Originally posted by howardgeeI guess $3 billion dollars doesn't buy what it used to if they're still only "developing" nuclear weapons after 5 years. Kinda like those "weapons programs" Bush says that Saddam had going even though they didn't find any of the actual WMDs?
News to me too!
I said they were developing nuclear weapons, not had developed nuclear weapons.
By the way, you didn't answer my question. Should the US have went to war with North Korea to prevent them from "developing" nuclear weapons, since you don't think the US should give them aid to dissaude them from "developing" such weapons? And if both of these policies are incorrect in your view what policy would you agree with if the US government adopted it or would the fact that the US government adopted it automatically disqualify it from being a good policy in your view?
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeTrue. I was thinking about trade, not aid. So even the North Koreans have got something to lose when the US finds fault with them.
Steerpike, you claim that: "North Korea is one of the few countries without substantial economic ties to the US".
Oh Yeah?
What about the piffling matter of $3 billion dollars of aid the US gave them over the last 5 years!?
Giv ...[text shortened]... the money?
Yet another example of the US mis-managing the world!
Originally posted by no1marauderForeign policy is decided in this country by the Prime Minister and her cabinet. Many times a decsion has to be made about supporting US foreign policy initiatives. Each issue is decided on a vote of about 20 ministers.
I'm answering the points raised. What additional support do you think the United States would get in Iraq from Western democratic countries IF conditions were improved at Gitmo? Couple hundred thousand troops? $100 billion in reconstruction aid? What exactly would this "support you [US government] expect" be?
Sometimnes the outcome is to stand with the US. Combat and support troops wre committed to the first Gulf war, and to Afganistan and engineers were sent to Iraq in a non-combat role.
Other times the answer is unfavourable. No combat troops in Iraq last year, and troops not committed to a second term in Iraq.
And that is the point. Each decision is made on the merits of the case, and there is no consistant pro or anti American policy. Public opinion is considered before any decision as they are politicians, looking to be elected. No one wants casualties if the public are not behind the policy.
So - how can you say opinion has no influence on support in cash and troops?
1 edit
Originally posted by steerpikeI didn't say opinions wouldn't have an effect - I said the a change in how prisoners are treated in Gitmo wouldn't have all kinds of favorable effects on worldwide opinions like Howardgee was claiming (insurgents would stop beheading hostages, other countries would give more support to the policy in Iraq, etc.). You're trying to take my specific point and make it a general point. That's faulty logic; as I've said repeatedly in this thread I'm simply answering points you guys bring up.
Foreign policy is decided in this country by the Prime Minister and her cabinet. Many times a decsion has to be made about supporting US foreign policy initiatives. Each issue is decided on a vote of about 20 ministers.
Sometimnes the ...[text shortened]... you say opinion has no influence on support in cash and troops?
Your economic reasoning above is really primitive. World wide trade isn't between countries anymore (if it ever was) world trade is dominated by a relatively small number of multinational and transnational companies run by a small number of very wealthy individuals (in the thousands, though not a tiny conspiracy like some lunatics believe). Of course, these same individuals drag around the foreign policy of the US in particular but many other industrialized countries as well. Your guys whole harping about the US is kinda funny; you might has well debate which is the best buggy whip! A useful approach to solving the problems in the world isn't a simple one of just bashing everything the United States does like you and Howardgee do incessantly; it's identifying that the power in the world is presently exercised by a very small group for their benefit, not the benefit of any significant part of the world's population. When you guys figure that one out, you might have something useful to say; but you're "US bad, everybody else good" schtick is really getting on my nerves.
Of course the multi-nationals truly pull the strings behind the scenes.
Nevertheless, the tools they use are the politicians and the armies they command.
Bush does not sign the Kyoto treaty because the Oil companies threaten to pull their 100s of millions of dollars funding if he does sign. Thus the whole world suffers.
Bush uses tax payers money in the billions to pay for more Cruise missiles because his mates own the arms companies making huge profits from constructing them. Then he has to have a war to use the missiles and create a need to make more.
Sorry if it's getting on your nerves No1M, but how do you think the rest of the world feels?!!!!
Originally posted by no1marauderNuclear weapons capability is not created over-night. Especially when they have to be made surrepticiously away from the gaze of satelites.
I guess $3 billion dollars doesn't buy what it used to if they're still only "developing" nuclear weapons after 5 years. Kinda like those "weapons programs" Bush says that Saddam had going even though they didn't find any of the actual WMDs?
By the way, you didn't answer my question. Should the US have went to war with N ...[text shortened]... the US government adopted it automatically disqualify it from being a good policy in your view?
Maybe if America had not given them the money in the first place it would have been a better policy?!
Originally posted by howardgeePlease cite your source for the $3 billion figure of US aid that supposedly was used by North Korea to finance the development of nuclear weapons (or anything else for that matter). Quite frankly, the only money I have been able to locate that flowed to North Korea from the US went to a United Nations food program to avert famine in the country. I assume you wouldn't be opposed to that, would you?
Nuclear weapons capability is not created over-night. Especially when they have to be made surrepticiously away from the gaze of satelites.
Maybe if America had not given them the money in the first place it would have been a better policy?!
Originally posted by howardgeeAnd I reckon Merry old England is just a warm-fuzzy teddybear to the rest of the world?...🙄
You would know all about nonsense:
"People really don't mind corrupt policemen much" ; what absolute baloney!
Perhaps you are not aware of the complete lack of respect America commands from most developed nations. This is a consequence of situations like Guantanamo. Western Europe for example, sees that the US cannot even uphold such basic human ...[text shortened]... ica is reviled the world over, not just amongst the religiously brainwashed fanatical countries.
Originally posted by howardgeeA figure of $3 billion in aid, food aid, might have been widely reported in the press, but I think I would have noticed an article that said the US gave North Korea $3 billion that was used to develop nuclear weapons!! That might have made it past the Sports section even in my local newspaper! So please cite a source or I'll assume you just misintrepreted the aid going to North Korea as something that could be used for nuclear weapons when in reality it was so people wouldn't starve. That really wouldn't fit in with your "the US is always wrong" paradigm, would it?
The figure was widely reported in the press.
What is it with you Yanks? If it ain't on the net then it ain't true for you lot!?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree you are not one of the lunatics who think all trade is run by a tiny conspiracy. Believing several thousand individuals run world trade puts you safely out there on the fringe.
Your economic reasoning above is really primitive. World wide trade isn't between countries anymore (if it ever was) world trade is dominated by a relatively small number of multinational and transnational companies ru ...[text shortened]... bad, everybody else good" schtick is really getting on my nerves.
My economic reasoning is primitive. If I want something made in the US, I have to steal it, beg it or buy it. If buying, an American wants to be paid in US dollars, not funny looking foreign money. To get US dollars, I have to supply goods and services to someone who will give me US dollars - and it does not matter if I am a person, a company or a country. And I am afraid to admit I have not got far past these simple concepts.
Originally posted by chancremechanicEarlier in this thread when I made a statement, you strongly doubted its veracity, stating:
Well, put your $$ where your mouth is and provide a source!! 😲
"I tried to find it but couldn't...it seems bogus to me...cooked up by anti-military kooks...could I be wrong?..sure, but I doubt it.
The military would never place a member in such an absurd predicament without close supervision, either live or with video. As soon as it looked like it was getting out of hand, they would intervene and halt the test...can you provide a direct website or link?".
Someone kindly provided an internet site PROVING my assertion and showing you in no uncertain terms to be wrong. (shock horror!)
Do you apologise for doubting my claim, or at least have the decency to acknowledge your mistake? Do you buggery. Suddenly you are silent. (for once)
...Until another assertion is in doubt. Then immediately, you pop up again demanding proof like a deranged jack-in-the-box.
You really are pathetic.
Well the problem is that once the dictatorial regime has its food aid, it can divert resources away from food production and into other schemes like creating nuclear capability.
Throwing food aid at countries does bugger all to help its citizens in the long term as we have seen time and time again in Africa.
When you have a despot oppressing his own people, such as in N Korea, then the West and US SHOULD intervene to allow democracy to flourish.
America ought to have attacked the taliban as soon as they destroyed the Buddhist statues or even before given their treatment of women and non-conformers.
Of course it may have helped if the US had not armed and trained the Osama and the Taliban against Russia in the first place!!
Originally posted by howardgeeOk, I am wrong..now what have you to say? "buggery"?..are asking to "bugger" me?...is that your favorite pastime? It is YOU who are pathetic, especially if you like buggering....😲
Earlier in this thread when I made a statement, you strongly doubted its veracity, stating:
"I tried to find it but couldn't...it seems bogus to me...cooked up by anti-military kooks...could I be wrong?..sure, but I doubt it.
The military would never place a member in such an absurd predicament without close supervision, either live or with video. As ...[text shortened]... ly, you pop up again demanding proof like a deranged jack-in-the-box.
You really are pathetic.