Bush sure taught North Korea an important lesson

[Q Classic]

I dont get it, are u not capable of readin my abbreviations? or do u just not like me and need something to whine about, cuz frankly its getn kinda stupid.

i am capable of reading your abbreviations. however, given that practically every other person on this board is polite enough to use real english in substantive discussions, it reflects poorly on you that you choose not to.

trust me on this. you will get far more respect for your opinions if they are not written in internet shorthand, be it in the real world or on message boards where the majority of the populace uses (relatively) standard english.

[yavoon]

wut is not polite about it? u sed u can read it right? plz dont be inane and bring threads down to getting on ppl for how they spell when u can read it perfectly well.

thats wut is not polite.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Sava
I won't argue the fact that Clinton's policy was unsuccessful

Sig quote!

[Az]

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, is a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children... This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from an iron cross." --Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953

Ike.

[Q Classic]

l1k 1 s3d, s4v4: 4sk1n y4v00n +0 4c+u||y +yp3 |1k 4 3duc8d prsn w/ f3w 1ntrn3t 4bbr3vs 1s |1k 4sk1n k1m j0ng 1| +0 d1s4rm n 61v up h1s n00ks p34c3fu||y.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by yavoon
wut is not polite about it? u sed u can read it right? plz dont be inane and bring threads down to getting on ppl for how they spell when u can read it perfectly well.

thats wut is not polite.

I have no objection to you using abbreviations that save time. However the stuff like "wut" is really really annoying.

[Q Classic]

it is critical to know your audience. it's one of the fundamental rules of any sort of composition. usually, the type of audience can be determined by how they compose themselves.

in order to argue more persuasively, more effectively, and come across as "one of the guys", one must match one's style towards the audience.

the under-16 abbreviation-crazy internet writing style is no more fitting towards an audience such as this as 1337sp33k, even if it is understandable.

[Q Classic]

and now to answer the one thing you've contributed to this thread:

yes and I already explained the pt. It was a sarcastic response to oerdin. he was asserting that their military buildup was due to our sanctions and threats. and that it was keeping them poor and uneducated.

so in turn I posed the question that if we stopped sanctioning and threataning them would they engage in education form..etc...neway. its pretty clear. lets not drag this out just so u can save ur ego or sumtin.

nkorea, if statistics are to be believed, has a 100% literacy rate. believe it if you want or not, but nkoreans are, by and large, not so much uneducated as brainwashed. they are intelligent people who have had a decent education, no better and no worse than an american education, save the constant barrage of propaganda the nkoreans suffer through.

they are kept poor because they are operating with a broken system. it's as simple as that. even if the united states stopped all sanctions against nkorea and allowed trade with the country, nkorea itself is so firmly locked in the concept of self-reliance, or juche, that it would more than likely refuse to allow any foreign investment outside of the few special economic zones which it has--meaning, by and large, most of the 22million nkoreans would still remain poor.

the nkorean military buildup is largely due to a perceived threat by the nkoreans of american and skorean might. nkorea, being firmly stalinist, has an apocalyptic view of the world which boils down to a paranoia of any capitalist nation seeking to destroy its "worker's paradise". therefore, it seeks to defend itself by investing as much as it can into the military.
therefore, one can conclude that yes, nkorea's military buildup is largely due to what it sees as american threats and sanctions, even if america itself does not think that it is doing anything at all.

one must realize that in a nation as closed to the world as nkorea, any sort of outside pressure is considered a threatening act, and will only cause it to engage in further paranoiac behavior. nkorea will never scale down its spending on the military, no matter what us policy might be.

and for the record, giving skorea nukes is a bad idea.

[Sava]

Thanks Jaguar Warrior. I always am honored to be sig material. Although, I wonder if you are overexaggerating the significance of me disliking Clinton or saying his foreign policy is crap. I've never professed to be a Clinton fan. In fact, I continually grill him on his foreign policy. He was a good president for the economy, that's about it. It's important for people to remember there are more than two political ideologies. Just because I bash Republicans, doesn't mean I'm a Democrat . I just happen to vote for Democrats a lot because Republicans are worse.

Q-Cubed: Great Teddy quote. I was looking for that one.

[Vandal-1]

If NKorea is a threat then it is an indirect threat tho the U.S. via our manufacturing centers in the Pacific rim.and if Bush has taught NKorea anything then it is that American merchants are in controle of the american military and all its assets and that it will use them to protect thier interes.If the leadership of this country were indeed serving the people instead of the merchants then our investments in our own sphere would be a priorty over and above the theft of oil and other rescources for multinational coorporations to fuel
industry outside of the U.S. or provide for thier security at the expense of billions of dollars.Furthermore thier are issues of weapons superiority and capability from the NKoreas viewpoint unless they make a first strike there will be no strike at all.The whole damned thing can be destroyed from space if we know where it is and they can't do a thing about it. I for one believe that someone in NK realizes this.I don't see what the NKorean leadership hopes to gain unless its a deterence against emerging nuclear powers nieghboring it.So what did the NKoreans teach the Bush whitehouse?

[Spec]

Originally posted by Sava
Yup... the Bush Doctrine is a very responsible and reasonable doctrine that other countries should follow. Once again, the United States is setting an excellent example for the world.

good one Sava.





Spec.

[Q Classic]

Furthermore thier are issues of weapons superiority and capability from the NKoreas viewpoint unless they make a first strike there will be no strike at all.

not quite. you are quite correct in assuming that if the us engages in a first strike, there will probably be no retaliatory strike against american soil.
however, nkorea has enough conventional munitions and weaponry that there would most definitely be a strike on skorea.

The whole damned thing can be destroyed from space if we know where it is and they can't do a thing about it.

how so?
the united states has no space-based weapons platforms; spy satellites, not coming equipped with weaponry, does not count.
second, even with the spy satellites in the sky, there is a lot we don't know about the nkorean military's distribution. in the end, it would be difficult to cripple the nkorean military in any sort of first strike.

I for one believe that someone in NK realizes this.I don't see what the NKorean leadership hopes to gain unless its a deterence against emerging nuclear powers nieghboring it.So what did the NKoreans teach the Bush whitehouse?

emerging nuclear powers neighboring it? there are no emerging nuclear powers. russia and china have had the bomb. skorea, japan, and taiwan can all develop nuclear capability fairly quickly, but have not done so because all three nations are under the american nuclear umbrella.
the nkorean leadership seeks to gain another payoff. it's as simple as that. in exchange for them scaling down or perhaps not constructing as many nukes, they want us to fund their evil regime for that much longer.
that's why it's building it.
even if nkorea didn't have the nuclear deterrent, it is highly doubtful that the united states would ever attack it first; skorea, being a close ally, has far too much at risk of being destroyed that it would likely refuse to cooperate with an action.

[yavoon]

hehe hi q. well I have no idea about the literacy rate. but I mistyped a lil education form=education reform.

of which n. korea most certainly does not have. and would not have if we stopped threataning/sanctioning them. so if that makes it a lil clearer for u then great.

u did contradict urself, u sed militarily n.korea is directly reacting to american threats and sanctions then u instantly go back and say that n.korea's military buildup would happen regardless of US policy. so perhaps u want to look at that a lil.

[yavoon]

oh and on how I type. I'm not here to change neone's mind. I'm just here to read threads and give my opinion. if ppl wish t hate on my opinion cuz they dislike how its presented then its their loss. since I certainly dont need nething from them so I feel no need to conform to their shortcomings.

[Q Classic]

hehe hi q. well I have no idea about the literacy rate. but I mistyped a lil education form=education reform.

what education reform does nkorea need?
1nd33d, D1S 4bbr3v +n6 duz Nu++in b+t 0bfsc8 yu0r p+ m0.
nk0r34 duz h4v 4n 3duc8n4| SYS, s0 yu0r 4||3g4t10n d4t d g0vt k3pz d3m un3duc8d 1z f4|z.
h0w3vR, d g0v+ 4ls0 k3pz d3m br41nw4sh3d; d4t 1z n0t s0 much 4 pRt 0f d 3duc8shun SYS, h0w3vR, bt m0 d f4u|t 0f 4 p3rv4s1v3 s+4|1n1s+ m1nds3+ wch 0fn r3wr1+3s h1st n d 1984 s3ns3.

u did contradict urself, u sed militarily n.korea is directly reacting to american threats and sanctions then u instantly go back and say that n.korea's military buildup would happen regardless of US policy. so perhaps u want to look at that a lil.

this is what i said, yavoon:

the nkorean military buildup is largely due to a perceived threat by the nkoreans of american and skorean might. nkorea, being firmly stalinist, has an apocalyptic view of the world which boils down to a paranoia of any capitalist nation seeking to destroy its "worker's paradise". therefore, it seeks to defend itself by investing as much as it can into the military.
therefore, one can conclude that yes, nkorea's military buildup is largely due to what it sees as american threats and sanctions, even if america itself does not think that it is doing anything at all.

one must realize that in a nation as closed to the world as nkorea, any sort of outside pressure is considered a threatening act, and will only cause it to engage in further paranoiac behavior. nkorea will never scale down its spending on the military, no matter what us policy might be.

actually, no, i didn't contradict myself.
i said that the nkorean military buildup is largely due to perceived threats, not a direct reaction to american behavior.
nkorea sees virtually anything as a perceived threat, so no matter what the us does, nkorea would see it as a hostile act by an aggressor.
who's twisting words now? perhaps if you read what i said, you'd realize that i didn't pin the blame on the us's policies at all. you'd also realize that i'd be agreeing with you on the fact that nothing we do would stop nkorea's militarization.
"so perhaps u want to look at that a lil" next time.

oh and on how I type. I'm not here to change neone's mind. I'm just here to read threads and give my opinion. if ppl wish t hate on my opinion cuz they dislike how its presented then its their loss. since I certainly dont need nething from them so I feel no need to conform to their shortcomings.

if you're not here to argue to convince other people, why do you argue?
if you wish for people to accord your opinions more weight and respect, rather than shoot your mouth off and seem like an uninformed yokel, you have to match your text to the audience. it's one of the most critical basics of effective composition.