BREAKING: US drops largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan

[Panflute]

1 minute ago, Spike said:

Just because I follow that line of thinking doesnt mean I aporove of their methods. I am not guilty by association. 

Your line of thought is exactly what allows this shit to happen every single time. It is rooted in globalism, which I oppose.

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Panflute said:

A state has the right to impose its legislature on its people because otherwise it wouldn't be a state. This is very simple. If the laws of a country are perceived to be unjust by the vast majority of the country, eventually it will be toppled from with in, or with the help of regional powers.

In any case, all of this ignores the fact that America does not give, or has ever given a shit about human rights, and we are discussing the merits of the window-dressing they use to forward their geopolitical interests.

How can NK be toppled when their citizens are weak , uneducated and unarmed? Its naive to believe that a revolution will trigger because of the unjust laws forced upon its citizens. As I said earlier just because the state exists doesnt transfer the right to exist. The Philippines is a hotbed of corruption, poverty, and injustice; there will be no revolution.

[Panflute]

Just now, Spike said:

How can NK be toppled when their citizens are weak , uneducated and unarmed? Its naive to believe that a revolution will trigger because of the unjust laws forced upon its citizens. As I said earlier just because the state exists doesnt transfer the right to exist. The Philippines is a hotbed of corruption, poverty, and injustice; there will be no revolution.

So in short the citizens of DPRK should be protected against themselves?

Not agreeing with the way in which a state treats its citizens is a fickle excuse for military intervention. If you want to be in any way consistent, you would literally have to invade half the world before you reach a scenario that close to resembling global stability and peace. And that is even assuming all of those interventions are successful instead of infernal disasters like they have been thus far.

[Spike]

4 minutes ago, Panflute said:

Your line of thought is exactly what allows this shit to happen every single time. It is rooted in globalism, which I oppose.

Globalism is a reality and has been since WW2. Interventionsim isnt a phenomena exclusive to the US. Your ideals of laissez faire states are naive and unrealistic. The strong will always take advantage of the weak, it's human nature; that is why NK exists; that is why USA sticks its finger in ever pie; its why the local governments of cities in the Philippines pocket tax money; it is why your boss is an asshole. Globalism is an inevitability and is an extension of the avarice of human nature. 

[Spike]

4 minutes ago, Panflute said:

So in short the citizens of DPRK should be protected against themselves?

Not agreeing with the way in which a state treats its citizens is a fickle excuse for military intervention. If you want to be in any way consistent, you would literally have to invade half the world before you reach a scenario that close to resembling global stability and peace. And that is even assuming all of those interventions are successful instead of infernal disasters like they have been thus far.

That wasnt my argument for military intervention. Im not even arguing for military intervention and I never have. My point is that a state is no more justified in its existence than the intervention of another state. 

If you could quote me where I said it justifies military invasion

[Panflute]

Just now, Spike said:

Globalism is a reality and has been since WW2. Interventionsim isnt a phenomena exclusive to the US. Your ideals of laissez faire states are naive and unrealistic. The strong will always take advantage of the weak, it's human nature; that is why NK exists; that is why USA sticks its finger in ever pie; its why the local governments of cities in the Philippines pocket tax money; it is why your boss is an asshole. Globalism is an inevitability and is an extension of the avarice of human nature. 

Globalisation is not inevitable; it relies heavily upon US hegemony. Once their ability to impose their will on the rest of the world falls (and it has been for years), we are back in a world with competing spheres of influence.

[Panflute]

3 minutes ago, Spike said:

That wasnt my argument for military intervention. Im not even arguing for military intervention and I never have. My point is that a state is no more justified in its existence than the intervention of another state. 

If you could quote me where I said it justifies military invasion

My entire argument is that the world has no right to intervene in states because they purportedly treat their citizens unfairly. Your entire argument has been that intervening is justifiable on moral grounds, and given your statements about empathy and human rights, you even seem to think it's the preferably option. Your line of reasoning is the pretext that Western countries use to topple regimes.

[Spike]

Just now, Panflute said:

Globalisation is not inevitable; it relies heavily upon US hegemony. Once their ability to impose their will on the rest of the world falls (and it has been for years), we are back in a world with competing spheres of influence.

What breaks US hegemony? Just because the spheres of influence are smaller it doesnt mean it is automatically better than US globalism. Just because Russia imposes on less nations than America doesnt mean their bullying of Eastern Europe is any different. Having a land border doesnt grant the right of intervention.

 

There will never be a world with sovreign states that leave eachother alone. It will always be a battle of wills and pressure.

[Panflute]

Just now, Spike said:

What breaks US hegemony? Just because the spheres of influence are smaller it doesnt mean it is automatically better than US globalism. Just because Russia imposes on less nations than America doesnt mean their bullying of Eastern Europe is any different. Having a land border doesnt grant the right of intervention.

 

There will never be a world with sovreign states that leave eachother alone. It will always be a battle of wills and pressure.

"Bullying of Eastern Europe". Yeah, I don't buy any of that. But we're getting in a different discussion here.

[Spike]

2 minutes ago, Panflute said:

My entire argument is that the world has no right to intervene in states because they purportedly treat their citizens unfairly. Your entire argument has been that intervening is justifiable on moral grounds, and given your statements about empathy and human rights, you even seem to think it's the preferably option. Your line of reasoning is the pretext that Western countries use to topple regimes.

lmao Dont tell me what my argument is. My argument is that states have no inherent right to exist and neither does another state's interventionalism. I have repeated ad nauseum 'just because it exists doesnt mean it deserves to' amd that applies tp the west.

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Panflute said:

"Bullying of Eastern Europe". Yeah, I don't buy any of that. But we're getting in a different discussion here.

Well they sure werent having too much fun with Ukraine

[Panflute]

2 minutes ago, Spike said:

Well they sure werent having too much fun with Ukraine

Not after the Western-backed coup, no.

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Panflute said:

Not after the Western-backed coup, no.

So one intervention justifies the second?

[Panflute]

Just now, Spike said:

So one intervention justifies the second?

In this case it did, yes. But as said, it's another discussion for another time.

[Spike]

Just now, Panflute said:

In this case it did, yes. But as said, it's another discussion for another time.

You cant have your cake and eat it too.

[Spike]

Humans shouldn't be so arrogant as to believe we have the answers. Quite simply pit, one action will advantsge one and disadvantage the other. There is no happy ever after.

[Panflute]

59 minutes ago, Spike said:

You cant have your cake and eat it too.

It's a different situation. As said, it's another topic and I'll delve into that on another day as I'm about to go to bed and won't be online much during the weekend.

[El Profesor]

2 hours ago, Spike said:

Would it be okay if you saw your next door neighbour raping a child because it is their culture and their business? Just because the middle-east doesn't affect me doesn't mean that the culturall subjectivity of it justifies itself. Just because X exists doesnt intrinsically mean that it deserves to.

If we applied laissez faire to anything it automatically disregards collective human rights. 

Relativism vs universal character of human rights is a very interesting debate indeed. One aspect I'd like to point out is that american victories on battlefield doesn't necessarily led to stability, if anything Iraq and Lybia prove the opposite. It kinda reminds me of the Robespierre objections to a war against Austria in 1792, as he said at the time "No one loves armed missionaires". 

[SirBalon]

3 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Amazingly if it wasn't for nuclear weapons I'd advocate leaving NK to it, I think the Americans would not give half as much of a fuck to. NK will bring this on themselves by perseverance of the weapons program 

That the North Korean leader is a bit of a nutter goes without saying.  But in the amount of time he has been the "self proclaimed" leader of his countrymen and women...  How many wars has he involved his country in and how many have America and Britain been in (interventions)?

[Fairy In Boots]

7 hours ago, SirBalon said:

That the North Korean leader is a bit of a nutter goes without saying.  But in the amount of time he has been the "self proclaimed" leader of his countrymen and women...  How many wars has he involved his country in and how many have America and Britain been in (interventions)?

Zero new conflicts on either side I think. When did his dad die, two years ago? Maybe Libya? Aside from that all conflicts are on going. I think. It's not really the point though. 

I get American are the real agitators argument and I don't think that's it's a bad argument. It's just we're talking about nuclear weapons, that forces the hand. 

[IgnisExcubitor]

Who sold (and continues to secretly sell) nuclear and other missile tech and knowledge to North Korea : Pakistan. Who provides financial and strategic help to terrorists of varied groups: Pakistan. Who provides safe shelter to wanted terrorists: Pakistan. 

The world needs to put Pakistan and more importantly its spy agency ISI, which trains and aids terrorist groups, under severe scrutiny more than any other nation or government. Of course the Chinese would never allow that to happen.