North Korea warns foreigners in South Korea

the_recruit said:

Oh, shall I list them all? Alphabetically?

Maybe then you'd be able to extract a trend from the data with your renowned data extraction powers.

Click to expand...

No, it was a bit hyperbole; we aren't attacking everyone. But we are attacking a non-zero number. Continually.

Here's a treat. What countries do we not have a war with, interventionism with, bases in, or otherwise control? There's a lot for sure; but it's not all.

the_recruit said:

No one has disputed that we are currently engaged in war in Afghanistan, so I don't have a clue why you're trying to counter such a position.

Click to expand...

You're claiming essentially a wind down of wars and an exit of interventionism policy when all measured data says opposite. You tried to use the fact that we are not yet bombing NK as proof of this, I was merely pointing out your logical fallacy. Make better arguments if you don't like it.

the_recruit said:

Save your time - I'm not interested in the details of your "infinity war" babble.

Click to expand...

Partisan sheep rarely are. Still, doesn't mean that it ain't happening. You can claim 2+2=5 all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it's 4.

the_recruit said:

We are not at war with North Korea and we've recently made serious defense cuts. Just out of curiosity - how many more times would you like me to repeat it? I'm getting bored.

Click to expand...

I don’t want you to repeat, I want you to make a valid point that actually addresses any of the concerns instead of weak, intellectually dishonest deflections away. Oh noes….we made “cuts”. Does that mean we cannot, will not attack; that we are not attacking? No, of course not. It’s a nonsense statement from someone scrapping the bottom of the debate barrel.
So let me be clear, in case you haven’t figured it out yet. Just because we are not yet at war with NK doesn’t mean that:
A) We’re not at war
B) We won’t go to war against NK
Ergo, any claims of continual or infinity war are demonstrated through the unbroken chain of aggression and interventionism is multiple theaters across the globe; not just isolated to one country we have not yet started messing with again. Clear enough?

the_recruit said:

Again, I don't know where you're getting this silly impression that someone said we're not at war in Afghanistan. Did you imagine in your mind that I said it and then get confused about imagination vs reality? It wouldn't be the first time, afterall.

Click to expand...

Don't know why you're confused. They were your statements, you didn't forget them already did you. Parading about like we ain't attacking anyone because we haven't bombed NK. Just pointing out the lies and hyperbole and dishonestly. Iraq to Afghanistan, bombings in Pakistan, gearing up against Iran, funding Syrian rebels, gearing up against NK. It's all part and parcel. Obama ain't no different that G.W.

the_recruit said:

I haven't said we've halted interventionism. Nor does our adherence to interventionism or lackthereof have any bearing on the fact that your claim is false - our government does not seek war to keep its own population.... enslaved.... or whatever it is you think is happening.

Click to expand...

Idiots keep us enslaved. Perpetual war allows for the continual expansion of government power along with feeding money to their corporate friends. Or are you here to argue that the Patriot Act, TSA, HLS, Blackwater and other mercenary companies, etc. haven’t come into existence or haven’t been proliferated or profited from the war on terror (when does a “war on terror” end anyway?). It would be an interesting argument.

Our problems are solved.

Ikari said:

No, it was a bit hyperbole; we aren't attacking everyone. But we are attacking a non-zero number. Continually.

Here's a treat. What countries do we not have a war with, interventionism with, bases in, or otherwise control? There's a lot for sure; but it's not all.

Click to expand...

Nope. I've never claimed we aren't engaging in interventionism or trying to influence international events. That's something you imagined I said. Of course we try to influence foreign events - occasionally through war.

Now you can stop arguing against a phantom position you imagine I'm holding and actually argue against what I say.

Ikari said:

You're claiming essentially a wind down of wars and an exit of interventionism policy when all measured data says opposite. You tried to use the fact that we are not yet bombing NK as proof of this, I was merely pointing out your logical fallacy. Make better arguments if you don't like it.

Click to expand...

Nope. This is a position you've imagined I'm taking when I don't hold that position at all. My point is and always has been that your oversimplified theory that "government wants war to perpetuate slavery of its people" fails to explain observations of reality - namely that we haven't invaded DPRK despite having excellent and repeated pretenses to do so and the fact that we've made serious defense spending cuts.

Ikari said:

Partisan sheep rarely are. Still, doesn't mean that it ain't happening. You can claim 2+2=5 all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it's 4.

Click to expand...

Yes. I get it. Your grasp enitre grasp of political philsophy and current events is based on a short overrated novel for high schoolers.

Ikari said:

I don’t want you to repeat, I want you to make a valid point that actually addresses any of the concerns instead of weak, intellectually dishonest deflections away. Oh noes….we made “cuts”. Does that mean we cannot, will not attack; that we are not attacking? No, of course not. It’s a nonsense statement from someone scrapping the bottom of the debate barrel.
So let me be clear, in case you haven’t figured it out yet. Just because we are not yet at war with NK doesn’t mean that:
A) We’re not at war
B) We won’t go to war against NK
Ergo, any claims of continual or infinity war are demonstrated through the unbroken chain of aggression and interventionism is multiple theaters across the globe; not just isolated to one country we have not yet started messing with again. Clear enough?

Click to expand...

I've never disputed A or B but, again, I don't know why you've imagined that I have.

Now you're weakening your position - likely in response to how absurd I've shown your original claim to be. Now it just sounds like by "infinity war" you mean that we will always have a foreign policy and try to influence foreign events. Umm, duh. That's hardly controversial, doesn't have anything to do with what you said earlier, and doesn't conflict with anything I've said.

Ikari said:

Don't know why you're confused. They were your statements, you didn't forget them already did you. Parading about like we ain't attacking anyone because we haven't bombed NK. Just pointing out the lies and hyperbole and dishonestly. Iraq to Afghanistan, bombings in Pakistan, gearing up against Iran, funding Syrian rebels, gearing up against NK. It's all part and parcel. Obama ain't no different that G.W.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how many times I can say it. You're imagining that I've said things that I haven't. We are at war with Afghanistan. We are actively conducting drone and conventional strikes in Somalia and Yemen. We are actively trying to influence foreign events virtually across the entire world through various tools of foreign policy. I have never said otherwise.

Ikari said:

Idiots keep us enslaved. Perpetual war allows for the continual expansion of government power along with feeding money to their corporate friends. Or are you here to argue that the Patriot Act, TSA, HLS, Blackwater and other mercenary companies, etc. haven’t come into existence or haven’t been proliferated or profited from the war on terror (when does a “war on terror” end anyway?). It would be an interesting argument.

Click to expand...

Is this typically how you debate? By imagining people have made statements or taken positions that they haven't?

whoever thinks about the situation of war let me tell koreans can not risk to have a war against the other world

North Korea isn't attacking anyone. They have had success with getting money when they rattled their sabers in the past. So they are rattling them again. Even these hungry folks know better than to get into a nuclear war with the U.S. We just need to stop giving them money and they will stop the saber rattling. It is something like training a dog.

So North Korea have declared that they plan on invading Japan.

I personally wish them the best of luck with storming Takeshi's Castle

Based upon the released Defense Intelligence Analysis of North Korea's probable capability to deploy a nuclear missile, it looks like Obama has been asleep at the wheel and has allowed North Korea to become a nuclear power under his nose. This is very bad. He will not do what is needed. We need to strike North Korea and topple that regime, before they can get their nuclear arsenal into a less vulnerable state. Currently, we could attack them pre-emptively and they would only be able to respond with conventional forces, which we could handle over time. The Chinese would be unlikely to get involved, as a clash with the US and China, would result in the total destruction of the Chinese economy. It is also very likely we could destroy the Chinese nuclear arsenal, before it could be utilized. Our missile interceptors, would hopefully get any other objects in flight. However, if North Korea is given more time, they will be come an unmanageable wildcard. Does anyone truly want them to acquire 50 nuclear missiles that can reach the US with warheads? It is implausible to trust our lives to the sanity of the Kim family, and therefore the only recourse is to wipe that regime off of the face of the Earth. A MAD policy will simply not work in this case, because he views the world through the eyes of an isolated sociopath. If nothing happens for the next few years, then the next President will be fighting the first nuclear war in history, and there is no doubt of that.