It's on one of those two tiny little islands off the coast of Yurp. You've got a 50/50 chance, just remember that if you're wrong you're liable to be lynched if you call the people around you "English." If all you get is dirty looks, you're in the right place.
Meh... same island. Hop in the car, you're there in a few hours. It ain't like we're talking about different time zones here. We all know you're age of imperialism was all about having someplace else to go every once in a while.:)
"Them Londerners is gonna build one of them atomic bombs and get us."
It's a leeetle late for that. We more or less gave the UK The Bomb before many of our parents were born.
Of course, they seem to be following the philosophy of "Speak softly and carry a big thermonuclear device." You hear a lot about the US and Russia, you hear about French special forces vs. Greenpeace over nuclear testing in the South Pacific, but the UK seems content in letting everybody forget who else has The Bomb and the submarines to launch them from.:) "You don't need to see our nuclear arsenal. These are not the Vanguard SSBNs you're looking for."
Heck, even the Canadians were a nuclear state under the old "Take our atoms! Please!" program and probably could be again given a few hours. Of course, it seems redundant considering how married they are to the US nuclear arsenal via programs like NORAD as it is. And, heck, most people don't even know Canada has its own military at this point.:)
Iranians, Koreans... it just goes to show it's those WASPs you really gotta keep an eye on. Next thing you know it'll be the damned Kiwis... "No, really! They're just... uh... leftover props from the filming of the Lord of the Rings! Nobody here but us sheep!"
Oh, and one more thing: If I wanted to be taken seriously, would I really be posting on Slashdot? I'm here to piss people off and make enemies, all while demonstrating how utterly contemptable and evil I am to all who would read the posts I put at score: 1. Or haven't you noticed all the other responses I've been getting? Hello, McFly?
And the two clauses are related because...? The only way they could be seen as related is if you ignore Judaism as a religion and consider it solely on terms of race.
He said:
Hatred of Jews is bad because Jesus was a Jew
Hatred of $SKIN_COLOR is bad because people had no choice
Ultimately, hatred of homosexuals is OK (if not required) because they had a choice and because Jesus was not a homosexual
By the poster's logic, if Jesus were not a Jew, then Jews who chose not to convert to Christianity are in the same boat as homosexuals: they made the wrong choice and therefore must be punished (apparently by death and/or dismemberment).
Everybody has the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, reguardless whether or not they happen to be "someone else."
"Drawing this up as an American problem is just an Imperial argument, and like all Imperial arguments, it only supports Imperial expansion for resources and security."
No, it is a humanitarian argument. If I were being imperialist, I'd be harping on the nukes, while also advocating the removal of, say, Hugo Chavez from power in Venezuela. Posession of nuclear weapons and any intent to use them on the US is irrelevent next to the suffering of the people of the DPRK.
If anything, you're the imperialist here: you require the "What's in it for me?" question to be answered to your satisfaction, placing the primacy of the American Empire and its people before all others.
"(Hint: America is not liked around the world due to her use of her military. Go read Kwitney's "Endless Enemies" if you don't understand.)"
I really don't give a damn. Damn international diplomacy, damn complacency, damn popularity pissing contests; so long as these things are what enable this aboniable situation in the DPRK to continue, they're a part of the problem and not of the solution.
"If I were in America at the time, I would have shot English and French alike."
You missed the second of my two analogies: those in DPRK who are even suspected of wishing to rise up in arms against Pyongyang dies a long, painful death long before having any sort of opportunity. Their extended families also suffer a similar fate. Even if you were to escape such a fate, you'd be unable to physically lift your weapon to defend yourself because of extreme malnutrition. The responsibility you talk about doesn't come married to opportunity in any way, shape or form.
"Hey I have a great idea - how about arguing against what he said and not words you decide to put in his mouth."
The guy said "it's silly to hate Jews because Jesus was a Jew." He did not say "it's silly to hate Jews because they're human beings, too." His rationale for not being antisemitic was based entirely on who Jesus happened to be and not, say, what he taught. It appeared that if Jesus were not a Jew, then the poster would have little issue with hating them.
I didn't say "related," I said "forced to relate." The poster seemed to be accepting Jews because he was forced to relate to Jesus' Judaism.
"I'm sure he wants to save criminals too - does that mean he should try doing things he feels are wrong (i.e. violating his conscience) just to gain a better understanding? That's insane!"
If they don't want to be "saved," the least he could do is try to understand why instead of stonewalling. Otherwise, you'd serve everybody better by moving on, which the poster seems to refuse to do (constantly wanting to "save" those who would have nothing of it).
"I think you'll find out that things like rape and incest (things we feel are bad still today in modern society) were also offenses of similar magnitude"
All covered by "Don't murder" and "don't covet." Also goes against "do unto others..." None of those, however, apply to consensual homosexuality.
"I don't know why he felt it was unnecessary to say this (or that those recording it did not record it) but perhaps people of the time already knew that was wrong?"
We're talking about divine scripture here. Everything in it is supposed to be important and everything important is supposed to be in it. There are many things Jesus preached about that were copied down that everybody at the time were supposed to know better about, and homosexuality didn't make the rather exhaustive list.
"You have created a false dichotomy - Ten Commandments vs Stuff Not In The Ten Commandments."
Because it's not a false dichotomy. The commandments say "don't murder." Leviticus says "kill homosexuals." You can't have both without some serious handwaving, and ultimately "don't murder" was what was written directly by the hand of God while Leviticus involved some vague inspirations.
"Maybe the Ten Commandments are just the Ten most important"
Covenant what? What was the point of making this short list to begin with, then?
"The *ENTIRE* message of Christianity is that it is possible to have a direct, personal connection of God"
Having such a direct and personal connection with Him is not the same as knowing His will; this is why you're supposed to be willing to do what He asks of you even if you do not understand it. However devout the poster believes himself to be, there are contradictory statesments, attributed to either God Himself or divine inspiration, within each and between both testaments. It was my understanding that the Christian solution is to approach God directly through prayer and meditation to find what His command is supposed to be in your life rather than, say, playing favorites with scripture. After all, there should be no need for such slavish devotion to scripture if you have such a direct connection to the source of that scripture.
"If you went into a burning building, and a helpless guy in there said they didn't want to be saved - would your conscience allow you to simply leave them to burn alive - because that's what they said they wanted?"
If they said it because they thought they couldn't be saved, I'd try. If they said it because they actually sought death, I'd let them have what they wanted. I may try to argue, but I will certanly not attempt to force my opinion on someone who does not want it, especially in a life-and-death matter.
I suppose this all depends on your denomination's view of the role of Pilate, doesn't it?
they are identifying themselves to the world and to the intelligence services "come and get me, we're dumb enough to tell you who we are and dumb enough to _write down_ what we _really_ think".
You're all for the prosecutions of thought crimes, I see.
I'm living in a country whose founding act was 56 people doing exactly what you're laughing at: listing exactly what they thought and putting their names on it, all but asking to be punished for the document. Part of what they believed in was that everybody had the same right to find happiness as the next guy, which means that holding an opinion, no matter how detestable, shouldn't be a crime and shouldn't be punished.
It would appear that you are not of the same belief.
"OK, hatred for Jews is stupid (after all, even Jesus was a Jew)"
And so it's OK for Muslims, who don't view Jesus as a Messiah, to be antisemetic? Nice logic: by it, you're allowed to hate people you're not forced to relate with.
"Gays, on the other hand, have free will and they do what they choose to do."
It's really simple: if one could choose one's sexual orientation, then a heterosexual man could choose to be gay. Since you're the one making the assertion, I have to ask you: Have you ever tried being gay? Or are you so unwilling to try to tread a mile in the shoes of those who you would "save?"
""If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13."
So God didn't have room on those stone tablets to jot down "Don't be gay" on Mount Sinai? Pretty interesting that Ol' Infallible Himself was able to include relatively minor things like "take a day off every week" and "put up with your parents" but seemed to think that an outright capital offense wasn't worth mentioning.
And Jesus was crucified before he was able to do his key "Don't be gay" sermon? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless what you want to have done unto you is... hey, where are these Romans taking me?"
You, as a Christian, have the trinity itself, not to mention the list of prophets, all telling you how to live your life properly and all, none of which really got around to the all-important "Don't be gay" commandment, and so you're giving a collection of these insane Biblical footnotes the same weight, especially when said footnote seems to fly in the face of one of the Ten Commandments?
"Who knowing the judgment of God,"
Knowing the unknowable, hm? So much for Christian humility...
"Is it really "discrimination" or "hatred" if I dare to save them from the hell fire by telling them that what they do is wrong?"
Do they want to be "saved?" According to other major religions, Jesus was a prophet at best and a false Messiah at worst, and these people complete with their own divine set of quotations to back up their assertions. Would you willingly allow others to attempt to "save" you from your own Christianity?
If the opinions of non-Christians don't do anything for you, what about other sects of Christianity? When was the last time you invited into your home a Jehovah's Witness or even a Mormon who appeared on your doorstep and let them go the whole nine yards in their attempt to "save" you, listening politely and never trying to argue?
"I am not discriminating, I am against violence."
Because if the death is "on their hands" (as prescribed by Leviticus), it's not really violence? Oh, and there it seems God is telling you to be violent when it comes to homosexuals, so aren't you going against His Will by falling back on such principles and squeamishness? The Bible tells you that you'd better be prepared to do what God tells you to do despite your personal desires: if he says "Kill your son," the only proper response is "With what weapon?" So are you really as Christian as you claim to be when you are willfully ignoring that part of scripture where you believe He Himself tells you to kill somebody?
"I only want to educate people."
As a Christian, shouldn't you be balancing your wants and desires against theirs?
" I only talk to people, write to people, write articles. Is that really wrong?"
That depends: are you talking with, talking to or talking at these people?
"Is education really the same as the crimes of holocaust? Do we really have to compare education to hatred for Jews?"
Well, many Soviets were sent to the gulags for the cause of "education," so yes, it can be.
Before I even begin, my disclaimer: I'm evil, self-aggrandizing, short-sighted, egotistical, and any other number of such adjectives. Don't bother telling me, I already know. I type this while twirling my moustache and will be tying yet another fair maiden to some railroad tracks after I write this.
I'm also not Korean in any sense of the word, and have never been further west than Honolulu. Most I know of the place comes from TV. Therefore, I have no idea what I'm talking about. Again, I'm already aware of this.
With that being said...
"However, South Korea was poorer in 1950's and 60's than the current NKorea,"
Um... no. They weren't outright starving, and were at least in the process of rebuilding after the long Japanese occupation.
Also, North Korea hasn't even gotten that far. The Japanese death camps never went away, they're just under new management
"but it has built ~10th biggest economy and one of the most democratic government within 3-4 decades."
... in spite of the intentions and actions of Pyongyang. DPRK is more interested in destroying the prosperity of others than building their own.
"If SK did it, NK can do it too, especially with SK aids."
You're assuming aid from ROK would actually be used as Seoul intends. That can't even be said about food aid, which goes straight to the military/party faithful (same diff). Why do you believe they'd be more egalitarian with cold, hard cash? At least with the food aid Pyongyang has to go through the trouble of finding buyers who don't mind the fact that what they're buying has "food aid" written in seventeen different languages on what's being sold.
"Remember how China began to change? It didn't start from military or political perspectives. "
So the protests in Tiananmen Square and bending over backwards to accept Hong Kong into the fold did nothing?
"South Korea already has taken approach under the name of 'Sunshine Policy' US should adopt something similar because this policy already returned significant results since it began several years ago."
Seoul's sunshine didn't stop Northern forces from firing on Southern ships recently, nor have they made the ROK government all that comfortable with the US trying to remove its troops and station them elsewhere.
"Also, many many thousands of S.Korean tourists visited North Korea"
That sounds like a lot until you realize that those "thousands" only added up when taken over the course of decades, with many more turned away at the border instead of being allowed contact with their Northern family members. Beyond the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the war and the occasional, closely-guarded "tour" group, getting into DPRK is only slightly easier than getting out.
"and hundreds of South Korean companies are dying to invest in the area to take advantage of cheap but intelligent North Korean labour force."
First off, am I the only one who's stomach turned upon reading this?
And if those companies really cared about intelligent workers from the North (and if they were able to be as productive as those in the South), then Northern expatriates in the South, with their stilted, "hick" Northern accents, would have a far easier time getting a job and living their lives than they currently have now.
"Thus, if America really wants to remove the North Korean 'threat' then it should invest a lot of its capital and allow trading with North Korea. (How'bout removing NK from the terrorist country and allow trading?)"
As I alluded to before, the Bush administration did try removing troops from Korea. Seoul wasn't very happy.
"I don't think Bush will invade NK because even he is not stupid enough to offend SK, Japan, and China all at the same time."
I think you said "offend" instead of "destroy." Northern artillery would flatten Seoul the instan
"And yet, despite all your Western ire, it is still the responsibility of the North Korean people to overthrow their own repressive government. "
Ah yes, the Somebody Else's Problem argument. After all, if the US was able to rise up out of government-sponsored starvation and free their half-living bretheren from the British torture camps without any aid from France 230 years ago, anybody can do it!
"Why? Because people with nukes don't do stupid things (excluding the U.S. of course)."
Just like people with guns don't do stupid things? Weapons are no substitute for brain cells. Examples of nuclear states during the Cold War are statistical anomallies.
"On the other side North Korea knows that if it attacks someone what it can expect in return."
Everybody knows what can be expected. The real question is "Do they care?" In its own, funny, roundabout way, to a certain extent, the Soviet Union did actually care a little about the Soviet people, and ultimately that's why we're here today having this conversation instead of extinct (it's also why there's no longer a Soviet Union: they chose to fold instead of cracking down on their own people). But is there any reason to believe, any glimmering of hope, that Kim Jong Il actually gives a damn about anybody other than himself?
We're talking about DPRK here, quite possibly the only country on the face of the planet where you could drop a nuclear bomb and nobody would notice. Pyongyang has already turned the entire country into a wasteland and, if anything, a 20 megaton explosion would be an improvement. And I only wish I was being sarcastic.
"In the case of Iran the last thing the ruling mullahs want is to give a nuclear device or supplies to someone and have that same person/group turn around and set off that device in the middle of Tehran.
Those ruling mullahs in Iran have been known to quietly give aid to the Israelis when it suited their interests. How do you think Israel knew about Iraq's nuclear power plant? Again: weapons are no substitute for brain cells.
"both countries have had several meaningful discussions on how to reduce tensions and learn to live peacefully with one another."
Have you looked at Kashmir recently?
Also, are you sure it's because of the nuclear weapons, or because nowadays each one would have to be in a two-front war? India has to worry about China and Pakistan has to worry about Muslim extremists in their own borders.
I don't think DPRK has the industrial capacity to make a toaster.
Besides, what would they test in the toaster for quality control? Other than the hands of people caught (alive) attempting to escape to China, that is...
(There's something seriously wrong with a place when you're trying to escape to the PRC.)
Who cares about GU and AS? They don't have any votes in Congress. After all, one of the reasons DPRK is the hellhole it is today is because the US doesn't care about what happens to all those non-voting Koreans, so what difference should US citizenship (in the case of Guam) make? We only care about ourselves; it's the American Way (TM). Otherwise we might actually give a damn about the political status of our three territories and two commonwealths.
Congress and the American people didn't move to invade Iraq because of the mean and nasty things he did to Kurds and Iraqi Shia; hell, most of 'em haven't even head of the two groups. The whole "humanitarian mission" is nothing more than an excuse for a self back-pat. The Iraq invasion happened the only way it could possibly have been pulled off: by painting Iraq as a threat to us.
I think you meant "Northern Marianas," not "American Samoa." If DPRK could hit American Samoa, there'd be a 7th very concerned party at the talks: Australia
""You don't realize that we had to invade Iraq just so that it would not become another North Korea?"
We need to invade any country that might someday start up a viable nuke program?"
Yes, because North Korea has done nothing wrong beyond owning nuclear weapons.
The lesson the world learned from World War II is that it's OK to set up muder factories to slaughter civillians so long as its your own civillians and not your neighbors. DPRK, like many others, have taken this lesson to heart and therefore are in the clear so long as it's not South Koreans or Japanese they're shipping off to their death camps.
For the same reasons you don't see much talk in the US about annexing (any more of) Mexico. Sure, few in the US would mind carving 10 states and a few more funky commonwealth thingies out of Canada, but Mexico has lots of Mexicans and little money in comparison.
Tibet and Taiwan are actually worth something to Beijing. DPRK is fully of "dirty Koreans" (think "dirty Mexicans") and the only interest of China's there is pissing off Washington. China knows exactly what happens to the thousands of North Koreans they send back across the border (concentration camps, etc.) but you don't see many tears being shed by them, let alone talk of discontinuing their policy of forced repatriation.
(Note: opinions of Mexico and its inhabitants are those held by the average US citizen and not necesiarly my own.)
"Print off money whenever you need, trade it with foreign nations for goods and services, knowing that it won't be redeemed for goods from your own country but rather hoarded and traded by other nations"
Yeah, and its a good thing the US doesn't produce any of its own oil and no foreign interests actually buy oil exported by the US. We wouldn't want your little conspiracy theory to have to worry about the Alaska North Slope or the Gulf of Mexico, now would we?
Just because we're not Saudi Arabia doesn't mean we only buy oil, never sell. Heck, there was a time when the US itself was the world's biggest oil exporter (and we were pulled into the War in the Pacific because of it). The oil extraction industry in places like Alaska, Texas and Louisiana would, like all US exporters today, be very interested in selling in strong euros rather than weak dollars; they'd make a killing in the exchange rates.
Slashdot Mirror
It's on one of those two tiny little islands off the coast of Yurp. You've got a 50/50 chance, just remember that if you're wrong you're liable to be lynched if you call the people around you "English." If all you get is dirty looks, you're in the right place.
"You all joke, but a nuclear submarine goes around the world on a lump the size of a golf ball."
How many Libraries of Congress is that?
Meh... same island. Hop in the car, you're there in a few hours. It ain't like we're talking about different time zones here. We all know you're age of imperialism was all about having someplace else to go every once in a while. :)
"Them Londerners is gonna build one of them atomic bombs and get us."
:) "You don't need to see our nuclear arsenal. These are not the Vanguard SSBNs you're looking for."
:)
It's a leeetle late for that. We more or less gave the UK The Bomb before many of our parents were born.
Of course, they seem to be following the philosophy of "Speak softly and carry a big thermonuclear device." You hear a lot about the US and Russia, you hear about French special forces vs. Greenpeace over nuclear testing in the South Pacific, but the UK seems content in letting everybody forget who else has The Bomb and the submarines to launch them from.
Heck, even the Canadians were a nuclear state under the old "Take our atoms! Please!" program and probably could be again given a few hours. Of course, it seems redundant considering how married they are to the US nuclear arsenal via programs like NORAD as it is. And, heck, most people don't even know Canada has its own military at this point.
Iranians, Koreans... it just goes to show it's those WASPs you really gotta keep an eye on. Next thing you know it'll be the damned Kiwis... "No, really! They're just... uh... leftover props from the filming of the Lord of the Rings! Nobody here but us sheep!"
"on the upside, starting in April Square/Enix will be releasing a new game every month for several months."
And how many of those will be *ahem* real games instead of something they threw together over a weekend for the cell phone market?
Take a patent out on suing video game companies for violent crimes. Sic the lawyers on each other.
Except they'd also be leading Bonds into the stands to beat the crap out of people with his baseball bat while they themselves dive for the ball.
True Nintendo fanboys would point out you missed the Virtual Boy.
"And you expect people to treat you seriously?"
Oh, and one more thing: If I wanted to be taken seriously, would I really be posting on Slashdot? I'm here to piss people off and make enemies, all while demonstrating how utterly contemptable and evil I am to all who would read the posts I put at score: 1. Or haven't you noticed all the other responses I've been getting? Hello, McFly?
And the two clauses are related because...? The only way they could be seen as related is if you ignore Judaism as a religion and consider it solely on terms of race.
He said:
- Hatred of Jews is bad because Jesus was a Jew
- Hatred of $SKIN_COLOR is bad because people had no choice
- Ultimately, hatred of homosexuals is OK (if not required) because they had a choice and because Jesus was not a homosexual
By the poster's logic, if Jesus were not a Jew, then Jews who chose not to convert to Christianity are in the same boat as homosexuals: they made the wrong choice and therefore must be punished (apparently by death and/or dismemberment).So, religion isn't a choice?
"But it IS the problem of someone else."
Everybody has the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, reguardless whether or not they happen to be "someone else."
"Drawing this up as an American problem is just an Imperial argument, and like all Imperial arguments, it only supports Imperial expansion for resources and security."
No, it is a humanitarian argument. If I were being imperialist, I'd be harping on the nukes, while also advocating the removal of, say, Hugo Chavez from power in Venezuela. Posession of nuclear weapons and any intent to use them on the US is irrelevent next to the suffering of the people of the DPRK.
If anything, you're the imperialist here: you require the "What's in it for me?" question to be answered to your satisfaction, placing the primacy of the American Empire and its people before all others.
"(Hint: America is not liked around the world due to her use of her military. Go read Kwitney's "Endless Enemies" if you don't understand.)"
I really don't give a damn. Damn international diplomacy, damn complacency, damn popularity pissing contests; so long as these things are what enable this aboniable situation in the DPRK to continue, they're a part of the problem and not of the solution.
"If I were in America at the time, I would have shot English and French alike."
You missed the second of my two analogies: those in DPRK who are even suspected of wishing to rise up in arms against Pyongyang dies a long, painful death long before having any sort of opportunity. Their extended families also suffer a similar fate. Even if you were to escape such a fate, you'd be unable to physically lift your weapon to defend yourself because of extreme malnutrition. The responsibility you talk about doesn't come married to opportunity in any way, shape or form.
"Hey I have a great idea - how about arguing against what he said and not words you decide to put in his mouth."
The guy said "it's silly to hate Jews because Jesus was a Jew." He did not say "it's silly to hate Jews because they're human beings, too." His rationale for not being antisemitic was based entirely on who Jesus happened to be and not, say, what he taught. It appeared that if Jesus were not a Jew, then the poster would have little issue with hating them.
I didn't say "related," I said "forced to relate." The poster seemed to be accepting Jews because he was forced to relate to Jesus' Judaism.
"I'm sure he wants to save criminals too - does that mean he should try doing things he feels are wrong (i.e. violating his conscience) just to gain a better understanding? That's insane!"
If they don't want to be "saved," the least he could do is try to understand why instead of stonewalling. Otherwise, you'd serve everybody better by moving on, which the poster seems to refuse to do (constantly wanting to "save" those who would have nothing of it).
"I think you'll find out that things like rape and incest (things we feel are bad still today in modern society) were also offenses of similar magnitude"
All covered by "Don't murder" and "don't covet." Also goes against "do unto others..." None of those, however, apply to consensual homosexuality.
"I don't know why he felt it was unnecessary to say this (or that those recording it did not record it) but perhaps people of the time already knew that was wrong?"
We're talking about divine scripture here. Everything in it is supposed to be important and everything important is supposed to be in it. There are many things Jesus preached about that were copied down that everybody at the time were supposed to know better about, and homosexuality didn't make the rather exhaustive list.
"You have created a false dichotomy - Ten Commandments vs Stuff Not In The Ten Commandments."
Because it's not a false dichotomy. The commandments say "don't murder." Leviticus says "kill homosexuals." You can't have both without some serious handwaving, and ultimately "don't murder" was what was written directly by the hand of God while Leviticus involved some vague inspirations.
"Maybe the Ten Commandments are just the Ten most important"
Covenant what? What was the point of making this short list to begin with, then?
"The *ENTIRE* message of Christianity is that it is possible to have a direct, personal connection of God"
Having such a direct and personal connection with Him is not the same as knowing His will; this is why you're supposed to be willing to do what He asks of you even if you do not understand it. However devout the poster believes himself to be, there are contradictory statesments, attributed to either God Himself or divine inspiration, within each and between both testaments. It was my understanding that the Christian solution is to approach God directly through prayer and meditation to find what His command is supposed to be in your life rather than, say, playing favorites with scripture. After all, there should be no need for such slavish devotion to scripture if you have such a direct connection to the source of that scripture.
"If you went into a burning building, and a helpless guy in there said they didn't want to be saved - would your conscience allow you to simply leave them to burn alive - because that's what they said they wanted?"
If they said it because they thought they couldn't be saved, I'd try. If they said it because they actually sought death, I'd let them have what they wanted. I may try to argue, but I will certanly not attempt to force my opinion on someone who does not want it, especially in a life-and-death matter.
I suppose this all depends on your denomination's view of the role of Pilate, doesn't it?
"Would you
they are identifying themselves to the world and to the intelligence services "come and get me, we're dumb enough to tell you who we are and dumb enough to _write down_ what we _really_ think".
You're all for the prosecutions of thought crimes, I see.
I'm living in a country whose founding act was 56 people doing exactly what you're laughing at: listing exactly what they thought and putting their names on it, all but asking to be punished for the document. Part of what they believed in was that everybody had the same right to find happiness as the next guy, which means that holding an opinion, no matter how detestable, shouldn't be a crime and shouldn't be punished.
It would appear that you are not of the same belief.
"OK, hatred for Jews is stupid (after all, even Jesus was a Jew)"
And so it's OK for Muslims, who don't view Jesus as a Messiah, to be antisemetic? Nice logic: by it, you're allowed to hate people you're not forced to relate with.
"Gays, on the other hand, have free will and they do what they choose to do."
It's really simple: if one could choose one's sexual orientation, then a heterosexual man could choose to be gay. Since you're the one making the assertion, I have to ask you: Have you ever tried being gay? Or are you so unwilling to try to tread a mile in the shoes of those who you would "save?"
""If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13."
So God didn't have room on those stone tablets to jot down "Don't be gay" on Mount Sinai? Pretty interesting that Ol' Infallible Himself was able to include relatively minor things like "take a day off every week" and "put up with your parents" but seemed to think that an outright capital offense wasn't worth mentioning.
And Jesus was crucified before he was able to do his key "Don't be gay" sermon? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless what you want to have done unto you is... hey, where are these Romans taking me?"
You, as a Christian, have the trinity itself, not to mention the list of prophets, all telling you how to live your life properly and all, none of which really got around to the all-important "Don't be gay" commandment, and so you're giving a collection of these insane Biblical footnotes the same weight, especially when said footnote seems to fly in the face of one of the Ten Commandments?
"Who knowing the judgment of God,"
Knowing the unknowable, hm? So much for Christian humility...
"Is it really "discrimination" or "hatred" if I dare to save them from the hell fire by telling them that what they do is wrong?"
Do they want to be "saved?" According to other major religions, Jesus was a prophet at best and a false Messiah at worst, and these people complete with their own divine set of quotations to back up their assertions. Would you willingly allow others to attempt to "save" you from your own Christianity?
If the opinions of non-Christians don't do anything for you, what about other sects of Christianity? When was the last time you invited into your home a Jehovah's Witness or even a Mormon who appeared on your doorstep and let them go the whole nine yards in their attempt to "save" you, listening politely and never trying to argue?
"I am not discriminating, I am against violence."
Because if the death is "on their hands" (as prescribed by Leviticus), it's not really violence? Oh, and there it seems God is telling you to be violent when it comes to homosexuals, so aren't you going against His Will by falling back on such principles and squeamishness? The Bible tells you that you'd better be prepared to do what God tells you to do despite your personal desires: if he says "Kill your son," the only proper response is "With what weapon?" So are you really as Christian as you claim to be when you are willfully ignoring that part of scripture where you believe He Himself tells you to kill somebody?
"I only want to educate people."
As a Christian, shouldn't you be balancing your wants and desires against theirs?
" I only talk to people, write to people, write articles. Is that really wrong?"
That depends: are you talking with, talking to or talking at these people?
"Is education really the same as the crimes of holocaust? Do we really have to compare education to hatred for Jews?"
Well, many Soviets were sent to the gulags for the cause of "education," so yes, it can be.
I'm also not Korean in any sense of the word, and have never been further west than Honolulu. Most I know of the place comes from TV. Therefore, I have no idea what I'm talking about. Again, I'm already aware of this.
With that being said...
"However, South Korea was poorer in 1950's and 60's than the current NKorea,"
Um... no. They weren't outright starving, and were at least in the process of rebuilding after the long Japanese occupation.
Also, North Korea hasn't even gotten that far. The Japanese death camps never went away, they're just under new management
"but it has built ~10th biggest economy and one of the most democratic government within 3-4 decades."
"If SK did it, NK can do it too, especially with SK aids."
You're assuming aid from ROK would actually be used as Seoul intends. That can't even be said about food aid, which goes straight to the military/party faithful (same diff). Why do you believe they'd be more egalitarian with cold, hard cash? At least with the food aid Pyongyang has to go through the trouble of finding buyers who don't mind the fact that what they're buying has "food aid" written in seventeen different languages on what's being sold.
"Remember how China began to change? It didn't start from military or political perspectives. "
So the protests in Tiananmen Square and bending over backwards to accept Hong Kong into the fold did nothing?
"South Korea already has taken approach under the name of 'Sunshine Policy' US should adopt something similar because this policy already returned significant results since it began several years ago."
Seoul's sunshine didn't stop Northern forces from firing on Southern ships recently, nor have they made the ROK government all that comfortable with the US trying to remove its troops and station them elsewhere.
"Also, many many thousands of S.Korean tourists visited North Korea"
That sounds like a lot until you realize that those "thousands" only added up when taken over the course of decades, with many more turned away at the border instead of being allowed contact with their Northern family members. Beyond the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the war and the occasional, closely-guarded "tour" group, getting into DPRK is only slightly easier than getting out.
"and hundreds of South Korean companies are dying to invest in the area to take advantage of cheap but intelligent North Korean labour force."
First off, am I the only one who's stomach turned upon reading this?
And if those companies really cared about intelligent workers from the North (and if they were able to be as productive as those in the South), then Northern expatriates in the South, with their stilted, "hick" Northern accents, would have a far easier time getting a job and living their lives than they currently have now.
"Thus, if America really wants to remove the North Korean 'threat' then it should invest a lot of its capital and allow trading with North Korea. (How'bout removing NK from the terrorist country and allow trading?)"
As I alluded to before, the Bush administration did try removing troops from Korea. Seoul wasn't very happy.
"I don't think Bush will invade NK because even he is not stupid enough to offend SK, Japan, and China all at the same time."
I think you said "offend" instead of "destroy." Northern artillery would flatten Seoul the instan
"It is impossible for normal people to imagine the misery of people living there...
Get your imaginations at Guantanamo."
Your analogy breaks down at the courts martial (among other places).
"And yet, despite all your Western ire, it is still the responsibility of the North Korean people to overthrow their own repressive government. "
Ah yes, the Somebody Else's Problem argument. After all, if the US was able to rise up out of government-sponsored starvation and free their half-living bretheren from the British torture camps without any aid from France 230 years ago, anybody can do it!
Just like people with guns don't do stupid things? Weapons are no substitute for brain cells. Examples of nuclear states during the Cold War are statistical anomallies.
"On the other side North Korea knows that if it attacks someone what it can expect in return."
"In the case of Iran the last thing the ruling mullahs want is to give a nuclear device or supplies to someone and have that same person/group turn around and set off that device in the middle of Tehran.
Those ruling mullahs in Iran have been known to quietly give aid to the Israelis when it suited their interests. How do you think Israel knew about Iraq's nuclear power plant? Again: weapons are no substitute for brain cells.
"both countries have had several meaningful discussions on how to reduce tensions and learn to live peacefully with one another."
Have you looked at Kashmir recently?
Also, are you sure it's because of the nuclear weapons, or because nowadays each one would have to be in a two-front war? India has to worry about China and Pakistan has to worry about Muslim extremists in their own borders.
I don't think DPRK has the industrial capacity to make a toaster.
Besides, what would they test in the toaster for quality control? Other than the hands of people caught (alive) attempting to escape to China, that is...
(There's something seriously wrong with a place when you're trying to escape to the PRC.)
Congress and the American people didn't move to invade Iraq because of the mean and nasty things he did to Kurds and Iraqi Shia; hell, most of 'em haven't even head of the two groups. The whole "humanitarian mission" is nothing more than an excuse for a self back-pat. The Iraq invasion happened the only way it could possibly have been pulled off: by painting Iraq as a threat to us.
""You don't realize that we had to invade Iraq just so that it would not become another North Korea?"
We need to invade any country that might someday start up a viable nuke program?"
Yes, because North Korea has done nothing wrong beyond owning nuclear weapons.
The lesson the world learned from World War II is that it's OK to set up muder factories to slaughter civillians so long as its your own civillians and not your neighbors. DPRK, like many others, have taken this lesson to heart and therefore are in the clear so long as it's not South Koreans or Japanese they're shipping off to their death camps.
For the same reasons you don't see much talk in the US about annexing (any more of) Mexico. Sure, few in the US would mind carving 10 states and a few more funky commonwealth thingies out of Canada, but Mexico has lots of Mexicans and little money in comparison.
Tibet and Taiwan are actually worth something to Beijing. DPRK is fully of "dirty Koreans" (think "dirty Mexicans") and the only interest of China's there is pissing off Washington. China knows exactly what happens to the thousands of North Koreans they send back across the border (concentration camps, etc.) but you don't see many tears being shed by them, let alone talk of discontinuing their policy of forced repatriation.
(Note: opinions of Mexico and its inhabitants are those held by the average US citizen and not necesiarly my own.)
"Print off money whenever you need, trade it with foreign nations for goods and services, knowing that it won't be redeemed for goods from your own country but rather hoarded and traded by other nations"
Yeah, and its a good thing the US doesn't produce any of its own oil and no foreign interests actually buy oil exported by the US. We wouldn't want your little conspiracy theory to have to worry about the Alaska North Slope or the Gulf of Mexico, now would we?
Just because we're not Saudi Arabia doesn't mean we only buy oil, never sell. Heck, there was a time when the US itself was the world's biggest oil exporter (and we were pulled into the War in the Pacific because of it). The oil extraction industry in places like Alaska, Texas and Louisiana would, like all US exporters today, be very interested in selling in strong euros rather than weak dollars; they'd make a killing in the exchange rates.
And just how are we to support operations in Afghanistan without access to Pakistani airspace? The shuttle fleet?
Ideals make way for realpolitik when you're dealing with landlocked countries.