Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A hypothetical scenario

Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:13:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
N. Korea invents a weapon that effectively renders our military powerless. Our national, state, and local police are completely compromised and they land on our banks and invade our cities.

N. Korea takes our entire country and decides that we should live like they do - under control. Our schools are severely regulated for content, our television programming, the internet - everything is now under strict governmental control. We work the jobs they tell us to and everything we do is scrutinized from above. N. Korea fortifies itself throughout the country beyond our ability to remove them through force. Furthermore, their new weapon makes it senseless to try and attack them because of how effective it is.

- How do you and I as Americans respond to the fact that we now live with significantly less freedom than we once did?

- Do we cooperate with them out of fear for our lives and family?

- Would you say this is the "worst-case scenario for American security?
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:28:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:25:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
I suppose we'd have to start suicide bombing the N. Koreans in order to regain our homeland.

That's an answer similar to what the Muslims are doing in response to the creation of Israel. So you agree with suicide-bombing Muslims? Or is their cause unjust?
Rob
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:35:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:13:57 PM, Lasagna wrote:
N. Korea invents a weapon that effectively renders our military powerless. Our national, state, and local police are completely compromised and they land on our banks and invade our cities.

N. Korea takes our entire country and decides that we should live like they do - under control. Our schools are severely regulated for content, our television programming, the internet - everything is now under strict governmental control. We work the jobs they tell us to and everything we do is scrutinized from above. N. Korea fortifies itself throughout the country beyond our ability to remove them through force. Furthermore, their new weapon makes it senseless to try and attack them because of how effective it is.

- How do you and I as Americans respond to the fact that we now live with significantly less freedom than we once did?

- Do we cooperate with them out of fear for our lives and family?

- Would you say this is the "worst-case scenario for American security?

This option. This is what will happen. Unless a very charismatic and dedicated opposition leader arises whom people can follow.

Other option will be to get out of the country, if you can.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:37:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:28:37 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:25:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
I suppose we'd have to start suicide bombing the N. Koreans in order to regain our homeland.

That's an answer similar to what the Muslims are doing in response to the creation of Israel. So you agree with suicide-bombing Muslims? Or is their cause unjust?

I personally think America should outsource the suicide bombing to Muslims who would be attacking Israel.

Best of both worlds.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:37:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:35:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:13:57 PM, Lasagna wrote:
N. Korea invents a weapon that effectively renders our military powerless. Our national, state, and local police are completely compromised and they land on our banks and invade our cities.

N. Korea takes our entire country and decides that we should live like they do - under control. Our schools are severely regulated for content, our television programming, the internet - everything is now under strict governmental control. We work the jobs they tell us to and everything we do is scrutinized from above. N. Korea fortifies itself throughout the country beyond our ability to remove them through force. Furthermore, their new weapon makes it senseless to try and attack them because of how effective it is.

- How do you and I as Americans respond to the fact that we now live with significantly less freedom than we once did?

- Do we cooperate with them out of fear for our lives and family?

- Would you say this is the "worst-case scenario for American security?

This option. This is what will happen. Unless a very charismatic and dedicated opposition leader arises whom people can follow.

Other option will be to get out of the country, if you can.

So you would choose to live willingly under curtailed freedoms? You wouldn't choose some sort of non-violent non-cooperation?
Rob
Joseph_Mengele
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:40:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:13:57 PM, Lasagna wrote:
N. Korea invents a weapon that effectively renders our military powerless. Our national, state, and local police are completely compromised and they land on our banks and invade our cities.

N. Korea takes our entire country and decides that we should live like they do - under control. Our schools are severely regulated for content, our television programming, the internet - everything is now under strict governmental control. We work the jobs they tell us to and everything we do is scrutinized from above. N. Korea fortifies itself throughout the country beyond our ability to remove them through force. Furthermore, their new weapon makes it senseless to try and attack them because of how effective it is.

- How do you and I as Americans respond to the fact that we now live with significantly less freedom than we once did?

- Do we cooperate with them out of fear for our lives and family?

- Would you say this is the "worst-case scenario for American security?

The worst case scenario for American security is allowing all of the Mexican illegal immigrants to start coming into this country unregulated.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:41:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I wouldn't be opposed to guerilla activity. A North Korean style rule is just utterly unbearable. I'm hardly the more aggressive person but I don't think the US would take this one easily.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:42:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:40:27 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:13:57 PM, Lasagna wrote:
N. Korea invents a weapon that effectively renders our military powerless. Our national, state, and local police are completely compromised and they land on our banks and invade our cities.

N. Korea takes our entire country and decides that we should live like they do - under control. Our schools are severely regulated for content, our television programming, the internet - everything is now under strict governmental control. We work the jobs they tell us to and everything we do is scrutinized from above. N. Korea fortifies itself throughout the country beyond our ability to remove them through force. Furthermore, their new weapon makes it senseless to try and attack them because of how effective it is.

- How do you and I as Americans respond to the fact that we now live with significantly less freedom than we once did?

- Do we cooperate with them out of fear for our lives and family?

- Would you say this is the "worst-case scenario for American security?

The worst case scenario for American security is allowing all of the Mexican illegal immigrants to start coming into this country unregulated.

I respect your opinion, but this statement cannot be taken seriously.
Rob
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:43:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:37:53 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:35:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:13:57 PM, Lasagna wrote:
N. Korea invents a weapon that effectively renders our military powerless. Our national, state, and local police are completely compromised and they land on our banks and invade our cities.

N. Korea takes our entire country and decides that we should live like they do - under control. Our schools are severely regulated for content, our television programming, the internet - everything is now under strict governmental control. We work the jobs they tell us to and everything we do is scrutinized from above. N. Korea fortifies itself throughout the country beyond our ability to remove them through force. Furthermore, their new weapon makes it senseless to try and attack them because of how effective it is.

- How do you and I as Americans respond to the fact that we now live with significantly less freedom than we once did?

- Do we cooperate with them out of fear for our lives and family?

- Would you say this is the "worst-case scenario for American security?

This option. This is what will happen. Unless a very charismatic and dedicated opposition leader arises whom people can follow.

Other option will be to get out of the country, if you can.

So you would choose to live willingly under curtailed freedoms? You wouldn't choose some sort of non-violent non-cooperation?

I personally would try to get out of the country. Who ever willingly chooses to live with curtailed freedoms?

If I have small kids, I'd be seriously torn however.

I am not sure whether I'll be able to lead a non-violent non-cooperation movement, but I'll surely follow a good leader down this path.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:46:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:41:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I wouldn't be opposed to guerilla activity. A North Korean style rule is just utterly unbearable. I'm hardly the more aggressive person but I don't think the US would take this one easily.

The Koreans' weapon makes guerilla warfare essentially a suicide mission. Everyone who tries fails miserably, and the the attempts at attacking the Koreans' strengthens their resolve, much like any attempts at attacking American sovereignty are futile and strengthen our resolve. You would choose to senselessly attack the Koreans in suicide missions as opposed to non-violent solutions?
Rob
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:51:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:46:00 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:41:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I wouldn't be opposed to guerilla activity. A North Korean style rule is just utterly unbearable. I'm hardly the more aggressive person but I don't think the US would take this one easily.

The Koreans' weapon makes guerilla warfare essentially a suicide mission. Everyone who tries fails miserably, and the the attempts at attacking the Koreans' strengthens their resolve, much like any attempts at attacking American sovereignty are futile and strengthen our resolve. You would choose to senselessly attack the Koreans in suicide missions as opposed to non-violent solutions?

If the NK government governs like they do in their homeland in the US then then non-violent resistance serves no point. Non-violent resistance assumes the government cares. The heads of the N. Korean government are well aware of the massive starvation and poverty in their nation and simply don't care.

How powerful is this weapon? Guerilla warfare is virtually used against an enemy with superior weaponry, manpower, etc.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:52:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:28:37 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:25:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
I suppose we'd have to start suicide bombing the N. Koreans in order to regain our homeland.

That's an answer similar to what the Muslims are doing in response to the creation of Israel. So you agree with suicide-bombing Muslims? Or is their cause unjust?

Their cause is unjust.

Suicide bombing, in any case, is irrational. Risking death is one thing, certain death another.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:53:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:28:37 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:25:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
I suppose we'd have to start suicide bombing the N. Koreans in order to regain our homeland.

That's an answer similar to what the Muslims are doing in response to the creation of Israel. So you agree with suicide-bombing Muslims? Or is their cause unjust?

That is nothing intriniscally wrong with suicide bombing, though it should be solely against military targets.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:56:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:52:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:28:37 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:25:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
I suppose we'd have to start suicide bombing the N. Koreans in order to regain our homeland.

That's an answer similar to what the Muslims are doing in response to the creation of Israel. So you agree with suicide-bombing Muslims? Or is their cause unjust?

Their cause is unjust.

Suicide bombing, in any case, is irrational. Risking death is one thing, certain death another.

Depends. The motivation of a majority of middle-eastern sunni-based suicide bombing is concern for the integrity of the religious community. If that is your motivation, the act is rational depending on how executed.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 1:59:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:51:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:46:00 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:41:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I wouldn't be opposed to guerilla activity. A North Korean style rule is just utterly unbearable. I'm hardly the more aggressive person but I don't think the US would take this one easily.

The Koreans' weapon makes guerilla warfare essentially a suicide mission. Everyone who tries fails miserably, and the the attempts at attacking the Koreans' strengthens their resolve, much like any attempts at attacking American sovereignty are futile and strengthen our resolve. You would choose to senselessly attack the Koreans in suicide missions as opposed to non-violent solutions?

If the NK government governs like they do in their homeland in the US then then non-violent resistance serves no point. Non-violent resistance assumes the government cares. The heads of the N. Korean government are well aware of the massive starvation and poverty in their nation and simply don't care.

I'm sure arguments are made about our government in this vein. Maybe not starvation specifically, but they certainly have strong opinions about us!

How powerful is this weapon? Guerilla warfare is virtually used against an enemy with superior weaponry, manpower, etc.

Powerful enough to preclude the option of resistance through brute force.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 2:00:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:52:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:28:37 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:25:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
I suppose we'd have to start suicide bombing the N. Koreans in order to regain our homeland.

That's an answer similar to what the Muslims are doing in response to the creation of Israel. So you agree with suicide-bombing Muslims? Or is their cause unjust?

Their cause is unjust.

Suicide bombing, in any case, is irrational. Risking death is one thing, certain death another.

Ragnar what if society told you that they would implement your exact system of economics across the entire planet if you agreed to die for it? You still wouldn't do it?
Rob
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 2:01:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:56:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:52:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:28:37 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:25:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
I suppose we'd have to start suicide bombing the N. Koreans in order to regain our homeland.

That's an answer similar to what the Muslims are doing in response to the creation of Israel. So you agree with suicide-bombing Muslims? Or is their cause unjust?

Their cause is unjust.

Suicide bombing, in any case, is irrational. Risking death is one thing, certain death another.

Depends. The motivation of a majority of middle-eastern sunni-based suicide bombing is concern for the integrity of the religious community. If that is your motivation, the act is rational depending on how executed.

That's not a rational motivation to begin with.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 2:01:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 2:00:38 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:52:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:28:37 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:25:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
I suppose we'd have to start suicide bombing the N. Koreans in order to regain our homeland.

That's an answer similar to what the Muslims are doing in response to the creation of Israel. So you agree with suicide-bombing Muslims? Or is their cause unjust?

Their cause is unjust.

Suicide bombing, in any case, is irrational. Risking death is one thing, certain death another.

Ragnar what if society told you that they would implement your exact system of economics across the entire planet if you agreed to die for it? You still wouldn't do it?

No, what good would I get out of that?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 2:07:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:59:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:51:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:46:00 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:41:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I wouldn't be opposed to guerilla activity. A North Korean style rule is just utterly unbearable. I'm hardly the more aggressive person but I don't think the US would take this one easily.

The Koreans' weapon makes guerilla warfare essentially a suicide mission. Everyone who tries fails miserably, and the the attempts at attacking the Koreans' strengthens their resolve, much like any attempts at attacking American sovereignty are futile and strengthen our resolve. You would choose to senselessly attack the Koreans in suicide missions as opposed to non-violent solutions?

If the NK government governs like they do in their homeland in the US then then non-violent resistance serves no point. Non-violent resistance assumes the government cares. The heads of the N. Korean government are well aware of the massive starvation and poverty in their nation and simply don't care.

I'm sure arguments are made about our government in this vein. Maybe not starvation specifically, but they certainly have strong opinions about us!

How powerful is this weapon? Guerilla warfare is virtually used against an enemy with superior weaponry, manpower, etc.

Powerful enough to preclude the option of resistance through brute force.

I'm sure certain bad arguments are made about the US government, but the fact is the US government is nothing like the North Korean government and any claim that the US is absolutist is just factually wrong.

I don't understand this, Jews in the Warsaw ghetto faced essentially certain death in resisting their nazi occupiers but still did it because they realized that there are things more important than their continued existence. The odds can be extremely unfavorable but it's about the principle.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 2:25:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 2:07:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:59:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:51:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:46:00 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:41:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I wouldn't be opposed to guerilla activity. A North Korean style rule is just utterly unbearable. I'm hardly the more aggressive person but I don't think the US would take this one easily.

The Koreans' weapon makes guerilla warfare essentially a suicide mission. Everyone who tries fails miserably, and the the attempts at attacking the Koreans' strengthens their resolve, much like any attempts at attacking American sovereignty are futile and strengthen our resolve. You would choose to senselessly attack the Koreans in suicide missions as opposed to non-violent solutions?

If the NK government governs like they do in their homeland in the US then then non-violent resistance serves no point. Non-violent resistance assumes the government cares. The heads of the N. Korean government are well aware of the massive starvation and poverty in their nation and simply don't care.

I'm sure arguments are made about our government in this vein. Maybe not starvation specifically, but they certainly have strong opinions about us!

How powerful is this weapon? Guerilla warfare is virtually used against an enemy with superior weaponry, manpower, etc.

Powerful enough to preclude the option of resistance through brute force.

I'm sure certain bad arguments are made about the US government, but the fact is the US government is nothing like the North Korean government and any claim that the US is absolutist is just factually wrong.

I don't understand this, Jews in the Warsaw ghetto faced essentially certain death in resisting their nazi occupiers but still did it because they realized that there are things more important than their continued existence. The odds can be extremely unfavorable but it's about the principle.

Actually in the case of the Warsaw Ghetto they were dying anyway, it was a mass execution. It was probably harder for them not to resist.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 2:31:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 2:25:18 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/2/2011 2:07:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:59:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:51:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:46:00 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:41:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I wouldn't be opposed to guerilla activity. A North Korean style rule is just utterly unbearable. I'm hardly the more aggressive person but I don't think the US would take this one easily.

The Koreans' weapon makes guerilla warfare essentially a suicide mission. Everyone who tries fails miserably, and the the attempts at attacking the Koreans' strengthens their resolve, much like any attempts at attacking American sovereignty are futile and strengthen our resolve. You would choose to senselessly attack the Koreans in suicide missions as opposed to non-violent solutions?

If the NK government governs like they do in their homeland in the US then then non-violent resistance serves no point. Non-violent resistance assumes the government cares. The heads of the N. Korean government are well aware of the massive starvation and poverty in their nation and simply don't care.

I'm sure arguments are made about our government in this vein. Maybe not starvation specifically, but they certainly have strong opinions about us!

How powerful is this weapon? Guerilla warfare is virtually used against an enemy with superior weaponry, manpower, etc.

Powerful enough to preclude the option of resistance through brute force.

I'm sure certain bad arguments are made about the US government, but the fact is the US government is nothing like the North Korean government and any claim that the US is absolutist is just factually wrong.

I don't understand this, Jews in the Warsaw ghetto faced essentially certain death in resisting their nazi occupiers but still did it because they realized that there are things more important than their continued existence. The odds can be extremely unfavorable but it's about the principle.

Actually in the case of the Warsaw Ghetto they were dying anyway, it was a mass execution. It was probably harder for them not to resist.

The resistance was after catching wind what the deportations really meant, which was not certain death but likely death. It's only one example though.

I would certainly consider joining a violent resistance movement personally, however. Obviously not one that condones suicide bombings on random north korean civilians going about their daily lives.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 2:33:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 2:31:36 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/2/2011 2:25:18 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/2/2011 2:07:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:59:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:51:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:46:00 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:41:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I wouldn't be opposed to guerilla activity. A North Korean style rule is just utterly unbearable. I'm hardly the more aggressive person but I don't think the US would take this one easily.

The Koreans' weapon makes guerilla warfare essentially a suicide mission. Everyone who tries fails miserably, and the the attempts at attacking the Koreans' strengthens their resolve, much like any attempts at attacking American sovereignty are futile and strengthen our resolve. You would choose to senselessly attack the Koreans in suicide missions as opposed to non-violent solutions?

If the NK government governs like they do in their homeland in the US then then non-violent resistance serves no point. Non-violent resistance assumes the government cares. The heads of the N. Korean government are well aware of the massive starvation and poverty in their nation and simply don't care.

I'm sure arguments are made about our government in this vein. Maybe not starvation specifically, but they certainly have strong opinions about us!

How powerful is this weapon? Guerilla warfare is virtually used against an enemy with superior weaponry, manpower, etc.

Powerful enough to preclude the option of resistance through brute force.

I'm sure certain bad arguments are made about the US government, but the fact is the US government is nothing like the North Korean government and any claim that the US is absolutist is just factually wrong.

I don't understand this, Jews in the Warsaw ghetto faced essentially certain death in resisting their nazi occupiers but still did it because they realized that there are things more important than their continued existence. The odds can be extremely unfavorable but it's about the principle.

Actually in the case of the Warsaw Ghetto they were dying anyway, it was a mass execution. It was probably harder for them not to resist.

The resistance was after catching wind what the deportations really meant, which was not certain death but likely death. It's only one example though.

I would certainly consider joining a violent resistance movement personally, however. Obviously not one that condones suicide bombings on random north korean civilians going about their daily lives.

gov't wars kill citizen all the time. Would it be any different If your violent resistant movement personally killed civilians?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 2:39:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 2:33:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/2/2011 2:31:36 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/2/2011 2:25:18 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/2/2011 2:07:40 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:59:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:51:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:46:00 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:41:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I wouldn't be opposed to guerilla activity. A North Korean style rule is just utterly unbearable. I'm hardly the more aggressive person but I don't think the US would take this one easily.

The Koreans' weapon makes guerilla warfare essentially a suicide mission. Everyone who tries fails miserably, and the the attempts at attacking the Koreans' strengthens their resolve, much like any attempts at attacking American sovereignty are futile and strengthen our resolve. You would choose to senselessly attack the Koreans in suicide missions as opposed to non-violent solutions?

If the NK government governs like they do in their homeland in the US then then non-violent resistance serves no point. Non-violent resistance assumes the government cares. The heads of the N. Korean government are well aware of the massive starvation and poverty in their nation and simply don't care.

I'm sure arguments are made about our government in this vein. Maybe not starvation specifically, but they certainly have strong opinions about us!

How powerful is this weapon? Guerilla warfare is virtually used against an enemy with superior weaponry, manpower, etc.

Powerful enough to preclude the option of resistance through brute force.

I'm sure certain bad arguments are made about the US government, but the fact is the US government is nothing like the North Korean government and any claim that the US is absolutist is just factually wrong.

I don't understand this, Jews in the Warsaw ghetto faced essentially certain death in resisting their nazi occupiers but still did it because they realized that there are things more important than their continued existence. The odds can be extremely unfavorable but it's about the principle.

Actually in the case of the Warsaw Ghetto they were dying anyway, it was a mass execution. It was probably harder for them not to resist.

The resistance was after catching wind what the deportations really meant, which was not certain death but likely death. It's only one example though.

I would certainly consider joining a violent resistance movement personally, however. Obviously not one that condones suicide bombings on random north korean civilians going about their daily lives.

gov't wars kill citizen all the time. Would it be any different If your violent resistant movement personally killed civilians?

Any different from what governments are doing? Which government? Hopefully it would be, because a guerilla war is much different than the scorched earth/total war/massive production wars of the last century. It's entirely possible that their will be civilian casualties, and I'm aware that civilian casualties might be inevitable to some extent. I personally see a difference between normal, personal moral theory and moral theory on a larger, international scale.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 4:15:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:37:24 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:28:37 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:25:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
I suppose we'd have to start suicide bombing the N. Koreans in order to regain our homeland.

That's an answer similar to what the Muslims are doing in response to the creation of Israel. So you agree with suicide-bombing Muslims? Or is their cause unjust?

I personally think America should outsource the suicide bombing to Muslims who would be attacking Israel.

Best of both worlds.

This.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 4:46:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:13:57 PM, Lasagna wrote:
N. Korea invents a weapon that effectively renders our military powerless. Our national, state, and local police are completely compromised and they land on our banks and invade our cities.

N. Korea takes our entire country and decides that we should live like they do - under control. Our schools are severely regulated for content, our television programming, the internet - everything is now under strict governmental control. We work the jobs they tell us to and everything we do is scrutinized from above. N. Korea fortifies itself throughout the country beyond our ability to remove them through force. Furthermore, their new weapon makes it senseless to try and attack them because of how effective it is.

- How do you and I as Americans respond to the fact that we now live with significantly less freedom than we once did?

- Do we cooperate with them out of fear for our lives and family?

- Would you say this is the "worst-case scenario for American security?

If a weapon powerful enough to destroy the United States Armed Forces came about, and it dissuades all resistance, why would N. Korea stop with the U.S? Wouldn't they just take the entire planet over?

Anyway, I wouldn't go down without a fight. I'm not going to surrender my freedoms just to survive. Anyone who does that or flees is a coward or has no pride in their country. We've seen how N. Korea is. Death is better than that life. I personally couldn't live with myself knowing that I had given up on my friends and family let alone my country. I won't join a suicide mission, but I would join one with a high risk.

"We will NOT surrender for it, now or ever." - Ronald Reagan.

That it was peace, but the same idea stands for our rights as American citizens in my opinion.

"...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." -Abraham Lincoln

If we surrender, then what was the point of everything to this point? What was the point of fighting for our freedom from Britain? What was the point of fighting the Civil War? What about the civil rights movements? What about stoping the German advances of WW1 and WW2? Why did we bother to go to war after the bombing of the Twin Towers and Pentagon? Why did we help work towards the UN? Why didn't we let communism take over? If we sit down, then those dead WILL have died in vain. The government of, for, and by the people WILL perish from the earth. Everything that we, as a country, have done will be in vain. It will be meaningless. All the bloodshed and pain will be a waste.

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion..." - Abraham Lincoln

Wouldn't you rather be the one getting talked about as having given everything you can for the freedoms you hold dear and for your country? Or would you rather be the citizen who was too afraid to fight? The person who is sitting on the sidelines doing everything possible to live a crap life while their friends and family are off fighting so that, maybe, they can one day enjoy the freedoms you once did? Personally, it would be the most embarrassing moment in my life to come to this realization.

Finally, when the USA wins, how would you live with yourself knowing at all times you let everyone down by not fighting? How could you live with yourself thinking that maybe, just maybe, if you had been there in the fight, your father and brother wouldn't be dead? Maybe your best friend would be sitting next to you talking about the war rather than you standing at his grave weeping because you bailed on him? Or maybe, you'd be dead too. In that case, at least you died knowing that you did everything you could to defend your friends and family. Knowing that maybe your efforts won't have been in vain because, maybe, the United States would win the war? It would be better to fight and die than sit around and have everyone close die if you ask me.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 4:47:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:46:00 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:41:38 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I wouldn't be opposed to guerilla activity. A North Korean style rule is just utterly unbearable. I'm hardly the more aggressive person but I don't think the US would take this one easily.

The Koreans' weapon makes guerilla warfare essentially a suicide mission. Everyone who tries fails miserably, and the the attempts at attacking the Koreans' strengthens their resolve, much like any attempts at attacking American sovereignty are futile and strengthen our resolve. You would choose to senselessly attack the Koreans in suicide missions as opposed to non-violent solutions?

What non-violent solutions? When has a non-violent solution ever worked against an uncaring, conquering oppressor?
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 4:57:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 1:59:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:51:04 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

How powerful is this weapon? Guerilla warfare is virtually used against an enemy with superior weaponry, manpower, etc.

Powerful enough to preclude the option of resistance through brute force.

What is your definition of brute force? If you include the use of strategy in this definition, then I don't believe the weapon you describe could ever exist. I believe that any oppressed force that is determined enough, and well armed enough, will prevail against the odds. If you risk death and misery either way, then who cares if you should happen to die while fighting. When life is no better than death, you have nothing to lose. If you have nothing to lose, then you will fight harder than those who do have a life to lose. You will take more risks, and you will win. It may take 5 years, it may take 10. However long it takes, though, you will win. There are enough hunters in the United States to make the largest land army. If they are able to organize themselves, then it is possible for them to hit every N. Korean soldier and building at the same exact time. There will be no one to go to anyone's aid for the N. Koreans. Their armies will fall, their buildings will burn to the ground. Their weapon will fall into our hands. I have no doubt about this.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 5:00:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/2/2011 2:01:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:56:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:52:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:28:37 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 9/2/2011 1:25:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
I suppose we'd have to start suicide bombing the N. Koreans in order to regain our homeland.

That's an answer similar to what the Muslims are doing in response to the creation of Israel. So you agree with suicide-bombing Muslims? Or is their cause unjust?

Their cause is unjust.

Suicide bombing, in any case, is irrational. Risking death is one thing, certain death another.

Depends. The motivation of a majority of middle-eastern sunni-based suicide bombing is concern for the integrity of the religious community. If that is your motivation, the act is rational depending on how executed.

That's not a rational motivation to begin with.

Only when you define "rational" as necessarily being about the individual's preservation and no other goal.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2011 9:31:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Seeing that I'm just a teenager, I'd probably submit at first, but as I grew up I'd probably join the North Korean Army and hopefully smuggle weapons, plans, and data to resistence movements.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.