Protester Arrested

Ripper

Peace Through Superior Firepower
Originally posted by Delance
That sounded strange. We must have more details before any conclusions are taken. Frosty raised a good point.
I know I missed a lot of the stuff said here, but what everyone reporting this story usually leave out is that the guy and his son were harrassing other mall patrons, the mall received complaints about the harrassment, they were asked to leave, refused, real cops got into it. If they hadn't been harrassing people, they would have been O.K.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
Sometimes I actually think that's true. Get on TV, some publicity and such. I wonder how many protesters protest for the exposure they'll get.
 

junior

Spaceman
Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Sometimes I actually think that's true. Get on TV, some publicity and such. I wonder how many protesters protest for the exposure they'll get.
I remember hearing this about one protester. I can't remember the name of the guy, but he basically rushed the microphone while Reagan was speaking at some awards banquet (where Reagan had been presented with an award of some sort) and briefly commandeered the microphone before the Secret Service hauled him away.
The guy was an unknown before that.
Next thing he knew, he was a celebrity spokesperson.

As far as who North Korea will and will not talk to, I don't think it has anything to do with North Korea's lack of allies. Rather its the fact that the US is the acknowledged world super power. A talk directly with the US elevates North Korea's prestige more than if the "lesser" powers are included at the negotiating table.
It also helps to reinforce North Korea's claim that the South Korean government (and possibly the Japanese government) is merely a lackey of the evil United States (the US, of course, being the sole reason that the two Koreas cannot peacefully reunite).

China's silence on the North Korean nuke issue is not merely disturbing to me because the Chinese don't appear to have said anything. It's disturbing to me because people don't seem to recognize that there's anything odd about it. If there's a 500 lb. gorilla sitting in the room, I'd expect someone to at least acknowledge it. Instead people seem to be pretending that the gorilla doesn't exist.
 

redwolf

Spaceman
Junior I agree. China is the one who always rattles the sabre, especially over Taiwan; whinge, moan and complain that they should be given more recognition on the world stage, yet we haven't heard a peep out of them.

If they honestly want to be a superpower, they should be seen to be brokering some sort of deal, or be involved themselves in the talks. They are North Korea's greatest ally.

If they wanted to be a superpower, or at least the greatest power in the East Asian region, they should be doing something. No wonder the US more or less dismisses them, because China seems to miss their opportunities to be elevated on the world stage.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
What makes you think it's in their interests to broker a deal? The US isn't about to invade North Korea. The status quo is being maintained. So there's no need to oppose American moves there, especially when doing so could cause rifts between China and Japan, an important trading partner. Or should they be trying to disarm North Korea? That would make even less sense, since North Korea is no threat to them. On this issue, like on any other, China is doing exactly what's best for them - in this case, absolutely nothing. At least nothing in public - what they're doing backstage is anyone's guess.
 

junior

Spaceman
Someone speculated on another board that China's silence may be tied to two different possibilities. The first is that the Chinese provided the original nuclear technology to North Korea, much as they did with Pakistan. Their silence is because of this.
The second suggestion was that the Chinese are silent because they merely wish to gauge how strongly the US will react and how it will go about doing that. The Chinese undoubtedly expect to start challenging the US more and more, and this provides a valuable opportunity for them to evaluate how the US will respond in a given situation.
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
About N. Korea and China

First off i find several people's complete and utter disregard for N. Korea truely disturbing. N. Korea has nukes for two very good reasons. 1. to give them a bargaining chip so they can actually negotiate with the US and other countries to get something beneficial out of trade agreements. more importantly 2. so they dont have to do what the US tells them to. The US will not attack a nation that can take two of our largest trading partners and turn them into glow in the dark parking lots (im refering to the ROK and Japan), our economy simply could not stand to lose either nation as a trading partner, thus we will not attack N. Korea. N. Korea wants what most countries want, some degree of self determination and in todays world you need something to give you the ability to tell the US to f*ck off for Korea it is nukes. Likewise we shall not attack N. Korea because they can probably vape parts of california and the one MOST IMPORTANT rule of US policy in a post WW2 world is NEVER fight someone who actually can fight back, we made a mistake in underestimating N. Vietnam but since then we have stuck to our guns and only attacked hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned "enemies" most of which couldnt hurt the US if they tried.

China happens to be most probably the future. China's economy has seen some gigantic growth and leading indicators tend to suggest that over the next couple of decades they will be in the top 3 of economic world powers. They will be placing a probe on the moon in the next 4 years and in 2007 alot of their energy problems will be solved as they complete one of the largest dams ever constructed. They also have the military might to do what they wnat rather than what we tell them due to their enormous population and decent nuclear capability.

Iran: simply put it is already the most democratic nation in the middle east. (It doesnt have enforced constitutional apartheid like israel, that is why it counts as more democratic) and the civil government has some say in the matters of the state, some, not much but some. Also Iranians arent pro-american by and large they are pro iran, and they think that some degree of reconciliation would help them out, but i wouldnt call them any more pro-american than the rest of the world, which today means not at all.

Just a side note, back after 911 the US had the sympathy and support of almost every country, candlelight vigils were held in Tehran, Paris, Berlin, etc. Look at what has been done in a year and a half, we went from having the support of almost every nation and its populace to barely having the support of some nations and having practically no country's people support us. People who were crying on the streets of Paris out of sympathy are now leading the charge against our government's plan of action. I think this fact sorta says it all about the current US policies to the world and the current us government (bush has likewise squandered his own personal domestic support going from 90% approval rating to in a recent poll done by Quinipiac having more people say they would vote for whoever the democrat who runs against him than those who would vote for bush).
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
Originally posted by Napoleon
First off i find several people's complete and utter disregard for N. Korea truely disturbing. N. Korea has nukes for two very good reasons.
Truly disturbing is the apology for genocie and totalitarism.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
That's funny, I didn't notice him apologising for anything. If anything, he's simply stating the obvious. Well, at least in the first paragraph, but that's the only thing you were responding to, so...
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
The reasons NK has nukes are not "good". It's a Stalinist hellhole, and yet he finds it "disturbing" that people don't treat it with more respect. He stated he thinks it's acceptable that NK build nukes to threaten and blackmail others, and even says that's what every country wants and it's the only way to have determination. That's just stupid.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Delance
The reasons NK has nukes are not "good". It's a Stalinist hellhole, and yet he finds it "disturbing" that people don't treat it with more respect. He stated he thinks it's acceptable that NK build nukes to threaten and blackmail others, and even says that's what every country wants and it's the only way to have determination. That's just stupid.
Oh yes, had he written any of the things you imagine he wrote, I would agree - that would be stupid of him. As it happens, however, you're reading what you imagine he wrote instead of reading what he actually wrote.

One, he doesn't say that the reasons NK has nukes are good - he says that NK has nukes for good reasons. The difference is that your version implies that he's happy about NK having nukes and he thinks everybody else should be happy, whereas in his version, he simply says that North Korea believes it has good reasons to have nukes. And from a realist perspective, they're right, too - having nukes certainly reduces the chances of the US picking a fight with you.

Two, he doesn't find it disturbing that people don't treat NK with more respect. He finds it disturbing that people disregard it. Disregard is not equal to disrespect, and therefore, regard is not equal to respect - he wants people to pay attention to NK, not to respect it. And, from a realist perspective, he's right. It's stupid to disregard a nuclear power just because you think they're morally bad. Morality is not an issue when dealing with nuclear powers.

Three, he doesn't say every country wants nuclear weapons. He says most countries want self-determination. This, naturally, is common sense. No country wants to be controlled by another.
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
Originally posted by Quarto
One, he doesn't say that the reasons NK has nukes are good - he says that NK has nukes for good reasons.
He implies it's a correct, defendable position that makes sense. It is not.

Two, he doesn't find it disturbing that people don't treat NK with more respect. He finds it disturbing that people disregard it. Disregard is not equal to disrespect, and therefore, regard is not equal to respect - he wants people to pay attention to NK, not to respect it. And, from a realist perspective, he's right. It's stupid to disregard a nuclear power just because you think they're morally bad. Morality is not an issue when dealing with nuclear powers.
That makes even less sense then his message.

First off, disregard has 2 meanings:

1. To pay no attention or heed to; ignore.
2. To treat without proper respect or attentiveness.
Pick your option, both are stupid. People are not ignoring NK because of the nuclear threat. To resist being blackmailed is not to ignore the threat. Also, they shouldn't be respecting more NK because is a totalitarian dictatorship with nuclear weapons.

Three, he doesn't say every country wants nuclear weapons. He says most countries want self-determination. This, naturally, is common sense. No country wants to be controlled by another.
You are just twisting further the already twisted things he wrote. He said NK was making nukes for the noble reason of protecting itself from the greedy capitalists. If you buy that crap, you should really dig the whole NK propaganda that evil US is planning to invade their great country, rob them of their wealth, and remove their people from the wonders communism.

The point is not that countries don't want self-determination. Of course they do. But self-determination is not the issue here. It’s blackmail. It’s threatening to nuke other countries, as he stated himself.
 

junior

Spaceman
Originally posted by Napoleon
About N. Korea and China

First off i find several people's complete and utter disregard for N. Korea truely disturbing. N. Korea has nukes for two very good reasons. 1. to give them a bargaining chip so they can actually negotiate with the US and other countries to get something beneficial out of trade agreements. more importantly 2. so they dont have to do what the US tells them to. The US will not attack a nation that can take two of our largest trading partners and turn them into glow in the dark parking lots (im refering to the ROK and Japan), our economy simply could not stand to lose either nation as a trading partner, thus we will not attack N. Korea. N. Korea wants what most countries want, some degree of self determination and in todays world you need something to give you the ability to tell the US to f*ck off for Korea it is nukes. Likewise we shall not attack N. Korea because they can probably vape parts of california and the one MOST IMPORTANT rule of US policy in a post WW2 world is NEVER fight someone who actually can fight back, we made a mistake in underestimating N. Vietnam but since then we have stuck to our guns and only attacked hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned "enemies" most of which couldnt hurt the US if they tried.
And, of course, the North Koreans don't have nukes because they'd like to blackmail South Korea into forceably rejoining with them.
The idea that the US would attack North Korea over anything other than nukes has pretty much been laughable. The US invaded North Korea during the Korean War (under UN auspices), and gave it up when the Chinese forced a stalemate. The common comment about the US contingent in the DMZ is that its too small to have much of an effect on the fairly sizeable North Korean military if North Korea ever decides to invade the South.
North Korea doesn't have nukes because it wants to protect itself against American aggressors - unless Kim really does believe all of his own propaganda. It has nukes so that it gains additional leverage over the South and can hopefully reunite the countries on the terms of the North, and it has nukes so that it can force the US to pay attention - much as it did when it shot down an unarmed US reconnaisance plane in international waters, and much as it did when it seized a US intelligence ship in international waters.
If it weren't for the nukes and the missile tests, no one would be paying attention to North Korea. And much like a toddler, North Korea finds that thought too terrible to endure.

Originally posted by Napoleon
Just a side note, back after 911 the US had the sympathy and support of almost every country, candlelight vigils were held in Tehran, Paris, Berlin, etc. Look at what has been done in a year and a half, we went from having the support of almost every nation and its populace to barely having the support of some nations and having practically no country's people support us. People who were crying on the streets of Paris out of sympathy are now leading the charge against our government's plan of action. I think this fact sorta says it all about the current US policies to the world and the current us government (bush has likewise squandered his own personal domestic support going from 90% approval rating to in a recent poll done by Quinipiac having more people say they would vote for whoever the democrat who runs against him than those who would vote for bush).
Yes, we all remember the sympathy that we had in the world. There was quite a lot of it on 9/12. And for a little while after that. But then there was the best seller in France that claimed that the whole thing was a US plot. And the endless debate over whether the US should go into Afghanistan and chase al Qaeda and its hosts out of the country. And the mullahs that claimed that Jews were told to not go into work on 9/11.
The majority of the Arab street really does believe that al Qaeda is merely the scapegoat, and that Mossad, or another branch of the Israeli government, planned the whole thing. Conspiracy theory books in foreign nations don't become best sellers if there aren't an awful lot of people that believe there's something to the conspiracy - and that's in a nominally "allied" nation. And wars only become international issues when the leaders of nations bother to take them before the international community for approval, or if Israel isn't losing.

QUICK! QUICK! Which foreign nation is France currently unilaterally militarily involved in?

Iranians may or may not care much about the US, but those ARE pro-US demonstrations that they throw. And believe it or not, JFK is quite well respected over there. The Iranians are undoubtedly aware that they have no greater ally in becoming a free people than the US, and they're undoubtedly grateful for it.
 

Aries

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by Napoleon
N. Korea has nukes for two very good reasons. 1. to give them a bargaining chip so they can actually negotiate with the US and other countries to get something beneficial out of trade agreements.
so the ablilty so say "give us what we want or we'll nuke you is a 'very good reason'?

more importantly 2. so they dont have to do what the US tells them to. The US will not attack a nation that can take two of our largest trading partners and turn them into glow in the dark parking lots (im refering to the ROK and Japan), our economy simply could not stand to lose either nation as a trading partner, thus we will not attack N. Korea.
they never had to in the first place. nobody HAS to do what the US tells them to. yeah, we'll cut off trade agreements or what ever, and it is in the best interest of them to comply, but they don't HAVE to do what we say. they choose to do what we say. there is a big difference between the two.

N. Korea wants what most countries want, some degree of self determination and in todays world you need something to give you the ability to tell the US to f*ck off for Korea it is nukes.
i don't know what disturbes me more: the fact that N. Korea has nukes, or the fact that having the nukes makes N. Korea feel big. one of the most dangerous things to world peace is a little country with an overblown sense of it's own importance (like N. Korea) with nukes

Likewise we shall not attack N. Korea because they can probably vape parts of california and the one MOST IMPORTANT rule of US policy in a post WW2 world is NEVER fight someone who actually can fight back, we made a mistake in underestimating N. Vietnam but since then we have stuck to our guns and only attacked hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned "enemies" most of which couldnt hurt the US if they tried.
well, in case you didn't know, the act of picking up a gun and shooting it at someone who is shooting at you is 'actually fighting back' every military action we have been in since WW2, the opposing side had 'actually fought back' and we have had soldiers killed. i know that doesn't mean much to you, but to those of us who have had or currently have family and friends in the military, it means something to us. and also to let you know, Desert Storm was planned to go up against the 4th largest army (i believe that was it's ranking. i know it was larger than the US army) in the world which had just come out of an 8 year war with iran which was armed with both soviet and western military equipment and outnumbered the colition forces. pentagon officials estimated that it would be a long and bloody (for both sides) war. if that is attacking a hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned 'enemy', your definition and mine are completely different
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
If September 11 was set up by the government, why didn't the Al Qaeda try and deny it? And if it really was Al Qaeda's doing, was America supposed to just BOHICA or something?
 
Top