It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: North Korea Warns UN Sanctions Will Be a `Declaration of War'

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I do not think that war is coming with North Korea. As it has already been said, N. Korea has been using this threat for many years. IMO, they want nukes for the same reason the US, or anyone else wants them, to deter an invading force. The US will not invade N. Korea, because it is not a guaranteed victory.




posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake
I do not think that war is coming with North Korea. As it has already been said, N. Korea has been using this threat for many years. IMO, they want nukes for the same reason the US, or anyone else wants them, to deter an invading force. The US will not invade N. Korea, because it is not a guaranteed victory.


By this thread you say that it will be NK declaring war.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
IMO, neither force will "declare" war. The US will not invade because it is a war that we know we cannot win (unlike Iraq or Afghanistan). North Korea will obviously not invade US borders, so they only have the threat of nuclear retaliation to any of our invasions.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Sorry, sometimes I dont "see" internet talk,(IMO) I had to stop and think about what it ment.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
What a setup... I applaud the puppeteers... they have outdone themselves...
I really didn't see this one coming until now...
NK has been a thorn for some time... what to do about the troll doll? Well, they don't have money, they don't have oil... they are preventing SK from advancing in many ways...so what to do?
maybe if we sold them some nuke plants, we could convince the world that they were more of a threat than they really are...
it would make it easier to gain a "coalition of the willing"

Some have said this is bushes fault...
it isn't Bushes fault...
so whos fault is it? Actually it is Rumsfelds..... he sold the Nuke plants to them...
kinda convienant that we are using them as an excuse to harrass the crazy troll doll now... can you say HYPOCRITE much? (of course crazy Kim deserves it, but we set him up for a clear excuse)



IMPLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY: When asked to comment on NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONAL’s story concerning Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s role as a board director of ABB—the Zurich-based energy company that sold two light-water nuclear reactors to North Korea in 2000—Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke responded, “There was no vote on this issue and Secretary Rumsfeld does not recall [the sale of the reactors] being brought before the board at any time.” ABB has declined repeated requests to make board-meeting minutes available, but there is little doubt within ABB that its board members knew about the deal. In fact, ABB CEO Goran Lindahl visited North Korea himself in November 1999 to announce ABB’s “wide-ranging, long-term cooperation agreement” with the communist regime and announced the opening of an ABB office in Pyongyang. Board meetings attended by Rumsfeld were held before and after Lindahl’s visit to Pyongyang. ABB’s U.S. spokesman, Ronald Kurtz, notes that he would “find it hard to imagine how anyone on the board did not know about this deal—because of its political complexity.” And in the event that Rumsfeld simply nodded off to sleep every time the topic came up, ABB celebrated the deal with a January 2000 press release headlined: ABB TO DELIVER SYSTEMS, EQUIPMENT TO NORTH KOREAN NUCLEAR PLANTS. $200 MILLION IN ORDERS AWARDED UNDER MULTI-GOVERNMENT FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT. Surely even a board member totally uninterested in nukes—let alone Rumsfeld—would have read that.

source:
newsweek article via smirking chimp

true dat...

know your enemy... and then sell him nukes..



[edit on 26-4-2005 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
an un-named foreign ministry spokesman = propaganda



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
North Korea continues to make nuclear headline news.



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - North Korea has the ability to mount a nuclear missile on a long-range missile and the communist state could hit U.S. territory, the head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency said on Thursday.

The agency played down the statement by its director, Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, which appeared to break new ground, and said he was speaking theoretically, but it prompted expressions of deep concern from Democrats.

President Bush, asked about the assessment at a White House news conference, said it was not certain whether Kim Jong-il, President of the reclusive communist state, had developed the ability to arm missiles with a nuclear weapon.

U.S. Agency Says N.Korea Can Mount Warhead on Missile



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
This guy can say pretty much whatever he wants because he knows the US doesn't have the resources or stomach for another Iraq type war. Thats what a war with NK would be.

Do not underestimate the resolve of the United States. Just because you do not have the testicular fortitude to stand up for what you think is right does not mean the U.S. does not. It is so easy to sit back and critize when you are safe and sound from in your little anti-American world.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   
They say that so much it's lost all meaning. Does anybody in their right mind really think that Crazy Kim is going to attack South Korea or launch a missile at somebody after China fails to veto sanctions against him? You'd have to be stoned!
In my arrogant opinion (why bother calling it humble when you all know me), the UN needs to impose the sanctions now simply to show Iran and everyone else in the world (USA included depending on your point of view) that nuclear weapons/military might does not exempt you from the rule of law.)
I don't think they would do anything. I've said it a million times- it would be a slap in the face to China, and if there's one thing I don't advise doing, it's screwing with China's pride when you haven't got plenty of ocean between you and them.
Even if I'm wrong, in my opinion it would be a war worth fighting (for the UN). I'm not a big fan of the UN, I don't really want the UN to become all that powerful honestly, but objectively speaking if the UN intends to wield any authority they have to establish RULE of law, not suggestion of law, and the only way do to that is by enforcement. Key word: FORCE. From the UN point of view (not my own) the UN should NEVER back down. If it means world war three, even a nuclear world war three, so be it, because you can't have order without deterrence of some form, and you can't have deterrence without making your resolve unqestionable.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
They say that so much it's lost all meaning. Does anybody in their right mind really think that Crazy Kim is going to attack South Korea or launch a missile at somebody after China fails to veto sanctions against him? You'd have to be stoned!
In my arrogant opinion (why bother calling it humble when you all know me), the UN needs to impose the sanctions now simply to show Iran and everyone else in the world (USA included depending on your point of view) that nuclear weapons/military might does not exempt you from the rule of law.)
I don't think they would do anything. I've said it a million times- it would be a slap in the face to China, and if there's one thing I don't advise doing, it's screwing with China's pride when you haven't got plenty of ocean between you and them.
Even if I'm wrong, in my opinion it would be a war worth fighting (for the UN). I'm not a big fan of the UN, I don't really want the UN to become all that powerful honestly, but objectively speaking if the UN intends to wield any authority they have to establish RULE of law, not suggestion of law, and the only way do to that is by enforcement. Key word: FORCE. From the UN point of view (not my own) the UN should NEVER back down. If it means world war three, even a nuclear world war three, so be it, because you can't have order without deterrence of some form, and you can't have deterrence without making your resolve unqestionable.

Great post Vagabond. I agree that the U.N. should not gain the pwoer they so actively seek when they cannot backup what they say.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
If it means world war three, even a nuclear world war three, so be it, because you can't have order without deterrence of some form, and you can't have deterrence without making your resolve unqestionable.


Yep, nobody could question the UN's resolve then! Nobody...



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
This guy can say pretty much whatever he wants because he knows the US doesn't have the resources or stomach for another Iraq type war. Thats what a war with NK would be.


The last time somebody told us "we didn't have the stomach" we mopped the floor with him in 100 hours of ground combat. People get the wrong idea about the United States because we don't shoot our citizens when they protest against war. Make no mistake, when something is important, we'll fight- and we're very, very very good at it.

I know all of you anti-Americans think that the war in Iraq heralds a return to the good old days of Vietnam, but don't count your hippies before they vote. The fact of the matter is that there isn't a country in the world that could do as well as we are doing in Iraq without resorting to near-genocidal brutality. China, Russia, and Iran (to name a few) would be lucky to maintain their own borders if they were playing by the same rules as we follow in Iraq, in terms of low troop density and trying not to blow up innocent people wherever avoidable. Of course even that is really beside the point.
The real point here is that you seem to think that because we've lost a little under 2000 men in Iraq that we'd have a problem defeating North Korea? Riddle me this Batman, how many of those casualties did we take in the process of wiping the floor with the Iraqi military? Korea already has a standing government and military. Maybe you've heard of it- it's called the ROK. No occupation. No "Iraq type war", unless of course you mean a resounding victory which sets new records for speed of advance.
If Shrub gives the order to start preparing today, the fighting will start in November and our boys would all be back behind the 38th parallel and waiting to come home by next April. If I had to guess on casualties i'd say 5,000-10,000. Now before you tell me what a big deal that is, let me remind you that if the Kursk is any indication, Russia would lose a fifth of that number just by deploying their 10 remaining Oscar II class submarines in peacetime.

America bashers, I think a Kim Jong Il quote applies here. "I feel that since I am being discussed I must be on the right track." I think that explains the ridiculous assertions of weakness regularly aimed at America, while the now crumbling accidental superpower (Russia) is occasionally heralded as some kind of unstoppable juggernaught laying in wait to crush us.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by The Vagabond
If it means world war three, even a nuclear world war three, so be it, because you can't have order without deterrence of some form, and you can't have deterrence without making your resolve unqestionable.


Yep, nobody could question the UN's resolve then! Nobody...



I assume you mean because nobody would be left
.

Call me cold if you like, but you can't make an omlett without destroying the world... um... I mean breaking a few eggs. The fear of death and the fear of change are crippling the human race.

Try this- if you happen to be outdoors with somebody on a windy day, have a coke, and drain it till there's only a very little bit left- so that the wind can blow it over. Set it down, and wait for the wind to knock it over. 9 out of 10 people will try to catch it. Why? To save that last sip of coke? No. Because humans will instictively guard against change or loss- even to something useless.

I'd rather destroy everything we've accomplished so far and have to start over again than to have my great great great great to the 10th power grand children still living in this same ridiculous status quo that never gets anything done and merely twidles its thumbs (or sits on them) while all manner of horrible things go unchecked. Any reasonable deity would have reached down from the clouds and slapped us silly by now, but since He hasn't seen fit to do so yet, somebody here on Earth may have to do the job for him.

This is kind of half baked and foolish I know. I'm making the arguement more for amusment than anything else, but really, what exactly are we clinging to? Corruption, stagnation, and slow death? Why not take a gamble on evolution- afterall, it might not mean nuclear war. Maybe the threat would be enough.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
This is kind of half baked and foolish I know. I'm making the arguement more for amusment than anything else, but really, what exactly are we clinging to? Corruption, stagnation, and slow death? Why not take a gamble on evolution- afterall, it might not mean nuclear war. Maybe the threat would be enough.


I knew you weren't serious, well hoped anyway.


For a threat to be taken seriously, it has to be believeable and unfortunately many countries would not believe the UN would go so far as forcing a nuclear conflict. That's exactly when you want to duck and cover, because things can go very badly when you start calling bluffs. Our tenth generation grandkids might not thanks us for playing chicken with their planet.


[edit on 4/29/2005 by mythatsabigprobe]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
For a threat to be taken seriously, it has to be believeable and unfortunately many countries would not believe the UN would go so far as forcing a nuclear conflict. That's exactly when you want to duck and cover, because things can go very badly when you start calling bluffs. Our tenth generation grandkids might not thanks us for playing chicken with their planet.


[edit on 4/29/2005 by mythatsabigprobe]


Some might have had the same apprehensions about getting into a war with Germany in the late 30s (or early 40s in America's case) but as it turned out, a devastating war was preferable to letting Hitler's wrongs go unchecked.
Even though I obviously don't want to see a nuclear war, I could honestly see the value of taking a risky stand in the name of law and order. That goes for America in terms of stopping proliferation, and even for the UN in terms of enforcing international law. I don't like the UN, and I'd probably fight them if they crossed America, but I have to say that I'd at least respect them and see it as a step in the right direction if they suddenly had the guts to draw a line in the dirt and say "don't you dare", even if they did it to America.

Now in the North Korea situation, I honestly do think there is no time like the present for a nuclear war. They've only got 10 or 20 missiles that the range to target all of Japan as I understand it. (number taken from globalsecurity.org- i found it while researching another thread a while back). They MAY have a couple (i think it was 5 or so) that can reach the western US. Things are only going to get worse, and their demands are only going to get bigger. The way I see it we have to draw a line in the dirt right now, while we can honestly afford to punish them for crossing it. If we wait until they have the capability to rain dozens or even hundreds of warheads on our continent it's too late, and sooner or later they'll take a step that we honestly can't tollerate, and they'll be accustomed to us backing down. And there you have it, a big war because we wouldn't fight a small one. If the UN would do it instead of just America, all the better. Somebody should though. There has to be progress. How worthwhile is it really to preserve a status quo that is bringing us nothing but bad things, especially when that status quo will inevitably fail as the direct result of the bad things which it allows to transpire?



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   


... after Washington said it may take the issue of the communist nation's nuclear program to the UN Security Council.


America has mastered this art of pushing countries to provoke hostile actions.

Take for example WWII, when America created an oil embargo against the Japanese in order to stave them into conflict. The Japanese attained the majority of its oil through American sources and the US knew this so they exploited it and cut them off prior to the war.
The Japanese when then faced with two options:

1) Run out of oil and revert back to the pre-industrial age.
or
2) Secure their own oil reserves, the closet being in the Dutch
East Indies (known today as Indonesia) to which the US fleet was in the way of.

What was the only option to continue stability? Destroy US pacific fleet and secure oil reserves.
This also left the option open for America to play the "it was unprovoked!" card.

In my personal opinion, threatening a country with sanctions is just as bad as dropping bombs on its civilians. Either way it’s the people (not the government) that suffers, and could easily be viewed as 'striking first'.



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Vagabond you must truly be a fool to believe what you've been typing. Ive never resorted to name calling before on here but I think your rather lengthy posts have angered me enough to warrant it.

If the World had adhered to your logic 50 years ago practically none of us here reading this thread would be alive. Why? Because the United States would of entered into a nuclear war with the USSR thats why. The fall out from that war would of contaminated all of the continental United States and all of Europe. Great freakin gamble, stave off a potential larger war by starting a smaller one.


Fantastic idea. Can I suggest an alternative? Rather than making our deaths a certainty cant we just hope that the status quo will prevail and we'll all get to keep living and breathing? I'd rather put faith in the status quo than absolutely condemn myself and millions of others to death just for sh*ts and giggles.

Back on topic, the North Koreans are bluffing, pure and simple. As stated before this is their prefered tactic to get what they want.

Currently its my understanding that North Korea "enjoys" no diplomatic ties with the United States which would make a diplomatic resolution to this problem a complete farce. Its also to my understanding the North Koreans are still under US sanctions that have been in place since the 1950's. These sanctions were relaxed by President Clinton in September 1999 to improve relations and to get the North Koreans back to the bargaining table. The sanctions however were not fully dismantled and any transactions between the United States an the North Koreans have to be approved by the Department of Commerce. Any transactions that are not previously approved attract up to a 10 year jail term and $1million fine for corporations.

So ramping up sanctions, in my understanding, will do little to stop North Korea's rise to a nuclear power as it has done absolutely nothing to prevent the situation we find ourselves in currently anway. Also the threat of war is a little hollow when you realise that they are already under sanctions in the first place.

US Treasury Web Site: Existing North Korean Sanctions

[edit on 29/4/05 by subz]



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   
The odd thing about this whole situation is that NK seems to think having nuclear weapons will deter the US or possibly get some blackmail money which the current administration doesn't seem willing to pay. However developing nuclear weapons and the ability to share that has vastly increased the chance NK will be attacked in my opinion.

If NK didn't want to be invaded, they could simply get rid of their nuclear weapon program and nukes. Apparently NK is believing they can still get money, resources or something out of all this rhetoric.

If NK does an attack or starts a nuclear war, the US has a few nukes of our own we can respond with. If NK starts it, the US public will be totally committed to the war as well. Of course if nukes are used, it will be a very short war I believe. It would also be a total breakdown of diplomacy and common sense for NK in my opinion. The world economy would also suffer tremendously under the uncertainty of war between two nuclear countries IMO. The economic situation would definitely affect China and other countries as well so that makes this possible situation a world problem and not just a US-NK problem.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by orionthehunter
The odd thing about this whole situation is that NK seems to think having nuclear weapons will deter the US or possibly get some blackmail money which the current administration doesn't seem willing to pay. However developing nuclear weapons and the ability to share that has vastly increased the chance NK will be attacked in my opinion.

History seems to disagree with you there orionthehunter. The United States has never entered into direct confrontation with a nuclear equiped country. Why should this case be any different?


Originally posted by orionthehunter
If NK didn't want to be invaded, they could simply get rid of their nuclear weapon program and nukes. Apparently NK is believing they can still get money, resources or something out of all this rhetoric.

Did having no nuclear weapons stop Afghanistan or Iraq from being invaded by the United States? Regardless of the justications for the multitude of US invasions the fact remains that if you have no nuclear weapons and youre on the list of nations that piss the United States off youre likely to be invaded.


Originally posted by orionthehunter
If NK does an attack or starts a nuclear war, the US has a few nukes of our own we can respond with. If NK starts it, the US public will be totally committed to the war as well. Of course if nukes are used, it will be a very short war I believe. It would also be a total breakdown of diplomacy and common sense for NK in my opinion.

How is the United States trying to avoid that very outcome? Calling their obviously unstable leader a tyrant and evil? Who's fault would it be if this turned nuclear? Who is antagonising who here?


Originally posted by orionthehunter
The world economy would also suffer tremendously under the uncertainty of war between two nuclear countries IMO. The economic situation would definitely affect China and other countries as well so that makes this possible situation a world problem and not just a US-NK problem.

Now youre getting some where. Youre 100% correct that a nuclear war, or even potentially nuclear, would seriously hamper World markets. The United States currency can not withstand a stock market crash at this time.

The only favourable reasons for starting a War over Korea will be if China invades Taiwan. Then the United States can attack North Korea, with the aid of South Korea, and get a nice staging post on China's border. A perfect place to fight a battle over Taiwan and a possible decapatation strike on Beijing. (not to mention being a stones throw from the Eastern Russian border, quite a handy US outpost of its own)

Thats why I think the United States is keeping World attention on North Korea. So that in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan it can justify a separate invasion of North Korea, who would be unrelated to the Chinese/Taiwan conflict. This strategy of sustaining a 'reason to invade' North Korea is also a clear shot over China's bow to discourage a Taiwan invasion. It says "Invade Taiwan and we're on your land border so fast your head will spin"

As an addendum I think people should keep an eye on Myanmar (aka Burma). Their current ruling junta makes Saddam look like a pussy cat. The country is a human rights blackhole and the United States wouldnt have to look hard for a reason to invade this strategic gem of a country.

Its located nicely inbetween India and China as well as being in a "strategic location near major Indian Ocean shipping lanes" (according to the CIA World Fact Book). Taking this country and making it friendly to United States forces would be a major coup. Much easier to acheive under human rights grounds than either Afghanistan or Iraq were. Under the shadow of the two likely flashpoints of Taiwan and North Korea I can see Burma coming to the fore some time in the near future.

[edit on 30/4/05 by subz]



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Vagabond you must truly be a fool to believe what you've been typing. Ive never resorted to name calling before on here but I think your rather lengthy posts have angered me enough to warrant it.


I agree that my posts have warranted name calling. When you can't argue with someone on logical grounds, that's the time to resort to name calling. Perhaps if you were a better man my post wouldn't have warranted name calling.



If the World had adhered to your logic 50 years ago practically none of us here reading this thread would be alive. Why? Because the United States would of entered into a nuclear war with the USSR thats why.


Not analogous at all. The North Koreans can't take us right now- they could destroy a city or five- nothing compared to having a maniac's regime with the ability to wipe out our entire country.
If we'd knocked the snot out of the Soviet Union when they first got the bomb, before they had enough to destroy us, we could have ended the coldwar and invested in something worthwhile with all that money that went in to defense just to keep us from being anhilated.


The fall out from that war would of contaminated all of the continental United States and all of Europe. Great freakin gamble, stave off a potential larger war by starting a smaller one.


Be more specific if you don't mind. Are you referring to a war with Korea or a war with the USSR when they were at the stage North Korea is at today? I'd be interested in hearing how you figure the few nukes it would take to destroy the Korean nuclear program and military would be enough to wipe out the world.
Same for taking out the Soviets early on. We could have crippled them before they ever stood up with just a few bombs. Waiting until they built enough to cause a major war was exactly the problem.
We're on the back edge of the window of opportunity with North Korea. North Korea should have been destroyed back in 96 when they fired a stragetic missile over Japan to test their capability to launch MIRVs.



Fantastic idea. Can I suggest an alternative? Rather than making our deaths a certainty cant we just hope that the status quo will prevail and we'll all get to keep living and breathing? I'd rather put faith in the status quo than absolutely condemn myself and millions of others to death just for sh*ts and giggles.

This status quo can not endure. This status quo is allowing developments which threaten to destabilize it, not to mentionn cause even more deaths that a war would cost right now. The current status quo stands idle while every maniac in the world pursues weapons of mass destruction. Take a gamble at forcing a sollution, and if it doesn't work destroy the maniacs and the status quo along with them.
We're not talking about "sh*ts and giggles". It's not that I just want to see the mushroom clouds rise. I don't know if you're paying attention to the world we live in, but this is a dangerous age we are entering. People who believe in blackmail, and people who have religious beliefs which may not be deterred by MAD are gaining access to nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. We seem to have suddenly forgot the lessons of the mid 30s. The very lessons which have guided foreign policy for over 50 years, which gave us the common sense to stop maniacs like Saddam in 91, suddenly they are thrown out the window. The lesson is simple and must be remembered: When an aggressor is arming himself, you fight now or fight later. The longer you wait, the worse it will be.



Back on topic, the North Koreans are bluffing, pure and simple. As stated before this is their prefered tactic to get what they want.

That's EXACTLY why their bluff must be called. As I said in the beginning, we've got to draw a line in the dirt. There are scenarios where this does not involve nuking them. But when they keep saying "if you stand up to us, it's war" we have to call that bluff. The demands will grow. If we keep backing down, they're going to invade South Korea thinking that they'll blackmail us just like always, and what happens then? We'll either have to fight or back down, and if we fight, it will go nuclear- but when that day comes, they'll have more nukes and better range.
Do you see where I'm going here? We've got to take a stand and set an example- destroying them isn't my primary goal, but it may be a necessary part of preserving international security.



So ramping up sanctions, in my understanding, will do little to stop North Korea's rise to a nuclear power as it has done absolutely nothing to prevent the situation we find ourselves in currently anway. Also the threat of war is a little hollow when you realise that they are already under sanctions in the first place.

They aren't under sanctions from China and Russia. Where do you think they got all of those friggin T-62s from? UN sanctions would cut down on their weapons procurement and production, and would in turn deter them from going to war with South Korea. Furthermore, the principle of showing them that the treat of war is ultimately important, because it will prevent them from undertaking a conventional war effort under the mistaken belief that nobody will stand up to them because of their nukes. The sanctions can't disarm them, but they can keep them from starting a war.
Furthermore, Clinton's relaxing of the sanctions was a good thing- UNTIL we let them cheat without punishing them. We should have bombed their facilities back in the 90s to punish them, then offered them another chance. Pretty simple- make a deal and prosper or make war and lose. Their choice. That works.
American foreign policy is flawed. I'm not 100% militant. I believe in carrot AND stick. We tend to try one or the other though, and neither of those things works in isolation.


I'm concerned that maybe I haven't been very clear, and I KNOW that I've been a little over the top, half jokingly, to emphasize the importance of force.
So here it is in the clearest terms possible. When they push, you push back, then you offer them favorable and acceptible terms of peaceful coexistence. You can try this in the real world. Go to a somewhat rough place and never stand up for yourself and see what happens. Then go to the same place and fight every time somebody even mildly offends you. I suggest carrying a gun because either of those things can get you killed. Then go around being civil, trying hard to be peaceful, but when push comes to shove, kick you assailant's butt and make an example. That's the best way to get around.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join