comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 3 minutes ago
Hypocrisy at it's finest
.............
It would be if that was what hypocrisy meant. This one would fall under 'irony'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocrite: someone who says they have particular moral beliefs but behaves in way that shows these are not sincere:
For instance someone like you who critices Trump for saying Japan and Korea should have their own Nukes, but then defend the right for the UK to keep theirs.
Feel free to explain it to me why you think it ironic and not hypocrisy, because I just don't see it.
comment by Adam 'The Interview' Lallana (U20650)
posted 39 minutes ago
Yeah the usa do no posturing at all
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The US do a lot more than just posturing. Iraq, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, just to name a few.
D4
Putting nuclear weapons into regions, such as that area of Asia, is a bad idea. It stokes the fire and could be seen as a direct threat by North Korea who already have nuclear weapons themselves. The UK on the other hand is completely different. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that.
You have just put up a definition of hypocrite that doesn't apply to your post.
Did you do that deliberately?
.................
For instance someone like you who critices Trump for saying Japan and Korea should have their own Nukes, but then defend the right for the UK to keep theirs.
................
I see you have now changed this comment. Well done.
The UK on the other hand is completely different. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that.
.................
This rules out D4.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 10 minutes ago
You have just put up a definition of hypocrite that doesn't apply to your post.
Did you do that deliberately?
.................
For instance someone like you who critices Trump for saying Japan and Korea should have their own Nukes, but then defend the right for the UK to keep theirs.
................
I see you have now changed this comment. Well done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No edit button for me, but I guess this proves what a delusional wack job you are.
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 11 minutes ago
D4
Putting nuclear weapons into regions, such as that area of Asia, is a bad idea. It stokes the fire and could be seen as a direct threat by North Korea who already have nuclear weapons themselves. The UK on the other hand is completely different. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are already nukes there and a balance will keep the peace. But stay a hypocrite.
No edit button for me
................
Apart from the words, no.
There are already nukes there and a balance will keep the peace. But stay a hypocrite.
..............
Coutinhos and I rarely see eye to eye, but I can't see where he is being hypocritical here.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
No edit button for me
................
Apart from the words, no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I could at least get a thank you for educating you.
Some people are so ungrateful
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
There are already nukes there and a balance will keep the peace. But stay a hypocrite.
..............
Coutinhos and I rarely see eye to eye, but I can't see where he is being hypocritical here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nukes, not ok there.
But are OK here
Are nuclear weapons a good thing or bad?
Saying one thing, then the other show hypocrisy. But I can see how you failed to understand
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 21 minutes ago
D4
Putting nuclear weapons into regions, such as that area of Asia, is a bad idea. It stokes the fire and could be seen as a direct threat by North Korea who already have nuclear weapons themselves. The UK on the other hand is completely different. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it different? you could say us renewing trident stokes the fires with Russia. our reasoning is that it's self defence, the same logic applies to South Korea and Japan. I'm not convinced Russia are the bad guys they get portrayed as anyway, they just want a different outcome in Syria than we do.
How is it different? you could say us renewing trident stokes the fires with Russia.
..........
Yes you could. You could say Russia renewing their nukes (they already have done so, by the way) also stokes the fire and justifies renewing Trident.
When the US has a long history of overthrowing democratically elected govt, simply because the are socialist and care for their people, and we still want to make out Russia are the evil ones
Clinton was apart of this US and will continue operations like this. Trump doesn't want to continue that line of state building, police the world and eliminate govts and leaders that do disagree with their ideology
comment by D4thincarnation (U2520)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
There are already nukes there and a balance will keep the peace. But stay a hypocrite.
..............
Coutinhos and I rarely see eye to eye, but I can't see where he is being hypocritical here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nukes, not ok there.
But are OK here
Are nuclear weapons a good thing or bad?
Saying one thing, then the other show hypocrisy. But I can see how you failed to understand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's really quite simple D4.
Is there the same tension between countries over here as there are between North & South Korea?
Nuclear weapons are not best placed in either South Korea or Japan not for moral reasons but because it will further antagonise North Korea who are one of the most unstable regimes on the planet with nuclear capabilities. .
I could at least get a thank you for educating you.
..................
You will, when that happens.
If Russia nukes us we can just get America to nuke them back and save all the money.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 21 minutes ago
D4
Putting nuclear weapons into regions, such as that area of Asia, is a bad idea. It stokes the fire and could be seen as a direct threat by North Korea who already have nuclear weapons themselves. The UK on the other hand is completely different. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it different? you could say us renewing trident stokes the fires with Russia. our reasoning is that it's self defence, the same logic applies to South Korea and Japan. I'm not convinced Russia are the bad guys they get portrayed as anyway, they just want a different outcome in Syria than we do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Russians have been targeting schools in Syria. Killing hundreds of children:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/27/airstrike-on-syrian-village-kills-26-people-reports-say
Nukes, not ok there.
But are OK here
Are nuclear weapons a good thing or bad?
.....................
They are very bad if your enemies have them and you don't.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 1 minute ago
If Russia nukes us we can just get America to nuke them back and save all the money.
.............
Not if Trump becomes president.
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by D4thincarnation (U2520)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
There are already nukes there and a balance will keep the peace. But stay a hypocrite.
..............
Coutinhos and I rarely see eye to eye, but I can't see where he is being hypocritical here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nukes, not ok there.
But are OK here
Are nuclear weapons a good thing or bad?
Saying one thing, then the other show hypocrisy. But I can see how you failed to understand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's really quite simple D4.
Is there the same tension between countries over here as there are between North & South Korea?
Nuclear weapons are not best placed in either South Korea or Japan not for moral reasons but because it will further antagonise North Korea who are one of the most unstable regimes on the planet with nuclear capabilities. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The US missile and 100,00 troops and entire island military bases do the same thing.
Whether Japan or South Korea pursue nukes or not is up to them. The US should not be the world policemen.
And a nuclear balance prevents wars.
Do you think if tensions with Russian grow, we should get rid of trident, because that is the case you are making if it wasn't for your blatant hypocrisy.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 21 minutes ago
D4
Putting nuclear weapons into regions, such as that area of Asia, is a bad idea. It stokes the fire and could be seen as a direct threat by North Korea who already have nuclear weapons themselves. The UK on the other hand is completely different. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it different? you could say us renewing trident stokes the fires with Russia. our reasoning is that it's self defence, the same logic applies to South Korea and Japan. I'm not convinced Russia are the bad guys they get portrayed as anyway, they just want a different outcome in Syria than we do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Russians have been targeting schools in Syria. Killing hundreds of children:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/27/airstrike-on-syrian-village-kills-26-people-reports-say
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, maybe they should do like the American do and claim it was collateral damage. But they prefer to blow up hospital so the wounded can't get treated.
Or maybe play the card Israel plays and says terrorist were in the schools, and why are they using these kids as human shields.
The hypocrisy in this thread is unbelievable
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 21 minutes ago
D4
Putting nuclear weapons into regions, such as that area of Asia, is a bad idea. It stokes the fire and could be seen as a direct threat by North Korea who already have nuclear weapons themselves. The UK on the other hand is completely different. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it different? you could say us renewing trident stokes the fires with Russia. our reasoning is that it's self defence, the same logic applies to South Korea and Japan. I'm not convinced Russia are the bad guys they get portrayed as anyway, they just want a different outcome in Syria than we do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Russians have been targeting schools in Syria. Killing hundreds of children:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/27/airstrike-on-syrian-village-kills-26-people-reports-say
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When America or Saudi bomb hospitals or funerals they say sorry, it was a mistake and we hear nothing else about it. When Russia do it it's war crimes. it's so strange. Russia wants to keep Assad in power and we want to get rid of him, therefore Russia are our enemy. The problem is we got rid of Saddam and Gaddafi which made things 10 times worse, and it looks like we want to do the same again in Syria.
Clinton was the one arming ISIS.
That whole Gaddaffi thing was a joke, with Clinton's hands all over that one as well.
How they made him out to be a monster, whilst America, Clinton was arming the real monsters
comment by D4thincarnation (U2520)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by D4thincarnation (U2520)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
There are already nukes there and a balance will keep the peace. But stay a hypocrite.
..............
Coutinhos and I rarely see eye to eye, but I can't see where he is being hypocritical here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nukes, not ok there.
But are OK here
Are nuclear weapons a good thing or bad?
Saying one thing, then the other show hypocrisy. But I can see how you failed to understand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's really quite simple D4.
Is there the same tension between countries over here as there are between North & South Korea?
Nuclear weapons are not best placed in either South Korea or Japan not for moral reasons but because it will further antagonise North Korea who are one of the most unstable regimes on the planet with nuclear capabilities. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The US missile and 100,00 troops and entire island military bases do the same thing.
Whether Japan or South Korea pursue nukes or not is up to them. The US should not be the world policemen.
And a nuclear balance prevents wars.
Do you think if tensions with Russian grow, we should get rid of trident, because that is the case you are making if it wasn't for your blatant hypocrisy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
D4
How have I been hypocritical? I've not agreed with either Trump or Clinton regarding this matter?
I've merely given an opinion that based on current events in Asia it wouldn't be the best idea for South Korea or Japan to have nuclear weapons. In no way have I said that stance should be permanent. If things should change with North Korea in the future then yes it's their choice. But at the moment placing nuclear weapons in either country could be seen as provocation by North Korea. This could further destabilise an already unstable part of the world.
The UK already has nuclear weapons and is in a comparably more stable region of the world, even accounting for Russia.
The two are in no way the same.
Trump or Clinton
Page 51 of 107
52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56
posted on 3/11/16
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 3 minutes ago
Hypocrisy at it's finest
.............
It would be if that was what hypocrisy meant. This one would fall under 'irony'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocrite: someone who says they have particular moral beliefs but behaves in way that shows these are not sincere:
For instance someone like you who critices Trump for saying Japan and Korea should have their own Nukes, but then defend the right for the UK to keep theirs.
Feel free to explain it to me why you think it ironic and not hypocrisy, because I just don't see it.
posted on 3/11/16
comment by Adam 'The Interview' Lallana (U20650)
posted 39 minutes ago
Yeah the usa do no posturing at all
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The US do a lot more than just posturing. Iraq, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, just to name a few.
posted on 3/11/16
D4
Putting nuclear weapons into regions, such as that area of Asia, is a bad idea. It stokes the fire and could be seen as a direct threat by North Korea who already have nuclear weapons themselves. The UK on the other hand is completely different. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that.
posted on 3/11/16
You have just put up a definition of hypocrite that doesn't apply to your post.
Did you do that deliberately?
.................
For instance someone like you who critices Trump for saying Japan and Korea should have their own Nukes, but then defend the right for the UK to keep theirs.
................
I see you have now changed this comment. Well done.
posted on 3/11/16
The UK on the other hand is completely different. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that.
.................
This rules out D4.
posted on 3/11/16
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 10 minutes ago
You have just put up a definition of hypocrite that doesn't apply to your post.
Did you do that deliberately?
.................
For instance someone like you who critices Trump for saying Japan and Korea should have their own Nukes, but then defend the right for the UK to keep theirs.
................
I see you have now changed this comment. Well done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No edit button for me, but I guess this proves what a delusional wack job you are.
posted on 3/11/16
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 11 minutes ago
D4
Putting nuclear weapons into regions, such as that area of Asia, is a bad idea. It stokes the fire and could be seen as a direct threat by North Korea who already have nuclear weapons themselves. The UK on the other hand is completely different. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are already nukes there and a balance will keep the peace. But stay a hypocrite.
posted on 3/11/16
No edit button for me
................
Apart from the words, no.
posted on 3/11/16
There are already nukes there and a balance will keep the peace. But stay a hypocrite.
..............
Coutinhos and I rarely see eye to eye, but I can't see where he is being hypocritical here.
posted on 3/11/16
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
No edit button for me
................
Apart from the words, no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I could at least get a thank you for educating you.
Some people are so ungrateful
posted on 3/11/16
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
There are already nukes there and a balance will keep the peace. But stay a hypocrite.
..............
Coutinhos and I rarely see eye to eye, but I can't see where he is being hypocritical here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nukes, not ok there.
But are OK here
Are nuclear weapons a good thing or bad?
Saying one thing, then the other show hypocrisy. But I can see how you failed to understand
posted on 3/11/16
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 21 minutes ago
D4
Putting nuclear weapons into regions, such as that area of Asia, is a bad idea. It stokes the fire and could be seen as a direct threat by North Korea who already have nuclear weapons themselves. The UK on the other hand is completely different. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it different? you could say us renewing trident stokes the fires with Russia. our reasoning is that it's self defence, the same logic applies to South Korea and Japan. I'm not convinced Russia are the bad guys they get portrayed as anyway, they just want a different outcome in Syria than we do.
posted on 3/11/16
How is it different? you could say us renewing trident stokes the fires with Russia.
..........
Yes you could. You could say Russia renewing their nukes (they already have done so, by the way) also stokes the fire and justifies renewing Trident.
posted on 3/11/16
When the US has a long history of overthrowing democratically elected govt, simply because the are socialist and care for their people, and we still want to make out Russia are the evil ones
Clinton was apart of this US and will continue operations like this. Trump doesn't want to continue that line of state building, police the world and eliminate govts and leaders that do disagree with their ideology
posted on 3/11/16
comment by D4thincarnation (U2520)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
There are already nukes there and a balance will keep the peace. But stay a hypocrite.
..............
Coutinhos and I rarely see eye to eye, but I can't see where he is being hypocritical here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nukes, not ok there.
But are OK here
Are nuclear weapons a good thing or bad?
Saying one thing, then the other show hypocrisy. But I can see how you failed to understand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's really quite simple D4.
Is there the same tension between countries over here as there are between North & South Korea?
Nuclear weapons are not best placed in either South Korea or Japan not for moral reasons but because it will further antagonise North Korea who are one of the most unstable regimes on the planet with nuclear capabilities. .
posted on 3/11/16
I could at least get a thank you for educating you.
..................
You will, when that happens.
posted on 3/11/16
If Russia nukes us we can just get America to nuke them back and save all the money.
posted on 3/11/16
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 21 minutes ago
D4
Putting nuclear weapons into regions, such as that area of Asia, is a bad idea. It stokes the fire and could be seen as a direct threat by North Korea who already have nuclear weapons themselves. The UK on the other hand is completely different. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it different? you could say us renewing trident stokes the fires with Russia. our reasoning is that it's self defence, the same logic applies to South Korea and Japan. I'm not convinced Russia are the bad guys they get portrayed as anyway, they just want a different outcome in Syria than we do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Russians have been targeting schools in Syria. Killing hundreds of children:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/27/airstrike-on-syrian-village-kills-26-people-reports-say
posted on 3/11/16
Nukes, not ok there.
But are OK here
Are nuclear weapons a good thing or bad?
.....................
They are very bad if your enemies have them and you don't.
posted on 3/11/16
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 1 minute ago
If Russia nukes us we can just get America to nuke them back and save all the money.
.............
Not if Trump becomes president.
posted on 3/11/16
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by D4thincarnation (U2520)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
There are already nukes there and a balance will keep the peace. But stay a hypocrite.
..............
Coutinhos and I rarely see eye to eye, but I can't see where he is being hypocritical here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nukes, not ok there.
But are OK here
Are nuclear weapons a good thing or bad?
Saying one thing, then the other show hypocrisy. But I can see how you failed to understand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's really quite simple D4.
Is there the same tension between countries over here as there are between North & South Korea?
Nuclear weapons are not best placed in either South Korea or Japan not for moral reasons but because it will further antagonise North Korea who are one of the most unstable regimes on the planet with nuclear capabilities. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The US missile and 100,00 troops and entire island military bases do the same thing.
Whether Japan or South Korea pursue nukes or not is up to them. The US should not be the world policemen.
And a nuclear balance prevents wars.
Do you think if tensions with Russian grow, we should get rid of trident, because that is the case you are making if it wasn't for your blatant hypocrisy.
posted on 3/11/16
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 21 minutes ago
D4
Putting nuclear weapons into regions, such as that area of Asia, is a bad idea. It stokes the fire and could be seen as a direct threat by North Korea who already have nuclear weapons themselves. The UK on the other hand is completely different. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it different? you could say us renewing trident stokes the fires with Russia. our reasoning is that it's self defence, the same logic applies to South Korea and Japan. I'm not convinced Russia are the bad guys they get portrayed as anyway, they just want a different outcome in Syria than we do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Russians have been targeting schools in Syria. Killing hundreds of children:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/27/airstrike-on-syrian-village-kills-26-people-reports-say
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, maybe they should do like the American do and claim it was collateral damage. But they prefer to blow up hospital so the wounded can't get treated.
Or maybe play the card Israel plays and says terrorist were in the schools, and why are they using these kids as human shields.
The hypocrisy in this thread is unbelievable
posted on 3/11/16
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 21 minutes ago
D4
Putting nuclear weapons into regions, such as that area of Asia, is a bad idea. It stokes the fire and could be seen as a direct threat by North Korea who already have nuclear weapons themselves. The UK on the other hand is completely different. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it different? you could say us renewing trident stokes the fires with Russia. our reasoning is that it's self defence, the same logic applies to South Korea and Japan. I'm not convinced Russia are the bad guys they get portrayed as anyway, they just want a different outcome in Syria than we do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Russians have been targeting schools in Syria. Killing hundreds of children:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/27/airstrike-on-syrian-village-kills-26-people-reports-say
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When America or Saudi bomb hospitals or funerals they say sorry, it was a mistake and we hear nothing else about it. When Russia do it it's war crimes. it's so strange. Russia wants to keep Assad in power and we want to get rid of him, therefore Russia are our enemy. The problem is we got rid of Saddam and Gaddafi which made things 10 times worse, and it looks like we want to do the same again in Syria.
posted on 3/11/16
Clinton was the one arming ISIS.
That whole Gaddaffi thing was a joke, with Clinton's hands all over that one as well.
How they made him out to be a monster, whilst America, Clinton was arming the real monsters
posted on 3/11/16
comment by D4thincarnation (U2520)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by D4thincarnation (U2520)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
There are already nukes there and a balance will keep the peace. But stay a hypocrite.
..............
Coutinhos and I rarely see eye to eye, but I can't see where he is being hypocritical here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nukes, not ok there.
But are OK here
Are nuclear weapons a good thing or bad?
Saying one thing, then the other show hypocrisy. But I can see how you failed to understand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's really quite simple D4.
Is there the same tension between countries over here as there are between North & South Korea?
Nuclear weapons are not best placed in either South Korea or Japan not for moral reasons but because it will further antagonise North Korea who are one of the most unstable regimes on the planet with nuclear capabilities. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The US missile and 100,00 troops and entire island military bases do the same thing.
Whether Japan or South Korea pursue nukes or not is up to them. The US should not be the world policemen.
And a nuclear balance prevents wars.
Do you think if tensions with Russian grow, we should get rid of trident, because that is the case you are making if it wasn't for your blatant hypocrisy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
D4
How have I been hypocritical? I've not agreed with either Trump or Clinton regarding this matter?
I've merely given an opinion that based on current events in Asia it wouldn't be the best idea for South Korea or Japan to have nuclear weapons. In no way have I said that stance should be permanent. If things should change with North Korea in the future then yes it's their choice. But at the moment placing nuclear weapons in either country could be seen as provocation by North Korea. This could further destabilise an already unstable part of the world.
The UK already has nuclear weapons and is in a comparably more stable region of the world, even accounting for Russia.
The two are in no way the same.
Page 51 of 107
52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56