I hear from pretty much everyone in the political threads here and in my daily life that we should get out of the Middle East and stop policing the world. My question to those is how many human's rights repressive regimes with nuclear capabilities are you willing to put up with for this exchange? And, are you willing to sacrifice Israel?
How many North Koreas do you want in the world?
- Thread starter franklin
- Start date
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
The key is to take over the world. Team up with England, Germany, Canada, etc. to make the axis of awesome. Trump is the first step.
fallenchicken
Well-Known Member
Well, i mean, it's kind of hard to imagine there being more than one "north korea." It's sort of limited by geography. It's in the title.
If we can get one here in the US, and get the commitment from So. Korea to blast some K-Pop at us non-stop, then I'm in in. I love that ****.
What a seriously dumb thread. So much for the nuance that franklin always preaches. How about we stop supporting repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia? Or stop creating more chaos and terror like we did in the disaster that is the Iraq war?
North Korea's impact on the rest of the world is negligible. The cluster**** that the US helped create in the Middle East? Not so much.
North Korea's impact on the rest of the world is negligible. The cluster**** that the US helped create in the Middle East? Not so much.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
Response from N. Korea:
The lightbulb is a primitive relic of outmoded feudal society. Socialism demands its replacement by the progressive fluorescent tube. Under the Five Year Plan we shall make millions. Eventually.
b_line
Well-Known Member
At least three. They are short.
So if we carefully untangle ourselves from worldwide interventionism the result will be more repressive regimes and they will all automatically gain nuclear capabilities? I'm not so sure.
I feel like much of what's wrong with the world today is the fallout of the cold war in which the U.S. was willing to get into bed with all types of dictators, repressive regimes, extremists, and on and on, just so long as they would at least temporarily make life harder for the Soviet Union. We propped them up, we trained them how to fight, we armed them. What we have now is an attempt to mitigate the damage WE caused. And we're getting into bed with a new batch of dictators, repressive regimes, extremists, etc. in the hopes that they'll help us stop our last batch of bitter ex-lovers.
You feel like our interventionism has gone past the point of no return and now we have no option but to double down and intervene some more?
I feel like nukes are the trump card that everyone pretends doesn't exist in this discussion.
We also got into bed with all types of dictators and repressive regimes to win WWII. An enemy of your enemy is your friend. You think societies shouldn't pragmatically do what they need to do in the moment? Where's the diplomacy in your scathing of our previous foreign policy? Nations have dealt this way since the beginning of society.
You're also being extremely assumptive of the outcomes that those nations would be in today had the US not been involved. Who's to say they wouldn't have been every bit as extreme? They were for 1000's of years previously.
My question is about nukes only. It always comes back to that for me and I'd like to hear what others think. Including you, nuanced SirOmar.