For the love of god NO.
It's one thing to bully the weak and helpless, but to take on lunatic with real WMD's is a totally different subject.
North Korea nuke thread
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
For the love of god NO.
It's one thing to bully the weak and helpless, but to take on lunatic with real WMD's is a totally different subject.
The comparison is not valid, for the following reasons:
Much as many dislike and distrust him, Bush is NOT a complete looney. The leader of North Korea IS a complete looney.
The USA is unlikely to provide nukes to terrorist organizations......the same can not be said of NK.
NOBODY gives a dented nickle about international law. What NK did may be legal, but it is incredibly dangerous.
Colpy
That is no argument. Bush has threatened to use nukes. Bush has promised to build newer and better nukes. You don't know that North Korea is going to sell nukes to anyone. I personally feel that N.K. got their bomb from China. Iran will probably get theirs from China as well.
Bush invaded Iraq on lies and BS. Bush killed a hundred thousand people. Who is looney here?
You don't know that North Korea is going to sell nukes to anyone. I personally feel that N.K. got their bomb from China. Iran will probably get theirs from China as well.
---------------------------------------------------#juan-------------------------------------------------------
Again I am amazed how far the liberal left has done a 180 on nuclear proliferation.
They used to be on the vanguard on drawing the line.
The real danger is exactly North Korea's willingness to SELL to not only other nations
but more importantly to well-financed individuals which is even worse.
Why such warranted skepticism with the UNITED STATES while simultaneously having
a gullible embrace of North Korea ???
Perplexing this combo of skepticism and gullibility.
---------------------------------
1. Iran's relationship with North Korea is particularly close. The two governments have a military relationship dating back to the late 1980s.
2. according to the State Department, one or more Iranian officials were present in July when North Korea conducted flight tests of seven missiles including the long-range Taepodong-2.
3. Iran has played a major role in financing North Korean missile production efforts. The Wisconsin Project on nuclear arms control reports that during the late 1980s, North Korea sold Scud-type missiles and Scud production technology to Iran.
4. In the mid-1990s there were reports that Iranian scientists and technicians had enjoyed direct access to missile plants in North Korea. Just prior to the first test of Iran's Nodong missile in May 1993, the director of Iran's Defense Industries Organization visited North Korea. The following year, the commander of North Korea's air force led a delegation to Iran that included military and nuclear experts.
5. Since that time, the relationship between the two nations' military establishments has flourished, and there have been a spate of reports on the missile trade between the two sides.
6. In August 2004, the Associated Press reported that North Korea was using Iran as a test site for new nuclear-capable missiles. In December 2004, the U.S. government imposed trade sanctions on Changgwang Sinyong Corp. -- the fifth time since 2000 that the North Korean missile exporter had been caught violating the Iran Nonproliferation Act, which bars foreign companies from making missile-related sales to Iran.
7. Intelligence reports from several years ago indicated that North Korea was engaged in a covert effort to develop a uranium-based nuclear program in collaboration with Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani scientist whose network supplied centrifuges and information on nuclear weapons designs to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
8. Chinese-language documents on building a nuclear warhead for missiles were found in Libya, supplied by associates of the Khan proliferation network. U.S. officials believe that Iran and North Korea received similar warhead design documents.
9. Giving these technology transfer reports a measure of added menace are North Korea's prior threats to "transfer" its nuclear weapons to other parties.
10. It made these threats in April 2003 during trilateral talks in Beijing and repeated them four months later during the Six-Party Talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Raising the specter of blackmail, in December 2003, Pyongyang offered to refrain from transferring nuclear weapons in exchange for unspecified rewards.
---------------------------------------------------#juan-------------------------------------------------------
Again I am amazed how far the liberal left has done a 180 on nuclear proliferation.
They used to be on the vanguard on drawing the line.
The real danger is exactly North Korea's willingness to SELL to not only other nations
but more importantly to well-financed individuals which is even worse.
Why such warranted skepticism with the UNITED STATES while simultaneously having
a gullible embrace of North Korea ???
Perplexing this combo of skepticism and gullibility.
---------------------------------
1. Iran's relationship with North Korea is particularly close. The two governments have a military relationship dating back to the late 1980s.
2. according to the State Department, one or more Iranian officials were present in July when North Korea conducted flight tests of seven missiles including the long-range Taepodong-2.
3. Iran has played a major role in financing North Korean missile production efforts. The Wisconsin Project on nuclear arms control reports that during the late 1980s, North Korea sold Scud-type missiles and Scud production technology to Iran.
4. In the mid-1990s there were reports that Iranian scientists and technicians had enjoyed direct access to missile plants in North Korea. Just prior to the first test of Iran's Nodong missile in May 1993, the director of Iran's Defense Industries Organization visited North Korea. The following year, the commander of North Korea's air force led a delegation to Iran that included military and nuclear experts.
5. Since that time, the relationship between the two nations' military establishments has flourished, and there have been a spate of reports on the missile trade between the two sides.
6. In August 2004, the Associated Press reported that North Korea was using Iran as a test site for new nuclear-capable missiles. In December 2004, the U.S. government imposed trade sanctions on Changgwang Sinyong Corp. -- the fifth time since 2000 that the North Korean missile exporter had been caught violating the Iran Nonproliferation Act, which bars foreign companies from making missile-related sales to Iran.
7. Intelligence reports from several years ago indicated that North Korea was engaged in a covert effort to develop a uranium-based nuclear program in collaboration with Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani scientist whose network supplied centrifuges and information on nuclear weapons designs to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
8. Chinese-language documents on building a nuclear warhead for missiles were found in Libya, supplied by associates of the Khan proliferation network. U.S. officials believe that Iran and North Korea received similar warhead design documents.
9. Giving these technology transfer reports a measure of added menace are North Korea's prior threats to "transfer" its nuclear weapons to other parties.
10. It made these threats in April 2003 during trilateral talks in Beijing and repeated them four months later during the Six-Party Talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Raising the specter of blackmail, in December 2003, Pyongyang offered to refrain from transferring nuclear weapons in exchange for unspecified rewards.
That is not the question Thomaska. Most of my family live in the U.S. and I'm sure they want to go on living there. I don't like the way most other countries in the world are run, but I don't feel compelled to force my idea of democracy on them.
Even you have admitted that you didn't agree with the way the Iraq war was started. Whatever North Korea does inside their borders, it is their business. It is not as if the North Koreans had nuclear submarines all over the world, each armed with three dozen IBMs, each with ten, independantly steerable nuclear warheads, to threaten every country on earth.
You don't know that North Korea is going to sell nukes to anyone. ---------#JUAN
That is factually false.
Then Juan goes on to say:
It is not as if the North Koreans had nuclear submarines all over the world, each armed with three dozen IBMs, each with ten, independantly steerable nuclear warheads, to threaten every country on earth.
----------------------------------------------------end of juan quote---------------------------------------------
It's not as if for 50 years that very same nation has not used them on anyone since WWII.
It's also difficult to find in history a democratic nation fighting another democratic nation.
And that point is more relevant than you think.
And when did the liberal left stop caring if more nations get nuclear know-how ???
They used to champion nuclear non-proliferation more than the conservatives did.
That is factually false.
Then Juan goes on to say:
It is not as if the North Koreans had nuclear submarines all over the world, each armed with three dozen IBMs, each with ten, independantly steerable nuclear warheads, to threaten every country on earth.
----------------------------------------------------end of juan quote---------------------------------------------
It's not as if for 50 years that very same nation has not used them on anyone since WWII.
It's also difficult to find in history a democratic nation fighting another democratic nation.
And that point is more relevant than you think.
And when did the liberal left stop caring if more nations get nuclear know-how ???
They used to champion nuclear non-proliferation more than the conservatives did.
Last edited:
No that was my question to you, which you sidestepped to give more examples of U.S. "wrong-doing". But we both know where you'd rather live even if you won't admit it.
You say "its their business", but 10 years from now or whenever it happens... North Korea will threaten someone with their nuclear capabilities, and the same people who are screaming "laissez -faire" now, will be moaning and pointing the finger at the U.S. asking why we didnt do something about this...
Why do people keep insisting on dialouge with nations like North Korea or even worse, advocate ignoring them in the hopes that they will just go away? Dialouge has been proven not to work, and ignoring a problem has never worked, history has plenty of examples of that.
Do you seriously think that the power base in North Korea thinks the U.S. is going to invade? I suspect Kim Jong isn't worried about the U.S. at all, he's worried about maintaining his cult of personality with his people who has been kept in serfdom since the "little police action". The people of North Korea don't even know what day of the week it is unless state run media tells them. There are plenty of eyewitness accounts of defectors and smuggled video-tape that show the brutality of his regime, but the appeasement crowd and the isolationist crowd alike are fine with that because it is "within their" borders.
No that was my question to you, which you sidestepped to give more examples of U.S. "wrong-doing". But we both know where you'd rather live even if you won't admit it.
You say "its their business", but 10 years from now or whenever it happens... North Korea will threaten someone with their nuclear capabilities, and the same people who are screaming "laissez -faire" now, will be moaning and pointing the finger at the U.S. asking why we didnt do something about this...
Why do people keep insisting on dialouge with nations like North Korea or even worse, advocate ignoring them in the hopes that they will just go away? Dialouge has been proven not to work, and ignoring a problem has never worked, history has plenty of examples of that.
Do you seriously think that the power base in North Korea thinks the U.S. is going to invade? I suspect Kim Jong isn't worried about the U.S. at all, he's worried about maintaining his cult of personality with his people who has been kept in serfdom since the "little police action". The people of North Korea don't even know what day of the week it is unless state run media tells them. There are plenty of eyewitness accounts of defectors and smuggled video-tape that show the brutality of his regime, but the appeasement crowd and the isolationist crowd alike are fine with that because it is "within their" borders.
Are you advocating that the US get into a war with NK?
No I am not advocating a war with the Peoples "democratic" republic...
I think what we are doing is the right way to deal with them. The leadership is NK is treated the way they are because they merit it. I believe I said i don't agree with appeasing them, or ignoring them. Well I do agree with ignoring their temper tantrums, much the way an adult ignores a three year old throwing a fit until he starts breaking things.
I think what we are doing is the right way to deal with them. The leadership is NK is treated the way they are because they merit it. I believe I said i don't agree with appeasing them, or ignoring them. Well I do agree with ignoring their temper tantrums, much the way an adult ignores a three year old throwing a fit until he starts breaking things.
Lets assume Kim decides during six parties talks that he is now convinced they should dismantle their nuke problem. Do we refuse to believe and insist on regime change? What difference does it make if he concedes something to the six parties or the US? Either way there has been "appeasement". Sooner or later trust has to be established. Everything in this world is a negotiation. Does anyone believe that he will be more trusted for conceding after getting kicked around at the table?
Everything between War (regime change) and Diplomacy (all parties treated with respect) is window dressing and a complete waste of time. Sooner or later one of those two have to happen, and the longer politicians act like something else is going to be the difference the longer the nonsense will go on. Even surrender is negotiated with a handshake. Unfortunately those we are hoping to resolve this issue are to busy inflating their egos.
Everything between War (regime change) and Diplomacy (all parties treated with respect) is window dressing and a complete waste of time. Sooner or later one of those two have to happen, and the longer politicians act like something else is going to be the difference the longer the nonsense will go on. Even surrender is negotiated with a handshake. Unfortunately those we are hoping to resolve this issue are to busy inflating their egos.
Have you ever thought of running for office?... then again maybe not, you actually make sense.
I agree J, that "proliferation is a bad thing. But North Korea is only one of many contributing factors. A much bigger factor is countries with nukes threatening to use nukes against countries without nukes. Even our ancestors knew that if someone keeps threatening you with his club, then you better get a club too.
Its time we evolved beyond that, for our own preservation.
>>>>
Matt, I agree payback is inevitable because our leaders can't resist profit, even if it means a few bodies here and there. The only thing which can stop our leaders is we "The people".
Since we live in countries which elect leaders by popular vote, we are ultimately responsible for their actions. Until "The people" become aware of the realtionship between the media and electing war criminals, we can always be counted on to support the status quo.
In the next elections, the media will manipulate angry Americans to elect a Democrat who will be marginally more rational than the current Republican. Angry Brits will elect a Conservative who will be even more pro-"death and destruction" than Blair. Overall nothing will change as both nations will "Stay the course".
I hope it does not require "payback" to wake "the people" up. I believe as the world gets smaller, "the people" become more aware of it. The media cannot fool someone who knows the truth first hand. If fellow human beings can reach out and share the truth with the world, that communication circumvents media control.
youtube for example, has huge potential.
Its time we evolved beyond that, for our own preservation.
>>>>
Matt, I agree payback is inevitable because our leaders can't resist profit, even if it means a few bodies here and there. The only thing which can stop our leaders is we "The people".
Since we live in countries which elect leaders by popular vote, we are ultimately responsible for their actions. Until "The people" become aware of the realtionship between the media and electing war criminals, we can always be counted on to support the status quo.
In the next elections, the media will manipulate angry Americans to elect a Democrat who will be marginally more rational than the current Republican. Angry Brits will elect a Conservative who will be even more pro-"death and destruction" than Blair. Overall nothing will change as both nations will "Stay the course".
I hope it does not require "payback" to wake "the people" up. I believe as the world gets smaller, "the people" become more aware of it. The media cannot fool someone who knows the truth first hand. If fellow human beings can reach out and share the truth with the world, that communication circumvents media control.
youtube for example, has huge potential.
No U.S President Democrat or Republican will ever invade North Korea because Seoul, South Korea and maybe even Japan would be gone..