Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
North Korea development
Bekenn
Sinclair's Duck
in Zocalo v2.0
[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37017-2002Oct16.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37017-2002Oct16.html[/url]
The article has a few misspellings; looks like someone forgot to proofread.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
The article has a few misspellings; looks like someone forgot to proofread.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
Comments
But thats an AP article...and I know that the AP is often poor at spelling - they put the stuff out so fast it never gets proofed.
"TOLD YOU SO!"
Oh and before anybody says this is in retaliation to Bush's comments, think logicly
They had to have done this back in 94, which means the whole agreement was a illegitmate sham, they never honored their side, as in saying, they liieeeed!
Hah, You do realize we conservatives are pessamists because the human race really does suck that badly right?
[This message has been edited by Tyvar (edited 10-17-2002).]
"What makes one a conservative is recognition of the human capacity for evil, or just plain screwing up. That is why rules are important. Not because conservatives expect nobody to break them, but because having rules that are respected makes it harder for people to break them. This is a more subtle-but in the long run more trustworthy-form of compassion than liberals' softness of heart." Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 10-17-2002).]
I think it's because Bush's doctorine of "we get them before they get us" goes out the window when we encounter a nation that can fight back.
------------------
[b]Penn State Proud[/b]
North Korea is also more stable that Iraq, and doesn't seem to support the same kind of terrorism, they are Nationalists to the core first. This isn't just about nuclear either, it's about Bio and chemical which are more horrific in my opinion than nuclear and Iraq has a history of using.
Iraq can fight back. You really don't understand that they have a very dangerous ability to fight back? Think about it.
(1) sort of; we've known it was a possibility given the amounts of aluminum the North Korean's have been looking to acquire for some time.)
(2) They did sign a treaty promising that they would not develop said weapons, but the treaty has no built in repercussion; just goes shows you what good faith with no tooth gets you (ahem: the recent UN resolutions).
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 10-18-2002).]
Soon every country in the world that can afford one will have a nuclear program!
And noone will be able to stop them without risking all out war!
The age old question has been answered; Do you want the good package or the big gun!
------------------
[b]4 Thousand Throats can be cut in one night by a running Warrior[/b]
[b]the axis of evil [/b][/quote]
What is evil?
------------------
Talk is silver, but violence is gold.
Well, when I used "the axis of evil" I was simply referring to the group of countries that President Bush listed, so I wouldn't have to list them again myself.
However I will entertain your challenge, pointing out that it doesn't effect my previous post: Do all the countries in that list "arise from actual or imputed bad character or conduct?" Are they "morally reprehensible?" Do they "cause harm and are marked by misfortune?" Do they "cause repulsion and misfortune?" Do they bring "sorrow, distress, or calamity?" Do they "impose their will first on individuals in acts that are not self defense but rather control?"
Well, that depends on your perspective now, doesn't it? I think they do, I think all people and countries do, it's just a matter of "shades of gray." They are sliding closer and faster to black/dark/evil than the rest of us.
Cute.
Now the Dems are pissed!
Source: Washington Post
[quote]
By Mike Allen and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 19, 2002; Page A01
The White House withheld North Korea's admission about a nuclear weapons program from key Democrats until after Congress had passed its resolution authorizing war with Iraq, prompting complaints on Capitol Hill that the administration has let politics influence its conduct of foreign affairs.[/quote]
Full article: [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49358-2002Oct18.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49358-2002Oct18.html[/url]
The article talks of only two Republicans that were briefed by Kelly, not by Rumsfeld. So to blame Bush directly seems a little absurd.
Why not tell the democrats in the meeting three hours before the announcement? I don't know, perhaps because the administration didn't want to seem to give that group preference over other Democrats in giving out information? Maybe the administration had an agreement with this group of reporters?
If the congress wants to bitch perhaps they should look at themselves in the mirror. They are still muddling and dragging their feet on the Presidents economic stimulus plans so they can use the lack of action as a political football for the elections, funny that they are the ones messing things up. They also still can't get over the union issue for the home land security department, which all by itself is the kind of stimulus package liberals should love, but they have to buddy up with organized crime Oh! Oh! I mean LABOR!!!
Reason for war with Iraq: "Destroy nuclear research sites"
Status with N. Korea: "Nuclear research ongoing"
How the **** do these two things NOT interrelate!?
If Bush is willing to negotiate with N. Korea, why not with Iraq!?
Its Ok for the U.S. to have nukes, But for the ROTW its not??
Why Cant we use Nuclear Power the right way, For generating Power????
(I think Nuke Weapons Are NOT ok for anyone, Unless there Low powered ones)
The only reason why the U.S. is Picking on North Korea Is Becuase there Commuist.
And whats Rong with Commuist??
------------------
Captain,Simmonds
[url="http://www.vesta-modeling.de.vu"]Homepage[/url]
[email]chad1122@netscape.net[/email]
[This message has been edited by Captain,Simmonds (edited 10-19-2002).]
Powers with territorial ambitions (IE: N. Korea, Iraq, plus India and Pakistan) seem a helluva lot more likely to use them.
This is in no way like the situation we have with Iraq, in which diplomatic solutions have been tried and failed over the past decade, and in which we know they have a history of trying to hide nuclear weapons programs. So, of course the solutions to the two situations are going to be different; they're two different problems.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
[b]And whats Rong with Commuist??
[/b][/quote]
It doesn't spell "Wrong" and "Communist" correctly for one thing... and they're Red...
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
------------------
[b]4 Thousand Throats can be cut in one night by a running Warrior[/b]
Yes, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and so do many other countries and Iraq is by far one of those nations we should fear the least. My God, they haven't done anything since they invaded Kuwait! The US has had their grip around their balls for a decade now! Yes, Saddam is a horrible man, his weapons are powerful albeit not the most destructive in the world and he should be removed, no doubts there. The problem is that out of nowhere GWB wants to start a war against Iraq. Why does he want to do that? Good question 'cause the level of immediate danger was practically nonexistant until he started to yapp about it to the media. Of course there could be things we don't know about and I'm sure there are, dangerous stuff he's hiding, hidden agendas and God knows what, but GWB still haven't got one single fair excuse to start attacking a country the US has had its grip around its balls. It seems clear that GWB senior is having a say in all this. Oil interests. The sponsors of both campaigners (if you can even say such a word) when they were running for office.
OK One thing is attacking Iraq. But starting a conflict on two fronts that may escalate into war is the dumbest thing he can do! He'll be attacking a Arabic country and an Asian country. But what has North Korea done that is so horrible that it's worth the effort of maybe starting a conflict? Building a nuclear weapon? OK They've got a nuclear weapon, do they have any interest in using it? No, why?, because the first one to use an atomic bomb in a war against people will get one sent back, just a question of who's the sender. So will they use it? Knock on wood, I can't say they won't but it's in all likelyhood the bomb won't be dropped unless a huge crisis internationl crisis/war occur then there are talks of it. And what do we have now? We are a foot away from entering what can bring us to a world war.
Now, you mustn't misunderstand me when I state my discontentness with the American president's political decisions but they could very well affect my life rather drastically so I'm deeply concerned.
------------------
Thomas Banner
[url="http://www.3dfrontier.com/~banner/"]Diverse 3D[/url]
[url="http://www.spacecadet.dk/"]Animator - Space Cadet[/url]
[b]That's retaliation for me asking for a source from you in the other thread isn't it? Hoping I go into territory that gets me in trouble from an argumentative standpoint?
[/b][/quote]
I wasnt thinking that far (Im not very small minded). I was just curious about your definition, because most of the times, that definition can be applied on countries supposed to be 'good'.
------------------
Talk is silver, but violence is gold.
Does anyone detect a smack of arrogance? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
This will be an interesting time, indeed, to see what kind of President Bush Jnr actually is - I'll confess to being European, and socialist to boot; and, personally, I think he's incompetent. On the flip side of the coin I think his advisors are amongst some of the best he could ever wish for; whoever wrote his UN speech deserves a pay rise. What I'm intensely curious about is the nature of the advice they're giving him - and aren't we all?
This concept of an 'axis of evil' could now well land him in hot water - some form of action against Iraq is now looking increasingly likely, as well as looking increasingly morally bankrupt. But what then? Bush promised to target the entire Axis, only now Korea's dropped the bombshell.
Personally, I'd leave North Korea well alone - it's a viper's nest, and the last way you want to be dealing with it is by poking it with a stick.
Oh dear, the miasma of hypocrisy is thickening... apologies in advance to the American citizenry.
The real reason for the near intervention of the US/USSR (US into Tel Aviv, USSR into Damascus) in 73, was that Golda Mier was either had just authorised the use of nuclear weapons or was just about to. I cant rember how far exactly along it was.
The thing is once a power has a sizeable aresenal, then it becomes tricky to deal with them. Iraq probably doesnt have a sizeable aresenal yet, Korea probably does. So were going to be sneaky about causing a reigme change there.
And frankly if the US was so ready to go to war with Iraq, we would be taking steps we arent. The war is a smokescreen for things actualy going on to change the situation.
[b]They believe that there are elements in this world that seriously will push to finish the job that hitler started.[/b][/quote]
They're not wrong. Over the time between 1948 and now, Israel has been in no fewer than six wars against Arab forces. The nations around Israel have in the past publicly stated their intention to drive the Israelis into the sea, which is precisely what they attempted to do the day after Israel gained independence.
1948: Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later renamed Jordan), Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia teamed up and invaded Israel the very next day after Israel gained its independence.
1973: Egypt and Syria (with help from Iraq) launched a surprise attack on Israel on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur (which also happened to fall in the Muslim Ramadan holiday); Israel drove them off.
1991: During Iraq's war with US forces in the Persian Gulf, Iraq launched scud missiles at Israel, attempting to goad them into fighting. The entrance of Israel into the war would likely have removed the US's Arab support, but Israel didn't take the bait.
Israel launched its share of attacks on Arab nations during this time, too, often in concert with England and France; read more about it here and here.
Of course, all through this you also have actions by Palestinian terrorists trying to bring down the Israeli government. With a history like that, wouldn't you feel under siege?
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
[b]Konrad, it does directly effect the Iraq decision.
Reason for war with Iraq: "Destroy nuclear research sites"
Status with N. Korea: "Nuclear research ongoing"
How the **** do these two things NOT interrelate!?
If Bush is willing to negotiate with N. Korea, why not with Iraq!?[/b][/quote]
BECAUSE ONE HAS OIL AND THE OTHER DOESN'T
------------------
"When it is time,come to this place,call our name,we will be here"-Walkers of Sigma957
[url="http://ifh.firstones.com"]I've Found Her-Babylon 5 free game[/url]
Quit shouting, it's rude.
The idea that there are enough nukes to finish "the world several times over" is a falicy. Yes there are lots of them, and yes it would kill many, but...