• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ysg

Why yes Timmy, US should pull out of South Korea

52 posts in this topic

So, you cut off your own profits out of what? Petty childish temper tantrums?

 

Guess what, many [i]Canadians[/i] don't like the US. Many Brits don't like the US, French, German, Italians, Chinese, Russians, Japanese....

 

The US is not well liked by the entire population of [i]ANY[/i] nation. Not even all [b]Americans[/b] like the US. So what? Should everyone in the US board up their doors and windows to sit inside sharpening their shotguns and muttering about how no one likes them so they're not going to help anyone else? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Koreas, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Japan would lose most of their national freedom.

Well, the Koreas don't like us as it is and since they're adults, they can deal with their problems.

 

That... makes a lot of sense.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SK is a US ally?

Yes, in verbal, economic, military, social, political, and legal contract-wise sense, South Korea is one of our most important allies in Asia. The only other one that is a closer ally is Japan.

What makes you think that SK and US are -- in any way -- good buddies?

The immense friendship that exists between South Korea and the United States has existed for several decades now and is well documented.

We're closer friends with South Korea than we are with Mexico. And we're next door neighbors with Mexico. Actually, we don't get along too well with Mexico.
We probably are as good buds with the S. Koreans as we are with the British. Koreans are awesome, and we have staggeringly great relationships with the Southern portion of that peninsula.

I live in the midwest, and though it's partly because of the nature of the social circles I move in, I've had more contact than Koreans than any other foreign ethnicity, and they have always been friendly towards us Americans, and us Americans have always held them in positive light. Every South Korean I've met (and again, I've met alot, from many social classes) have honor and integrity, and are polite and humble as well.


The last thing the United States needs, is to show the entire world that we'll pull out of friendly nations, just because unfriendly nations start rattling their sabers.

The unfriendly nations will always rattle. But SK is a friendly nation? Since when?


Since we rescued them from the Japanese Empire during WW2, and gave them their independence again (which was forcibly taken), and since they stood with [i]us[/i] during the Cold War, and since we came to their rescue in the Korean War. Had they became communists (and sided against us), they wouldn't have needed us to come rescue them. But they chose to stand with us (because of us giving them independence from Japan), so we have had the honor to stand with them when they were invaded by North Korea and then China. This is history. Our alliance and friendship with them has been signed with blood - our blood and theirs.

You, who were born less than thirty years ago, may not have know this. But our two nations have a tie that is very strong, and for you to pretend it doesn't exist is pretty silly.

I urge you to re-read my initial post about SK and note the rising anti-Americanism in the country. The better question to ask is: Why help countries that hate you?

A) They don't hate us. They are one of the few nations that actually like us.
B) Our entire power and influence as the United States has come from our helping nations that hated us. Again, Japan is one of our closest allies. They became our ally because we[i] rebuilt[/i] their nation, boosted their economy, and vowed to (guess what!) militarily defend them, [i]after [/i]we nuked their cities and won the war and disarmed them.

If you are going to play with our foreign policy, at least recognize how we became as powerful as we did.

All of Asia doesn't hate us. Just North Korea, and parts of China.
Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, are friendly towards us. And soon even Vietnam will become more friendly. We recently started rebuilding political ties with them (which they have been very receptive of), to repair the damage done by our invasion of them during Vietnam.[/i]


The Koreas, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Japan would lose most of their national freedom.

Well, the Koreas don't like us as it is and since they're adults, they can deal with their problems.


They do like us. All of our history says it. My personal experience with the Koreans say it. The rest of the world says it.
Their problem was created [i]by us[/i] when the South Koreans backed us during the Cold War. It's our problem too, and our nations are heavily tied economically, militarily, and socially. We're friends, whether you know it or not.

As for the assumption that Taiwan and Japan will be invaded or taken over somehow by China, that's a pretty absurd jump in logic and holds more than a train-load of assumptions. How does leaving SK to fend for itself automatically have China landing troops in Japan and Taiwan?

I'm not worried about China militarily invading (at least not in the next twenty years). But if the United States pulls out of the Pacific Zone, China can bully Japan and the other nearby nations moreso than they've already started doing. To pull out of South Korea militarily - despite our public and world-recognized (except by you) commitments to defend South Korea - we basically take our influence in that entire sphere of the world from an '8' to a '2' overnight.

China, by the way, still considers Taiwan as stolen Chinese territory. Taiwan is the non-communist government of China that was exiled from China when the communists took over. China doesn't recognize them as an entity, and has been waiting for ages to get it back. The ultimate sign of China as a super-power will be the reclaimation of Taiwan. Taiwan is officially know as "The Republic of China". 
Again, this is history. And it's not very old history either! We're not talking about events that occurred back in the times of the Romans, which would be understandable if you weren't aware of, we're talking about events that happened practically last month when it comes to lifespan of nations.


If I say I'm going to back you, I should try to back you, even if it comes at my expense.

You can do that. And that would be a foolish thing to do. When you have one group of people helping/defending another that actively hate their benefactors, then the former deserve anything bad that might happen to them.


First, they don't hate us. You're wrong about that.

Second, integrity that fades under pressure is not integrity at all - and those who backstab their allies get backstabbed themselves. If we abadon South Korea, I bet China (weary of North Korea's antics), would secretly egg on North Korea and then come to South Korea's rescue, unify them both under South Korea, and win South Korea as an major ally... one who [i]would[/i] hate us for abandoning them when push comes to shove.

"[i]Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.[/i]"

Actually, you've indadvertedly stepped at the heart of this issue: continued US support for SK -- given its anti-American position and stance in society and government -- is just plain stupid.

I haven't "inadvertently" stepped anywhere, anymore than the United States "inadvertently" supports South Korea. It's in our interests to! Economically, politically, and militarily (Also religiously - there is a [i]major[/i] religious alliance between our two nations also, but you're neither aware of, or care about, that).

American foreign policy is downright idiotic to support this government after it has thrown dirt in the face of Uncle Sam.

Again, our power as a nation has come predominantly because of our foreign policy. We've found (accurately!) that we spend less money and gain more power if we financially support other nations (either as allies, or even as enemies) than it is to go to war with them.

We've thrown more dirt in the faces of our allies than our allies has thrown at us. South Koreans have literally died for us. And Americans have literally died for them. Both our nations have found, and history has proven this true, that both of our nations benefit by our military agreements.


Long-term, we'll hurt worse if we back down - unless you [i]want[/i] North Korea to continue developing nuclear weapons, and then sell them to all the nations who hate us.

They've done that already. So what's the concern further?


 
Their nukes right now are a joke. The fact that they have them isn't a joke, but they aren't yet usable in any real way. By continuing to refine their nukes, they - the nukes, not the nation - will become a very real threat to us. The nation will never become a threat to us, but by selling nukes to our other enemies in the Middle East, both the governments and the guerillas, they can do us some real damage.

If I have a vote, I'd say send in the Marines. And soon. Unify the Korean peninsula under South Korea, and we'll strengthen [i]our biggest asset[/i] in the Asian hemisphere. The only thing is, we'd have to figure out some way of military action in North Korea without ticking off China, which is the real (and only) problem. Edited by Servant of the Lord
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Your thread is too racist and left-wing for any serious thought to be put into any reply.


Where does "you're of no use to me so I'm not helping you" fit onto the left/right political line? If anything, this is some kind of (misguided) neo-conservatism ;-P

 

Uh... I thought that was just a masterly summation of politics in general.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I'd love to believe that, I really would. But you're making a lot of assumptions:
1 - NK has a reliable and accurate nuclear weapons delivery platform. Their rockets are a step above SCUDs.
2 - Their nukes are reliable to detonate when they need to. No evidence of this to date.
3 - They actively want war that could topple their regime or at least make them puppets of Beijing.

Just to be clear about those points:

 

1 - You don't need reliable and accurate rockets that hit on target 5,000 km away. It is perfectly possible to fire them off a submarine less than 100km from the coast. In fact, this is much preferrable, since this prevails counter-measures and doesn't allow people to seek shelter. Also, even a SCUD will reliably hit at a NK-Japan or a NK-SK distance. Given the high population density in that region, it doesn't matter much what you hit either, you always hit something and someone.

 

2 - Nukes not reliable to detonate are not an issue. Building a nuke is dead simple. I could build a nuke that is reliable to detonate in my garage, provided a few simple to obtain (... simple for a country's government) materials. The true difficulty in building a nuke is not to make it detonate reliably, but to prevent unauthorized persons from detonating it.

 

3 - That is partly US propaganda, partly true. For the most part, Kim is reacting to an US provocation (which makes his threats somewhat justifiable). But sure, he is probably crazy enough to want war anyway. However, is he convinced that it will overthrow his regime? Think again, a war is not only led with nuclear weapons, and not between two isolated parties.

 

While it's true that the average man in NK does not have access to internet, nevertheless some of the nastiest cybercriminals come from there (rivalled only by China and Russia). It is very conceivable to start a war with a massive government-supported cyber-attack which may very well bring down a country like the USA (or nearly so). Remember that everything, really everything, from electricity to civil order, depends on computers and computer networks in the US. They need not even smuggle saboteurs into the country thanks to the internet (though they could as well play the old spy-vs-spy game, if you choose when war starts, you have years to prepare). Luckily, all vital computer systems in the USA are unhackable, thank God.

 

And then consider that pretty much everybody hates the USA, not just North Korea. Al Quaida has been very quiet of late, did you wonder why? Think they give up? Unlikely.

It is more likely that they are preparing, placing sleepers, and waiting for a good opportunity. It is not entirely impossible that Al Quaida will "help" Kim with a few well-placed terror strikes the moment war breaks out. My enemy's enemy is my ally, you know.

 

Or, for example, Iran (who has nukes, too) might use the opportunity to get rid of Israel while everyone is looking towards the far east.

 

And suddenly, situation isn't all black and white any more. It is not that clear who will "win".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ysg: If you think that the US has (and wishes to maintain) a foothold in Asia for any other reason than strategic interests then you have a very simplistic understanding of global politics and an embarrassing lack of historical awareness. They're not just going to pick up their ball and go home just because someone calls them names, any more than China is going to just hand the entire country over to the US.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And most of us here have owned at least 1 or 2 Samsung products in our lives.

It's also worth noting that even if you don't own their end products, they also make a whole load of hardware (screens, CPU/GPUs, RAM) for their competitors too.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Quaida has been very quiet of late, did you wonder why? Think they give up? Unlikely.

It is more likely that they are preparing, placing sleepers, and waiting for a good opportunity. It is not entirely impossible that Al Quaida will "help" Kim with a few well-placed terror strikes the moment war breaks out. My enemy's enemy is my ally, you know.

 

LOL, just because the media aren't talking about things doesn't mean it isn't getting discussed, I don't know about the US but in UK, even though the media would like to spend all its effort whining about the EU / Immigration, terrorism is a huge topic in Whitehall, and unlike the media the MPs in Whitehall have no choice but to go in thorough detail, for anything to be taken serious (unless it affects the security and safety of people; civilian or otherwise).

 

I think most first world countries have an open public access to discussions in their government, even if you spent one day watching you will have heard enough to put you off reading anything the media says.

 

TLDR: Al Qaida and terrorism gets discussed often, just not enough for the media to consider it 'sellable', even Burma wasn't enough a hot topic for the media. My point is, if you want to know what the people in charge are talking about, watch them talk about it online. Politics isn't as ugly as conspiracy vids may have you believe ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

South Korea might spend more on defense, but gross spending isn't a very good measure of military capability given the rather different nature of the state and economy in North Korea. The South would probably win in any engagement, but would be pretty devastated in any conflict, considering how far the North would be able to push before being repelled. And that's ignoring any nuclear capability.

 

In general, the global economy is too integrated at this point for this libertarian-styled isolationism to not have major domestic impacts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Quaida has been very quiet of late, did you wonder why? Think they give up? Unlikely.
It is more likely that they are preparing...

Maybe because there is no organization with that name. 'Al quaida' is the name of a category that *we* invented, not some super secret and organized global terror system (that idea was used to sell the GWOT, but sad I know, it doesn't exist). Any Islamic fundamentalist, regardless of their connections or intentions, is "Al Quada" as far as our intelligence services are concerned. When the media reports about "al quaida spokesmen" or "al quaida leader", these people are always connected to some specific group ("the brotherhood of lonely beards", etc), but there's too many too keep up with, so we just call them all the same thing, which incidentally makes them seem a whole lot scarier...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ysg, either your young or your trolling....

 

I would like to see the elimination of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security

 

You have got to be kidding me, do you realize how many people live on just the funds they get from that? Do you even know what it means to have to live off of just 800+ dollars a month in the US? You sound like a rich kid who doesn't have to worry about money, NOW...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have got to be kidding me, do you realize how many people live on just the funds they get from that?

I don't really care.

Do you even know what it means to have to live off of just 800+ dollars a month in the US?

Yes, for a family of 4, where none of them spoke English is like. Oh wait, that was me during the early 90's.

You sound like a rich kid who doesn't have to worry about money, NOW...

Get bent.

I say ditch SK as a first start and then withdraw from other nations in order to reduce international US military presence and I get called a racist. I point out that those three wealth transfer schemes are causing our debt to explode and all of a sudden I'm a rich kid?

I'll catch you in Barbados in my Bentley on my $1500 a month salary.

When your debt explodes past a certain point and the lenders come back asking for their money back and they don't get it. Bad things happen (read: Cyprus). But hey, that could never happen here. Never. Just like no one thought that 9/11 would have been possible here until it happened. But when you're so deep in crap, people resort to the national past-time of pointing fingers.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you(the US) just send a spy in nk kill that fatty stupid a-hole and be done with it??? (like you should have done with saddam hussen...)

 

Sorry if im off topic but, i have to know ph34r.png

Edited by Vortez
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you(the US) just send a spy in nk kill that fatty stupid a-hole and be done with it??? (like you should have done with saddam hussen...)
 
Sorry if im off topic but, i have to know ph34r.png

US has a self-imposed moratorium on assassinating leaders and other individuals during times of peace. Basically, while this would be great for a lot of people in the world, it would break US law and set a bad precedent as to who can and cannot be taken out.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Why don't you(the US) just send a spy in nk kill that fatty stupid a-hole and be done with it??? (like you should have done with saddam hussen...)

Sorry if im off topic but, i have to know ph34r.png

US has a self-imposed moratorium on assassinating leaders and other individuals during times of peace. Basically, while this would be great for a lot of people in the world, it would break US law and set a bad precedent as to who can and cannot be taken out.

They did try to kill Saddam, and killed some of his doubles and family members in the process. He had to spend a lot of money in staying alive...

They assassinate people in Pakistan all the time though - what do you think the drones (and seals) are doing?! As well as many, many other countries - they've been caught out asking governments to publicly take responsibility for their killings, and now have the legal power to even kill their own citizens that are overseas. They're also not afraid of initiating a coup so that a leader can be killed, like Allende in Chile's 9/11, or Lybia recently... Closer to home, there's Chavez, Castro, etc, if you care to look past denials / entertain possibilities.
But most importantly, the US is still formally at war with NK, so they'd be justified in almost any action.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you(the US) just send a spy in nk kill that fatty stupid a-hole and be done with it??? (like you should have done with saddam hussen...)
 
Sorry if im off topic but, i have to know ph34r.png

Because it wouldn't do anything good, Un is not the entire NK government, he would be replaced and NK would almost be forced to retaliate against someone.

As for Iraq ...

1) Before the US invaded Iraq was a seqular dictatorship, there were no WMDs and Saddam kept the terrorist groups mostly out of Iraq, there were no reason to invade.

2) After the US invasion... the country is a mess and infested with terrorists, insurgents, rebels and criminals, and this is despite the fact that the US had troops in the country and have tried to make it form a democratic government.

Assassinating Saddam would only have resulted in him being replaced by another member of his party.
Replacing one oppressive dictator with another is not a solution.

In a war however it can be a perfectly valid and sane move to try to kill the enemy leaders (to disrupt their organisation), it is important that you fill the void left behind afterwards though. Edited by SimonForsman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Before the US invaded Iraq was a seqular dictatorship, there were no WMDs and Saddam kept the terrorist groups mostly out of Iraq, there were no reason to invade.

[...]

Assassinating Saddam would only have resulted in him being replaced by another member of his party.
Replacing one oppressive dictator with another is not a solution.

 

Of course there were reasons, an entire 710 of them. Assassinating Saddam Hussein would have resulted in the US losing the "justification" that they needed to cover their crimial act.

Though of course, often enough they don't even make a secret out of it. The USA do what the USA want, they veto anything that is not in their favour, and they only respect laws and treaties that are in their favour, as long as they are in their favour.

 

Think of UN resolution 61/89. Most civilized nations, with the exception of some "rogue states" that abstained, agreed pursuing illegal weapon trades was a good thing that would prevent a lot of suffering and save many innocent lives. The USA were the only ones to vote against it. Note that the law was not about limiting weapons, only about illicit weapon trades. What civilized nation would vote against such a law?

 

Similar can be said about the Kyoto Protocol (though the USA are in good company with Canada and Sudan in this case, and China doesn't care anyway). Everyone agrees that we need to do something before we all die from the uninhabitable environment that we create. Everyone... except the ones who would really need to (this is the same funny correlation as in cervix cancer screening).

It's so ridiculous watching the Green Party zealots here in Europe with their shit-head ideas in a situation where there's really nothing to do. In Germany, we reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 27% since 1990. But if you only contribute 2.9% to the worldwide total, reducing this fraction by any amount is just a joke. Even if we reduced it by 100%, no one would notice. Reducing emissions in the USA (or China) by only 1% would have a much greater effect. But of course they'll never think of it, as it costs money.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reducing emissions in the USA (or China) by only 1% would have a much greater effect. But of course they'll never think of it, as it costs money.

 

It is nothing to do with money, both sides want to be in power and to do that they need a majority vote, sensitive / controversial issues like guns, environment etc causes leaders to stick their head in the sand or risk losing.

 

Personally I blame Republicans for this, before Al Gore's "inconvenience truth", most people agreed pollution was ugly, harmful (to both humans and the environment) and caused many problems, people may have had different solutions but no one 'liked' pollution. After inconvenience truth, Republicans got pissed off and somehow over time people are convinced that pollution in general is 'ok'. Notice I say pollution and not global warming? That is because sadly people have forgotten about all the other problems associated with pollution, even if global warming was a myth (which most scientists agree it ISNT), pollution in general is horrible and clean industry is something the US should promote.

 

Shame republicans aren't like conservatives in UK, stuff like guns, gay marriage, environment, healthcare aren't an issue, and when something is, it is dealt with, within weeks, not years. Even France deals with issues pretty fast, not entirely sure why US politicians move at a glacial pace

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I blame Republicans for this,

There it is. The standard Democrat blame-game. Christ, you people just never take any kind of responsibility whatsoever. Always someone else's fault.

Shame republicans aren't like conservatives in UK,

Shame everyone else doesn't have your values. Shame everyone just doesn't magically agree with you.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Personally I blame Republicans for this,

There it is. The standard Democrat blame-game. Christ, you people just never take any kind of responsibility whatsoever. Always someone else's fault.


Do you have an actual argument, with evidence, that can disprove his point? As it stands, you're just engaging in more partisan rhetoric yourself, which given that partisan rhetoric is what you're quoting as a bad thing seems a little hypocritical...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What point is there to disprove? He doesn't have a point, just a wild accusation of some sort of... something about power, and whoever wants to keep it, that is somehow or other the Republicans' fault. Apparently evil Republicans.... ummm... somehow magically convinced everyone that pollution is good? Those goddam villains.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What point is there to disprove? He doesn't have a point, just a wild accusation of some sort of... something about power, and whoever wants to keep it, that is somehow or other the Republicans' fault. Apparently evil Republicans.... ummm... somehow magically convinced everyone that pollution is good? Those goddam villains.

 

Nonsense. I disagree with Maestro as well (Republicans were never especially pro-environment), but Republicans have overwhelmingly and consistently favored:

 

1. Policies which allow major industrial interests sole discretion to decide how much pollution matters and whom it affects, which often has had devastating consequences for groups of people who can't really fight those interests on their own. When these people try to organize against industrial interests to stop them from, say, dumping poisonous chemical waste products into their groundwater, the only viable way that they can do so is to agitate for government regulation where they are, *gasp*, stymied by certain politicians. I won't say it's always Republicans, because that would be inaccurate, but Republicans are certainly overrepresented in this opposition.

 

2. Reapportioning the impacts from environmental policies, as above, to groups with the least ability to deal with them or to protect themselves from such apportionment. This one is far more bipartisanly popular, but on environmental issues in particular Republican have again been overrepresented in protecting polluters.

 

3. Stances which dismiss even the possibility of negative environmental impacts from various industrial, economic, and land-use practices. On environmental issues, an average Republican from the last 70 years or so has been far more likely to dismiss environmental dangers, regardless of the amount or quality of evidence suggesting those dangers exist and far more likely to uncritically accept evidence suggesting that such dangers do not exist (again, regardless of the amount or quality of this evidence).

 

It's not a Republicans-only club, nor is it some cabal of villains trying to specifically destroy the world for some nefarious purpose. But this is one of the issues which features a pretty clear and consistent partisan divide, with Republicans making explicit policy moves which result in more and worse pollution more often and at higher per-party-figure rates than any other political party in the US.

Edited by Khaiy
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did try to kill Saddam, and killed some of his doubles and family members in the process. He had to spend a lot of money in staying alive...

The operative word in this case is during times of peace. During the 90's Saddam lived relatively untouched.

They assassinate people in Pakistan all the time though - what do you think the drones (and seals) are doing?!

The justification is that US is at war with al-Qaeda, therefore it's ok to take out their operatives and leaders before they can kill themselves.

As well as many, many other countries - they've been caught out asking governments to publicly take responsibility for their killings,

US has been asking governments to publicly take responsibility for their killings?

and now have the legal power to even kill their own citizens that are overseas.

That's... not true. Unless you have a link to a document that actually states that the US fed can just off random US citizens as they see fit, then this must be some left-wing conspiracy theory.

They're also not afraid of initiating a coup so that a leader can be killed, like Allende in Chile's

Yes, during the Cold War the US and USSR did unsavory things in a global power struggle.

9/11,

Please don't tell me that you're a truther.

or Lybia recently...

... I take it you don't know the background reasons behind what caused the Arab Spring, yes?

Closer to home, there's Chavez,

The US does not have a halo over its head, it never has and doesn't now smile.png .

Castro,

CW power struggle, both US and USSR used dirty tricks and at times criminal actions. Yes, I know this.

But most importantly, the US is still formally at war with NK, so they'd be justified in almost any action.

You could make a case out of it that way, yes and if you got the right wording, then yes, you could say that US can off NK's head. However, that's not the de facto situation. Legally, US is still at war with NK, but the situation at the moment is that it's a tense peace. This tactic wouldn't make much sense at this very moment.

And while Pyongyang is annoying, they have a bigger ally that permits them to get away with quite a bit.

But... I don't get why you're dragging these facts out. How does this add to the original post? US is imperfect? Very few people in this country would say with a straight face that this country has not done things that are criminal or immoral.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0