Korean missile...

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

Who are you talking about? The US has drones everywhere, which ones are you refering to?

...pirates off the coast of Somalia...terrorist sects across the border in lawless areas of Pakistan...

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

If the US has legal right to patrol or assist in military or police efforts in those areas then there is nothing wrong with it.

I am talking about countries like Iran and Syria, N. Korea and Russia, where spying on them is confrontational, and may encourage further conflict.

But that's not what I was talking about.

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

If the US has legal right to patrol or assist in military or police efforts in those areas then there is nothing wrong with it.

I am talking about countries like Iran and Syria, N. Korea and Russia, where spying on them is confrontational, and may encourage further conflict.

Those are potential risks for USA. Hence why are government spies on them. If you even hear of an inking that could pose an threat to an nation, you bet that nation will look into it.

Point to make every country has the right to defend itself in how it sees fit, spying being one of those answers. Nations will keep there interests over others.

[cridgit001]

You cant make everyone happy all of the time.

[alanX]

Originally Posted by cridgit001

You cant make everyone happy all of the time.

I really really wanna say something in response to this, but I think it would get me banned, so I'd better not say it. But gosh would it be hilarious if I just said it.


I'm chuckling just thinking about it.

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

So nukes are negotiating tools?

They deter war, because who ever wants to mess with you will get one up their arse, right? Very civil.

Was bombing Japan "defensvie"? The goal was to provide a strong retaliation to recover from Pearl Harbour. Not to mention, you could have said Japan was on the defensive. The USA placed a massive military force in Hawaii, threatening Japan. The goal of Japan was pre emptivly defensive in that it was attempting to deter the US from invading.

Of course, we can argue until the cows come home about who is defensive, and what is self defence, what is retaliation, and what is offensive, the point that we could argue for so long would only express my view that it is difficult for me to see who is in the right from the wrong. Was bombing Japan really so necessary? Is murdering civilians really the right thing to do? When you have two murderers, shame on the man who expects you to determine which one is "just".

Only fact remaining that is clear after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Peral Harbour, is if the US went to war with Iran and was at risk of actually losing, it without doubt would nuke Tehran in order to win. Is that a right thing to do? Knowing it is probable were that to happen, is it not smart just to disarm nukes from countries, rather than weigh up the value of millions of civilians?

Also, Iran is actually quite powerful and has high morale, don't think it'd be a push over.

Of course, you'll probably reply saying it is justified to murder in such an indiscriminate way rather than losing to Iran. To which I can only sink my face into my hands in disapointment you can so easily murder the innocent.

At the end of the day, nukes have one purpose; mass murder. They're little different than a Nazi concerntration camp, only more effective. Designed to wipe the planet clean from those who would do you ill... when did you become the only person around capable of judging who is right and wrong, good and evil? Why should you be the only one with a "delete button" for the planet? Why should anyone have that power?

Iran is little different from America; a shitload of people who think they know the true way, and will use any means necessary to enforce that way. Conviction like that, leads to bad things.

I just now noticed this post.

What? I'm flabbergasted at this post. Seriously comparing Nukes to Nazi concentration camps is OVER the line. Stop, seriously take an break, you've gone into personal attacks and need to calm down.

On that I'm very offended that you say Iran is little different from America. Shall we deal with facts buddy? Iran has promised to wipe Israel of the map, supports Hasbala, sent weapons to Iraq, denied the Holocaust, when has the US done any ting remotely like Iran?

When did I say they were not weapons of war? I mean swords, missiles, guns, knives, bows, etc are where meant to kill men. The only difference is the level of destruction that each one causes. On that should we stop everyone from having different levels of killing available to them? "once the cats out of the box it's hard to put back in" rings true to nuclear weapons. We can never erase them completely.

I really must ask you to check Iran and US military might. I can care less for "who will win" matches. The only thing that hinders the military right now, is two wars, and Iran is no different from Afghanistan in terms of technological might and tactic supremacy. That said, even if losing we would never use an nuke, I would expect you to at least understand the implications of using such an weapon. I also must ask you to refrain from making accusations that I care little for life, and would be ok with civilian deaths (thus another reason why the US would not use an nuke again).

We where winning the war with Japan when we used the bombs. So I don't think that makes the argument that we would use an bomb in such an way. Everyone is basically disarming so I don't see the argument in saying the US doesn't wait the lives of others highly.

I really also must ask you to look at history and see what happened during world war 2. In terms of US lives lost verses Japanese the government made the decision that storming Japan would amount to such high casualties that using the bomb was necessarily. (Any and all governments should value there civilians, and soldiers highly then other nations). Was not the world at war and towns bombed? I want you to point your finger at EVERYONE not just America.

Where did you read or come up with that? What grounds do you have to say the USA planed to invade another country when at the time it was practices Isolationism (we had to be attacked to join the two World Wars)? Did you also now that Japan attacked China during World War 2, so I don't see your defensive argument. Like I said in the previous paragraph the decision to save American lives to the Government outweighed invading Japan when at the time, the mentality of the Japanese would mean everyone attacking US soldiers. History tells they where hard enough to fight then, to try to do it on there own homeland (surrender wasn't in there vocabulary).

Cold War is the war to look at. I promise you that there would have been another war if it was not for nukes. A weapon that can wipe your whole army off is an very big deterrent to war. There's nothing civil about it, we just learn to recognize not to tread heavily with an nation that no matter how small poses an serous risk to devastating your entire armed force. Nukes have no value other then preventing wars at this stage in the 21st century. That is not to say small war's have broken out with the USA in them, in all those not an single nuke was used (we even where losing Vietnam)

check this out

WikiAnswers - Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor

Spying is offensive and defensive at both times, since it involves actually been in another country or hacking now. There's two right associated with this that every country has come to understand. We catch your spy, we reserve the right to do what not to them, and they have an right to defend themselves how they see fit.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

I wouldn't call it defence, however. It is too provocative, it is likely to insight more hatred, thus is more offensive.

Provocative? Doesn't everyone use spies?

[komitsuki]

So far, according to the South Korean news source recently, the head of the North Korean military said that he officially "warmed up" the artillery force right next to the DMZ close to Seoul if either South Korea or America do a single dangerous thing. Problem is:



Yeah, the artillery range basically swallows beyond Seoul as an appetizer.

Then there's a growing frustration by the South Korean public against the President Lee Myeong-bak about this North Korean issue.

Overall how I see it up until now. The whole missile crisis is North Korea wants one of these:

1. Motivate the already angry South Korean public to kick the pro-American president out of the office. Since the South Korean "militarism" decades ago is gone today, it will be open for possibility.

As a South Korean, I don't mind Lee Myeong-bak being impeached. Screw this guy anyways. He did more harm to the average South Korean citizens than we imagined.

2. North Korea is very uncertain about the world's financial crisis that could possibly cut the supply line.

3. The current president recommended the former pro-North Korean president to be investigated and the North Korean government is frustrated about this.

4. North Korea wants to re-evaluate its military force in this fast-changing diplomatic environment.

Yeah, that's about it.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by komitsuki

So far, according to the South Korean news source recently, the head of the North Korean military said that he officially "warmed up" the artillery force right next to the DMZ close to Seoul if either South Korea or America do a single dangerous thing.

What defines a "dangerous thing"?

[komitsuki]

Originally Posted by MMM

What defines a "dangerous thing"?

an attack towards North Korea by the American forces in South Korea or the South Korean army.