North Korea page 2

34 posts

Flag Post

I never said it would be easy, but working on more complex structures—taking the best from each ideological faction, and not being afraid to think outside the predefined boxes of each factions’ viewpoint— that would help to advance the previous simple structure to a more sustainable, and fair system for all communities would be highly beneficial. What I proposed, yearns to take the simple structures of each authoritative, libertarian, leftist,and right political ideals into one structure that encompasses all the conducive ideas that came before them. What society and world communities decide upon as workable, and beneficial for all communities—democracy—is what we should strive to achieve. Only thinking about the one, only points to advance a few small meaningless lives of about 100 years, give or take 50-ish or so years, while the other lives continue to suffer, and lack purpose.

Just applying the epithet “bullshit” to your conclusive point just goes to show that you are not open to anything beyond your own singular view on that matter. Personally, even after establishing a few beliefs I try to go back and review them: to look for errors, or find ways to improve on that stance. I am always changing, always progressing, always re-evaluating my positions on everything,so I do not fall into the traps of stubborn bias that unintentionally cause harm to the self and the community.

Whatever you choose is up to you—I try not to judge, even if my humanity will make me do so—and all I want to convey is to not close yourself off to old, and even new ideas, so easily. Maybe you don’t have it all figured out, as much as you would like? Just putting that out there…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Draconavin:

I never said it would be easy, but working on more complex structures—taking the best from each ideological faction, and not being afraid to think outside the predefined boxes of each factions’ viewpoint— that would help to advance the previous simple structure to a more sustainable, and fair system for all communities would be highly beneficial. What I proposed, yearns to take the simple structures of each authoritative, libertarian, leftist,and right political ideals into one structure that encompasses all the conducive ideas that came before them. What society and world communities decide upon as workable, and beneficial for all communities—democracy—is what we should strive to achieve. Only thinking about the one, only points to advance a few small meaningless lives of about 100 years, give or take 50-ish or so years, while the other lives continue to suffer, and lack purpose.

Just applying the epithet “bullshit” to your conclusive point just goes to show that you are not open to anything beyond your own singular view on that matter. Personally, even after establishing a few beliefs I try to go back and review them: to look for errors, or find ways to improve on that stance. I am always changing, always progressing, always re-evaluating my positions on everything,so I do not fall into the traps of stubborn bias that unintentionally cause harm to the self and the community.

Whatever you choose is up to you—I try not to judge, even if my humanity will make me do so—and all I want to convey is to not close yourself off to old, and even new ideas, so easily. Maybe you don’t have it all figured out, as much as you would like? Just putting that out there…

It’s of no use to accuse me of being narrow-minded while basing your accusation on exactly one word of my post. Even if the accusation is true, this does not automatically make you open-minded. This kind of argument reminds me of karma, but let’s not dwell on this.

What I wanted to convey is very simple: when a good idea is already here 2500 years ago but still not widely executed, there must be problems inside that “good” idea. As I have said, I don’t see how the major powers will give up their own power, and it is your turn to explain how this is possible.

 
Flag Post

Sorry if I offended that wasn’t my intention.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Draconavin:

Sorry if I offended that wasn’t my intention.

My harsh tone is also unintended. Sorry for that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Frostbringer:
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

According to the UN?

C’mon, the UN would fail at changing some lightbulbs, if it came to that. They aren’t exactly a very solid source.

The UN actually handled it pretty well to change the production methods of light-bulbs to reduce energy consumption. And even the USA finally broke down, although they where able to get longer deadlines. Just saying.

No, I meant literally changing a lightbulb. Which explains why the UN left a ceiling unfinished in at least one of their buildings, claiming that it represents “the world’s work never being completely finished”.

rolls eyes

(a.k.a. “the work we do is never finished”)

 
Flag Post

At any rate, North Korea won’t be dealing huge amounts of damage to the US, especially due to the fact that America is such a large force, and both America and the UK, among many others, have incredibly finely tuned special forces. Nobody will side with North Korea, and they will merely fall short of whatever it is they hope to achieve, which seems, at the moment, a display of their “strength”.

If anyone is worried as to what their fate is as a body of the general public, I would really think twice; NK isn’t getting very far, and I highly doubt anyone will get hurt, civilian-wise.

I know I say this a long time after the original post, but it seems the situation is slowly diffusing, and will soon be merely a memory. North Korea is simply not powerful enough to take on the world (Which they will be doing when everyone decides to jump in).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Steeliosis:

At any rate, North Korea won’t be dealing huge amounts of damage to the US, especially due to the fact that America is such a large force.

Their lacking a delivery vehical capable of reaching the US mainland might also have something to do with it. Local bases in Japan and S. Korea are their most likely targets. Hitting one of those would very likely use up everything they had. Assuming they even hit, which given the very understandable deployment of anti-missile defense ships by the US and Japan into the region, along with the anti-missile capability of the countries in the potential line of fire, make the likelihood of NK’s missile even making it as far as the intended target, very very slim indeed.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Pulsaris:
Originally posted by Draconavin:

How do you know we are not being force-fed a bunch of horse shit by our biased media? Placing judgement calls on another leader who may just be saying a few of these things because he feels threatened. Maybe he knows that he is very close to losing it all to the military might of the West? Personally, I think we need to get rid of all our small leaders. Most of them do not act as sacrificial benefactors to their communities, but self-interested businessmen only looking out for their own agenda/s. A sacrificial world leader is what we need. One that is democratically elected—this system works moderately well, but needs some tweaking—and can take care of world interests of the world community, not just some silly individualistic want. Not just looking after Israel or Palestine, for example, but going back to their community oriented ways where religion, or small cultural backgrounds do not separate them, but help them to merge under one unified culture of understanding, and reduced hostility. The purpose for the hostilities is unwarranted if they can just learn to be empathic to each others needs, and help one another: the way communities should.

Anyways, nationhood and separation of property seems to be at the heart of many disputes. The choice for the U.S.A and Russia to meddle in the affairs of Korea for their own self-interested purposes after the Korean War, definitely allowed for terrible consequences to follow. If we had one World Leader that was sacrificial to the needs of its people, we may be able to settle these issues of unnecessary conflict through progressive diplomatic initiatives.
But who will make this sacrifice? Who will be our Jesus, our Buddha, our Confucius? Tough to tell who will sacrifice themselves for the greater good. After all, escaping our individualistic nature, is not only tough, but inherent.

Unless that certain leader is a lv350 legendary archmage who can kill everyone with magic, I don’t see how the president of [insert names of great countries here] will give up their powers. You are also neglecting the will of organizations like the freemasonry, the church, the oil supermajors and others which have exceptional influence over the world’s economy.

Laozi has already talked about the advantages of a small country. After 2500 years, it is still pure bullshit.

I’m just commenting on the line where you said that all small leaders should be gone. All leaders of present day should be gone aswell. Example look at the world today mainly The US. Greedy,devious,phony,full of shit,selfish,etc,etc. Oh did I say that they are just as bad as the ones who start things in the world. Take a real close look in the background almost most things started were started by our usless politicans. Of which I would like to vote out every single one of them and start new. Another good thing would be to dismantle that nonsense homeland phony security and NSA,etc. Who are these people really protecting. Nobody it was just another way to take rights away and make jobs for idiots who have no business even talking in public. Keep your old ,senile crusty ways/views at home.
 
Flag Post

I’ve been hearing that China will help DPRK, but they won’t. If they do fight against the U.S., the Western World will stop trading with China, causing it’s economy to collapse. But Russia actually agrees with the U.S. but warns about military drills.