4 ms·

That's because change didn't come from within, it came from external forces in the shape of bombs and weapons that killed millions.

• rhapsodic 9y ago
  >That's because change didn't come from within, it came from external forces in the shape of bombs and weapons that killed millions. Uh, yeah, that was pretty much my whole point. I was refuting your statment, "change is slow and has to come from within." Major changes in a country are not necessarily slow, and do not have to come from within.
  • hacker_9 9y ago
    So you argument is we should kill millions of people, if their country is not changing quickly enough for us?
    • rhapsodic 9y ago
      >So you argument is we should kill millions of people, if their country is not changing quickly enough for us? I don't see how any intelligent person could think that I am arguing that based on what I wrote. I think it is obvious what I was arguing, however I'll try to make it as clear as possible. I was arguing that your statement, to wit: >Like with any country, change is slow and has to come from within Is simply false.
      • hacker_9 9y ago
        Ok, my point is the country should be allowed to find its own way. Change will be slow, but it has to come from within otherwise were just creating another situation like the Middle East, which has arguably fostered even more terrorism, for decades to come. Also the countries you mention from WW2 don't really apply in this case as they attacked first, and if NK attacked first I'd expect us to of course reply in force.
        • rhapsodic 9y ago
          >Ok, my point is the country should be allowed to find its own way. Then that's what you should have said.