Firebrand
U.S. Branded as Principal Criminal of Nuclear Threat and Harasser of Peace
Pyongyang, November 28, 2006(KCNA) -- Rodong Sinmun in a signed commentary today brands the U.S. imperialists as the principal criminal of nuclear threat and proliferation, the harasser of peace and security and the arch enemy of humankind.
That's quite a fucking brand...
With nothing can they cover up their criminal colors, the paper says, and goes on, even less intelligibly: The U.S. is extensively shipping weapons into the disputed areas of different countries and regions to aggravate military clashes.
The U.S. is clamoring for "peace" and "stability, security", but its ulterior intention is different. It is seeking military interference and dominationist purpose by inciting disputes and straining the situation in different regions. This is why the U.S. is increasing the export of weapons.
To countries like Japan and South Korea...
Its loud-mouthed "ensuring of peace" and "establishment of democratic order" are no more than a lie to cover up its military intervention and method of aggression. As seen in the reality, ???? the U.S. imperialists are destroying international peace order and increasing the danger of a war, not trying to keep peace and stability. This is well interpreted by the fact that the U.S. is continuing to expand nuclear arsenals.
Like North Korea is...
They set a preemptive nuclear attack as basic war strategy and simplified the procedures of using nuclear weapons so as to employ them against "hostile states" at any time. It is to make a preemptive nuclear attack on the DPRK that they have deployed a large number of nuclear weapons in and around the Korean Peninsula.
North Korea is supposed to now be offended America would use it's nuclear weapons to deter North Korea's nuclear threat...
Owing to the U.S. moves, numerous nuclear weapons have been stockpiled in different regions of the world, the danger of a nuclear war is increasing and thus humankind is faced with the danger of nuclear holocaust.
North Korean foreign policy has changed little since the end of the Cold War. Obviously...
Pyongyang, November 28, 2006(KCNA) -- Rodong Sinmun in a signed commentary today brands the U.S. imperialists as the principal criminal of nuclear threat and proliferation, the harasser of peace and security and the arch enemy of humankind.
That's quite a fucking brand...
With nothing can they cover up their criminal colors, the paper says, and goes on, even less intelligibly: The U.S. is extensively shipping weapons into the disputed areas of different countries and regions to aggravate military clashes.
The U.S. is clamoring for "peace" and "stability, security", but its ulterior intention is different. It is seeking military interference and dominationist purpose by inciting disputes and straining the situation in different regions. This is why the U.S. is increasing the export of weapons.
To countries like Japan and South Korea...
Its loud-mouthed "ensuring of peace" and "establishment of democratic order" are no more than a lie to cover up its military intervention and method of aggression. As seen in the reality, ???? the U.S. imperialists are destroying international peace order and increasing the danger of a war, not trying to keep peace and stability. This is well interpreted by the fact that the U.S. is continuing to expand nuclear arsenals.
Like North Korea is...
They set a preemptive nuclear attack as basic war strategy and simplified the procedures of using nuclear weapons so as to employ them against "hostile states" at any time. It is to make a preemptive nuclear attack on the DPRK that they have deployed a large number of nuclear weapons in and around the Korean Peninsula.
North Korea is supposed to now be offended America would use it's nuclear weapons to deter North Korea's nuclear threat...
Owing to the U.S. moves, numerous nuclear weapons have been stockpiled in different regions of the world, the danger of a nuclear war is increasing and thus humankind is faced with the danger of nuclear holocaust.
North Korean foreign policy has changed little since the end of the Cold War. Obviously...
posted by KnightofGoodMrIronMan at 10:26 PM
17 Comments:
If you look at it objectively (which you would have problems doing) they are attempting to justify why they have nuclear weapons: as a defensive deterrent.
"If you look at it objectively (which you would have problems doing)"
It's a jaded world, and I never fucking claimed to be objective idiot...
"they are attempting to justify why they have nuclear weapons: as a defensive deterrent."
"Attemping to justify" why people starve to death in the street while the nation's meager resources are spent on nuclear weapon development, has never happened in Kim Jong Il's dictatorship...
This reminds me of cryMRU's sad attempt to justify North Korea's current shitty situation, as a lack of arable land:
"but such factors as lack of arable land"
Eh, cryMRU, it's been -20C to -30C for a week where I live.
Does Canada's lack of arable land mean we have rampant starvation and anti-American nuclear weapon deterrents?
For fuck's sake: you never argue and now you're using someone else's point, which I have defended in a previous comment if you actually read this stuff!
"It's a jaded world, and I never fucking claimed to be objective idiot..."
What is the point in anything if you refuse to understand why people do what they do?
""Attemping to justify" why people starve to death in the street while the nation's meager resources are spent on nuclear weapon development, has never happened in Kim Jong Il's dictatorship..."
I totally concur. They shouldn't be spending money on weapons: but then no one should be spending so much. Britain spends billions of pounds on pointless defence systems while we actually need it elsewhere!
"Eh, cryMRU, it's been -20C to -30C for a week where I live.
Does Canada's lack of arable land mean we have rampant starvation and anti-American nuclear weapon deterrents? "
The fact that Canada is a first world country, propped up by Britain for a few hundred-odd years is a small reason.
You really are unbelievably stupid, aren't you. I think the dozens of posts you haven't replied to prove this: you haven't got a leg to stand on.
"They shouldn't be spending money on weapons: but then no one should be spending so much."
What are you talking about?
If America didn't have the best military in the world, the Soviet Union would...
"Britain spends billions of pounds on pointless defence systems"
How exactly is keeping your country safe from tyrannic governments, such as Kim Jong Il's regime, pointless???
"while we actually need it elsewhere!"
For what? Let me guess, social programs...
Whatever you say Neville.
The fact that Canada is a first world country,"
Did ya ever try to fucking ponder why Canada and South Korea are First World nations, while North Korea is a distand third, cryMRU?
"propped up by Britain for a few hundred-odd years is a small reason."
Right.
And the BIG FUCKING REASON, is that we've been "propped up" by America and it's glorious and blessed democracy for a hundred-odd years...
"What are you talking about?
If America didn't have the best military in the world, the Soviet Union would..."
I was saying that billions are needlessly spent on weapons, when we don't need the money to be spent on that. What are YOU talking about?
"How exactly is keeping your country safe from tyrannic governments, such as Kim Jong Il's regime, pointless???"
Lol. I actually laughed out loud. You think Kim will attack Britain any time soon?!
The point is, that no one who has the audacity to attack us has the weapons, and those with the weapons haven't the audacity.
"For what? Let me guess, social programs...
Whatever you say Neville."
Yes. And why would I be labelled Neville? Am I 'appeasing' by saying we don't need weapons spending?
"Did ya ever try to fucking ponder why Canada and South Korea are First World nations, while North Korea is a distand third, cryMRU?"
I don't think south Korea and Canada are really comparable here...
"And the BIG FUCKING REASON, is that we've been "propped up" by America and it's glorious and blessed democracy for a hundred-odd years... "
Canada has? I am completely unaware that Canada has been propped up by the US for all this time.
And why cryMRU? what does MRU mean?
Admittedly, you do call me great names. Your points however, cannot be defended as you have proved for about a year now.
"I am completely unaware that Canada has been propped up by the US for all this time."
No fuckin' shit...
What the hell are you on about?
Firstly, you have failed to answer any of my points, which yet again shows your complete ignorance and lack of ability on this subject.
Secondly, what does "no fuckin' shit" mean? Were you being ironic? Or just completely stupid again?
Hot North Korean sluts do it Stalin-style over here at Asses of Tyranny.
cymru: when you talk about points not being defended you might want to remind yourself about the appeal to the "lack of arable land" argument you've used to explain away North Korean poverty, in spite of the fact that no other area/country in that region has a similar problem with similar arable land ratios. Even after that was pointed out, you still insisted that was the main reason for the atrocious state of the NK economy. When pointed to parallels in other jurisdictions where marxist/communist governments have run abjectly grotesque regimes leading to poverty and oppression, you passed saying you were too busy with an essay to explore it.
You are in no position to point fingers about failures to answer people's points.
You note that Canada is a first world country. You're right--but if it had degenerated into Marxist dogmatism, it too would be a second or third world hell-hole, like the USSR most of the last century.Lemme see :marxism/communism = second or third world existence...any exceptions? If not, do you think there might be a correlation?
"when you talk about points not being defended you might want to remind yourself about the appeal to the "lack of arable land" argument you've used to explain away North Korean poverty, in spite of the fact that no other area/country in that region has a similar problem with similar arable land ratios"
I have defended this point before: many other humanitarian groups say that the lack of arable land is a factor. There are countless reports from other sites out there that have used it as a factor. I'm using their arguments!
" When pointed to parallels in other jurisdictions where marxist/communist governments have run abjectly grotesque regimes leading to poverty and oppression, you passed saying you were too busy with an essay to explore it."
You mentioned one country, Albania, yes. Is the onus on me to go and do research, or should it be on you to actually describe and explain your points?
"You are in no position to point fingers about failures to answer people's points."
Hah! I laugh because if you read throughout the time I have been answering Knight's comments: HE NEVER REPLIES. That is why. To be honest, I think I'm in a brilliant position because he has proved himself to be such an incompetent idiot!
"You note that Canada is a first world country. You're right--but if it had degenerated into Marxist dogmatism, it too would be a second or third world hell-hole, like the USSR most of the last century.Lemme see :marxism/communism = second or third world existence...any exceptions?"
Of course not! That's because most, if not all, the countries that were taken over by the communists were not 1st world countries (perhaps an anachronistic term) at the time. Everywhere, from Russia where the income disparity was huge and there was hardly any middle-class bourgeoise, to Cuba which was a very poor country! How about the attempts by the West (mainly America) to portray Puerto Rico as a capitalist answer to socialist Cuba? Hardly a wealthy paradise either is it?
"If not, do you think there might be a correlation? "
If there's one thing that studying political science for 3 years has taught me, it's that correlation does not equal causation!
cymru: you wrote :"If there's one thing that studying political science for 3 years has taught me, it's that correlation does not equal causation!"
Then why are you so insistent on the arable land thing. I say that isn't the correlate for NK poverty, but you insist it is, even though as you say, you are using someone else's argumants, and though that variable is-in my view--not near sufficient since others have the same or worse arable land ratio but not the despotism or poverty.
As for this: most, if not all, the countries that were taken over by the communists were not 1st world countries (perhaps an anachronistic term) at the time.
Well, it isn't like te situation improved with communism, is it. Not one of them became a first world country.
"you are using someone else's argumants, and though that variable is-in my view--not near sufficient since others have the same or worse arable land ratio but not the despotism or poverty."
If it's not sufficent for you: then fine. But I've put my point forward time and time again.
"Well, it isn't like te situation improved with communism, is it. Not one of them became a first world country. "
No, they didn't. It's a pretty crap system for the advancement of a country economically.
most, if not all, the countries that were taken over by the communists were not 1st world countries (perhaps an anachronistic term) at the time
You could not possibly be more wrong.
North Korea HAD a superior industry at the start of the Cold War.
It's called history cryMRU.
Try reading THAT, instead of "arable land" reports sometime...
cymru: re: "If it's not sufficent for you: then fine. But I've put my point forward time and time again'
It's not that the arable land variable is not suffcient for me. It's not sufficient, period. There's no correlation.
Other areas with the same or worse arable land have different (better) results, so the variables that count are something else. The arable land thing is a freakin' excuse for apologetics and nothing more.
And that lack of correlation will not improve simply because you repeat it "time and time again."
cymru: I'm interested...if arable was not the reason, could you surmise what other reasons might exist for North Korea's abject poverty and startling oppression levels?
" The arable land thing is a freakin' excuse for apologetics and nothing more."
Do you consider aid organisations and charities 'apologists' then? This is my point: if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me!
I'm sorry if it's not up to your standards.
"if arable was not the reason, could you surmise what other reasons might exist for North Korea's abject poverty and startling oppression levels?"
Well, I don't think the lack of arable land has anything to do with the oppression there!
Juche doesn't work. That is why there is poverty, and the political system of sultanism why the oppression is the worst in the world.
Knight, I know we can't pick our "debaters" while blogging, but I'll tell you, some of these left-wing nut jobs are beyond being mind bogglingly (say that fast 5x) stupid.In my several years of reading blogs I have only read a few that actually make cohesive and intellegent rebuttals. Not good odds when you look at the number of looney left bloggers out there.
My wife has a wall hanging that says "One way to save face is.....
keep the lower half shut!"
Any ways, have a good Christmas, and BLOG ON!
Post a Comment
<< Home