Kemosave wrote:And as for these hypocritical arguments about how some people in Democratic governments hold religious views my goodness..
What are you talking about? Something about Bush? Well, he sure does hold some religious views. He has even told to the media how he talked to the God about the war in Iraq, and that God told gave a permission to a war. Plus he says he's praying every day. And what about those "God bless" after every speech of him? Not religious?
---> I see you took it all out of context. I was simply explaining that when someone aligns themselves with a Theocracy (as in a Muslim Theocracy for example) or with a totalitarian government that allows only one form of worship usually centered around the leader (such as in North Korea) or a philosophy that doesn't work in reality (such as Communism) and they come on here talking down Democracy (especially if they live in one and enjoy the benefits of it) they are being hypocritcal. Now, as I explained already Bush is a temporary figure that cannot be relected for three consecutive terms. And whether or not you agree that he should be allowed to pray, many people in this country pray and are not persecuted it as in many other parts of the world, and they have a God given (you know Creator God) right to do so. As for the historical traditions that we have here recognizing the Creator God in this country, they are diminishing incrementally (so you can take some joy in that). But until the majority of people here (remember it is a Democracy) desire to have no form of any kind of honoring Creator God in any way, this will continue and it is the will of the people. I hope that day never comes. Part of our strength and freedoms historically derive from belief in Creator God and belief that he is personally involved with our lives and gives us principles with which to live. By the way, you seem to feel strongly that some things are right and some things are wrong. What is your moral basis for that? I want to know. Why are you in a position to judge Creator God and if you don't believe in him then why should we care about what you think is right and wrong anyway as ultimately there is no meaning? What is YOUR moral authority by which you make your claims. I wish to examine it.
You certainly are singing a new tune. There is no perfect system of government that perfectly deals with every potential problem and capitalism has made us a rich nation. It works. Your previous appeals to Jung's communism are a joke. No serious economist in this country is willing to trade away a system that made them well to do for one in which they can starve and be tortured/imprisoned while their kids are brainwashed. And you must not have been hearing me when I said I have been traveling around and this country is the best to live in out of all of them I have visited to date.
I didn't mean that you should turn into a communism. But that's a fact that there's many other countries (in Europe) that has more freedom than you do. That don't mean that you would like those countries more than your homeland. Of course not. Usually people like their home countries the most.
---> Not for much longer. I see the trend is for more restrictions and less freedom in the EU. Eventually you will be firmly under central EU control and you will abide by their laws or pay the price. The honeymoon will end.
Yes, capitalism has made you rich, but many other countries poor. That's the result of an exploitation capitalism. Western countries uses the development countries as a producers of the raw materials. Development countries do not have their own factories, own possibilities, to benefit of their rich natural sources. If you look at the countries that has most of the oil, most of the diamonds, most of the gold, you'll see that pretty much all those countries are relatively poor. And it's particularly wrong, because huge majority of the people of the world are living in development countries, which are being exploited due to benefits of the rich, western countries. And like it or not, USA is the biggest exploiter of them all, but that don't mean that USA is the only country who would have to re-think their ways.
--->Prove it and be specific. I want to see your sources for this. Note that third world countries were poor to begin with and their development has raised their standard of living in our hemisphere anyways in most cases where true development has taken place. People like medicine, technology, and education. We have given more money than you can possibly imagine over the past 100 years to them and for their development. The current trend (you have heard of NAFTA and other free trade agreements right?) is allowing countries all over the world to participate like never before in the world economy. If you don't like natural resources then stop using them. Give up every natural resource tomorrow. I challenge you. The world's demand for natural resources is growing even as the USA's is expected to diminish eventually. I would argue that natural resources were part of the careful plan of Creator God and can, of course, argue that. You don't know much about science though so it would be difficult for you. Now the money we have paid out in for oil alone is astronomical. If we stopped buying oil tomorrow there would be a major world wide depression in the Middle East. See we give them lots of money for their oil and they don't have much else for resources except oil and of course sand. Simple really. You are talking nonsense.
We don't care if Jung and his legion of brainwashers (brainwashing only his populace of course) hates us. We would like to do away with him and return North Korea to the Koreans. Judging by the increased number of defectors; Jung's claim of divinity along with his ability to deliver are starting to fall on deaf ears. All he needs to do is step down and give North Korea back to the Koreans. He is in the way of what is best for his people across the board and it is sad to see ignorant people outside of North Korea support him.
Re-uniting the Koreas isn't that easy as you think it is. That don't happen by just changing the president of the North Korea. But why wouldn't you care if people are hating you? It's never good to have too many enemies. And you know, there must be something wrong in your policy if every second nation in the world hates you. If your meanings are as thoroughly good as you say, then why people don't get it? Is the problem in you, or in the others? And why?
---> We'd be happy just to have a President in North Korea who was democratically elected by the people for the people (I'm not talking about mark the one box or you get a bullet your head type voting Jung currently engages in either). The reason why I don't care if you hate me is because to me you are big hypocryte. You enjoy the wonders of high tech in the wealthy civilized world of Finland and then come on here crying when other's do the same. You whine there were Nazi's in other countries before the evil was unmasked yet your country (that would mean your grandparents right?) were allys of Hitler. And don't lecture us on political science. We know very well the importance of global thinking and alliances in this country. We have some very astute intellectuals here. But we don't let you run our country into the ground with your ridiculous assertions of material disarming for example. And no, every country doesn't hate us, it's just in "vogue" currently, and yes sometimes doing the right thing makes you unpopular. And yes sometimes you get a President that doesn't make good decisions. But he doesn't last a lifetime just 8 years at the most.
They have clearly stated they have nuclear weapons (and tried to make more). Israel is not selling nuclear weapons abroad and have excercised the proper discipline for decades regarding having them. Jung has been caught red handed with Iran diplomats and rogue groups already in North Korea discussing nuclear matters and how to push things forward. Also, your desire to let every country in the world be a nuclear power is kind of stupid and would end life on earth as we know it eventually. Your logic is circular here. Have you ever taken logic classes at a university? You aren't much into containment but mostly just obsessed with a little spot of land called Palestian in the middle east as if this is an end all that could somehow "change everything." I'm not calling Israel good nor am I calling the Paestinians bad. I'm not taking sides: you are. And it is coloring your ability to think clearly in the macro.
That nuclear weapon statement you'll have to prove me before I believe it. There has been cases when the western media has made news about that, but afterwards they have drawn off those news in a big silence. North Korea has never officially announced that they have a nuclear weapon. North Korea has sold some ordinary missiles to some countries just like USA and many other countries has done. And again, if you want me to believe what you're saying about those nuclear weapon discussion between Iranies and some "rogue groups" in North Korea, you'll have to give me some proofs. Why would Iranies go to the North Korea to buy a nuclear weapon that North Korea apparently even doesn't have?
--->Lol.. just check the treaty's that were signed a few years ago and see how they are on track regarding them. Simple. Haha.. North Korea has never officially announced they have a nuclear program.. funny. Hitler never offically announced he had death camps either. But he did. You have a disconnect of reality when it comes to this issue. They tried to make nuclear weapons, succeeded, and are still trying. Yes Iranian officials and other political groups were observed in North Korea. But you got the whys wrong. There is a connection there and you find stories about it all over the net. Here's one off a quick search:
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=221
And I definetly don't want to every country to have a nuclear weapon. I just said that it's kinda hypocrite to own over 12 000 nukes, and allow your business partner (Israel) to have a nuclear weapon, and just think that it's a whole different matter than some "evil" country to have one. Why only some countries have a right to own nuclear weapons, while some others don't? Who have made those rules? Who defines who can't have the weapons?
---> That's good to hear. But it's not a contradiction for us when you look historically at the system of principles and beliefs and how they have worked in reality. Just wait until most of the Muslim world has nukes. They will use them too. I've heard Islamic fighters on television specials saying Mohammad predicted nuclear war would come and it is their mission to push that forward. You should be very careful about not joining a containment effort to prevent that.
Yes, I'm taking side in that Israel vs. Palestinian situation. Why wouldn't I? Don't you ever get up and say that something somebody (or in this case 'some country') is doing isn't right? I think you do. You already have during this conversation.
---> Most of us over here would simply like to see both sides stop killing each other and hate baiting each other. We keep trying to broker a peace. You have taken a side and as a result it seems you may not be interested in brokering a peace.
Israel's army is killing masses of innocent civilians there, and I shouldn't say that that's wrong?
---> They kill each other. One side is no better than the next.
I think that Palestinians have their right for their own country, and Israel has no right for stealing it.
---> I think preventing a nuclear holocaust should take precedence over your obsessed focus on what is comparatively a very small issue. However, fine give them their homeland. We are for it here for the most part. I understand they did give it back, but then the Palestinian's began using that as a place to launch attacks seeking more always more with even the Palestian authorities joining in. They will never stop trying to kill off Jews it seems and visa versa.
UN has tried to make many resolutions about that matter, but USA together whit Israel has always stopped that (including resolutions about Israel's army shooting missiles to refugee camps). All the other countries see that situation like I do.
---> Well I see it like this. The two sides are at war and if one side stops the other just goes harder until they finally hit back. Now with that said, I understand some of the problems there. And I am not out to give you a hard time on this issue really if you simply acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Note that the Israelis' distrust is well-founded, considering that the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states were the ones to reject the United Nations' original partition plan which Israel was willing to accept in 1948. The Palestinian reversal of that position is only recent. The Israelis rightly believe that the Palestinians always claimed the entire land, and that they see all Jewish settlement as colonization. The Palestinians' distrust is also well-founded, in that since the 19th century Jewish settlement in Palestine was in fact driven by the desire to "redeem" lands from Arab ownership, be it by purchase (often from absentee landowners) or acts of war (from 1948 onwards). Most recently, Israel's dogged expansion in the occupied territories has been its most clear demonstration of such ambitions. But even without this proof, Israel's second class treatment of its own "Arabs" (Palestinians who did not leave their homes and are Israeli citizens) supports the claim that the Zionist project as carried out to date is not interested in co-existence. Still they are both at each others throats no matter what it seems.
Doesn't that tell you something? And furthermore, that Israel vs. Palestinian situation is a very important matter in the whole Middle East peace progress.
---> True, however, it pales in importance compared to preventing nuclear holocaust and the results your decisions in getting the USA to materially disarm would have on the free world.
You can't speak about that region peace unless solving that question first.
---> True but only because the Muslim leaders in the region have decided this must be so. It is their "red Herring" method of diverting attention away from their own differences. If a Palestine state came into being tommorrow and Israel and Palestine lived in peace then all those differences would come to the surface. This issue helps keep the peace.
And you can't understand those so called terrorists whitout understanding the situation in Middle East. And keep in mind just how much you're supporting the Israel's actions. Here, take a look of every UN resolutions regarding to Israel's actions which USA (and in few cases some other countries whit USA) has overturned:
http://www.lossless-audio.com/usa/index ... 448329.htm And don't just quickly check it thru - read it.
---> I did. Have you read the Declaration of Independence yet? By the way both nations have a right to exist by the document.
Then numbers are coming down and will end at a 1/3 of their current level on both sides. This is real progress. I disagree with you on the issue of containment. Your rabid defense of every countries right to become a nuclear power is not good for humanity or the earth in the END (read END). So let me get this straight, you say all countries of the world should become nuclear powers if they want to (except for the USA) and then you say there are problems with people in the nuclear programs. You see this is what I'm talking about. It's unreasonable and full of basic logic problems. That article only asserts discussions of the current administration have been held to discuss the issue. The Soviet Union has had suit case bombs and other mini-nukes for decades.
Yes, the number of the nuclear weapons are coming down. But too slowly. Not USA or Russia has the real will to get rid of their weapons. They should show an example to all of the countries and get rid of the weapons as soon as possible. That would give a great example to every nation. Now your army is still building nuclear weapons. Only smaller than the ones before. Plus USA has added to their military strategy a possibility to commit a preventive strike. Now how's that for an example? And lets keep in mind that those START contracts don't even cover the tactic nuclear weapons, only strategic.
---> It takes time. I think preventing global nuclear proliferation is more important than worrying about how fast the US is diminishing their stockpile of nuclear missles. Because we are not going to use them except in self defense. It's policy here. You are either showing your ignorance of reality in your pursuit of idealism that can never be real in this age or your desire to crush our freedom loving nation in a world historically so devoid of such a thing in saying we should completely disarm ourselves of nuclear warheads and stand naked before all others with as "an example." In my opinion, you are either a deluded fool or an evil person to say that. Hundreds of millions of people live here guy in relative freedom and security. Showing that stick is one of the reasons we are still here. History is against you.
Well why come on here saying it isn't going on if you haven't even researched it properly. That's one of your problems I think. Go research the issue. In fact, go educate yourself properly. I already have. Your conclusions are drivel. I think you are more the hypocrite because you enjoy the benefits of a free world but don't know how to just say thank you. You sit there and just make these ridiculous statements as if you really know anything about them when you don't seem to have any idea what is going on. Get some formal training in information systems, government, economics, organization, communication, logic, etc.. and then try to convince people you know something. I can't see any qualifications to justify your "speaking" like an expert or something. Your positions are silly really in my opinion.
What isn't going on? The big scale torturing in North Korea? I have tried to look some proofs about that, but couldn't find any. Even Amnesty couldn't certify that, and they should know. But if you got some proofs about that, I'm happy to see those. There's a lot of propaganda going on in this North Korea matter as I already have stated. You just cannot believe every single news article.
---> It's everywhere. Just type North Korea Torture into a search engine and start learning.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/16/nkorea8445.htm for example. I like to read the "propaganda" from the defectors who show the marks of serious torture and starvation in the prison camps of North Korea for not showing the proper "vigor" at the forced rallys for example.
And I'm not an expert in these matters, but I do follow this North Korea situation whit great interest. I've read many books about it, and I've went thru a lot of different kinds of web pages about this matter. All I'm saying is that you can't believe everything that the mainstream media is telling you. Many people got "good" reasons to lie about North Korea. Especially nowadays.
---> Neither am I but you are reckless in comparison. You would take a nation of hundreds of millions of people and put them naked before their enemies. Unbelievable. You are a sick person. And it's no secret North Korea has a gulag system of prisons for those who don't "go with the program" where horrible things happen.
blah blah blah.. grow up. I have lived here and traveled the nation for over forty years. I know my own backyard and my government. Why do I need a foreigner who listens to foreign disinformation to tell me what I see and know is true, isn't really true. Where are you from again?
I'm from Finland. That also I have made clear for many times. That even reads under my name here. So are you saying that you do not have those problems I said? You don't have large (and numerous) ghettos there? You don't have millions of homeless people there? You don't have a huge depth? Do I need to go on..? After all these problems you're still using a huge amount of money to wars. I'm watching the news, and I see many americans saying that that's not right. But apparently you can see the great wisdom behind that.
---> We have hundreds of millions of people that aren't in ghettos nor homeless. No country this size can have a zero poverty problem. Yes go on so I can put it in perspective for you. Let's pull the country's financial statements over the last one hundred years. On the other hand, we were attacked and defended ourselves in Afghanistan, then discovered this was a global terrorist issue and not just a single country, so our administration chose to attempt to fix the problem in their way and not just put a band aid on it. The news agencies are geared toward reporting whatever tragic situation has recently happened rather than all of the peacefulness in most of the country and positive things going on there. You like many, focus on the minority issues.
I don't give a rip about Finland. What do they have to do with us other than we would come to their aid if they needed us and we have a number of intellectual and business relationships with them. Aww you are Finnish. Something fishy about that.. haha.. just a joke. Sure then you know what people think there. But you are playing Mr. Expert about what is going on here and talking to educated competent people telling them a bunch of BS.
Now why would we need your aid? We don't even got no oil in here, didn't you know that?
---> Well you do have a tendency to ally with Nazis historically but we would still come and help your sorry asses out if you were attacked. But of course if we had no nukes and had not yet been attacked with nukes by a country that had them (as you have suggested) then we would be told to lay off or we would suffer the nuclear consequences and you would be integrated against your will into the stronger system. But then that's how that works in reality and not the fantasy of your mind.
We have a whole bunch of cultures here. Going to have to say you are wrong because there is no "culture" here that forms the backbone of our country. There is a political system, however, that does. See what I mean, you just aren't correct. You are merely talking about your objections to the way we handle foreign policy but aren't smart enough to know the difference between the two.
Yes, I know that you don't have your own, one culture. But I was speaking about North Korea's culture. Or every other nations culture. Saying that if you don't understand the culture, it's very difficult to understand the people in it. That's a simple fact. And that's why people can't condemn the other nations if they first haven't study the culture of them.
---> No you don't understand. We don't have this culture like every other country which consists of mostly one or a few people groups. This is a giant patchwork/melting pot of people here. Any shared beliefs we have in the majority revolve around a dual party political system that works most of the time for most of the people.
Well you sounded initially like we needed to immediately go to Jung Communism there.. Whoa! Not going to happen. Damn straight we have our freedom loving nation here and it has made many here very wealthy with a historical trend of people moving up through classes (Note the poor have always been with us and they always will). There is much opportunity here you can't even believe it. Maybe that is why you choose not to.
You know, you really don't have to tell me again and again how much you're loving freedom. Every single person in this world is loving freedom. You're no different in that matter. The more and more you're repeating it, the more and more it just sounds an empty slogan that's set to keep your mind right. I don't mean that as an insult, but that's just how it sounds.
---> No they aren't. Another untruth. The dictators and those who have a vested interest in the dictatorship are not freedom loving. The house is not the field as some of my friends would say. I repeat it because you need to understand and hear that your ideas, such as disarming the entire USA nuclear wise, would soon result in hundreds of millions of people's loss of freedom around the world many deaths if put into effect. God help us all then. I see you as a very dangerous idealist.
"But what you're not understanding is that (yes it's coming along WAY too slow) but we are slowly picking up steam and moving toward a clean environment direction ."
I do understand that. But a little bit differently than you. It's not a long time ago when you're government stated again that you're not going to sign the Kioto contract. And that's not the right direction. Not particularly because that contract is already way too old. If all the nations in the world would follow that contract starting from tomorrow, that wouldn't be enough at all. We need far more strict environment contracts. The temperature is rising pretty rapidly. That's one of the main reason why Florida was hit whit that many hurricanes last year. And that's why there's been such a many severe floods all over the world. In my opinion the only solution to stop that is to every nation in the world to cut down their consuming. I've done that in my part and I hope that every single person (especially in the western countries) would do the same. People are constantly bying stuff they don't really need. But then again, that I think is the main problem whit capitalism. Every company is trying to make more and more profit. That means that they're making more and more (consuming) products. And that means more and more pollution. And that means that the temperature just keeps rising.
--->Now you are kind of talking out your butt.. lol. But it is late and I don't want to try to educate you on astronomy, astrophysics, geology, physics, mathematics, etc.. (especially the history of the sun and earth and the scientific relationship between them). I don't think you are close to having that discussion with me. You just keep blaming away.. what kind of car do you drive? BTW greenhouse gasses in the USA have gone down considerably over the past few years but developing countries have caused them to rise overall.
We all have to live here on this planet you know.
Exactly. So carry your responsibility as a individual, and then as a nation.[/quote]
This from someone whose idealism would bring result in totalitarianism, suffering, and death throughout the free world if his views were implemented.
.
