave without some kind of safety precautions in tact? If we were to leave unilaterally, the North's military leaders would see that as an opportunity to subjugate and thereby "unify" the Two Koreas.

Do you think we could get assurances from North Korea upon withdrawal? Considering that they betrayed their promises that left them off the Terror List(Which no one here seems to have acknowledged, but who am I kidding?) I wouldn't trust their leadership as far as I could throw them.

Secondly Baka: If you don't fear retaliation from N.K then from who do you fear it from? The International Community? Laughable, considering they supported even our most controversial decisions regarding Libya and Syria. As the North continues to build stocks of its armaments, threatening stability in Asia in the process their isolation has continued further.

In other words, the INTL. Community doesn't think highly of the current establishment. Why should we wait for enemy advances before disposing of a regime that no one really likes, that clearly subjugates its own people? Because its proper?

On that note, you hilariously mentioned Vietnam as an attempt to conquest territory. Perhaps, if it weren't for the

Rules of Engagement: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~tpilsch/AirOps/cas-roe.html

Severely limiting our forces capabilities. Much the same is true today in contingencies such as Iraq and Afghanistan "winning hearts and minds", do you honestly think if we went all out that this "war on terror" wouldn't be over by now?

For god sakes, the enemies are uneducated muslims who believe in their "Allah". We saw to the extent of their "firepower" through the car bomb and the underwear bomb. We'd have to be completely off guard and defenseless, for the enemy to even hope to strike.

This war should've never lasted as long as it has.

Also, we never 'intended' to invade Iran, I mean we still haven't given Netanyahu the assurances he wants(and I oppose a war in Iran), precisely because it would bring China and Russia together. And I find that we haven't had an actual confirmation of Iran's capabilities or even of its intentions. If Iran really were secretly plotting some nuclear jihad, they had more than enough time from 2007-2013. They would've at the least deployed their Revolutionary Guard.

I insist Netanyahu's afraid of a ghost, I'm concerned about a logistic threat growing in the Asia-Pacific that has declared its intentions of using nuclear firepower against our nation. You go onto declare such a war a "one sided genocide", the only reasons for advocating this approach is to ensure the security of Asia, the security of America and the security of the world. The only way to prevent a rogue nuclear nation like North Korea from inflaming the situation is to disable their nuclear capabilities.

Now, that quotation from Napoleon Bontaparte doesn't refer to killing off everyone to ensure history. But rather, the direction of the world sets history. As I mentioned before, the INTL. Community isn't the greatest of fans of the North Korean military dictatorship. If we were to take the initiative, and North Korean lives significantly improve as a result, history has been written.

Your fear revolves around the sacrifices that would amount from such an advance, and its true that such an advance would amount to millions of sacrifices. However, the difference between "sacrifice" and "victim" is significant. I state this, because it's true.

North Korea is a rogue nation, that listens to no one(except maybe China, and those ties are dwindling). Do you think that administration cares for the rule of law and due process? About as much as the terrorists do: Not much.

The difference in our opinion matters not, although I suppose it matters in the context of revealing my foreign policy thoughts(though those may be subject to change): To me, dialogue has its limits. So to, does patience. If a nation declares even the slightest intention of using the most powerful weapons not on our forces, but on our civilians then you can be sure that tensions will of course flare.

You don't like what I'm implying? Good, let me imply it some more: Do we currently have "peace" with North Korea? Ignorance is the same as apathy, whether you'd care to admit that or not.

I'd rather not be either ignorant nor apathetic, but rather cautious and prepared.
You've also made the false pretenses of South Korea getting nuked. As if any contingency plan would not involve the disruption of NK's nuclear capabilities.

That possibility exists, I'll grant you that. But the likelihood of it occurring aren't that high. If we continue not to act out of fear of what their retaliation might be, then we will see the enemy's capabilities improve and should such a situation occur: Forget South Korea, the possibility would then exist to actually make their dreams of a literal American Holocaust a reality.

Jong's words, at the very least have robbed him of the freedom to wield that nuclear power whenever he so wishes. Say what you will about our nation, but we haven't threatened to use nuclear warheads against any nation since WWII.





When the best thing you can say about a regime is that it's stable "in it's authority", you know damn well you're not arguing for an administration that's best for that country, for that Asian Continent.

Also, you assume that North Korea is a *rational actor*, well for years they've blackmailed the international community and that has worked but to me that's not as rational as actually engaging in reforms.

And there'll come a time where the INTL.Community is sick and tired of being blackmailed. The days of the North Korean military dictatorship are numbered, even if it isn't the U.S; some Western member state may have it up to here with their antics.

Even if international interference doesn't occur, if the INTL. Community doesn't bite and the citizens continue to suffer a rebellion against the NK government is inevitable.

Though, how successful would such a rebellion be without INTL. support? It'd likely be put out very quickly.(As Shay's rebellion was, and the Founders had 1/100 millionth of our current modern day capabilities).




Why don't we simply do that from the start? Get it over with? To quote Napoleon Bontaparte:

"History is written by the victors". If we would be victorious, then what's the need for the worry? As if a NK Regime is somehow sustainable or even desirable? Whether in Asia, for America, for the world.






Your arrogance is also making my patience grow thin but you don't see me complaining? I haven't brought up Libya until now and to suggest that I have no understanding is a false one. If we're to believe the Obama Administration, we aided rebels with weapons and a joint operation with NATO. If we're to believe independent voices on the ground, we actually invaded this nation for little more than political displeasure. Claiming that he didn't have the right to rule.

There wasn't a Libyan aircraft, tank or missile otherwise threatening the American continent. A leader has threatened war and massive destruction against our nation, and you don't think we can take the same contingency measures?

I think if we took those measures regarding the Libya situation, ALL the more so for the North Korean one. Since it's an actual, viable and credible threat.





First: I took the pleasure in highlighting "24%", and I'm sure you know the reason why. Canada isn't "heavily dependent" on the U.S. Economy. Are we very significant trade partners? Of course, but if we were to move out of the trade it would be to our detriment, not so much Canada's. Canada could either find a new trading partner or keep its oil to itself.

If anything, we're dependent on Canada. We're in fact entirely dependent on our "global economic system"(But that's another topic)

You cannot argue to me that we're a repressive, imperialist regime that doesn't take into consideration other people's rights. If anything, we're an overzealous regime too eager to implement what we believe to be justice to the rest of the world.


But we haven't conquered territories, we haven't built concentration camps(not in the way of NS Germany anyway) I won't claim we're innocent, but we're not some evil monster like NK Propaganda makes us out to be.

And to even argue it, is kind of sad :(.





I'll ignore the poor choice of words to say I'm "sexually aroused" by the idea of war. I'll also tell you outright that you're mistaken in what you believe to be my philosophy. No one would like peace more than I, honestly every human being on the face of the planet wants peace.

In order to move towards peace, we have to give up our weaponry. But how can we do so in the face of regimes such as North Korea? Can we truly ignore those who are violent, who hold violent intentions and then say that they won't act on them?

To move the world in the right direction, requires nations to elect leaders who won't resort to violence, but rather to dialogue. I don't resort to violence FPOD, but I recognize the tragedy of its necessity.

Whether you'd like to call it non-aggression or appeasement, it's the same result. Many feared a scenario like this occurring when we took North Korea off the terror list without getting any meaningful concessions whatsoever. When all NK has to fear from the Western Powers is a bunch of sanctions, they can continue to bluster without remorse, they can plan without fear of those plans getting disrupted.

Whereas Netanyahu cries about a problem that may or may not be(Iran), this is a nation with confirmed nuclear warheads, which actually has declared verbally and through cyber space their actual intention to use them!

In other words, NK is far higher on the priority list than Iran should be(I hope our government sees it that way).

Ron Paul has said that sanctions are ineffective, NK is the very definition of Mr. Paul being correct. Our Diplomatic efforts have gone south, what option do we have left other than containment, if not outright sabotage of weapons that this nation state IMO doesn't deserve to have.

Do you believe the Jong administration is 'stable'? IMO, the current NK regime is roughly the same as radicalized terrorists.



And if they don't? If their words only continue to escalate, and if they take militaristic action and we're unprepared for it? Though history "tends" to repeat, new history is also often created. I don't think you understand the point that an enemy nation has declared it would target U.S. Citizens with nuclear weapons.

If Gaddafi had "lost the right to lead", then Jong has already long since lost it.
We've reached the crossroads in my opinion for tolerance of the North Korean family and military dictatorship. Further tolerance risks insecurity and I'm happy our government has been taken several proper responses such as improving missile defenses and deploying throughout strategic posts in Asia.

If this is solved peacefully, then that would be "great"(though it would only allow for new problems to arise again). As I said, it's a crossroads. I can only see benefits to removing Jong and his military puppets from power for China, for Asia, for America and for the world.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/29/17518490-north-korea-threats-predictable-but-kim-jong-un-is-not-analysts-say?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2

This may not be the times of old we deal with, FPOD.



I also took the time to explain why I dismissed the theory. TLDR version: NS Germany held Austria, Britain held many colonies. If we ruled by de-facto, then Canada and its vast oil supplies would be in U.S. possession.

Oh wait, it's not? Crap.




And I explained above, the reasons why. Sanctions have failed, diplomacy has failed and a nation state has threatened the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans as well as international instability. Though this regime change may be difficult, it is all the more necessary for Asia, for America and for prosperity.

Yes, you're absolutely correct. Do we, in practice "control" South Korea and Japan? Let's take Japan, they chose to mobilize their deployments and withdrawals during the Iraq conflict. As long as Japan doesn't defile the Treaty of San Francisco, etc(other treaties) they can give us the middle finger and frankly there's nothing we could do about it.

South Korea could come to an agreement with the North tomorrow and could we do anything about it? Nope. It's an independent country with not a single U.S politician in it. Perhaps, what we have is the ability to strongly tilt a nation's direction in our favor, but that's not the same as de facto control.

You're suggesting Germany's former control over Austria. But we're not NS Germany nor Britain. If so, Canada and its vast oil reserves wouldn't be independent today.


If you want to talk "De facto control", there's something called the Israeli Lobby but that's not on this topic :D. The U.S. does not buy out and pay for other nation's politicians, nor does it bribe other nations for sympathy and support.

Yeah, needless to say I disagree that we're currently an "Imperialist" Nation or that we decide the fate of other nations. That honestly started(with Iraq) but escalated with Libya and Syria.

A nation of 100+ years and you can argue a "decade" of "Imperialism"? I don't think we're an imperial nation. But even if we were, the point of discussion is North Korea calling us imperialist, relative to their situation.

Which is an utter farce, we could've and should've solved the situation decades ago. The fact that their dictatorship exists is proof of our non imperial intentions regarding the Koreans.

Bakapink: The Cold War was exactly that. Tensions heightened and flared because of the significant threats both nations made. That and we had a phobia against the spread of communism in the United States. Which in of itself is absurd. Even if a bunch of Russians invaded, lest they took over parliament and even then would an entire country submit?

The Cold War was and is senseless, America's greatest geopolitical mistake that *again* in revisionist history could've been avoided just by siding with the Axis in WWII. Hell, you didn't even have to side with either side, you could just declare neutrality and all that would've been standing is America.

We had three choices, two of which would've ensured American dominance without the present problems. We somehow chose the wrong one.

As far as how do I intend to deal with China, given its growing military? Hopefully Diplomacy, but if that should fail we should aim at economic policies to cripple China and aim at an American Restoration. If neither diplomatic nor economic pressure does the trick, we need to bolster our presence in Asia.

Which is why I referenced to reworking the Treaty of San Francisco, in order words: Massively arming the Japanese State and a return to the Japanese Empire. States such as India, and another developing powers in Asia such as ironically Vietnam would like to see an overthrow of China.

We have plenty of options, and believe me when I say that America would be victorious upon exercising said options.

North Korea's relations with China have become fleeting at best. The entire U.N, most Western nations, etc any political power doesn't even have the slightest positive relation with North Korea.

In short, there will be no WWIII scenario from heightened tensions towards North Korea. Whereas Russia and China saw economic strategic importance in Africa(Libya, Syria and Iran) Only China is economically vested in North Korea.

And I'd argue that putting down this dictatorship and allowing for true democratic progress in North Korea is only to China's best interests.

Then the bloodiest war in world history occurred. Should we wait for a nation with nuclear arsenals to attack our country? Are we not being openly threatened? How long do we respond to these hostilities through ineffective sanctions and pretending a problem doesn't exist?



We don't have "de facto" control over South Korea, Japan. They have their own parliaments, their own constitution. By golly, through negotiations Japan kept its empire under the notion of a Monarchy.

It's a Security Pact, but do know that I disagree with that: Neither North Korea nor China would be able to press and expand their territory if the Japanese nation had the militaristic might and aggression it had in the 19th century.

A little bit of revisionist history: What if we sided with the Axis, rather than the Allies?

If you can imagine, we wouldn't have waited four or so decades for the end of Communism. Germany expressed very openly for either alliance or neutrality with the West. This meant that our western sphere of influence would've been protected.

A continued alliance with the Japanese Empire meant a powerful ally in Asia, and above all: No radical Islam movement, no 9/11.(Since we radicalized the Muslims to engage with the Soviets)

Sadly, it's hindsight but in aligning with the "Allies" we aligned ourselves with Stalin. So it's not like we were on some righteous side. We were on a side that in the end, proved to be our downfall decades later.










This isn't Iraq, where we reacted to Bush under false pretexts. This is a nation openly declaring hostilities against our nation. If they limited their declarations to our men at the front, then so be it. But they declared in so far as our citizens in their propaganda.

I can tolerate nations addressing their geopolitical grievances with people of relevance. But targeting civilians has been and always will be a war crime.

I'm sorry, I do not wish to negotiate with a country that's been secretive, dishonest and aggressive in its tactics. No matter how "imperialist" they think we may be.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/29/17513218-north-korea-puts-rockets-on-standby-as-us-official-warns-regime-is-no-paper-tiger

Time to bring this back up: Jong-Un(Or perhaps, the military rulers stringing him as a puppet) have continued their "revolutionary" talks against our so called "imperialism" and positioned rockets in stage for an attack. Recently bolstering propaganda to their own people.

The president and clearly our military people no longer take this as a mere bluff, but North Korean hostility. As we've deployed both to South Korea and Guam.

There's nothing glorious about war, but there's nothing glorious about being threatened by an enemy state and just taking it lying down. And I don't know about you but it's actually infuriating when they refer to us as "Imperialists", as if we've sought to seize North Korean territory.

The armistice was their idea, not ours. They were the ones who isolated themselves, threatened their neighbors(and us) and prevented any outreach. Now they wish to turn the tables and say we're the cause?

Even if you don't support an invasion, we should go ahead with pre emptive strike on their nuclear weapons program, a program that shouldn't even be theirs to begin with(The Bush Administration took a big risk by taking NK off the terror list)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/world/asia/13terror.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Then senator, the president proclaimed this a "step forward". Well, is it a step forward now?

Diplomacy can only be had with actual, diplomatic nations. You can't simply just be "diplomatic" with everyone, as much as we wish it to be. If another person(or state in this case) wants you dead, no matter of convincing can sway the mass murderer otherwise.

Haha, I'm proven wrong :D. Though, this is more the expansion of territory rather than the Middle eastern lands or mythology making their way into Western concepts.

In fact, stories have it the other way around as the Christian Crusades took down Rome, installing Christianity in a former Pagan State.

My point was just as America wasn't a "Christian Nation", most of the Western nations weren't indoctrinated in religious propaganda.

Hence why we don't have suicide bombers in the name of Allah. We just have a self sabotaging group of Americans IMO.

I "stuck" to the topic, thank you very much. It was you who started on the notion of female inequality. Your only proof of which was the bible, and several quotes were highly taken out of context! You then had the gall to directly quote the bible and ascribe to it "European/Asian History", I was unaware Babylon, Israel and Egypt were ever a part of the Roman Empire, or the Eskimos(The early descendants of Asians).

You then arrogantly proclaim "my science" as if I promoted a form of science different from acknowledged biological differences of a man and a woman, or that of a developing human brain.

No, it doesn't excuse them. But it does rationalize things and rationalization allows us to make proper rulings. Unlike those of the witch crusades which you pointed out.

Ah, excuse me, yes, the "choice". This is what Feminism's lasting legacy is, the ability to make a "choice" to be a careerwoman. And, what gains has she had for her choice? Individually, she might be getting paid more but she's taxed higher. Including child bearing, she finds herself right back where she left off.

Families as a whole are getting taxed more, so the husband can no longer be as reliable of a source as he was in the past. Biologically, feminism has only accomplished equality in suffering.

These are socio economic observations that anyone with an unbiased outlook can see. We've declined in the last 30 years, and among several social developments, this is the second biggest one only to NAFTA. In this case, correlation does equal causation.

Lastly, you make a mockery of my intelligence by proclaiming I degrade women. Never did I say women are strictly mothers. I simply said that the entirety of womanhood is her highest quality. Just as a man's highest quality is his ability to produce socially and economically.

Am I being sexist against the male? You cannot proclaim that I'm being sexist against females, while saying I'm not sexist against males. I'm a Social Darwinist, a woman's greatest strength is in her emotional and reproductive capabilities. She holds the very fate of the Human Race in the palm of her hands.

Without the Queen Bee, a colony is dead. If that's not power, then what is?

I imagine you were the one who gave me a negative rep? And I'll assume the philosophy behind this post was the reasoning in mind for your negative vote. Yet, your philosophy doesn't constitute reality on several fundamental levels.

Firstly, let's address your insane suggestion that the judge was bias'd to judge the criminals as juveniles and not adults. In terms of biological age(16) this is actually the correct ruling. This biological age and ruling is supported by scientific fact:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124119468

In fact, our development doesn't stop until around age 25-ish or so. Truthfully, biological doesn't necessarily rule over every day reality. I can find numerous adults who act as childish as children, actually their 'childish' behavior is
in large part due to the adults that oversee them.


However, for the consistency that the rule of law tries to reach I concur with science. As I told Jacob, and now I will tell you for your future reference: The Courts are duty bound, not to provide a lynching service but to uphold the rule of law.

Next, I know that many feminists and many feminist supporters are delusioned about the way the world works. But,let's get one thing out of the way: In the past, women were in fact superior to men.

Men sacrificed themselves in the name of war, to defend their country. The idea of a woman participating in war was unthinkable. And let us not be so delusioned as to think war was a game for these men. Far before Call of Duty trivialized the manner, many men died painfully, slowly and in many unspeakable ways.

And yes, they too were raped in warfare. There is no "rapist side", as FPOD acknowledged but many people seemingly can't read: Rape is about control, violence and dominance. Its about unspeakable cruelty.

The same was the case in civil life, many men dreamed of becoming fathers. There was once equal dignity in fatherhood as in motherhood. However, a father cannot be without a mother. This is not only the case biologically but in reality.

A father, does not by large have the mother's psychological nourishment, her love and devotion. Neither too, did the mother have the economic advantages of the father.

Marriage, or unison between the mother and the father compensated for each other's biological and social weaknesses. Love being the key component which tied the two beings together.

Not only did Feminism destroy the biological connection between men and women, it also managed to destroy the concept of love.

The woman had everything, she had a loving and devoted partner. She had financial security and she had the family she longed for. She had, what she's 'searching' for today.

Perfect example of Feminine Hypocrisy: These social groups complained about the Beauty Pageants. To them, it was exploitation.

And yet, look at porn today! Prostitution? So, do Feminists oppose exploitation? No, they oppose any self conceived notion of 'oppression'.

What the men didn't ask, during these political times was how exactly was it oppressing for women to for example wear dresses and high quality clothing? By golly, they ask for it in bunches when men shopped for their clothes!

If it's so oppressing, then stop buying those type of clothes.

The men should have challenged the feminists as to the reality of their claims. About the only thing the feminists had correct, was the difference in job privilege between a man and a woman.

And even now, career women find it biologically and socially difficult to juggle between family and career. In her 'oppressed' times, she didn't have to juggle. The man took on half of the responsibilities.

The feminist, in a nut shell is the proverbial idiot in the village who somehow screams the loudest.

We(or at least I) went through this, a couple of posts ago. A court is not a place for modern lynching. Punishments are handed down roughly in proportion to the severity of the sentence. So even *if* the rapists weren't juvenile, I could guarantee they'd only get 5 years in prison, tops.

There was this teenage chick in New york about a decade ago who committed cold blooded murder and got out in less than 1/3rd of her sentence. Rightly(in most cases) or wrongly(in some), the U.S. Court system thankfully does NOT follow Iran or Syria, or any other pre-21st century form of law.

Tell me, do you feel sympathetic towards someone who cuts themselves? You know, emo who thinks the world is shit, takes a knife and slits his/her wrist?

Chances are that you do, even though its the emo's fault for cutting themselves.

Well, think of the rapist in this case as an emo, instead of thinking the world is shit, the rapist believed their little small town belonged to them and their self gratifying culture would last forever.

In both cases, a delusion towards the state of affairs had a negative impact on both subjects.

The rapists were victims of themselves(Meaning, irrespective of the female victim).

To acknowledge the facts isn't the same as to excuse them, you're looking for the word 'dismiss'. No one has dismissed the severity of the situation. As I said earlier, for such a dismissal to occur the boys wouldn't have been charged AT ALL



Only, you didn't use the "literal" definition, but rather just as there's a sub header on an official document or newspaper, there are secondary definitions to words.

The definition you invoked, is political in nature and doesn't use sympathetic in the guilt-ridden sense. But rather it speaks of motivation to join a cause, movement, etc.

That definition would fit for those who joined the Occupy Wall Street group for example.




@LustfulAngel,



Don't try to change the subject now: " What disgusts be about this is that .journalistic integrity is being thrown aside with no concious thought to morality, but instead favouring the controversy of rape culture, in declaring the victim of this crime as the aggressor by ruining these two young mens lives."

Your statement, not mine. I proceeded to disprove your statement and thereby the point of this thread in declaring that a 'rape culture' doesn't exist. A 'rape culture' is akin to the claim of aliens.

It is, in short a conpiracy theory. I want you to stop posting, insofar as I'm sure I could debate Cruz, I could debate FPOP, and I could debate Biglundi
and we've all had severe differences in the very recent past.

You, on the other hand don't have a single clue of what you're talking about. None, and that's incredibly annoying.

Responding to you is like responding to an ignorant child. You didn't choose the main definition, but one of the definitions. This definition in particular is political. IE: A Democratic voter feels sympathetic to the democratic party or vice versa A Republican with Republican politicians.

In addition to not grasping some of these basic differences in the english language, you also terribly misinterpreted the intention.

No one feels pity about them being rapists, no one feels sorry for the crimes they committed. What we feel sorry about(which would go above your feeble head but I'll say it anyway) is the fact that they committed the act to begin with!

We regret not the result, but the events leading up to the result. We regret that these teenagers didn't have insomuch as a structure to begin with, and it took breaking what little insecure structure they DID have to make the parents realize their responsibility.

Please. Stop. Posting. The thread's premise and topic: "Rape Culture" is the ultimate conspiracy theory. The majority of decent men and women across America do not accept rape as a matter of course and in fact soundly reject it.

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html

A little bit old, but the premise stands as questioning this conspiracy theory.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes

America is significantly behind every other developed nation(save for surprisingly Mexico and Italy). Overall our #57th rank isn't too bad all things considered.

I mean, if we're a "rape culture" what the fuck is France?

Aside from your attacks, I'll respond by saying your ignorance is truly astonishing. Perhaps your raw emotionalism might make sense if these were grown men who were already dangerous criminals to society.

But these were 16 year old kids, who honestly didn't understand or care to grasp the severity of the situation. I even gave you the definition of the word sympathy.

It doesn't take away from their guilt, it doesn't take away from the pain of the 'victim', or of her 'victim' status.(I didn't know we were so sad as a species as to WANT to be victimized)

It's synonymous with 'understanding', do you need the definition for that as well?

Understanding:

"Individual or specified judgment or outlook; opinion."

"A disposition to appreciate or share the feelings and thoughts of others; sympathy"

There will be plenty of times to throw a sympathy party for Ms.Victim. But who cares about a criminal once the criminal is thrown in jail?

Who cares about a dysfunctional family if it's not on the news?

Her being raped, her 'victimhood' is no special status. She didn't accomplish anything, and its sure of hell nothing to be proud of.

And speaking about her victimhood verbatim isn't going to stop cases like this from happening in the future.

CNN's coverage didn't deserve the scorn that it received. That coverage highlighted the entirety of the tragedy. And yes, it was a tragedy on all sides.

By covering everything, hopefully it will be made clear how unacceptable rape is.
CNN had more journalistic integrity than Fox, MSNBC, The View or any of the other shitty programs.


Short of alternative media, CNN is the only media outlet with constantly high ratings. I wonder why?

Unbelievable,you somehow described what culture is and still couldn't understand it. Shall I highlight some words for you:


common prevalent normalize tolerate condone

I'm going to give you the definition of each and every word and BY GOD hopefully you can read.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/common

Common: "a. Occurring frequently or habitually; usual."

In other words, a 'Rape Culture' would be in which rape is perpetuated on a consistent basis. Wanna know what we call those? A war zone! Such as the Rape of Nanking in WW2. Or in Sub Africa. Civilized nations do not have such a frequent rape occurrence.

Prevalent: "in general use or acceptance." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Prevalent

This coincides with Common, but with a distinct difference. This is terminology that describes the sheep following the Shepherd. And so, let me ask you: Is there a Pro-rape group. In other words, a group that advocates or condones rape?

Furthermore, does said group garner political support, advocacy and any political power at all?

I'm just going to go out on the strongest limb ever and say 'no' :D.

Now, Normalize:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/normalize

" To make normal, especially to cause to conform to a standard or norm."

Let me give you a descriptive example: The Civil Rights legislation normalized equality among all people regardless of age, sexual or racial differences.

Has there been any actions, legal or otherwise that has normalized rape? Rape is 'normal' to the extent that it's one of the more frequent crimes. But it is not normalized or tolerated in society. Or, if one were to make the argument that it is normalized, then it would be at the hands of females who sometimes openly and not so openly admit to their rape fetish.

But as far as Western society in general, rape is not condoned by law. One can argue we don't persecute hard enough, this is partly due to the statue of limitations, as well as the difference in damage.

When a murder or a theft occurs, or even when assault or battery occurs, there's very visible damage. The psychological damage of rape is significant, I'm not minimizing it. But before the visible eyes, with which we humans judge its often hard to recognize that fact.

Hence, its more serial rapists who get significant charges(such as Sandusky.)


Here's the definition of Tolerate:
"To allow without prohibiting or opposing"


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Tolerate

More and more, as we dissect what a culture is, I'm finding that we don't have a "rape culture." If the actions of those men were tolerated, they wouldn't have been charged or convicted. They wouldn't have even so far as saw one police officer.

Some will say that they were tolerated due to the lesser sentencing. But the fact remains that they will be incarcerated and they will be labeled sex offenders for the rest of their lives. They were sentenced, but they weren't prosecuted.

What they did was wrong and were punished for it, but did they deserve to be literally lynched and mobbed over? Justice isn't about lynching, or at least that's Western concepts. But rather, a sentence that fits the crime.(And even then, I'd argue there is no 'sentence' that truly ever fits a crime.)

CNN didn't tolerate their actions by mentioning what the consequences of their action would mean to them. They sympathized with them.

Sympathy: To feel or express compassion, as for another's suffering.

Sympathy isn't the same as forgiveness, but it is synonymous with another word: Understanding.

And just because the suffering came from their own actions doesn't mean you can't feel sympathy for them. A family was torn apart, no one won in this case here. The tragic stories should be heard by all.


And here's Condone, just to give you a full understanding:

Condone: To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.

In other words, if your fantasy of a 'rape culture' were reality these men wouldn't have been convicted. They would've been found not guilty. Or even better yet, the criminal's family actually pleaded for a lenient sentence.

If their actions were condoned, either the judge or the victim's family would have consented.

Alas, they didn't. There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. "Rape Culture".

I can't believe I gave you the definition of culture and you still couldn't comprehend it. If there were such a thing as a "rape culture", it would be allowed, accepted and it wouldn't even be insofar as on the news. The reactions you see, are not justifying rape.

But rather, the reactions you see are one of self pity, guilt, imagining what if it were their child on trial. And the understanding that the concept of a 'victim' is a very outdated concept.

If she's a victim, she's one of her own stupidity. Her own choices. You might want to say she shouldn't be a victim of her own choices, but that defies the very idea of responsibility. Which, leads us to the backwards world of today.

A 'rape culture', no. A lack of responsibility culture. Which stems to the lack of school attendance, the lack of stability in parental homes and so forth and on it goes.

If parents avoid their responsibilities, what will kids do? And if those kids(who become adults) avoid responsibilities, what do you think will be the outcome of the next generation?

Both the aggressor and the victim made terrible decisions, resulting in what took place. And they wouldn't have been in the position in the first place if our society still valued responsibility.

Stop talking about a 'rape culture' that doesn't exist. When you say the words 'rape culture', you propose a reason to be a victim. And you ultimately ignore the real problem.

Its a parental problem, its a teaching problem as well(how many resources are devoted to social skills? I doubt many, if any. Since people arrogantly think if they're "normal" they don't need said classes.)

And damn straight, its a social media problem. A lack of responsibility, deflecting blame onto others. THIS is the culture that has allowed the perpetuation of crime and the lines between guilty and innocent to be blurred. They are blurred because the guilty deflect their crimes on the innocent.

And the innocent in this case, has the potential to become nothing but a waste in her life(tragic), blaming what happened for her own future struggles(I hope that doesn't occur).

But it can occur, because that's what a society that lacks of self responsibility does. It perpetuates a constant cycle of victimhood. So, will you break the cycle or will you still somehow define 'rape' as a culture, even though you can't prove that this country or even a bloc of people anywhere celebrate the concept of rape yet alone the rapist.

I'll help you where you could find such a thing: Amongst a bunch of rapists.

Yeah, some culture. It's a real, REAL small one.

There is no "justice" for someone who was wronged. Whether it's rape, murder or theft. The violator already perpetuated the crime, has already taken something, etc. "Justice", is a feel good word designed to do exactly that: Make us feel better.

I don't think there's a "rape culture". For such a culture to exist, rape wouldn't be a crime to begin with. In other words, the teenagers wouldn't have been accused of and then convicted of a "crime". They wouldn't be registered as sex offenders.

For it to be a culture, it would be celebrated, talked about, etc. Here's the definition of Culture:

http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/choudhury/culture.html

"A culture is a way of life of a group of people--the behaviors, beliefs, values, and symbols that they accept, generally without thinking about them, and that are passed along by communication and imitation from one generation to the next."

Yes, that so totally describes rape and how it's perceived in North America....Not.

What people dislike isn't a "culture" that doesn't exist. If a culture does exist, it's one that takes away responsibility. The culture of self apathy, self loathing and self disregard has manifested in the U.S.

Yes, this applies much the same to the attackers, as to the "victim"(of her own stupidity). What the hell is she doin late out at night, underaged and drinking?

No, she wasn't responsible for her assailant's evil decisions. But she was responsible for her own personal safety, a lesson she unfortunately learned the hard way.

A lesson, we should all care to learn: Our greatest ally is ourselves. Even our family, closest friends and lovers are our important allies because they think of US in mind. You might think in the ideal world, that you should be able to trust "every stranger."

But that "stranger" is a human being with his/her own sense of individuality, why should that person enter you into their life? Even among those who are "popular", the "popular" person is so, because the majority of the people lacked individuality.

And if you weren't a individual that could easily be accepted(IE: You weren't a suit(personality) easily worn), you wouldn't be popular. To be popular is to be used, abused and discarded.

Like this woman tragically was.