tootoughtoremember

joined 5 months ago
[–] tootoughtoremember 6 points 23 hours ago

Well yes because America had been pushing North Korea away.

The classic American imperialists refuse to accept that by sanctioning a country into oblivion they will now just join China and Russia's side.

Most Americans don't even know why North Korea is so hostile. We bombed them into oblivion during the Korean war.

What the fuck is this revisionist history?

North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, after the South refused Northern rule. The UN stepped in (90% American forces) pushing the North Koreans nearly to China's borders, at which point China entered the war, and resulting in the 38th parallel armistice border we have today.

North Korea wasn't pushed into China's welcoming arms due to American anti-nuclear proliferation sanctions of the last twenty years, and "being bombed into oblivion" is often the result of picking on countries with bigger allies than you, just ask Germany and Japan.

China has propped up the Kim dictatorship dynasty for the last 70 years, feeding their starving masses while the Kims focus the country's resources on military spending, including nuclear development to substantiate their annual saber rattling. Allowing China to maintain a buffer state, that's kept the West at bay since 1951.

[–] tootoughtoremember 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

50 US Marines, of which he is their Commander in Chief.

North Korea has been an American rival since 1950. Imagine if any other President had done this.

But you don't even have to, just look at the response to Obama bowing to the emperor of Japan, an ally.

[–] tootoughtoremember 6 points 4 days ago

Probably easier to stick with "at the very least, freed them".

Pearl Harbor was the rallying cry that brought America together (mostly) to fight the Axis powers. Prior to that, isolationist (and Anti-Semitic) groups such as the America First Committee were growing in popularity. To say America was fighting for the Jews in WW2 may be technically correct based on who was responsible for the Holocaust, but it was more the byproduct of who America's enemies were at the time, rather than being a primary motivator. Coming in as the savior to a population being persecuted is rarely the real reason wars are fought.

[–] tootoughtoremember 277 points 6 days ago (45 children)
[–] tootoughtoremember 7 points 1 week ago

Nope, Windows will still not be my next PC. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, you can't get fooled again.

[–] tootoughtoremember 4 points 2 weeks ago

I don't know, trickle down always sounded like piss play to me. Not much better, worse? ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[–] tootoughtoremember 40 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

For the group railing against Sharia law the loudest, they sure do love to legislate religious beliefs. I guess the real problem was Sharia just wasn't going far enough.

[–] tootoughtoremember 45 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Too late. Linux is going from my hobby project to my primary OS by the time they stop providing Windows 10 updates, if not sooner.

[–] tootoughtoremember 3 points 2 weeks ago

If we're sticking with the lore, the only limitation should be what they have stored in the replicator database. No reason your poop steak couldn't taste like an A5 wagyu or a $2 steak, depending on your personal preference.

[–] tootoughtoremember 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The replicators are also used to "recycle", converting matter into energy, to be used for future replication.

I doubt they were hauling poop through space rather than converting it to poop energy for their next earl grey.

[–] tootoughtoremember 15 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Could just replicate the eggs, or even a raw steak to grill, would still be poop meat.

Neelix on the other hand...

[–] tootoughtoremember 2 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

What's the most recent example of "full reset" for a comparable nation with the economic output, military power, or population size similar to America? The USSR? Any examples that are more successful?

I'm not arguing that change isn't needed, it is, but what's realistic. Especially when going up against those with the greatest vested interest in status quo, those brainwashed to rail against what's in their best interest or the greater good, or those too apathetic to engage with any of it.

view more: next ›