Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
K, do you think Mexico should surrender their sovereignty to the U.S. because our economy is better?
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
YZGI;977529 wrote: K, do you think Mexico should surrender their sovereignty to the U.S. because our economy is better?
The difference being Mexico does not have to surrender their sovereignty to the US...If the US wanted to take control over Mexico they could...
I expect everyone within the US to help the peoples of Mexico estabolish a prosperous economy. All I ask in return is that the people of Mexico help themselves as well to their utmost ability as anyone in the world should...
The difference being Mexico does not have to surrender their sovereignty to the US...If the US wanted to take control over Mexico they could...
I expect everyone within the US to help the peoples of Mexico estabolish a prosperous economy. All I ask in return is that the people of Mexico help themselves as well to their utmost ability as anyone in the world should...
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
K.Snyder;977691 wrote: The difference being Mexico does not have to surrender their sovereignty to the US...If the US wanted to take control over Mexico they could...
I expect everyone within the US to help the peoples of Mexico estabolish a prosperous economy. All I ask in return is that the people of Mexico help themselves as well to their utmost ability as anyone in the world should...
How does this answer relate to the situation in Korea?
I expect everyone within the US to help the peoples of Mexico estabolish a prosperous economy. All I ask in return is that the people of Mexico help themselves as well to their utmost ability as anyone in the world should...
How does this answer relate to the situation in Korea?
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
Bryn Mawr;977709 wrote: How does this answer relate to the situation in Korea?
I was answering YZGIs' question YZGI;977529 wrote: K, do you think Mexico should surrender their sovereignty to the U.S. because our economy is better?
I was answering YZGIs' question YZGI;977529 wrote: K, do you think Mexico should surrender their sovereignty to the U.S. because our economy is better?
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
K.Snyder;977712 wrote: I was answering YZGIs' question
I couldn't see how the answer related to the implicit question - given that you believe that NK should surrender and place themselves under SK so that their population need not suffer poverty why should Mexico not place themselves under the US for the same reason?
I couldn't see how the answer related to the implicit question - given that you believe that NK should surrender and place themselves under SK so that their population need not suffer poverty why should Mexico not place themselves under the US for the same reason?
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
Or you mean that North Korea does not have to surrender their sovereignty to South Korea to have a stronger economy...Considering this post I don't give much credibility to kim jong-il and his ideology for vica versa...
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
Bryn Mawr;977719 wrote: I couldn't see how the answer related to the implicit question - given that you believe that NK should surrender and place themselves under SK so that their population need not suffer poverty why should Mexico not place themselves under the US for the same reason?
They can...I was emphasizing the preference to not use the word "should" in the context of force rather choice...
That and I feel that Mexicos' economy is much better than North Koreas' from which makes the question ever so more incrementally imprudent...
They can...I was emphasizing the preference to not use the word "should" in the context of force rather choice...
That and I feel that Mexicos' economy is much better than North Koreas' from which makes the question ever so more incrementally imprudent...
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
If you get "poverty" from...The economy of Mexico is 12th largest in the world, with a gross domestic product (by PPP estimate) that surpassed a trillion dollars in 2004, measured in purchasing power parity. As of July 2008, it has also surpassed a trillion dollars measured nominally as the peso has gained 10% against the dollar, making it currently the 13th largest by that measure. Mexico has a free market and export-oriented economy and is firmly established as an advanced middle-income country.wiki
...renders the conjecture all the more justified...
How can it not be?...
...renders the conjecture all the more justified...
How can it not be?...
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
YZGI;977529 wrote: K, do you think Mexico should surrender their sovereignty to the U.S. because our economy is better?
I'd like to ask you a question if I may...
Do you feel Mexico has the right to remain sovereign upon subjecting it's people to poverty relative to the level of GDP Mexico sustains?...
I'd like to ask you a question if I may...
Do you feel Mexico has the right to remain sovereign upon subjecting it's people to poverty relative to the level of GDP Mexico sustains?...
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
K.Snyder;977842 wrote: I'd like to ask you a question if I may...
Do you feel Mexico has the right to remain sovereign upon subjecting it's people to poverty relative to the level of GDP Mexico sustains?...
Every country on the planet has the right to conduct its own internal affairs in whatever way it wants to so long as it avoids breaching International Law in the process as regards genocide and mass torture.
Do you feel Mexico has the right to remain sovereign upon subjecting it's people to poverty relative to the level of GDP Mexico sustains?...
Every country on the planet has the right to conduct its own internal affairs in whatever way it wants to so long as it avoids breaching International Law in the process as regards genocide and mass torture.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
K.Snyder;977842 wrote: I'd like to ask you a question if I may...
Do you feel Mexico has the right to remain sovereign upon subjecting it's people to poverty relative to the level of GDP Mexico sustains?...
spot;978006 wrote: Every country on the planet has the right to conduct its own internal affairs in whatever way it wants to so long as it avoids breaching International Law in the process as regards genocide and mass torture.
I'll go with Spots answer, thanks Spot.
Now when we start asking countries to give up their sovereignity at what level of supposed poverty do we draw the line and who's level of living do we use as the standard? See, it just diesn't work.
Do you feel Mexico has the right to remain sovereign upon subjecting it's people to poverty relative to the level of GDP Mexico sustains?...
spot;978006 wrote: Every country on the planet has the right to conduct its own internal affairs in whatever way it wants to so long as it avoids breaching International Law in the process as regards genocide and mass torture.
I'll go with Spots answer, thanks Spot.
Now when we start asking countries to give up their sovereignity at what level of supposed poverty do we draw the line and who's level of living do we use as the standard? See, it just diesn't work.
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
spot;978006 wrote: Every country on the planet has the right to conduct its own internal affairs in whatever way it wants to so long as it avoids breaching International Law in the process as regards genocide and mass torture.
I consider "mass torture" to be subjecting peoples to malnutrition and famine to the point, but not limited to, a 10 year differential between worldly life expectancy averages...
And no other nation should ever be left alone when there are peoples to whom are not benefiting to the best of already proven worldly averages associated with every aspect of life.:Key word: "Life".
I consider "mass torture" to be subjecting peoples to malnutrition and famine to the point, but not limited to, a 10 year differential between worldly life expectancy averages...
And no other nation should ever be left alone when there are peoples to whom are not benefiting to the best of already proven worldly averages associated with every aspect of life.:Key word: "Life".
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
YZGI;978460 wrote: I'll go with Spots answer, thanks Spot.
Post #62
YZGI;978460 wrote:
Now when we start asking countries to give up their sovereignity at what level of supposed poverty do we draw the line and who's level of living do we use as the standard? Simple...Just like a curved grading structure in school...I'm quite sure you're familiar with it...We base said curvature on the worlds greatest economies...YZGI;978460 wrote:
See, it just diesn't work.It doesn't work because you choose to not give it a chance...Which is why most people sit in their homes and does nothing.
Post #62
YZGI;978460 wrote:
Now when we start asking countries to give up their sovereignity at what level of supposed poverty do we draw the line and who's level of living do we use as the standard? Simple...Just like a curved grading structure in school...I'm quite sure you're familiar with it...We base said curvature on the worlds greatest economies...YZGI;978460 wrote:
See, it just diesn't work.It doesn't work because you choose to not give it a chance...Which is why most people sit in their homes and does nothing.
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
K.Snyder;978967 wrote: I consider "mass torture" to be subjecting peoples to malnutrition and famine to the point, but not limited to, a 10 year differential between worldly life expectancy averages...
And no other nation should ever be left alone when there are peoples to whom are not benefiting to the best of already proven worldly averages associated with every aspect of life.:Key word: "Life".
The USA should immediately and voluntarily submit to Japanese administration by that argument then. Japan has an average life expectancy at birth of 82 years compared to 78 years in the USA, and malnutrition is a defining aspect of life in America. No other nation should ever be left alone when there are people who are not benefiting from the best of already proven world averages associated with every aspect of life.:Key word: "Life".
And no other nation should ever be left alone when there are peoples to whom are not benefiting to the best of already proven worldly averages associated with every aspect of life.:Key word: "Life".
The USA should immediately and voluntarily submit to Japanese administration by that argument then. Japan has an average life expectancy at birth of 82 years compared to 78 years in the USA, and malnutrition is a defining aspect of life in America. No other nation should ever be left alone when there are people who are not benefiting from the best of already proven world averages associated with every aspect of life.:Key word: "Life".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
spot;979254 wrote: The USA should immediately and voluntarily submit to Japanese administration by that argument then. Japan has an average life expectancy at birth of 82 years compared to 78 years in the USA, and malnutrition is a defining aspect of life in America. No other nation should ever be left alone when there are people who are not benefiting from the best of already proven world averages associated with every aspect of life.:Key word: "Life".
Yes but what you forget is ""No other nation should ever be left alone when there are people who are not benefiting from the best of already proven world averages associated with every aspect of life.:Key word: "Life"."" is definitive in the other end of the spectrum being those only need be subject to said virtue in ""other nations should be left alone when there are people who are benefiting from the best of already proven world averages associated with every aspect of life.:Key word: "Life"."" ...
America is above ""the best of already proven world averages associated with every aspect of life"" -- North Korea is not.
Do you think I'm being argumentative or actually care about people?
Yes but what you forget is ""No other nation should ever be left alone when there are people who are not benefiting from the best of already proven world averages associated with every aspect of life.:Key word: "Life"."" is definitive in the other end of the spectrum being those only need be subject to said virtue in ""other nations should be left alone when there are people who are benefiting from the best of already proven world averages associated with every aspect of life.:Key word: "Life"."" ...
America is above ""the best of already proven world averages associated with every aspect of life"" -- North Korea is not.
Do you think I'm being argumentative or actually care about people?
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
Besides,..there is much more poverty in the world for Japan to be able to handle themselves without subjecting themselves to a much depleted lifestyle...
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
K.Snyder;979262 wrote: Do you think I'm being argumentative or actually care about people?I think no country has had any benefit from being invaded since World War Two, that most countries invaded since World War Two have been invaded by the USA and that the objective of the USA in invading them has invariably been self-interest, not improving the country they invade. If you can think of a country that's been invaded since World War Two which has improved as a result then do tell us which it was. Putting a cut-off at World War Two is so we can focus on reasonably current events, if you really want to go back further then do tell me.
Guatemala was torn apart, Nicaragua was torn apart, San Salvador was torn apart, Vietnam was torn apart, Iraq's been torn apart, US interests in Kuwait were re-established at a huge cost in lives, Panama was a bloodbath with no redeeming feature for the Panamanians. In every case the cost's been borne by the unarmed poor. Afghanistan's a disaster area, Iraq's a catastrophe which will be anti-American for the rest of our lifetimes just as Iran's been after having the puppet Shah imposed on them. The list's endless.
It might be arguable that the end result of the Falklands war was a benefit to the Argentinians but that was scarcely the reason for invading.
If the purpose of invading a country were really to bring a benefit to the people living there, why did the US pick on Iraq instead of North Korea in 2003? Which people, from your point of view, needed the intervention more?
Guatemala was torn apart, Nicaragua was torn apart, San Salvador was torn apart, Vietnam was torn apart, Iraq's been torn apart, US interests in Kuwait were re-established at a huge cost in lives, Panama was a bloodbath with no redeeming feature for the Panamanians. In every case the cost's been borne by the unarmed poor. Afghanistan's a disaster area, Iraq's a catastrophe which will be anti-American for the rest of our lifetimes just as Iran's been after having the puppet Shah imposed on them. The list's endless.
It might be arguable that the end result of the Falklands war was a benefit to the Argentinians but that was scarcely the reason for invading.
If the purpose of invading a country were really to bring a benefit to the people living there, why did the US pick on Iraq instead of North Korea in 2003? Which people, from your point of view, needed the intervention more?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
spot;979269 wrote: I think no country has had any benefit from being invaded since World War Two, that most countries invaded since World War Two have been invaded by the USA and that the objective of the USA in invading them has invariably been self-interest, not improving the country they invade. If you can think of a country that's been invaded since World War Two which has improved as a result then do tell us which it was. Putting a cut-off at World War Two is so we can focus on reasonably current events, if you really want to go back further then do tell me.
Guatemala was torn apart, Nicaragua was torn apart, San Salvador was torn apart, Vietnam was torn apart, Iraq's been torn apart, US interests in Kuwait were re-established at a huge cost in lives, Panama was a bloodbath with no redeeming feature for the Panamanians. In every case the cost's been borne by the unarmed poor. Afghanistan's a disaster area, Iraq's a catastrophe which will be anti-American for the rest of our lifetimes just as Iran's been after having the puppet Shah imposed on them. The list's endless.
It might be arguable that the end result of the Falklands war was a benefit to the Argentinians but that was scarcely the reason for invading.
If the purpose of invading a country were really to bring a benefit to the people living there, why did the US pick on Iraq instead of North Korea in 2003? Which people, from your point of view, needed the intervention more?
spot(And I'm not capitalizing your name because I've written as you have) I don't have all of the answers. I wish I did. I will not justify any wrong doing just because I've been born under a damn flag. I don't however feel America is evil and quite frankly I couldn't be further from that end point. In all honesty I can tell you that if I had the power to make the decisions having been made I can certainly almost guarantee that I wouldn't have made all of them to be similar.
"invading" can be such a definitive word to me...I do believe in pre-emptive war but only in being 100% certain such would lead to the benefit of everything moral. I refuse to justify the attack upon any peoples without my knowing 100% in how and why it were done. I think alot of what's come of America has begun with good intentions from which has been shockingly obscure but I think the reason for this has alot to do with flawed tactics. We're young. My God do people realize how young America is? All this power given by virtue of present technology and countless leaders to whom have failed before them giving credence to much better diplomatic relations but those like to forget what once was and are focused too much on the want to see everything be instantaneously perfect without allowing for mistakes.
I see a good country in America. I couldn't think of a better place I'd rather live(And please don't think I don't know about other countries -- I'm tired of having to defend myself on this board to all people because I've made a statement and they've chosen to assume I were trying to imply something.). I couldn't think of anything more intriguing than to visit other countries to experience other cultures and history...But sometimes I have to stop and ask if I will be accepted. Do you have any idea how much that infuriates me? And no I'm not suggesting it's all others' fault...I know my country has fd up before. I wouldn't for a minute justify war unless it were absolutely necessary.
I cannot say I'd justify the war in Iraq at the moment. Not in how it's been conducted at present time. For anyone to think I'm the only one that feels that way is laughable. What's evident is the fact that the majority of the US hadn't voted for Bush. Do people forget about that part?
Given todays' circumstances I cannot see pulling out of Iraq now being in the best interests of a majority of people...Perhaps you can convince me otherwise...Obviously my idea pertaining to this is based off of Iraq at least having a much more better chance of becoming adequately sovereign after having remained there for what I'd like to think another 5 years.
My government is perfect, but the government of peoples to whom claim the name of the United States of America is not! I know this. I do not however feel that the majority of peoples within America is evil. Not even close.
And all of you fat cat business people who could care less who dies so that you can get your money you can damn well bet I'd wage war on you personally if I knew I wouldn't be subject to the torture of confinement.
Guatemala was torn apart, Nicaragua was torn apart, San Salvador was torn apart, Vietnam was torn apart, Iraq's been torn apart, US interests in Kuwait were re-established at a huge cost in lives, Panama was a bloodbath with no redeeming feature for the Panamanians. In every case the cost's been borne by the unarmed poor. Afghanistan's a disaster area, Iraq's a catastrophe which will be anti-American for the rest of our lifetimes just as Iran's been after having the puppet Shah imposed on them. The list's endless.
It might be arguable that the end result of the Falklands war was a benefit to the Argentinians but that was scarcely the reason for invading.
If the purpose of invading a country were really to bring a benefit to the people living there, why did the US pick on Iraq instead of North Korea in 2003? Which people, from your point of view, needed the intervention more?
spot(And I'm not capitalizing your name because I've written as you have) I don't have all of the answers. I wish I did. I will not justify any wrong doing just because I've been born under a damn flag. I don't however feel America is evil and quite frankly I couldn't be further from that end point. In all honesty I can tell you that if I had the power to make the decisions having been made I can certainly almost guarantee that I wouldn't have made all of them to be similar.
"invading" can be such a definitive word to me...I do believe in pre-emptive war but only in being 100% certain such would lead to the benefit of everything moral. I refuse to justify the attack upon any peoples without my knowing 100% in how and why it were done. I think alot of what's come of America has begun with good intentions from which has been shockingly obscure but I think the reason for this has alot to do with flawed tactics. We're young. My God do people realize how young America is? All this power given by virtue of present technology and countless leaders to whom have failed before them giving credence to much better diplomatic relations but those like to forget what once was and are focused too much on the want to see everything be instantaneously perfect without allowing for mistakes.
I see a good country in America. I couldn't think of a better place I'd rather live(And please don't think I don't know about other countries -- I'm tired of having to defend myself on this board to all people because I've made a statement and they've chosen to assume I were trying to imply something.). I couldn't think of anything more intriguing than to visit other countries to experience other cultures and history...But sometimes I have to stop and ask if I will be accepted. Do you have any idea how much that infuriates me? And no I'm not suggesting it's all others' fault...I know my country has fd up before. I wouldn't for a minute justify war unless it were absolutely necessary.
I cannot say I'd justify the war in Iraq at the moment. Not in how it's been conducted at present time. For anyone to think I'm the only one that feels that way is laughable. What's evident is the fact that the majority of the US hadn't voted for Bush. Do people forget about that part?
Given todays' circumstances I cannot see pulling out of Iraq now being in the best interests of a majority of people...Perhaps you can convince me otherwise...Obviously my idea pertaining to this is based off of Iraq at least having a much more better chance of becoming adequately sovereign after having remained there for what I'd like to think another 5 years.
My government is perfect, but the government of peoples to whom claim the name of the United States of America is not! I know this. I do not however feel that the majority of peoples within America is evil. Not even close.
And all of you fat cat business people who could care less who dies so that you can get your money you can damn well bet I'd wage war on you personally if I knew I wouldn't be subject to the torture of confinement.
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
On a side note:
North Korea vs South Korea World Cup Qualifier Relocated to China
By: Daryl | March 14th, 2008 |
When World Cup qualifying resumes in Asia on March 26th, there’s arguably only one game worth watching. North Korea vs South Korea. Especially if the drama and tension on the field can match what’s been happening off the field.
The controversy so far: North Korea are the home team, but won’t allow South Korean to display their flag or sing their national anthem in the Kim Il-sung Stadium in Pyongyang. The proposed alternative of using a joint flag and a non-partisan Korean folk song was probably the best solution. Which is why it was way too optimistic.
So FIFA have stepped in and come with another alternative: a field trip to China. So North Korea vs South Korea will now be played at Hongkou Football Stadium in Shanghai, where both teams can wave their flags and sing their national anthems to their hearts content. But if I’m a North Korean football fan and my team loses this game, I’m thinking that my government sacrificed an important home field advantage over a rectangle of patterned material and a song. http://www.worldcupblog.org/world-cup-q ... china.html
It's a bit biased but the truth doesn't lie...
The last game on June 22 2008 ended in a 0-0 draw...
I can't say who I'll be rooting for so I'll just watch neutrally...
North Korea vs South Korea World Cup Qualifier Relocated to China
By: Daryl | March 14th, 2008 |
When World Cup qualifying resumes in Asia on March 26th, there’s arguably only one game worth watching. North Korea vs South Korea. Especially if the drama and tension on the field can match what’s been happening off the field.
The controversy so far: North Korea are the home team, but won’t allow South Korean to display their flag or sing their national anthem in the Kim Il-sung Stadium in Pyongyang. The proposed alternative of using a joint flag and a non-partisan Korean folk song was probably the best solution. Which is why it was way too optimistic.
So FIFA have stepped in and come with another alternative: a field trip to China. So North Korea vs South Korea will now be played at Hongkou Football Stadium in Shanghai, where both teams can wave their flags and sing their national anthems to their hearts content. But if I’m a North Korean football fan and my team loses this game, I’m thinking that my government sacrificed an important home field advantage over a rectangle of patterned material and a song. http://www.worldcupblog.org/world-cup-q ... china.html
It's a bit biased but the truth doesn't lie...
The last game on June 22 2008 ended in a 0-0 draw...
I can't say who I'll be rooting for so I'll just watch neutrally...
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
K.Snyder;979275 wrote: "invading" can be such a definitive word to me...I do believe in pre-emptive war but only in being 100% certain such would lead to the benefit of everything moral. I refuse to justify the attack upon any peoples without my knowing 100% in how and why it were done. I think alot of what's come of America has begun with good intentions from which has been shockingly obscure but I think the reason for this has alot to do with flawed tactics. We're young. My God do people realize how young America is? All this power given by virtue of present technology and countless leaders to whom have failed before them giving credence to much better diplomatic relations but those like to forget what once was and are focused too much on the want to see everything be instantaneously perfect without allowing for mistakes. That would be fine if it had a history of invading where those noble ambitions had ever been achieved. By all means invade, I'd be a hundred percent behind the idea except that it never ever leads to a good outcome for the country invaded (or subverted, that's much the same in my book). You can't just keep trying it and trying it and having such lousy outcomes. Reality's trying to give you a message and your country's simply refusing to listen if what it intends is improving the countries it goes into with guns blazing.
What I suggest, as an alternative, is that the US does these things purely for self-interest and to get the most from the common pot of the world's wealth for itself. That, you see, has been the result of all these invasions. Is it more likely that your explanation for US intervention is right, despite it never achieving those ends, or mine where the rich in America invariably get richer every time US armed forces get sent into harm's way. Who are those troops fighting for? They've been trained since birth to salute the flag and honour the military. What a surprise.
What I suggest, as an alternative, is that the US does these things purely for self-interest and to get the most from the common pot of the world's wealth for itself. That, you see, has been the result of all these invasions. Is it more likely that your explanation for US intervention is right, despite it never achieving those ends, or mine where the rich in America invariably get richer every time US armed forces get sent into harm's way. Who are those troops fighting for? They've been trained since birth to salute the flag and honour the military. What a surprise.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
K.Snyder;978970 wrote: Post #62
Simple...Just like a curved grading structure in school...I'm quite sure you're familiar with it...We base said curvature on the worlds greatest economies...
It's hard to give something a chance when there is absolutely no chance of it happening. By the way, what are you doing to make it happen?
Simple...Just like a curved grading structure in school...I'm quite sure you're familiar with it...We base said curvature on the worlds greatest economies...
It's hard to give something a chance when there is absolutely no chance of it happening. By the way, what are you doing to make it happen?
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
spot;979306 wrote: That would be fine if it had a history of invading where those noble ambitions had ever been achieved. By all means invade, I'd be a hundred percent behind the idea except that it never ever leads to a good outcome for the country invaded (or subverted, that's much the same in my book). You can't just keep trying it and trying it and having such lousy outcomes. Reality's trying to give you a message and your country's simply refusing to listen if what it intends is improving the countries it goes into with guns blazing.
What I suggest, as an alternative, is that the US does these things purely for self-interest and to get the most from the common pot of the world's wealth for itself. That, you see, has been the result of all these invasions. Is it more likely that your explanation for US intervention is right, despite it never achieving those ends, or mine where the rich in America invariably get richer every time US armed forces get sent into harm's way. Who are those troops fighting for? They've been trained since birth to salute the flag and honour the military. What a surprise.
America is naive I admit. Very naive. A large part of the problem I think is our governmental influence is way to lob sided...Too many people wanting to show the other side up as opposed to looking outside themselves and taking a third persons' perspective...A huge part of that I know is because of in how young this country is...We haven't had third and fourth generation grandparents to let us know what will or will not work as far as foreign relations are concerned and I'm afraid America is going to get hit with a big dunce stick because of it. You're right. My biggest concern is when one side of the spectrum comes in after the other's committed all out warfare only for them to completely halt every operation in existence and we start all over again...I cannot say I agree with in how we've gone to war with Iraq, but my feeling now is that we have to stay, and not just to show a region the world is not going to put up with terrorists but to show the world that a country not relatively wealthy, or at least it's people, can prosper and is cared for...I don't know why anyone would accept there's any other reason for war...
As for the rich who does not care to whom dies before their money I couldn't despise anyone more. I'm not going to refuse to think in how possible it is for these billionaire corporations to influence this country to go to war. One of many reasons as to why I would much rather see mutual anarchism implemented in many ways associated with business ethics.
What I suggest, as an alternative, is that the US does these things purely for self-interest and to get the most from the common pot of the world's wealth for itself. That, you see, has been the result of all these invasions. Is it more likely that your explanation for US intervention is right, despite it never achieving those ends, or mine where the rich in America invariably get richer every time US armed forces get sent into harm's way. Who are those troops fighting for? They've been trained since birth to salute the flag and honour the military. What a surprise.
America is naive I admit. Very naive. A large part of the problem I think is our governmental influence is way to lob sided...Too many people wanting to show the other side up as opposed to looking outside themselves and taking a third persons' perspective...A huge part of that I know is because of in how young this country is...We haven't had third and fourth generation grandparents to let us know what will or will not work as far as foreign relations are concerned and I'm afraid America is going to get hit with a big dunce stick because of it. You're right. My biggest concern is when one side of the spectrum comes in after the other's committed all out warfare only for them to completely halt every operation in existence and we start all over again...I cannot say I agree with in how we've gone to war with Iraq, but my feeling now is that we have to stay, and not just to show a region the world is not going to put up with terrorists but to show the world that a country not relatively wealthy, or at least it's people, can prosper and is cared for...I don't know why anyone would accept there's any other reason for war...
As for the rich who does not care to whom dies before their money I couldn't despise anyone more. I'm not going to refuse to think in how possible it is for these billionaire corporations to influence this country to go to war. One of many reasons as to why I would much rather see mutual anarchism implemented in many ways associated with business ethics.
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
YZGI;979449 wrote: It's hard to give something a chance when there is absolutely no chance of it happening. By the way, what are you doing to make it happen?
Well I've just given you what I feel is a very justifiable and valid solution. That's how I've helped in making my belief come to fruition. What else could I do?
Oh,..and it would most assuredly work.
You cannot convince me that out of all of the countries in the world getting together to help those deprived of a self sufficient lifestyle there would still be poverty. No sir!
Well I've just given you what I feel is a very justifiable and valid solution. That's how I've helped in making my belief come to fruition. What else could I do?
Oh,..and it would most assuredly work.
You cannot convince me that out of all of the countries in the world getting together to help those deprived of a self sufficient lifestyle there would still be poverty. No sir!
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
K.Snyder;980419 wrote: America is naive I admit. Very naive.No, you're not distinguishing between the people who make decisions and the people who salute the flag. Americans are naive. America is coldly calculating, very greedy and completely amoral in its actions.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
spot;980435 wrote: No, you're not distinguishing between the people who make decisions and the people who salute the flag. Americans are naive. America is coldly calculating, very greedy and completely amoral in its actions.
There are Americans to whom are naive...There are many people to whom are naive...Much in the same I do not know one government that is not amoral.
There are Americans to whom are naive...There are many people to whom are naive...Much in the same I do not know one government that is not amoral.
Would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?...
K.Snyder;979280 wrote: On a side note:
http://www.worldcupblog.org/world-cup-q ... china.html
It's a bit biased but the truth doesn't lie...
The last game on June 22 2008 ended in a 0-0 draw...
I can't say who I'll be rooting for so I'll just watch neutrally...
Oh,..I'd watched the game Korea DPR vs Korea Republic...
I have to say I enjoyed the game...Korea Republic was by far the better team technically but I believe if it weren't for shotty goal keeping Korea DPR would have won as they went 1 up late in the game only for the goalkeeper to blow an easy save...
The game ended in a 1-1 draw...The stadium was virtually empty...I can't help but wonder if Korea DPR would have won had they a biased atmosphere...
Seol Ki-Hyeon didn't play for Korea Republic...He plays for Fulham, the team I support in the English Premier League...
I'd have liked to have seen him play but he's had alot of first team action under Roy Hodgson as of late so I have to imagine thus was the reason...
In any case it was a good game...
http://www.worldcupblog.org/world-cup-q ... china.html
It's a bit biased but the truth doesn't lie...
The last game on June 22 2008 ended in a 0-0 draw...
I can't say who I'll be rooting for so I'll just watch neutrally...
Oh,..I'd watched the game Korea DPR vs Korea Republic...
I have to say I enjoyed the game...Korea Republic was by far the better team technically but I believe if it weren't for shotty goal keeping Korea DPR would have won as they went 1 up late in the game only for the goalkeeper to blow an easy save...
The game ended in a 1-1 draw...The stadium was virtually empty...I can't help but wonder if Korea DPR would have won had they a biased atmosphere...
Seol Ki-Hyeon didn't play for Korea Republic...He plays for Fulham, the team I support in the English Premier League...
I'd have liked to have seen him play but he's had alot of first team action under Roy Hodgson as of late so I have to imagine thus was the reason...
In any case it was a good game...