This callous disregard of the history of the pacific war is endemic of your myopic world view.
How close to reality is North Korea's threats?
- Thread starter just me
- Start date
This callous disregard of the history of the pacific war is endemic of your myopic world view.
The US elite are not as crude as the N.Korean elite
After WW2 they conducted the biggest psychology survey ever conducted upto that point to analyse the psychology of returning vets
They wanted to know why more soldiers were incapacitated through mental ill health than through physical ill health. They then began to think about how they were going to structure their society in order to manage mass populations in the modern era
They were very concerned how german people could get so riled up as they did under the nazis into a sort of mass hysteria; they were particularly concerned because Germany had been an advanced, well educated, industrialised society just like the US
The frankfurt school made studies and concluded that there were 'authoritarian' personality types who influenced others
There is a very good documentary, aired late at night on the BBC, that looks at the role of psychology in the leadership of the western world made by long term BBC journalist Adam Curtis called 'The Century of the Self': http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/
The US had developed due to its history into a republic which claimed to value 'democracy'
As Noam Chomsky says in a democracy the ruling class cannot be seen to rule by force. It mustn't be seen to be using the stick; it must instead use the carrot.
So the ruling class must 'manufacture the consent' of the populace. The main tool for this is the media which the ruling class own and control
So for example if the ruling elite want to take the US into war with Iraq because Saddam is trading oil in euros instead of dollars then the elite must somehow convince the public to go along with that. So what they do is they go on a lying campain. They tell the US public two main lies:
1. That Saddam Hussein has weapons off mass destruction that pose a clear and present danger to the west
2. That Saddam Hussein was involved in 911
All this was to manufacture the consent of the public so that they either agreed to go to war or at least did not object to heavily to it
Please watch the followig clip to see the lying campaign in action
[video=youtube;nE2SdF1fN4s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE2SdF1fN4s[/video]
The test comes when the public do not acquiesce. For example when the occupy wallstreet movement started peacefully protesting the reactio of the establishment was to send in the police in a heavy handed fashion. So they raided camps, they pepper sprayed women and college kids, they shot at them (and actually shot one iraq vet in the head) with tear gas etc
So when you oppose the US establishment (even if you do it peacefully) you will find that actually your right to democracy is not respected and that behind that illusion all that matters is the rule of the ruling elite
The ruling elite don't want direct confrontation with their populace so they keep them pacified in various ways for example the ideology of consumerism which provides people with many distractions and comforts; they will even lend people money to engage in consumerism
This ploy is wearing thin now as people have run out of money and credit so now the US government must use different means to control the public. It must militarise the police force, create new terror laws which enable them to control the public, increase surveillance of the public, pass the NDAA allowing the indefinate detention and torture of US citizens, have armed spy drones patrolling the skies, pass laws like PIPA, SOPA, CISPA to control the internet, try and disarm the public etc
Fascism is when corporate power and government power blend together as they did in nazi germany. the same thing has happened in the US and wallstreet now controls the government
So the illusion of a caring government is now vapourising before our eyes as the mask of democracy slips off and we are now seeing the true fascist dictatorship that lies behind it.
As the economic situation worsens due to the fed printing more and more money creating inflation which will drive down the purchasing power of peoples money the people will et more and more angry and the government will get more and more overtly controlling like the N.Korean one
- Many US people are already dependent on food stamps and that number is rising; that is staving off starvation for the time being
- People in time will be encouraged to spy on each other
- people are already indebted to the bankers making them indentured serfs
- US citizens will be given ID cards which like their passports will operate by a microchip which will control their movements in and out of the US and also around the US itself
- The ID card will then be replaced with an RF chip inserted beneath the skin of the arm which peoples money will be electronically stored on so that everyone behaves (because anyone who resists will have their chip shut off)
No its true, the Japanese knew they were defeated
The offical line is that they were refusing to surrender and that the bombs were dropped to prevent a land invasion by US troops thereby saving many lies
That is untrue, the japanese were looking to surrender, they just wanted to negotiate terms
You should research what i'm saying instead of calling me a liar
Hey sport, i have done my research. I will not delineate the facts here because that is an utter waste of time.
The Japanesse were prepared to defend their island the way churchhill pontificated that the brits would but could never do.
The Russians were set to invade and take a chunk of japan.
What followed was horrible but it was not a test, a show of bravado nor a false flag operation.
You are not the only person on the internet who has read a couple of books.
The Japanesse were prepared to defend their island the way churchhill pontificated that the brits would but could never do.
The Russians were set to invade and take a chunk of japan.
What followed was horrible but it was not a test, a show of bravado nor a false flag operation.
You are not the only person on the internet who has read a couple of books.
Last edited:
You've perhaps not researched outside the offical line though
Hitler shifted from bombing British runways to bombing british cities. This enabled the RAF to keep putting fighters in the air. If he had filled the runways with craters he could have grounded the RAF
This means that had the Germans tried to invade across the channel they would have incurred heavy loses as their ships were bombed and straffed by the RAF
The British also had created a network of defences and a secret army to disrupt german communications behind their lines. there have been war games run to establish if germany could have invaded the UK.
It seems their loses would not have made it worth while even if they had acheived it (a 'Pyrrhic victory')
I said it was done for a number of reasons. one of those reasons was to test the weapon. Another reason was to send a message to the Russians...i said that before
Whats important is not how many books you've read but which ones
The victor writes the history
You said i had a 'callous disregard for history' and that i had a 'myopic view'
Lying is a broad area (the following is curtesy of wikipedia):
To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally.
[h=2]Classification[/h] [h=3]Bad faith[/h] Main article: Bad faith (existentialism)
As defined by Sartre, "bad faith" is lying to oneself. Specifically, it is failing to acknowledge one's own ability to act and determine one's possibilities, falling back on the determinations of the various historical and current totalisations which have produced one as if they relieved one of one's freedom to do so.
[h=3]Barefaced lie[/h] A barefaced (or bald-faced) lie is one that is obviously a lie to those hearing it. The phrase comes from 17th-century British usage referring to those without facial hair as being seen as acting in an unconcealed or open way. A variation that has been in use almost as long is bold-faced lie, referring to a lie told with a straight and confident face (hence "bold-faced"), usually with the corresponding tone of voice and emphatic body language of one confidently speaking the truth. Bold-faced lie can also refer to misleading or inaccurate newspaper headlines, but this usage appears to be a more recent appropriation of the term.[SUP][1][/SUP]
[h=3]Big Lie[/h] Main article: Big Lie
A lie which attempts to trick the victim into believing something major which will likely be contradicted by some information the victim already possesses, or by their common sense. When the lie is of sufficient magnitude it may succeed, due to the victim's reluctance to believe that an untruth on such a grand scale would indeed be concocted.
[h=3]Bluffing[/h] To bluff is to pretend to have a capability or intention one does not actually possess. Bluffing is an act of deception that is rarely seen as immoral when it takes place in the context of a game, such as poker, where this kind of deception is consented to in advance by the players. For instance, a gambler who deceives other players into thinking he has different cards to those he really holds, or an athlete who hints he will move left and then dodges right is not considered to be lying (also known as a feint or juke). In these situations, deception is acceptable and is commonly expected as a tactic.
[h=3]Bullshit[/h] Main article: Bullshit
Bullshit does not necessarily have to be a complete fabrication; with only basic knowledge about a topic, bullshit is often used to make the audience believe that one knows far more about the topic by feigning total certainty or making probable predictions. It may also merely be "filler" or nonsense that, by virtue of its style or wording, gives the impression that it actually means something.
[h=3]Butler lie[/h] A term coined by researchers in Cornell University's Social Media Lab that describes small/innate lies which are usually sent electronically, and are used to terminate conversations or to save face. For example sending an SMS to someone reading "I have to go, the waiter is here" when you are not at a restaurant is an example of a butler lie.[SUP][2][/SUP]
[h=3]Contextual lie[/h] One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Likewise, one can actually state accurate facts, yet deceive with them. To say "Yeah, that's right, I ate all the white chocolate, by myself," utilizing a sarcasm that is a form of assertion by ridiculing the fact(s) implying the liar believes it to be preposterous.
[h=3]Economy with the truth[/h] Main article: Economy with the truth
Economy with the truth is popularly used as a euphemism for deceit, whether by volunteering false information (i.e., lying) or by deliberately holding back relevant facts. More literally, it describes a careful use of facts so as not to reveal too much information, as in speaking carefully.
[h=3]Emergency lie[/h] An emergency lie is a strategic lie told when the truth may not be told because, for example, harm to a third party would result. For example, a neighbor might lie to an enraged husband about the whereabouts of his wife, who he believes has been unfaithful, because said husband might reasonably be expected to inflict physical injury should he encounter his wife in person. Alternatively, an emergency lie could denote a (temporary) lie told to a second person because of the presence of a third.
[h=3]Exaggeration[/h] Main article: Exaggeration
An exaggeration (or hyperbole) occurs when the most fundamental aspects of a statement are true, but only to a certain degree. It is also seen as "stretching the truth" or making something appear more powerful, meaningful, or real than it actually is.
[h=3]Fabrication[/h] A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth. Examples of fabrication: A person giving directions to a tourist when the person doesn't actually know the directions. Often propaganda is fabrication.
[h=3]Fib[/h] A fib is a lie told with no malicious intent and little consequence. Unlike a white lie, fibs rarely include those lies or omissions that are meant to do good.
[h=3]Half-truth[/h] Main article: Half-truth
A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.[SUP][3][/SUP]
[h=3]Haystack answer[/h] A haystack answer (or statement) is a volume of false or irrelevant information, possibly containing a true fact (the needle in the "haystack"). Even if the truth is included, it is difficult or impossible to detect and identify. In this way, the legendary Leprechaun hid his pot of gold,[SUP][4][/SUP] even after it had been found.
[h=3]Honest lie[/h] Main article: Honest lie
An honest lie (or confabulation) is characterized by verbal statements or actions that inaccurately describe history, background, and present situations. There is typically no intent to deceive and the individual is unaware that their information is false.
[h=3]Jocose lie[/h] Jocose (cf. jocular) lies are lies meant in jest, intended to be understood as such by all present parties. Teasing and irony are examples. A more elaborate instance is seen in some storytelling traditions, where the humor comes from the storyteller's insistence that the story is the absolute truth, despite all evidence to the contrary (i.e., tall tale). There is debate about whether these are "real" lies, and different philosophers hold different views (see below).
The Crick Crack Club in London organize a yearly "Grand Lying Contest" with the winner being awarded the coveted "Hodja Cup" (named for the Mulla Nasreddin: "The truth is something I have never spoken."). The winner in 2010 was Hugh Lupton. In the USA, the Burlington Liars' Club awards an annual title to the "World Champion Liar".
[h=3]Lie-to-children[/h] Main article: Lie-to-children
A lie-to-children is a lie, often a platitude, which may use euphemism(s), which is told to make an adult subject acceptable to children. Common examples include "The stork brought you" (in reference to childbirth) and the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny.
[h=3]Lying by omission[/h] Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission. It can be compared to dissimulation.
[h=3]Lying in trade[/h] The seller of a product or service may advertise untrue facts about the product or service in order to gain sales, especially by competitive advantage. Many countries and states have enacted consumer protection laws intended to combat such fraud. An example is the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act that holds a seller liable for omission of any material fact that the buyer relies upon.
[h=3]Lying through your teeth[/h] When one lies face-to-face with the intended recipient. This also may be an expression describing the act of lying with a smile or other patronizing tone or body language.
[h=3]Minimisation[/h] Main article: Minimisation (psychology)
Minimisation is the opposite of exaggeration. It is a type of deception[SUP][5][/SUP] involving denial coupled with rationalisation in situations where complete denial is implausible.
[h=3]Misleading and dissembling[/h] Main article: Misleading
A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth. "Dissembling" likewise describes the presentation of facts in a way that is literally true, but intentionally misleading.
[h=3]Noble lie[/h] Main article: Noble lie
A noble lie is one that would normally cause discord if uncovered, but offers some benefit to the liar and assists in an orderly society, therefore, potentially beneficial to others. It is often told to maintain law, order and safety.
[h=3]Perjury[/h] Main article: Perjury
Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law, or in any of various sworn statements in writing. Perjury is a crime, because the witness has sworn to tell the truth and, for the credibility of the court to remain intact, witness testimony must be relied on as truthful.
[h=3]Polite lie[/h] Main article: Polite lie
A polite lie is a lie that a politeness standard requires, and which is usually known to be untrue by both parties. Whether such lies are acceptable is heavily dependent on culture. A common polite lie in international etiquette is to decline invitations because of "scheduling difficulties."
[h=3]Puffery[/h] Main article: Puffery
Puffery is an exaggerated claim typically found in advertising and publicity announcements, such as "the highest quality at the lowest price," or "always votes in the best interest of all the people." Such statements are unlikely to be true - but cannot be proven false and so do not violate trade laws, especially as the consumer is expected to be able to tell that it is not the absolute truth.
[h=3]View from Nowhere[/h] Main article: View from Nowhere
The View from Nowhere refers to journalism and analysis that misinform the audience by creating the impression that opposing parties to an issue have equal correctness and validity, even when the truth of their claims are mutually exclusive.
[h=3]White lie[/h] "White lie" redirects here. For other uses, see White lies (disambiguation).
White lies are minor lies which could be considered to be harmless, or even beneficial, in the long term. White lies are also considered to be used for greater good. A common version of a white lie is to tell only part of the truth, therefore not be suspected of lying, yet also conceal something else, to avoid awkward questions. White lies are also often used to shield someone from a hurtful or emotionally damaging truth, especially when not knowing the truth is completely harmless.
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]
The sad thing is that you do have some good points but then you blow them so far out of proportion that people will always struggle to take you serious. You raise real concerns but then distort the reality of them by taking facts and using them as evidence to only one possible cause. The same facts I could use to argue many other perspectives and in reality, each would probably have some bit of truth but none would be the whole truth. I won’t go into specifics with you because an argument with you is pointless.
So I will pose some questions instead and assume you are correct; what do we do? You have made it very clear that you have spent countless hours researching how evil and wrong governing bodies are. You have dug up every fact you possibly can to prove this but to what end? Wonderful, you have excellent skills of hindsight but now provide a solution to the problem you have so diligently uncovered.
I am going to assume that everything you have said is 100% correct, so now what? I am sold; you don’t have to present any further reasons. So what is the next step? How do we as the 99% change this? How do we avoid yet another revolution where the old 1% is killed off only to be replaced by the new 1% that claimed to be fighting for the people but then suppresses the people in a new and creative way until the next revolution?
How do we stop this pattern that has repeated itself more times than can be recalled since the dawn of civilization? How do we stop something that seems to be part of the very natural order of things as many social animals form a similar hierarchy? Your right it is a destructive pattern that results in the vast majority being subjugated to the whims of a few. Each and every governing body has fallen into this pattern; each claiming to be the resolution.
Communism, capitalism, etc… in principle are not evil ideas in themselves. They are just ideas, theories on how one can achieve a human utopia of equality. The problem is; that as you pointed out in one of your posts, they have been up to this point impossible to achieve. No true communistic body has ever been able to exist because history has shown that such bodies are corrupted by dictatorships. Capitalism doesn’t exist fully for the same reason though the results are slightly different.
So tell me, what is the resolution to this problem?
The sad thing is that you do have some good points but then you blow them so far out of proportion that people will always struggle to take you serious. You raise real concerns but then distort the reality of them by taking facts and using them as evidence to only one possible cause. The same facts I could use to argue many other perspectives and in reality, each would probably have some bit of truth but none would be the whole truth. I won’t go into specifics with you because an argument with you is pointless.
So I will pose some questions instead and assume you are correct; what do we do? You have made it very clear that you have spent countless hours researching how evil and wrong governing bodies are. You have dug up every fact you possibly can to prove this but to what end? Wonderful, you have excellent skills of hindsight but now provide a solution to the problem you have so diligently uncovered.
I am going to assume that everything you have said is 100% correct, so now what? I am sold; you don’t have to present any further reasons. So what is the next step? How do we as the 99% change this? How do we avoid yet another revolution where the old 1% is killed off only to be replaced by the new 1% that claimed to be fighting for the people but then suppresses the people in a new and creative way until the next revolution?
How do we stop this pattern that has repeated itself more times than can be recalled since the dawn of civilization? How do we stop something that seems to be part of the very natural order of things as many social animals form a similar hierarchy? Your right it is a destructive pattern that results in the vast majority being subjugated to the whims of a few. Each and every governing body has fallen into this pattern; each claiming to be the resolution.
Communism, capitalism, etc… in principle are not evil ideas in themselves. They are just ideas, theories on how one can achieve a human utopia of equality. The problem is; that as you pointed out in one of your posts, they have been up to this point impossible to achieve. No true communistic body has ever been able to exist because history has shown that such bodies are corrupted by dictatorships. Capitalism doesn’t exist fully for the same reason though the results are slightly different.
So tell me, what is the resolution to this problem?
A nation that has sworn to destroy the US is testing long-range rockets and detonating A-bombs underground, and this is not news?
Are you serious?
Last edited:
Lol
Ok so tell me how N.Korea is going to destroy the US?
Are they the worlds first kamikaze nation? Because even if they were they do not have the capability to destroy the US; even if they develop long range misiles they would still not be capable of destroying the US
Its all rhetoric. N.Korea has not been invading other countries, the US has. Its the US that has proven itself again and again to be an aggressor
- Aug 28, 2008
- 4,628
- 1,956
- 857
- MBTI
- ENTP
Didn't N.korea invade S.Korea in the 1st place starting this whole thing off?
To be fair, I don't think that they would see it that way... it wasn't technically an invasion because the country wasn't technically split at the time... it was a power grab that turned into a civil war.
The problem was that after the Japanese surrender Korea had no formal government (having been under Japanese rule since the early 20th century). China was aligned with the Soviets and Japan was aligned with the US... WWII had formally ended Britain's dominance of the world and Russia and the US were the new superpowers-- Korea was a strategic position... the Soviets wanted to dominate Asia (they already had China on board at the time) and the Americans were afraid of losing Japan. Neither side wanted to concede their influence over Korea, so they split the country down the middle, and they were both supposed to settle things down, remove the Japanese, and work together to rebuild the nation and then leave it to its own devices.
The problem was that both installed their own choice for leader. Both men claimed to be the leader of the 'true' Korea... Kim Il Sung was in Pyongyang and Syngman Rhee was in Seoul-- both began operating as if they were in charge of the whole country. I do think that Kim Il Sung probably had more support at the time, because the Soviets found an anti-Japanese guerrilla leader and folk hero (Kim Il Sung) who leaned 'left', while the Americans chose someone who had been active politically, but hadn't done any real fighting and had been living in the States during the war-- this became a problem.
BUT the Americans didn't force anyone to stay in the South-- the same can't be said for the North... though I don't think either was such a great option at the time. Stalin basically took Kim Il Sung and made him into another Stalin (with a few changes of course), which is why they still have the personality cult, the labor camps, the lack of freedoms, etc. And the South endured decades of oppressive rule before becoming what they are today-- an unabashed consumer society.
I think that the Korean people would probably rather to have never fought that war at all, regardless of whose side they ended up on-- they got a really shitty deal but I don't think that the Soviets are more to blame than the Americans or vice versa. They never really had a chance to find their own way.
So yeah, it probably didn't matter who invaded who first... but the Americans DIDN'T give the South any heavy weapons while the North was heavily armed by the Soviets... so yes, the North started the war and fought their way down to the very southern tip of the peninsula before the Americans intervened and drove them back a bit further North than the DMZ... and then China stepped in and moved the border slightly to the South of where it had originally been (that's where it is today). It was the first US/Soviet proxy war in Asia, with Vietnam being the second... and it actually helped to kickstart the Japanese economy (Vietnam helped with the Korean economy).
But yes, North Korea doesn't want to invade anyone, and nobody wants to invade them... but you can't deny that they ARE an oppressive regime and that there is a lot of suffering going on there. They're also a huge part of the black market weapons trade and you can't just let people go testing nuclear weapons and long-range rockets and making threats against your country without responding... if it's all a bluff then why are America's actions somehow worse than North Korea's?
Last edited:
They are Photoshopping the images of their military and navy. They probably don't have the technology to deploy a nuclear warhead using a ballistic missile. At least not from NK. Maybe if they could get it on a ship. And that's a big maybe. And that would be even worse for them because their navy sucks compared to what the US has. And NATO. On top of that they could never get a warship past the defense shields. If they attack, which doesn't seem likely, it won't be a very long war. They'll be absolutely decimated. But a lot of innocent people in South Korea will be killed by NK forces as well. And I don't want that.
The biggest problem with NK is the fact that they are insane. Even if they don't attack anyone now, they will keep working on their nuclear program and military training until they feel strong enough to attack someone. Their regime cannot be changed peacefully. Someone has to put a stop to their insanity. I just hope when that happens, civilian casualties will be minimal.
The biggest problem with NK is the fact that they are insane. Even if they don't attack anyone now, they will keep working on their nuclear program and military training until they feel strong enough to attack someone. Their regime cannot be changed peacefully. Someone has to put a stop to their insanity. I just hope when that happens, civilian casualties will be minimal.
