2004 Election

North Korea is a communist country, they hate the U.S.A, they have nuclear weapons.

The General of Vietnam in 1975 said "if it wasn't for these guys (Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War) we would have lost."

North Korea is a communist country, they hate the U.S.A, they have nuclear weapons.

That would be the perfect justification if you were a playground bully, but that in no means justifies a millitary advancement into North Korea. China is a communist country with nuclear weapons, but we aren't attacking them. Plus, a large part of the world hates the USA. So again, how is it that attacking North Korea would be justified?

We aren't the sole country with the rights to nuclear arms. We can not make political blunders simply because we feel threatend. Going to war with them for that reason would make no sense whatsoever. That's like a country coming into the USA and telling us we aren't allowed to have nuclear weapons. As you have already guessed, that would most likely spark a war, most likely a nuclear war, and we all know the reprecussions to that. Attacking North Korea for that reason would simply make the United States a power-hungry warmonger.

Albeit a small one, there is a communist party in the USA. Why don't we dissolve them? Because we are a democracy, and they have the right to express whatever political views they want to. Going to war with North Korea would just be forcing our political views upon them. Now, if I recall correctly from my social studies class, America was founded by the pilgrims because they were being opressed from expressing their views. Going over to North Korea and forcibly making them a capitalistic democracy, simply because we can, would be a quintessential demonstration of hypocrisy, and an indirect attack on what this country stands for.

Even if everything you said correctly justified going to war, why wouldn't we do the same thing to China? They are also an evil communist country, but we have made no encroachment upon their territory. So why North Korea, and not China? Asserting something on a much weaker country, and then not doing the same thing on another country that would require much more of a struggle is "being a pussy," as some have so eloquently called me for saying anything against this frivolous, over-done depredation in Iraq. Going into North Korea would be even worse.

Very well said, mjordan2nd. If you support a republican because YOU'RE a republican, or a democrat for president as you're a democrat yourself, then you deserve to starve to death, chained to a tree root far below surface level.

Really, I think the best idea to run a nation would be via full democracy. Give everyone a chance to vote in ALL matters, and establish a large council to count the votes in public. Yes, let the people do the decisions of the "president". There wouldn't *be* anyone in power, or tops, some powerless person involved in political matters who can only talk about the nation's greatness without an ability to change anything. Look into how the monarchy system works in the Scandinavian nation for more information about this. If anyone would be corrupt in the vote-counting council, it would very likely be reported. Human fallacy. It's *much* safer than giving a closed presidential administration practically full power to run a multi-million population nation.

Since computers are common and available to just about anyone, all that would be needed would be to distribute an iris scanner to all users in order to allow unique identification of everyone, to let them vote. This system would be very hard to cheat if established well, but unfortunately, conservatists (such as, a majority of the US population whether you like it or not) would never support this idea.

Actually, I have a prime example of what could go wrong when a "big happy box of politics" is chosen. Remember what happened during the early 20th century in Germany? The National Socialists offered a remedy that would take care of the poverty caused by the Versailles treaty. Of course, this great help from the party required the "weak in society" to be blamed, but hey, if it patches the horrendous, suicide-inducing economy and they will make our nation strong once again, it's not so bad, is it? That's what people thought. Kind of like the supporters of a president in the US. You see so many great qualities in a president, that the bad sides can be ignored. He's still THE guy to support, right? I mean, the other candidate is REALLY an utter moron.

Well, we all know what happened in nazi Germany. I'm not saying that the US will turn out to be a modern version of that atrocity, but I'm very well saying it can and WILL have some consequences that won't conform with the will of the US population, no matter who gets elected. But who knows, maybe millions will die if, say, Bush decides to invade North Korea. The destruction of another Communist nation may look great. But will it be worth the price of an atrocious genocide?

I hate when ignorant people try and talk Kerry down. They talk about how he wants to make cuts from this stupid ass war. And he wants to cut some of the defensive budget. But do you know why? HE WANTS TO IMPROVE OUR COUNTRY. Not waste all of that money into a defensive system which is not needed. Look how many times we've been attacked after 9/11 ..... NONE. If you count Anthrax , well that was an american who did that, so blah.

John Kerry has a good plan for the states, and We've already seen how shitty of a job Bush has done, Put us in Debt, get the whole world to hate americans, Our fucking popularity has gone down like 32% since Bush came in off. See, Bush doesn' tlike to listen to the U.N. ... If we would have let them go in , check for the ''''weapons of mass destruction''''' then We wouldn't have had any of the problems. But his war hungriness led to this.

I hate when ignorant people try and talk Kerry down. They talk about how he wants to make cuts from this stupid ass war. And he wants to cut some of the defensive budget. But do you know why? HE WANTS TO IMPROVE OUR COUNTRY. Not waste all of that money into a defensive system which is not needed. Look how many times we've been attacked after 9/11 ..... NONE. If you count Anthrax , well that was an american who did that, so blah. John Kerry has a good plan for the states, and We've already seen how shitty of a job Bush has done, Put us in Debt, get the whole world to hate americans, Our fucking popularity has gone down like 32% since Bush came in off. See, Bush doesn' tlike to listen to the U.N. ... If we would have let them go in , check for the ''''weapons of mass destruction''''' then We wouldn't have had any of the problems. But his war hungriness led to this.

*Bump, I love these old ass threads

Very well said, mjordan2nd. If you support a republican because YOU'RE a republican, or a democrat for president as you're a democrat yourself, then you deserve to starve to death, chained to a tree root far below surface level. Really, I think the best idea to run a nation would be via full democracy. Give everyone a chance to vote in ALL matters, and establish a large council to count the votes in public. Yes, let the people do the decisions of the "president". There wouldn't *be* anyone in power, or tops, some powerless person involved in political matters who can only talk about the nation's greatness without an ability to change anything. Look into how the monarchy system works in the Scandinavian nation for more information about this. If anyone would be corrupt in the vote-counting council, it would very likely be reported. Human fallacy. It's *much* safer than giving a closed presidential administration practically full power to run a multi-million population nation. Since computers are common and available to just about anyone, all that would be needed would be to distribute an iris scanner to all users in order to allow unique identification of everyone, to let them vote. This system would be very hard to cheat if established well, but unfortunately, conservatists (such as, a majority of the US population whether you like it or not) would never support this idea.

Well fucking put. Props.

Very well said, mjordan2nd. If you support a republican because YOU'RE a republican, or a democrat for president as you're a democrat yourself, then you deserve to starve to death, chained to a tree root far below surface level. Really, I think the best idea to run a nation would be via full democracy. Give everyone a chance to vote in ALL matters, and establish a large council to count the votes in public. Yes, let the people do the decisions of the "president". There wouldn't *be* anyone in power, or tops, some powerless person involved in political matters who can only talk about the nation's greatness without an ability to change anything. Look into how the monarchy system works in the Scandinavian nation for more information about this. If anyone would be corrupt in the vote-counting council, it would very likely be reported. Human fallacy. It's *much* safer than giving a closed presidential administration practically full power to run a multi-million population nation. Since computers are common and available to just about anyone, all that would be needed would be to distribute an iris scanner to all users in order to allow unique identification of everyone, to let them vote. This system would be very hard to cheat if established well, but unfortunately, conservatists (such as, a majority of the US population whether you like it or not) would never support this idea.

That's called violation of privacy and it wouldn't be long before that idea spread to everything and certain rights of everyone are lost. Powerful and to active government doesn't work for the better.