PDA

View Full Version : North Korea threatens 'all-out war' over warship sinking report



poiuytrewq0987
05-20-2010, 09:33 PM
In the most serious attack for over 20 years, a North Korean torpedo was found to be responsible for the sinking of the Cheonan, a 300-ft South Korean warship, which sank on March 26 with the loss of 46 lives.

An official report, carried out by South Korean investigators together with teams from the United States, Britain, Australia and Sweden, said the evidence pointed "overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine." It added: "There is no other plausible explanation."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/7745370/North-Korea-threatens-all-out-war-over-warship-sinking-report.html

RoyBatty
05-20-2010, 09:50 PM
It would have been better if the "investigators" included a few countries who weren't US poodles and stooges such as China, Iran, Brazil, Venezuela and so on. As things stand now it wouldn't be unreasonable to make the argument that the investigations' conclusions have been tailored to suit the USA's agendas.

Whilst NK most likely did sink the SK ship those torpedo fragments with supposed NK markings are hardly conclusive proof. A case like this is for all intents and purposes impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The best thing for all concerned is to take a step back, relax, re-assess the situation and to avoid antagonising the other side through rhetoric or military manouevres. The alternatives are not particularly appealing for anybody except the Military Industrial Complex's Contractors.

Germanicus
05-20-2010, 09:58 PM
The best thing for all concerned is to take a step back, relax, re-assess the situation and to avoid antagonising the other side through rhetoric or military manouevres. The alternatives are not particularly appealing for anybody except the Military Industrial Complex's Contractors.



The Policy of Appeasement Justified

Appeasement can be described as giving a bully what he wants.

During the 1930's Britain and France let Hitler have whatever they
considered necessary to preserve peace in Europe. They believed that
Hitler had certain aims and that once he had achieved these he would
be satisfied. So they allowed him to re-arm, invade the Rhineland
(1936), complete the Anschluss of Austria (1938) followed by the
Sudetenland. Appeasement assumed Hitler would keep his side of the
bargain.

During the 1930's there were a number of arguments justifying
appeasement.

Many people sympathised with Hitler's claims and accepted that the
Treaty of Versailles was too harsh and that Germany should have been
treated more fairly. So they did not object too much when Hitler built
up his armed forces, increased his navy and moved his troops into the
Rhineland.

Britain and Francestill wanted to avoid another war. They had suffered
terribly and so many had been killed in the First World War. They had
put their trust in the League of Nations and had put their faith in
collective security. It was also the time of the Great Depression and
both countries were unsure whether they could stand the cost of
re-armament.

In the 1930's, apart from the Nazis, there was the threat of Stalin's
communist tyranny which they feared as much as Hitler's Germany. They
could not decide whether Soviet Communism or Germany was the greater
threat.

Another justification for appeasement was that realistically, neither
France or Britain could protect Czechoslovakia and Poland from attack
as they were too far away and they also felt that perhaps it was not
altogether their business to interfere.

Perhaps the strongest argument to justify the policy of appeasement is
that Britain was not in a position to fight. At the time of the Munich
Agreement, they were not ready for war. By giving into Hitler's
demands, the war was postponed by a year and when war was finally
declared, Britain had made just enough preparations to survive.

Unsurprisingly, there are a number of strong arguments against
appeasement.

The appeasers made the mistake of treating Hitler as a rational
politician who was open to reasoned argument. They did not realise
until it was too late that he was a determined tyrant who saw each
concession as a sign of weakness and they failed to recognise that the
more he was given, the more he demanded.


During appeasement, time and again Germany broke international
agreements without punishment, they were allowed to re-arm, invaded
the Rhineland, achieved the Anschluss and took control of
Czechoslovakia in return for meaningless promises.

By following the policy of appeasement, both Britain and Francemissed
a number of opportunities to resist Hitler and stand up to him. In
1936, Hitler admitted that he would have withdrawn from the Rhineland
immediately had any resistance been shown. At Munich, Czechoslovakia,
a country which could have put up a significant resistance to a German
invasion, was abandoned by France and Britain.

There are a number of strong arguments justifying appeasement and I
appreciate why the politicians of the time pursued this policy.
However, the policy failed and Hitler used this time to strengthen his
forces, expand his boundaries and when war was finally declared
Germany was in a stronger position than either Britain or France.

RoyBatty
05-20-2010, 09:59 PM
That's right. North Korea shouldn't let the US, Jap and SK bullies harass them.

Jarl
05-20-2010, 10:02 PM
Korea should first stop harassing her own citizens ;)

Austin
05-20-2010, 10:03 PM
Yes I agree, North Korea has no interest in peace it has flip-flopped every time and gone back to hostility.

The U.S. and China don't want a military conflict let alone in these dire economic times. Everyone is just going to wait till Kim dies then brute force his son politically unless North Korean generals do it first.

RoyBatty
05-20-2010, 10:07 PM
It's 6 of the one and 1/2 dozen of the other. The Koreas are forever having little skirmishes. I don't understand what makes this particular one (assuming it was one) so significant and why the SK's and Japs (I mean, wtf is their agenda exactly) are so keen to ratchet up the tension.

The best strategy with NK is to just ignore them. They're not going anywhere. They're not in a position to do much. Why provoke them? It will only end in tears.

Germanicus
05-20-2010, 10:10 PM
Yes I agree, North Korea has no interest in peace it has flip-flopped every time and gone back to hostility.

The U.S. and China don't want a military conflict let alone in these dire economic times. Everyone is just going to wait till Kim dies then brute force his son politically unless North Korean generals do it first.

My view is of sending a large Multi Allied Task force into the area, if the North Koreans want to escalate the situation then let them bring it on.
The Allies have more than enough war ships and submarines to handle a threat or attack, besides North Korea has been sabre rattling for more than 3o years now.

RoyBatty
05-20-2010, 10:17 PM
My view is of sending a large Multi Allied Task force into the area, if the North Koreans want to escalate the situation then let them bring it on.
The Allies have more than enough war ships and submarines to handle a threat or attack, besides North Korea has been sabre rattling for more than 3o years now.

While you're "bringing it on" and playing Age of Empires (conveniently with the lives of other people in their own countries) millions of them will have ended up dead and maimed.

Really.... you should think things through a bit.

North Korea IS NOT A SOMALIA OR GRANADA.

Cato
05-20-2010, 11:40 PM
Maybe the chinks'll get sick and tired of the midget with the pompadour in Pyongyang and decided to steamroll North Korea, thus liberating any helpless dogs from the fate of winding up in bowls of dog soup to feed North Korean bellies.

http://jakerake.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/kim_jong_il_1.jpg

^
Him rove you rong time.

poiuytrewq0987
05-20-2010, 11:53 PM
My view is of sending a large Multi Allied Task force into the area, if the North Koreans want to escalate the situation then let them bring it on.
The Allies have more than enough war ships and submarines to handle a threat or attack, besides North Korea has been sabre rattling for more than 3o years now.

There isn't much point in trying to start another conflict with NK. It's better to wait for the government there to collapse or wait for the people to start their own revolution against the government like plenty of ex-communist countries did.

Saruman
05-21-2010, 12:16 AM
LOL, NK would get destroyed militarily by South Korean army in a conventional conflict.

Cato
05-21-2010, 12:18 AM
SK will zergling rush NK and it'll all be over in less than five minutes.

The Lawspeaker
05-21-2010, 12:18 AM
LOL, NK would get destroyed militarily by South Korean army in a conventional conflict.
But the North Koreans basically hold the South Korean capital (http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/seoulsvulnerability.html) hostage. And I don't think that they have located the artillery pieces by now..

Saruman
05-21-2010, 12:35 AM
But the North Koreans basically hold the South Korean capital (http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/seoulsvulnerability.html) hostage. And I don't think that they have located the artillery pieces by now..

That's still 30 miles from Seoul, out of effective range for most of their artillery, they could do some damage but they couldn't cause "million casualties".

Turkophagos
05-21-2010, 05:20 AM
Saddam has hided his mass destruction weapons there.

Austin
05-21-2010, 05:45 AM
China is the key. China already has a massive NK immigrant problem and it doesn't want it's eastern region destabilized anymore than it already is. If NK is attacked they will obviously be taken out via strategical strikes but this would mean China's Eastern regions would be hit with tens of millions of starving North Koreans who would want to get out while the remaining NK generals fought over the country internally. I don't think China will just sit there while and watch as it's country is negatively impacted by a Korean conflict of epic proportions, it will pick a side, and the last side it picked historically speaking was the North Koreans, in which a million Chinese soldiers died.

Also the idea that NK can't take out Seoul is wrong they can easily, they have thousands of hidden missiles that they have publicly stated will level Seoul within a few moments of them being hit on any massive level. The allies would not be able to take out every missile site in time so it is inevitable that millions would die as well as likely all the U.S. soldiers on the border, another reason the U.S. doesn't want anything to happen.

RoyBatty
05-21-2010, 06:43 AM
Those of you who think this will be a turkey shoot against NK are dreaming. This isn't the USA vs Granada. It's also quite reasonable to assume that NK will nuke SK and have a pop at Japan for good measure. The whole thing will deteriorate into a huge clusterf***.

Sensible warmongers attack countries and people who have very little chance of defending themselves and retaliating. That's why it's usually USA vs Granada, USA vs Panama, USA vs Iraq, USA vs Serbia and so on. Beginning to see the pattern here?

RoyBatty
05-21-2010, 06:49 AM
That's still 30 miles from Seoul, out of effective range for most of their artillery, they could do some damage but they couldn't cause "million casualties".

Not sure what kind of artillery NK has but 30 miles is an easily achievable range for a decent relatively modern howitzer. NK has a massive army who aren't going to sit still and wait to be bombed either.

Their AA defenses are likely to be way more advanced than anything the ragheads can or could field making aerial attacks tricky.

Sol Invictus
05-21-2010, 06:49 AM
I think NK should be annihilated and the troops should rape their women. Spoils of war, end of story.

poiuytrewq0987
05-21-2010, 11:31 AM
Those of you who think this will be a turkey shoot against NK are dreaming. This isn't the USA vs Granada. It's also quite reasonable to assume that NK will nuke SK and have a pop at Japan for good measure. The whole thing will deteriorate into a huge clusterf***.

Sensible warmongers attack countries and people who have very little chance of defending themselves and retaliating. That's why it's usually USA vs Granada, USA vs Panama, USA vs Iraq, USA vs Serbia and so on. Beginning to see the pattern here?

That would be actually a good idea. Having NK annihilate Japan would stimulate the US economy by having the Japanese car manufacturer competitors completely eliminated. :lightbul:

Lars
05-21-2010, 11:53 AM
That would be actually a good idea. Having NK annihilate Japan would stimulate the US economy by having the Japanese car manufacturer competitors completely eliminated. :lightbul:

People would buy European cars. Why buy rubbish?

poiuytrewq0987
05-21-2010, 12:06 PM
People would buy European cars. Why buy rubbish?

OK, implement Versailles Treaty 2.0, start WW3, problem solved. :coffee:

poiuytrewq0987
05-21-2010, 12:10 PM
Seoul says it will make North Korea 'pay' for ship sinking

"North Korea surpassed the limits and for such an act we will make it pay," Seoul's Defence Minister Kim Tae-Young said on Friday, in reference to the March 26 torpedo attack on a 1,200-corvette, although he said the response would be prudent.

http://www.france24.com/en/20100521-seoul-says-will-make-north-korea-pay-ship-sinking-south-north-korea-conflict-torpedo

It's on. http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/forum/smileyvault-popcorn.gif

Jarlsson
05-21-2010, 12:19 PM
"Stop fighting North and South Korea, your both basically chinese and hes bruno dove of peace!".

Cato
05-21-2010, 01:58 PM
Zergling rush, attack the crystal gatherers! GOGOGO!

Beorn
05-21-2010, 02:12 PM
Go North Korea.:cheer_icoon:

Austin
05-21-2010, 05:43 PM
Eh...... Japan is not just going to sit around, there are circles that already believe they have had nuclear weapons for some time considering they have more than enough material via their nuclear reactors which give them 40% of their energy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/5187269/Japan-should-develop-nuclear-weapons-to-counter-North-Korea-threat.html

I personally believe they do have them, their politicians occasionally throw the idea around, so one has to wonder how can they so easily throw the idea around if they "supposedly" have no nukes program to begin with.... (:

Groenewolf
05-21-2010, 06:20 PM
The only think that stops them is their USA pushed constitution. So it could be possible that some elements in the Self Defense Forces are involved in such a program. If only to become less depended on American forces for their military defense.

RoyBatty
05-21-2010, 06:30 PM
It's all show and posturing blah blah blah. What dem gonna do? More sanctions? lol :D Please wiggaz.

Besides, who cares what they get up to? NK vs SK aren't our fight. Let them have at it.

Lil Kim sez:

"All yow dawwgz awre belong to us" tee hee

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images/kim-jong-il-smiling.jpg

RoyBatty
05-21-2010, 06:34 PM
The only think that stops them is their USA pushed constitution. So it could be possible that some elements in the Self Defense Forces are involved in such a program. If only to become less depended on American forces for their military defense.

South Korea are USA lackeys. They're [email protected] like so many other countries and will do whatever bawwz tells them to do. Still, this situation is unlikely to last forever. As China's economic and industrial power increases, loyalties will start shifting.

Óttar
05-21-2010, 07:20 PM
Just bomb the shit out of N. Korea and take it out overnight while making an attempt to limit civilian casualties. Erase that stupid ass imaginary line on the map already. If we played our cards right we could win the sympathies of the North Koreans afterward. Better to effectively conquer an area as quickly as possible and leave as much of it intact in terms of infrastructure and population.

A long, drawn out war benefits nobody.

Sol Invictus
05-21-2010, 07:23 PM
I think the troops best represent the will of the people.. But not always. I think they should decide what's best for us. It may result in terror at home but that's okay because we should rid the world of evil to keep us safe from those that would do us harm.

RoyBatty
05-21-2010, 08:00 PM
I think the troops best represent the will of the people.. But not always. I think they should decide what's best for us. It may result in terror at home but that's okay because we should rid the world of evil to keep us safe from those that would do us harm.

We should keep on spreading evil around the world so that the remaining good at home can finally be erased. What good is having a military and a spy apparatus if they can't be used against internal and external competitors? :D :thumb001:

Sol Invictus
05-21-2010, 08:03 PM
We should keep on spreading evil around the world so that the remaining good at home can finally be erased. What good is having a military and a spy apparatus if they can't be used against internal and external competitors? :D :thumb001:

Exactly. I don't know what all the belly-aching is about.

Jarl
05-21-2010, 09:19 PM
Just bomb the shit out of N. Korea and take it out overnight...

Erase that stupid ass imaginary line on the map already...

....


...while making an attempt to limit civilian casualties

:rolleyes:

Yes... kinda logical...

Óttar
05-22-2010, 02:16 AM
....
:rolleyes:

Yes... kinda logical...

Seriously how hard would it be? What do they even have? The presidential palace? The population has human flesh and rotgut liquor as their dietary staples.

ikki
05-22-2010, 03:25 AM
China is the key. China already has a massive NK immigrant problem and it doesn't want it's eastern region destabilized anymore than it already is. If NK is attacked they will obviously be taken out via strategical strikes but this would mean China's Eastern regions would be hit with tens of millions of starving North Koreans .

There arent that many, the 30mil number is a lie. 12 mil max, extrapolated from military numbers and the fact they have really long conscription..

Furthermore, im quite sure china can post troops on the border to send back the refugees, gunning down any that refuse. Combine this with SK aid groups setting up camps there to meet any that are coming... zero problem.

China otoh might feel like adjusting the border, something that will cause trouble down the line.. nor to forget the little dirty secrets.. like where did this medieval society get the nuclear technology from.

Anyway, its also very difficult to kill millions. Taking down a skyscraper requires more than a few missiles or bombs.. and gets maybe 10.000 at worst. Much, much fewer if theres any kind of a warning.
Cities have been bombed by million of tons of conventional bombs, dropped over many months, and the casualties could be counted in the tens of thousands. Not millions even then,
A korean war would last less than a month, and less than 2 weeks time to bombard seul. No way that could take out even 100.000. 5000 maybe..

Austin
05-22-2010, 07:19 AM
There arent that many, the 30mil number is a lie. 12 mil max, extrapolated from military numbers and the fact they have really long conscription..

Furthermore, im quite sure china can post troops on the border to send back the refugees, gunning down any that refuse. Combine this with SK aid groups setting up camps there to meet any that are coming... zero problem.

China otoh might feel like adjusting the border, something that will cause trouble down the line.. nor to forget the little dirty secrets.. like where did this medieval society get the nuclear technology from.

Anyway, its also very difficult to kill millions. Taking down a skyscraper requires more than a few missiles or bombs.. and gets maybe 10.000 at worst. Much, much fewer if theres any kind of a warning.
Cities have been bombed by million of tons of conventional bombs, dropped over many months, and the casualties could be counted in the tens of thousands. Not millions even then,
A korean war would last less than a month, and less than 2 weeks time to bombard seul. No way that could take out even 100.000. 5000 maybe..


In the article someone posted earlier in the thread a South Korean general stated that "at least a million would die in Seoul alone from our estimates"....

RoyBatty
05-22-2010, 09:01 AM
There arent that many, the 30mil number is a lie. 12 mil max, extrapolated from military numbers and the fact they have really long conscription..


Sounds like a cakewalk then.



Furthermore, im quite sure china can post troops on the border to send back the refugees, gunning down any that refuse. Combine this with SK aid groups setting up camps there to meet any that are coming... zero problem.


Of course. China cannot wait to do the USA's bidding, it hates NK and loves US style freedom and democracy. It's a regular lapdog for the West.



China otoh might feel like adjusting the border, something that will cause trouble down the line.. nor to forget the little dirty secrets.. like where did this medieval society get the nuclear technology from.


If they'd wanted to make border adjustments with NK they could have done it decades ago.

The origin of NK's nuclear technology is no secret. They got much of it from Pakistan. Their society may be strange and brainwashed but medieval? You must be taking pills.......



A korean war would last less than a month, and less than 2 weeks time to bombard seul. No way that could take out even 100.000. 5000 maybe..

Uh yeah... right 'n stuff.



I'm a bit perplexed why so many of you heroes are so keen to look for trouble with NK. Did they bomb your local Walmart? Did they steal your apple pie? Did they immigrate in numbers to your local hicksville town, take all YOUR social welfare and spark off a local crimewave? Steal your girl? What?? :confused:

Why are you all so keen on cheerleading one group of criminals aka "The West" against another group of criminals aka North Korea? Since when did "The West" suddenly become the world's moral arbiters of what is right and what is wrong and what other countries ought to or ought not to be doing?

The Lawspeaker
05-22-2010, 12:03 PM
Roy. you speak about China and NK as if they were free countries rather then hardline dictatorships that already killed millions upon millions of people. They aren't any more free then we are.
I guess that you in your hatred of the West and the US have conveniently forgotten about the massacre in Beying in 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square) of people that wanted democracy.

Saruman
05-22-2010, 02:44 PM
Well militarily, NK's army is simply using heavily obsolete equipment compared to South. Their armored force is heavily outmatched by the South, troops of the South are far better trained, NK has more numerous but again obsolete artillery, North has developed a solid missile force though, Air Force of North is hopelessly outmatched, Navies are not even comparable. So the only way the North could somehow defend successfully is if their moral was fanatical, which it isn't any more, with country being so poor and basically most of people just wanting to get out.

RoyBatty
05-22-2010, 05:04 PM
Roy. you speak about China and NK as if they were free countries

#1 - NO I DON'T SPEAK OF THEM AS IF THEY ARE FREE COUNTRIES. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE FREE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.


rather then hardline dictatorships that already killed millions upon millions of people.


#2 - The EU is an unfree hardline dictatorship unless you have money and can afford to buy the media, the voters (through social spending bribes) and the politicians.

All countries kill people and the more powerful they become, the more people they kill given the chance to do so. The EU countries (particularly the Western EU ones) + the USA killed or are still engaged in killing millions of people. Therefore your attempt at claiming the Western moral highground falls flat.



They aren't any more free then we are.


They are probably LESS free than we are but that's besides the point. What is relevant here is that it is not for us to lecture and order them how to live and arrange their societies.


I guess that you in your hatred of the West and the US


#3 - I'm getting bored being lectured about what I apparently do and don't "hate".

I don't hate "The West".
I don't "hate" Europeans or US Citizens.

I'm not a gullible moron who believes a single word that Western Politicians and the Western Plutocracy utter particularly when it comes to their favourite "freedom", "human rights" and "democracy" talks.

The West's rulers are for the most part murdering, cheating and thieving scum who portray themselves as being lilywhite carebears. They've sunk so low that they're even selling out their own Nation States and Nations (peoples) for money and power.

You're perfectly aware of this already so I'm a bit confused as to why you're so concerned about my dislike for these people and their policies.

WHY THE F*** WOULD I BE CHEERLEADING THESE POWER HUNGRY PARASITES OR WANT TO SUPPORT THEIR FOREIGN MILITARY ADVENTURES PARTICULARLY WHEN THESE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST COUNTRIES WHICH DIDN'T THREATEN "US" IN OUR BACKYARDS OR CAUSED "US" ANY HARM?




have conveniently forgotten about the massacre in Beying in 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square) of people that wanted democracy.

Tianenmen Square? F*** Tianenmen Square.

TS was a USA sponsored NED / CIA / Soros putsch attempt against the Chinese authorities. The Chinese Government dealt with these traitors in the fit and proper way.

PS - screw democracy too. It's a rubbish system. People who want democracy ought to be sent to re-education camps to have some sense knocked into them.

Jarl
05-22-2010, 05:08 PM
Seriously how hard would it be? What do they even have? The presidential palace? The population has human flesh and rotgut liquor as their dietary staples.

Sure. I'd certainly blast the motherfuckers before they go crazy and all the shit boils up.

The Lawspeaker
05-22-2010, 05:20 PM
PS - screw democracy too. It's a rubbish system. People who want democracy ought to be sent to re-education camps to have some sense knocked into them.
Our Zionist overlords will be proud of you.:thumb001:. They have educated you well. Because democracy is exactly the thing they don't want and that's why they came up with these present systems.

Jarl
05-22-2010, 05:23 PM
Our Zionist overlords will be proud of you.:thumb001:. They have educated you well. Because democracy is exactly the thing they don't want.

What democracy? With 100% franchise there is only mediocracy and reign of the capital. Whoever herds more sheep into their fence wins the "vote".

The Lawspeaker
05-22-2010, 05:25 PM
What democracy? With 100% franchise there is only mediocracy and reign of the capital. Whoever herds more sheep into their fence wins the "vote".
Exactly. We have no democracy. And we should have one.

Saruman
05-22-2010, 05:35 PM
Exactly. We have no democracy. And we should have one.

What kind of democracy? The masses of uneducated, non-knowledgeable are always easily manipulated by. The old ancient world democracies were not like those of today. A minor portion of population(even among free) made decisions. I would perhaps even make sure that different classes of people have different number of votes for example.

Jarl
05-22-2010, 05:40 PM
The masses of uneducated, non-knowledgeable are always easily manipulated by.

Exactly! Who gave the rigths to those plebeyan dark masses??? Yuck!

The Lawspeaker
05-22-2010, 05:43 PM
What kind of democracy? The masses of uneducated, non-knowledgeable are always easily manipulated by. The old ancient world democracies were not like those of today. A minor portion of population(even among free) made decisions. I would perhaps even make sure that different classes of people have different number of votes for example.

And who keeps them uneducated and non-knowledgeable? The key to democracy is neutral and proper education and a free press. We have neither.

Jarl
05-22-2010, 05:46 PM
And who keeps them uneducated and non-knowledgeable? The key to democracy is neutral and proper education and a free press. We have neither.

They key to democracy is elitism. People must be motivated to vote. Voting cannot be just given away to every bum and vagabond.

The Lawspeaker
05-22-2010, 05:49 PM
They key to democracy is elitism. People must be motivated to vote. Voting cannot be just given away to every bum and vagabond.
Nope. The key is education and information. Elitism will bring us exactly where we are today because it are elites that brought us where we are today.
You are just changing a Judeo-capitalist/liberal elite for an elite with a different label and the outcome will be exactly the same.

RoyBatty
05-22-2010, 05:49 PM
Our Zionist overlords will be proud of you.:thumb001:.


Wrong.

They will be very disappointed in me for opposing their fake "democracy" and very proud of you for supporting it.

"Western democracy" is a scam. It is a make-believe system which portrays itself as offering the masses a say in how their countries our governed when in fact it doesn't. I don't like false advertising, products which don't work or products which don't work as advertised.



They have educated you well.


Au contraire.....



Because democracy is exactly the thing they don't want and that's why they came up with these present systems.

Of course the bosses don't want real democracy but "real democracy" doesn't exist anywhere and even if it did, it still doesn't work because the majority are too stupid to make proper use of it. People who are qualified to govern should govern, not people who win popularity contests.

The Lawspeaker
05-22-2010, 05:51 PM
As I said. We have no democracy and you by supporting a hardline version of the same system that we have today (tyranny, elitism and oligarchy) you are doing them a great service.
Here in our present system the people have no real power. You don't decide whether we have immigrants flooding into our country- an elite does. So we have no democracy.

Jarl
05-22-2010, 05:52 PM
Nope. The key is education and information. Elitism will bring us exactly where we are today because it are elites that brought us where we are today.
You are just changing a Judeo-capitalist/liberal elite for an elite with a different label and the outcome will be exactly the same.


Indeed! Changing the elite for a better, national one, means the things will NOT BE EXACTLY the same.



People who are qualified to govern should govern, not people who win popularity contests.


Howgh Comrade! One party rule! All power to the Soviets!

http://www.cla.purdue.edu/fll/Russian/images/dance12.gif

RoyBatty
05-22-2010, 05:53 PM
Jarl and Saruman are correct. The only useful reasonable compromise with democracy is to allow certain elites / qualified people to decide. It does not work when every idiot with an opinion gets to cast his or her vote.

The Lawspeaker
05-22-2010, 05:54 PM
Jarl and Saruman are correct. The only useful reasonable compromise with democracy is to allow certain elites / qualified people to decide. It does not work when every idiot with an opinion gets to cast his or her vote.
Not really as they will only use their power to absorb and destroy our power. The outcome is always the same.
You only need to look at history.


Indeed! Changing the elite for a better, national one, means the things will NOT BE EXACTLY the same.






Not really as all that elite then seems to need is the label nationalism. Elites follow any "fashion" just to stay in power. But the outcome is always the same: we are not the ones that rule.

RoyBatty
05-22-2010, 05:54 PM
Howgh Comrade! One party rule! All power to the Soviets!


Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer mein schatz.

RoyBatty
05-22-2010, 05:55 PM
Not really as they will only use their power to absorb and destroy our power. The outcome is always the same.
You only need to look at history.

We have no power to begin with. You cannot take away what doesn't exist.

Jarl
05-22-2010, 05:56 PM
our power.


Our power??? Whose power? Dark masses have no power. They can't even exist on their own. They need individuals, elite cliques who will coerce them into a lawful society, organise them into a functional system...

Saruman
05-22-2010, 05:57 PM
Nope. The key is education and information. Elitism will bring us exactly where we are today because it are elites that brought us where we are today.
You are just changing a Judeo-capitalist/liberal elite for an elite with a different label and the outcome will be exactly the same.

You do not understand. Elites have always made decisions. Why? For the same reason you have few great physicists and million of regular ones, so the question is rather which elite is to rule than whether there should be an elite. Direct democracy could only work if somehow all people were connected in a hive mind so they all always knew each others thoughts.

The Lawspeaker
05-22-2010, 05:57 PM
Our power??? Whose power? Dark masses have no power. They can't even exist on their own. They need individuals, elite cliques who will coerce them into a lawful functional society...
Not really. That's what those elites want us to believe (ah.. and that's also how they came up with ideas like multiculturalism). Athens functioned pretty damn well without a real elite.
People need education and indeed guidance.. in the form of the law.
Elites are not the solution. They are the problem.

Jarl
05-22-2010, 05:59 PM
Not really. That's what those elites want us to believe. Athens functioned pretty damn well without a real elite.
People need education and indeed guidance.. in the form of the law.

Athens was 2000 years ago and Devil knows how it worked. Probably pretty shit coz they were first fucked by Sparta, then by Macedonia and finally by Rome.


Where is this power of the masses??? The media say "immigration is cool", "MTV is cool" and the masses buy it. They brand every patriot "a racist" or "a bigot" and the dumb masses do the same... follow the media, cowed into PC-servility, moulded like a piece of clay.

RoyBatty
05-22-2010, 05:59 PM
Athens functioned pretty damn well without a real elite.
People need education and indeed guidance.. in the form of the law.


You have it backwards. In Athens they didn't give every monkey a say. Only the elites got to decide.

The Lawspeaker
05-22-2010, 06:01 PM
You have it backwards. In Athens they didn't give every monkey a say. Only the elites got to decide.
All Athenian men were allowed to vote. That's pretty democratic don't you think ?
But then again. Another nice example of the power of democracy: if the American people had known the full picture of 9-11. Do you think that American boys would now have been dying in Afghanistan and Iraq?

No. It was the elites that lied to the people and dragged those boys there to die.

ikki
05-22-2010, 06:02 PM
And who keeps them uneducated and non-knowledgeable? The key to democracy is neutral and proper education and a free press. We have neither.

direct democrazy works quite well without any parliaments.
We even have internet in these days, combined with utter freedom of expression is the dream.

That some dregs dont vote or participate, no problem. The problem is that only a very small part of society, less than 1:10000 participate today in making policies. Likely even fewer, as the masters of smoky rooms reign supreme. If the top 10% of society would get to participate in politics, it would be a vast improvement.

Does away with foreign bribes too, good luck bribing an entire nation..

Jarl
05-22-2010, 06:05 PM
All Athenian men were allowed to vote. That's pretty democratic don't you think ?
But then again. Another nice example of the power of democracy: if the American people had known the full picture of 9-11. Do you think that American boys would now have been dying in Afghanistan and Iraq?

No. It was the elites that lied to the people and dragged those boys there to die.


Roy is correct. You cannot compare Athenes to the present democracies. Athenians were not some PC-Human Rights obsessed , "let's educate everyone", modern quasi-democracy, but an ancient slavery-based elitist state with rigid classes. Athenian citizens were an elite themselves. Only 10% of inhabitants had the right to vote.

RoyBatty
05-22-2010, 06:06 PM
All Athenian men were allowed to vote. That's pretty democratic don't you think ?


No. All Athenian men (as in men who lived in Athens) were not allowed to vote.




Only adult male Athenian citizens who had completed their military training as ephebes had the right to vote in Athens. This excluded a majority of the population, namely slaves, freed slaves, children, women and metics. Also disallowed were citizens whose rights were under suspension (typically for failure to pay a debt to the city: see atimia); for some Athenians this amounted to permanent (and in fact inheritable) disqualification.

Athenian citizens had to be descended from citizens—after the reforms of Pericles and Cimon in 450 BC on both sides of the family, excluding the children of Athenian men and foreign women.

Saruman
05-22-2010, 06:08 PM
All Athenian men were allowed to vote. That's pretty democratic don't you think ?


But still only a minority of those actually made decisions, as wealthier had more times to spend on it. Though TBH, I was always a huge fan of Sparta, since early childhood.;)

Jarl
05-22-2010, 06:08 PM
;) CSA or Apartheid SA would be your modern "democracy" a la Athenes, Asega...

The Lawspeaker
05-22-2010, 06:09 PM
Roy is correct. You cannot compare Athenes to the present democracies. Athenians were not a PC-Human Rights obsessed modern quasi-democracy, but an ancient slavery-based elitist state. Athenian citizens were an elite themselves. Only 10% of inhabitants had the right to vote.
Which is why it works. If todays Dutch or Poles would know what is really going on they would have kicked out both the judeo-capitalist elite and the immigrants.
The problem is that people technically have a right to vote but no right to be informed and no right to actually make decisions.

Joseph Stalin once said cynically: "He who votes decides nothing; he who counts the votes decides everything." and that.. in a nutshell, sums it all up.

Saruman
05-22-2010, 06:14 PM
Which is why it works. If todays Dutch or Poles would know what is really going on they would kicked both the judeo-capitalist elite and the immigrants out.
The problem is that people technically have a right to vote but no right to be informed and no right to actually make decisions.
It's easier to replace that elite with the new one than to convince every single person. Besides popular revolutionary justice is still led by their elite, so we again turn in circles.

RoyBatty
05-22-2010, 06:15 PM
Which is why it works. If todays Dutch or Poles would know what is really going on they would have kicked out both the judeo-capitalist elite and the immigrants.

Yes perhaps it does work, or at least, it works better.

However, this system you are describing is not democracy aka one man one vote.

It is a voting system for the elites namely pure (relatively) Athenian male citizens only who fulfill the correct criteria. :)

RoyBatty
05-22-2010, 06:17 PM
So.... this means the argument has gone full circle and we are now all in agreement that Western Democracy SUX and doesn't work and only elites ought to have the vote. :D

The Lawspeaker
05-22-2010, 06:18 PM
It's easier to replace that elite with the new one than to convince every single person. Besides popular revolutionary justice is still led by their elite, so we again turn in circles.

Exactly. We would turn in circles. From one power-hungry elite to the next. Today they use multiculturalism and political correctness as the dogma. Tomorrow under a different elite it might be the Church (for instance). The outcome is still always the same: the people aren't sovereign thus actual preservation of the Folk is meaningless as that Folk can be replaced at the whims of the elite. They are just clay in the mold. Cannon-fodder to any elite.


Yes perhaps it does work, or at least, it works better.

However, this system you are describing is not democracy aka one man one vote.

It is a voting system for the elites namely pure (relatively) Athenian male citizens only who fulfill the correct criteria. :)
Thus democracy. And that suffrage could be extended to both (in our case) Dutch citizens older then 25 (as they normally have the mental capacity).

RoyBatty
05-22-2010, 06:26 PM
Thus democracy. And that suffrage could be extended to both (in our case) Dutch citizens older then 25 (as they normally have the mental capacity).

I don't believe that democratic choice ought to be the automatic right of every citizen. Those who abuse their priviliges, who act stupidly, who are treacherous and who are parasites must have their priviliges revoked before they abuse these priviliges further.

I don't agree with age barriers. I've met enough very smart young people who are able to make intelligent choices. The only thing they lack is life experience.

I've come across many > 25 y/o people whose reasoning powers are retarded and no amount of ageing or life experience will ever rectify this situation.

RoyBatty
05-22-2010, 06:28 PM
In my opinion, citizenship (meaning to have the right to vote as well as most priviliges) shouldn't be an automatic right. It needs to be earned.

The Lawspeaker
05-22-2010, 06:41 PM
I don't believe that democratic choice ought to be the automatic right of every citizen. Those who abuse their priviliges, who act stupidly, who are treacherous and who are parasites must have their priviliges revoked before they abuse these priviliges further.


I don't agree with age barriers. I've met enough very smart young people who are able to make intelligent choices. The only thing they lack is life experience.

I've come across many > 25 y/o people whose reasoning powers are retarded and no amount of ageing or life experience will ever rectify this situation.
The right to vote and to be elected ought to be the right and responsibility (that's why social sciences should be one of the top subjects in school) of all the citizenry.

That's why the Athenians had a nice mechanism: they could vote people out of power and actually banish them for a period from living within the city state.
This could be a nice mechanism for any real democracy. Anyone that has been elected should after his period (or when he has been voted out) appear before a high court in a public session and open up the books. If something (even something minute) is wrong: banishment. And if it the corruption and thievery has reached more severe levels: the noose is waiting.

And no. The human brain only develops fully after 25/27 so let's keep that biologically determined age barrier but make it possible for people that are younger to get dispensation.


So.... this means the argument has gone full circle and we are now all in agreement that Western Oligarchy (or Kleptocracy) SUX and doesn't work and only elites ought to have the vote. :D
Fixed

Nodens
05-23-2010, 12:08 AM
39 Critique of modernity. — Our institutions are no good any more: on that there is universal agreement. However, it is not their fault but ours. Once we have lost all the instincts out of which institutions grow, we lose institutions altogether because we are no longer good for them. Democracy has ever been the form of decline in organizing power: in Human, All-Too-Human (I, 472) I already characterized modern democracy, together with its hybrids such as the "German Reich," as the form of decline of the state. In order that there may be institutions, there must be a kind of will, instinct, or imperative, which is anti-liberal to the point of malice: the will to tradition, to authority, to responsibility for centuries to come, to the solidarity of chains of generations, forward and backward ad infinitum. When this will is present, something like the imperium Romanum is founded; or like Russia, the only power today which has endurance, which can wait, which can still promise something — Russia, the concept that suggests the opposite of the wretched European nervousness and system of small states, which has entered a critical phase with the founding of the German Reich.

The whole of the West no longer possesses the instincts out of which institutions grow, out of which a future grows: perhaps nothing antagonizes its "modern spirit" so much. One lives for the day, one lives very fast, one lives very irresponsibly: precisely this is called "freedom." That which makes an institution an institution is despised, hated, repudiated: one fears the danger of a new slavery the moment the word "authority" is even spoken out loud. That is how far decadence has advanced in the value-instincts of our politicians, of our political parties: instinctively they prefer what disintegrates, what hastens the end.

-Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols


In every healthy State the letter of the written constitution is of small importance compared with the practice of the living constitution, the "form" (to use again the sporting term), which has developed of itself out of the experience of Time, the situation and, above all, the race-properties of the nation. The more powerfully the natural form of the body politic has built itself up, the more surely it works in unforeseen situations; indeed, in the end, it does not matter whether the actual leader is called King or Minister or party-leader, or even (as in the case of Cecil Rhodes) that he has no defined relation to the State. The nobility which managed Roman politics in the period of the three Punic Wars had, from the point of view of constitutional law, no existence whatever. The leader's responsibility is always to a minority that possesses the instincts of statesmanship and represents the rest of the nation in the struggle of history.

The fact, express and unequivocal, is that class-States—that is, States in which particular classes rule—are the only States. This must not be confused with the class-States to which the individual is merely attached in view of belonging to an estate, as in the case of the older Polls, the Norman States of England and Sicily, the France of the Constitution of 1791 and Soviet Russia today. The true class-State is an expression of the general historical experience that it is always a single social stratum which, constitutionally or otherwise, provides the political leading. It is always a definite minority that represents the world-historical tendency of a State; and, within that again, it is a more or less self-contained minority that in virtue of its aptitudes (and often enough against the spirit of the Constitution) actually holds the reins. In by far the greater number of cases this minority is one within the nobility—for example, the "gentry" which governed the Parliamentary style of England, the nobiles at the helm of Roman politics in Punic War times, the merchant-aristocracy of Venice, the Jesuit-trained nobles who conducted the diplomacy of the Papal Curia in the Baroque. Similarly, we find the political aptitude in self-contained groups within the religious Estate—not only in the Roman Catholic Church but also in Egypt and India and still more in Byzantium and Sassanid Persia. In the Third Estate—though this seldom produces it, not being itself a caste-unit—there are cases such as those of third-century Rome, where a stratum of the plebs contains men trained in commerce, and France since 1780, where an element of the bourgeoisie has been trained in law; in these cases, it is ensured by a closed circle of persons possessing homogeneous practical gifts, which constantly recruits itself and preserves in its midst the whole sum of unwritten political tradition and experience.

-Oswald Spengler, Decline of the West


As my intent was to offer a bird's-eye view of history, in the previous pages I have presented all the elements necessary to formulate an objective law at work in the various stages of the process of decadence, that is, the law of the regression of castes (1). A progressive shift of power and type of civilization has ocurred from one caste to the next since prehistoric times (from sacred leaders, to a warrior aristocracy, to the merchants, and finally to the serfs); these castes in traditional civilizations corresponded to the qualitative differentiation of the main human possibilities. In the face of this general movement anything concerning the various conflicts among peoples, the life of nations, or other historical accidents plays only a secondary and contingent role.

I have alredy discussed the dawn of the age of the first caste. In the West, the representatives of the divine royalty and the leaders who embody the two powers (spiritual and temporal), in what I have called "spiritual virility" and "Olympian sovereignity," belong to a very distant and almost mythical past. We have seen how, through the gradual deterioration of the Light of the North, the process of decadence has unfolded; in the Ghibelline ideal of the Holy Roman Empire I have identified the last echo of the highest tradition.

Once the appex dissapeared, authority descended to the level inmediately below, that is, to the caste of the warriors. The stage was then set for monarchs who were mere military leaders, lords of temporal justice and, in more recent times, politically absolute sovereigns. In other words, regality of blood replaced regality of the spirit. In a few instances it is still posible to find the idea of "divine right," but only as a formula lacking a real content. We find such rulers in antiquity behind institutions that retained the traits of the ancient sacred regime only in a formal way. In any event in the West, with the dissolution of the medieval ecumene, the passage into the second phase became all-enbracing and definitive. During this stage, the fides cementing the state no longer had a religious character, but only a warrior one; it meant loyalty, faithfulness, honor. This was essentially the age and the cycle of the Great European monarchies.

Then a second collapse ocurred as the aristocracies began to fall into decay and the monarchies to shake at the foundations; through revolutions and constitutions they became useless institutions subject to the "will of the nation," and sometimes they were even ousted by different regimes. The principle characterizyng this state of affairs was: "The king reigns but he does not rule." Together with parliamentary republics the formation of the capitalist oligarchies revealed the shift of power from the second caste (the warrior) to the modern equivalent of the third caste (the mercantile class). The kings of the coal, oil, and iron industries replace the previous kings of blood and of spirit. Antiquity, too, sometimes knew this phenomenon in sporadics forms; in Rome and in Greece the "aristocracy of welth" repatedly forced the han of the hierarchical structure by pursuing aristocratic positions, undermining sacred laws and traditional institutions, and inflitrating the militia, priesthood, or consulship. In later times what ocurred was the rebelion of the communes and the rise of the various madieval formations of mercantile power. The solemn proclamation of the "rights of the Third Estate" in France represented the decisive stage, followed by the varieties of "bourgeois revolution" of the third caste, which employed liberal and democratic ideologies for its own purposes. Correspondingly, this era was characterized by the theory of the social contract. At this time the social bond was no longer a fides of a warrior type based on relationships of faithfulness and honor. Instead, it took on a utilitarian and economic character; it consisted of an agreement based on personal convenience and on material interest 8 that only a merchant could have conceived. Gold became a means ad powerful tool; those who knew how to acquire it and to multiply it (capitalism, high finance, industrial trusts), behind the appereances of democracy, virtually controlled political power and the instruments employed in the art of opinionmaking. Aristocracy gave way to plutocracy, the warrior, to the banker and industrialist. The economy triumphed on all fronts. Trafficking with money and charging interest, activities previouly confined to the ghettos, invaded the new civilisation. According to the expression of W. Sombart, in the promised land of Protestant puritanism, Americanism, capitalism, and the "destilled Jewish spirit" coexist. It is natural that given these congenial premises, the modern representatives of secularized Judaism saw the ways to achieve world domination open up before them. In this regard, Karl Marx wrote:

"What are the mundane principles of Judaism? Practical necessity and the pursuit of one's own advantage. What is its earthly god? Money. The Jew has emancipated himself in a typically Jewish fashion not only in that he has taken control of the power of money, but also in that through him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit of the Christian people. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews. The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the earth. The exchange is the true god of the Jews." (2)

In reality, the codification of the traffic with gold as a loan charged with interest, to which the Jews had been previously devoted since they had no other means through which they could affirm themselves, may be said to be the very foundation of the acceptance of the aberrant development of all that is banking, high finance, and pure economy, which are spreading like a cancer in the modern world. This is the fundamental time in the "age of the merchants".

Finally the crisis of bourgeois society, classs truggle, the proletarian revolt against capitalism, the manifest promulgated at the "Third International" in 1919, and the correlative organization of the groups and the masses in the cadres proper to a "socialist civilization of labor" -all these bear witness to the third collapse, in which power tends to pass into the hands of the lowest of the traditional castes, the caste of the beasts of burden and the standardized individuals. The result of this transfer of power was a reduction of horizon and value to the plane of matter, the machine, and the reign of quantity. The prelude to this was the Russian Revolution. Thus, the new ideal became the "proletarian" ideal of a universal and communist civilization. (3)

We may compare the above mentioned phaenomenon of the awakening and gushing forth of elemental subhuman forces within the structures of the modern world to a person who can no longer endure the tension of the spirit (first caste), and eventually not even the tension of the will as afree force that animates the body (warrior caste), and who thus gives in to the subpersonal forces of the organic system and all of a sudden reacts almost magnetically under the impulse of another life taht replaces his own. The ideas and the passions of the demos soon escape men´s control and they begin to act as if they had acquired an autonomous and dreadful life of their own. These passions pit nations and collectivities against each other and result in unprecedented conflicts and crises. At the end of the process, once the total collapse has ocurred, the awaits an international system under the brutal symbols of the hammer and the sickle.

9 Such are the horizons facing the contemporary world. Just as it is only by adhering to free activity that man can truly be free and realize his own self, likewise, by focusing on practical and utilitarian goals, economic achievements, and whatever was once the exclusive domain of the inferior castes man abdicates, desintegrates, loses his center, and opens himself to infernal forces of which he is destined to become the unwilling and unconscious instrument. Moreover, contemporary society looks like an organism that has shifted from a human to a subhuman type, in which every activity and reaction is determined by the needs of the dictate of purely physical life. Man's dominating principles are those of the material part of traditional hierarchies: gold and work. This is how things are today; these two elements, almost without exception ,affect every possibility of existence and give shape to the ideoloies and myths that clearly testify to the gravity of he modern perversion of all values.

-Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World

Edit: That turned out longer than I had anticipated...

poiuytrewq0987
05-23-2010, 01:20 AM
Well militarily, NK's army is simply using heavily obsolete equipment compared to South. Their armored force is heavily outmatched by the South, troops of the South are far better trained, NK has more numerous but again obsolete artillery, North has developed a solid missile force though, Air Force of North is hopelessly outmatched, Navies are not even comparable. So the only way the North could somehow defend successfully is if their moral was fanatical, which it isn't any more, with country being so poor and basically most of people just wanting to get out.

LOL, why does it matters if their artillery is from the 50s'? They still are capable of blowing shit up.

Austin
05-23-2010, 01:29 AM
Well it isn't true that all their artillery is out of date by any means, it isn't top of the line or recent but enough of it is from the cold war and or stuff illegally purchased in mass from the crumbling Soviet Union and China so the idea that Seoul will be hit with inferior missiles is not true, NK has some of the good stuff from Russia/China that will do severe damage.

Cato
05-23-2010, 04:43 AM
North Korea's legions of half-starved, oppressed soldiers will defeat the combined forces of the U.S. and South Korea and then go on to run amok in the kennels and back alleyways of Asia looking for dogs to add to soup; their Chinese allies will do the same, save cats'll be their target.

poiuytrewq0987
05-24-2010, 08:51 AM
Seoul hits Pyongyang with sanctions, vows UN action

AFP - South Korea will cut trade links with North Korea after Pyongyang torpedoed a warship, President Lee Myung-Bak said Monday, warning that Seoul will immediately defend itself against any future attacks.

Lee also said North Korean merchant ships would be banned from using the South's shipping lanes and confirmed that Seoul would refer the March 26 attack to the United Nations Security Council.

"From now on, (South) Korea will not tolerate any provocative act by the North and will maintain the principle of proactive deterrence," the president said in a nationally televised speech.

"If our territorial waters, airspace or territory are violated, we will immediately exercise our right of self-defence."

http://www.france24.com/en/20100524-seoul-self-defence-pyongyang-torpedo-attack-un-sanctionsNow it's really on!

Groenewolf
05-24-2010, 09:08 AM
Athens was 2000 years ago and Devil knows how it worked. Probably pretty shit coz they were first fucked by Sparta, then by Macedonia and finally by Rome.

Besides they harassed their allies in their own version of NATO. And forced them to accept Athenian political models, or else be colonized with Athenians or face their fleet.

Saruman
05-24-2010, 09:08 AM
LOL, why does it matters if their artillery is from the 50s'? They still are capable of blowing shit up.

Yes they are, the opening salvo of NK would do a lot of damage, but later their military would get pushed to the north. Arty is a support weapon after all, it doesn't win wars all by itself.

Actually I'm more on the side of North here, but I have to be realistic.:D

Liffrea
05-24-2010, 03:23 PM
Originally Posted by Saruman
but I have to be realistic.

There will be no war in North Korea, America doesn’t have enough body bags to cover the cost and South Korea won’t move unless America does. Then there is China…..