Quote:
Original post by Guthur
Would you be free to walk in any neighbourhood in a western country without fear of being attacked for your colour or the contents of your wallet.
This has nothing to do with government policies. At best, it's an issue of local security.
Quote:
Are homeless people free to have a meal, or claim any sort of benefits, or even get a job; all those being pretty difficult without a home.
Homeless people are entitled to the same rights as any other person. They have the right to eat. They have the right to work. They have the right to claim benefits, providing that they're eligible for them. However, this has nothing to do with north korea so I fail to see what your point is. Start another thread if you want to talk about homeless people.
Quote:
Can't talk for the US, but go to any major city in the UK at 1-3 am on a Friday and Saturday night and tell me thats civilized.
What does this have to do with north korean oppression and tyranny? Are you suggesting that western governments should do more to oppress their citizens around 1-3am on fridays and saturdays? Throw those drunkards into the gulags!!
Quote:
Were people in Afghanstan or Iraq any better off after we, western countries, charged in on some trumped up reason, remember the Taliban did not attack the US they just allowed a man losely associated with the attack on the World Trade centre to stay in their country; I can guarantee the US has harboured some pretty suspect people, as an example their rocket program was developed by Hitlers own rocket scientist, justify it as you will its still suspect and not the only example I'm sure. They have also propped up some rather suspect governments in first the fight against communism and now with the war on terror.
Actually, yes. I worked in the Marine Civil Affairs headquarters in Fallujah, Iraq and we were concerned with the reconstruction of Iraq. By our metrics in 2004, living conditions had improved beyond pre-war levels. In 2006->2007, life in Al Anbar province had become even more peaceful and Iraqis were enjoying a slightly higher quality of life than before America invaded. Changing the quality of life in a nation is not an overnight light switch; It takes time and preserverance. Positive societal change comes about through increased economic prosperity, local security, and effective governance. When those indicators go up, life gets better.
As for life under the Taliban, I don't think it's necessary to show that life is better without them in power.
Yes, America has done some ethically gray things in the past, and some things which are clearly wrong. Using rocket scientists who were past nazi's is not one of them.
Quote:
Is there a need for large SUVs that if involved in accident will most likely kill anyone not in a similar behemoth.
I fail to see how this is even closely relevant to North Korea. Red Herring.
Quote:
And is there a need to allow everyone to have a gun when you can never be quite sure of either their capacity to use such a weapon safely or their mental soundness, there is always carelessness and a person can very easily falldown mentally, most gun deaths in the US being suscide, and such feelings are hard to notice or deal with.
So what? This is a totally different topic. Start a new thread if you want to talk about gun control.
Quote:
As for famine in NK, it was not helped by strategic cloud seeding by the US to disrupt the rainfall in NK. The US didn't like communism that was the agenda not a desire to help Koreans. Fat cats feared their dollar would be taken.
Do you seriously believe this? If this were true, the North Koreans would be sending fighter jets to intercept those cloud seeders and it would be seen as a provocation of war.
Quote:
I will admit Heart disease doesn't really fit, no wonder it was only one you picked up on.
I was picking on all of the subjects in your list in a general way.
Quote:
Human rights? Quantanamo, Abu Grail, excessive military force, *break*
And how does America deal with these issues? Do you see America taking those who object to this stuff and throwing them into a Gulag, never to be heard from again? Or do you see heads rolling, people getting fired, policies being changed, and a genuine interest in doing the "right thing"? What does North Korea do? What would Soviet Russia do? China? Iran?
Quote:
raping of natural resources from other countries from an obsessive desire for worldly wealth;
This is so ridiculously sensationalist. A mine takes mineral resources out of the ground. People cut down trees for timber. People fish the rivers and oceans. People grow crops on fertile land. Is this "raping natural resources"? Should people feel bad about doing this? You're trying to take a stab at imperialism. What if I cut down a tree in my own backyard for firewood? What if my neighbor lets me cut down his tree for firewood, provided that I pay him for it? I don't think your argument works.
Quote:
I'm afraid the west has no reason to portray themselves as occupying a moral high ground. And if our politician ever actually told the truth the world would probably stop turning.
Really? So if the "west" makes a moral mistake, we lose all credibility for the rest of eternity? Are all "western" countries guilty by association? If America tortures people, then darn those Canadians for being western too!
Quote:
One should sort out their own backyard before sticking their nose in someone elses.
Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.
The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.
Source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html
