28 May 09
Originally posted by generalissimoI am not entirely sure I know.
you're right FMF.
so, what do you think n.korea's motives are?
Sam The Sham and I were talking about shavixmir. Who did you think we were talking about?
So "you're right FMF" means you believe "understanding the motives of an enemy (in this case North Korea) is the same as defending them"?
Are you sure that's your stance?
28 May 09
Originally posted by FMFSo "you're right FMF" means you believe "understanding the motives of an enemy (in this case North Korea) is the same as defending them"?
I am not entirely sure I know.
Sam The Sham and I were talking about shavixmir. Who did you think we were talking about?
So "you're right FMF" means you believe "understanding the motives of an enemy (in this case North Korea) is the same as defending them"?
Are you sure that's your stance?
No, it means that I recognize that my statement was wrong, and that yours was right.
so, you don't know what the motives are?
28 May 09
Originally posted by Sam The ShamSince President George W. Bush's State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002, (as well as before that) I imagine that the motivation North Korea has to develop a nuclear deterrent has been survival.
You call it understanding [North Korea], sounds like defending [it] to me.
Is this me "defending" the wretched regime? I don't see how it is.
If you say: "Ah but it's not a defensive measure, it's offensive" and I reply:
"I disagree. I think it's intended as a deterrent." Is this me defending the regime? I think not.