North Korea and War

24

Comments

  • truroutetruroute Posts: 251
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Are you referring to Kim Jong-il or Bush here?

    Huh, good one.

    As I was saying, most peoples opinions on here are only created out of spite for all thing US.
  • truroutetruroute Posts: 251
    polaris wrote:
    but do you think the US would have gone into either country if they had nukes? ... why is pakistan a "friend" of the US? ...

    obviously no one wants them to be used but maybe the US could stop dropping DU laced munitions - that would also be a start ...


    comon man,

    We dont need a shameless plug for another beat-up thread topic.
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    truroute wrote:
    As I was saying, most peoples opinions on here are only created out of spite for all thing US.

    Because we all wish we could be more like the US...
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    truroute wrote:
    comon man,

    We dont need a shameless plug for another beat-up thread topic.

    well ... you simplify everyone's responses by saying that all we care about is bashing the US ... if that isn't beat up or tired ... i dunno what is ...
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    truroute wrote:
    How are we threatening them? Unless I've missed something, the US hasent provoked them at all, especially by nukes. Its been assured many times that an attack by US will not happen if unprovoked. So please enlighten me as to whene NK has been "threatened by a nuclear power."


    On anohter note. do the ppl here honestly beleive its OK for NK to have nukes? Or is it only out of spite for all things America that ppl say "they're defending themselves."

    I've said it before, but the whole "US has them, so why not NK" does not hold A SINGLE shred of logic.

    In fact, the U.S. has said on numerous occasions that a diplomatic solution will always be the first approach tried with North Korea.
    I agree .. . No logic whatsoever. Its just anti-American rhetoric. Even someone as backward and dangerous as Kim will garner sympathy from these folks.
  • truroutetruroute Posts: 251
    redrock wrote:
    Because we all wish we could be more like the US...


    Yup, and I insinuated or hinted at this where?
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    truroute wrote:
    Huh, good one.

    As I was saying, most peoples opinions on here are only created out of spite for all thing US.

    All things U.S? Or the U.S government? Or do you believe that the U.S and the Bush Administration are the same thing?
  • lgtlgt Posts: 720
    chopitdown wrote:
    Again, I didn't say he shouldn't WORRY, but the fact that he'd consider any sanction an ACT OF WAR is lunacy.

    I don't want pakistan or israel to have one. I don't want N Korea to have one b/c of the leader who is a whack job and considers economic sanctions an act of war. And he's not exactly someone the international community can work with. At least Pakistan and Israel are somewhat receptive to the international community.

    Pakistan *has* nuclear capability, btw.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons
  • truroutetruroute Posts: 251
    polaris wrote:
    well ... you simplify everyone's responses by saying that all we care about is bashing the US ... if that isn't beat up or tired ... i dunno what is ...


    When do people stop looking at the US as the cause for all things fucked up on this planet, and start actually looking at "a" problem.

    ie: demented fuckwad(s) claiming to have nukes and have no beef in using them at the drop of a hat.

    When asked about this, the only response involves the US. So of course Im going to simplify your and everyone else's response because it really does not note anything abouy THE problem, but only blames the US.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    In fact, the U.S. has said on numerous occasions that a diplomatic solution will always be the first approach tried with North Korea.
    I agree .. . No logic whatsoever. Its just anti-American rhetoric. Even someone as backward and dangerous as Kim will garner sympathy from these folks.


    yeah ... we just hate america therefore we have no logic ... :rolleyes: ... one could discuss the topic or one could dismiss with this kind of reasoning ...
  • lgtlgt Posts: 720
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Are you referring to Kim Jong-il or Bush here?

    :D
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    truroute wrote:
    When do people stop looking at the US as the cause for all things fucked up on this planet, and start actually looking at "a" problem.

    ie: demented fuckwad(s) claiming to have nukes and have no beef in using them at the drop of a hat.

    When asked about this, the only response involves the US. So of course Im going to simplify your and everyone else's response because it really does not note anything abouy THE problem, but only blames the US.

    when people actually start listening ... its not like we are saying hey - the US is the problem full stop ... there is a direct link to foreign policy decisions that we discuss ... if you want to debate the consequences of past actions - feel free to do so ... but if its easier to label us anti-american - that is fine too ...

    again ... only the US has used a nuke and only US, Britain and Israel uses Depleted Uranium ... and the US is developing more nukes despite a massive stockpile ... if you don't want to face the consequences of that - so be it ...
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris wrote:
    yeah ... we just hate america therefore we have no logic ... :rolleyes: ... one could discuss the topic or one could dismiss with this kind of reasoning ...

    Prove me wrong, as they say ... Your response is what was predictable. Come on, dude ... Even North Korea's supposed allies think this development is a bad thing. India or Pakistan are irrelevent to the issue ... Obviously the political situation is different across these cases. Look at the behavior of the leaders in question, past or present. Look at China's reaction to the situation. North Korea getting the bomb (assuming this test was even a success) is not the same thing as India getting it.
  • truroutetruroute Posts: 251
    Byrnzie wrote:
    All things U.S? Or the U.S government? Or do you believe that the U.S and the Bush Administration are the same thing?


    Touche, but the the argument still stands.
  • North Korea and Iran are not friendly states and it's not in any human interest to see those two nations having access to nuclear bombs. That being said, the larger problem is the fact that many other "peaceful" nation do have the nuclear bomb, therefore nobody can tell N.K. or Iran not to build one, since it exist in other nations. Get rid of them, USA should lead the way in action, and stop talking, lead by example and get rid of your arsenal, or most of it. Then let other nations with smaller nuclear power get rid of their own missiles.

    Anyway won't happen, sick world.
    "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    North Korea and Iran are not friendly states and it's not in any human being interest to see those two nations having access to nuclear bombs. That being said, the larger problem is the fact that many other "peaceful" nation do have the nuclear bomb, therefore nobody can tell N.K. or Iran not to build one, since it exist in other nations. Get rid of them, USA should lead the way in action, and stop talking, lead by example and get rid of your arsenal, or most of it. Then let other nations with smaller nuclear power get rid of their own missiles.

    Anyway won't happen, sick world.

    No, the U.S. is not going to dismantle its arsenal before its enemies do. Not going to happen. But yes, I agree with the gist of this post. It is not in anyone's best interest to see nuclear (nuculer if you're Bush) weapons proliferate.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    Prove me wrong, as they say ... Your response is what was predictable. Come on, dude ... Even North Korea's supposed allies think this development is a bad thing. India or Pakistan are irrelevent to the issue ... Obviously the political situation is different across these cases. Look at the behavior of the leaders in question, past or present. Look at China's reaction to the situation. North Korea getting the bomb (assuming this test was even a success) is not the same thing as India getting it.

    read the whole thread ... you can choose to discuss the talking points or not ... i've talked about people who have relations with kim jong il ... but you would rather believe he is some wack job like in team america ...

    am i saying n. korea having nukes is a good thing?? ... hell no - who is saying that but if we can't figure out why they would want one then we are clueless ... and how can you say pakistan having nukes is ok?

    if my response is predictable at least it is detailed - what is your response but reactionary and without thought ...
  • truroutetruroute Posts: 251
    polaris wrote:
    when people actually start listening ... its not like we are saying hey - the US is the problem full stop ... there is a direct link to foreign policy decisions that we discuss ... if you want to debate the consequences of past actions - feel free to do so ... but if its easier to label us anti-american - that is fine too ...

    again ... only the US has used a nuke and only US, Britain and Israel uses Depleted Uranium ... and the US is developing more nukes despite a massive stockpile ... if you don't want to face the consequences of that - so be it ...


    Dont assume I'm labeling you Anti American. Even if you are Canadian.
    ***
    Yup, here we go again w/ the "US is the only one that has used a nuke" thread. There was a reason. We both could throw stats and quotes at each other to say if it was either needed to stop WW2, but nothing will be accomplished. Its alwasy tossed out there when someone doesnt have a good argument about world nuke affairs. Comon Polaris, I've seen you have better conversations than that.
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris wrote:
    read the whole thread ... you can choose to discuss the talking points or not ... i've talked about people who have relations with kim jong il ... but you would rather believe he is some wack job like in team america ...

    am i saying n. korea having nukes is a good thing?? ... hell no - who is saying that but if we can't figure out why they would want one then we are clueless ... and how can you say pakistan having nukes is ok?

    if my response is predictable at least it is detailed - what is your response but reactionary and without thought ...

    I am going to ignore your insults and just respond to the content. Yes, I believe Kim is a whackjob. When your populace of over 20 million is completely reliant on foreign aid just to eat, but you still have money to field one of the largest armies in the world, I consider that whacky. And I am not even as "leftist" as you are. I have also read quite a bit about Kim's personality and behavior, and he is not psychotic ... But he is personality-disordered. He is messed up, and he is not one of the people who should have his finger on the red button.
    And finally, I think Pakistan having nukes is a very bad thing. Please find where I said it was not, and I will retract. I know, we can't all be as "detailed" as you.
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    truroute wrote:
    Comon Polaris, I've seen you have better conversations than that.

    Depends on the day ...
  • No, the U.S. is not going to dismantle its arsenal before its enemies do. Not going to happen. But yes, I agree with the gist of this post. It is not in anyone's best interest to see nuclear (nuculer if you're Bush) weapons proliferate.

    I don't believe the USA have such powerfull ennemies, that they need this amount of nuclear weapons in their arsenal, they could easily dismantled most of them and maybe keep a small amount as part of a "defense" program. But right now the USA have enough nuclear power to blow up the whole world, so i don't believe one minute the paranoia surrounding the "need" for that many nuclear weapon in the states, or in any other country. I just don't believe it should still exist, nuclear weapons should be totally banned out of this planet. You do not go deer hunting with nuclear bomb, it's build to cause widespread human death.
    "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • dg1979usdg1979us Posts: 568
    polaris wrote:
    read the whole thread ... you can choose to discuss the talking points or not ... i've talked about people who have relations with kim jong il ... but you would rather believe he is some wack job like in team america ...

    quote]


    "Kim Jong-il's official biography also holds that his birth at Mount Paektu was foretold by a swallow, and that his birth was heralded by the appearance of a double rainbow over the mountain and a new star in the heavens."


    Nothing wacky about him at all.
  • polaris wrote:
    again ... something no one wants to answer is why can pakistan and israel have nuclear weapons and north korea not? ...

    This is all the more shocking since Musharref has admitted that Pakistan helped North Korea in terms of developing nuclear weapons....


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4180286.stm
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    I don't believe the USA have such powerfull ennemies, that they need this amount of nuclear weapons in their arsenal, they could easily dismantled most of them and maybe keep a small amount as part of a "defense" program. But right now the USA have enough nuclear power to blow up the whole world, so i don't believe one minute the paranoia surrounding the "need" for that many nuclear weapon in the states, or in any other country. I just don't believe it should still exist, nuclear weapons should be totally banned out of this planet. You do not go deer hunting with nuclear bomb, it's build to cause widespread human death.

    agreed, actually.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    truroute wrote:
    Comon Polaris, I've seen you have better conversations than that.

    yet another response that has nothing to do with the topic at hand ... i can say that to you but it means absolutely nothing ...

    again - you guys can discuss the individual talking points or u can simplify and pass it off ... up to you ...

    if you actually read what is being written and respond to it ... maybe we'd get somewhere ... but you're just reading what you want to read ... am i saying it was wrong to use the nuke in ww2? ... i haven't commented either way ... why won't you respond to the US using DU in recent times?? ... why won't you respond to the very apparent threat they show if you are north korea?

    you can focus on that or you can respond by saying i just blame the US for everything or that i'm supposedly smarter than that ...
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    dg1979us wrote:
    polaris wrote:
    read the whole thread ... you can choose to discuss the talking points or not ... i've talked about people who have relations with kim jong il ... but you would rather believe he is some wack job like in team america ...

    quote]


    "Kim Jong-il's official biography also holds that his birth at Mount Paektu was foretold by a swallow, and that his birth was heralded by the appearance of a double rainbow over the mountain and a new star in the heavens."


    Nothing wacky about him at all.

    doesn't bush believe he talks to god?
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    polaris wrote:
    yet another response that has nothing to do with the topic at hand ... i can say that to you but it means absolutely nothing ...

    again - you guys can discuss the individual talking points or u can simplify and pass it off ... up to you ...

    if you actually read what is being written and respond to it ... maybe we'd get somewhere ... but you're just reading what you want to read ... am i saying it was wrong to use the nuke in ww2? ... i haven't commented either way ... why won't you respond to the US using DU in recent times?? ... why won't you respond to the very apparent threat they show if you are north korea?

    you can focus on that or you can respond by saying i just blame the US for everything or that i'm supposedly smarter than that ...


    DU is toxic, and the Americans probably do not need to use it, but it is NOT WMD. I didn't address that point because a) it has nothing to do with Kim getting the bomb, and b) its apples and oranges when we are talking about nuclear weapons. Sure, they both contain uranium, but that's pretty much where the similarity ends, at least in terms of destructive potential.
    And I DID respond to that other point. Like I said already, the U.S. has not behaved that way towards North Korea at all. With this particular state, they have tried diplomacy many, many, many times in the past.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    I am going to ignore your insults and just respond to the content. Yes, I believe Kim is a whackjob. When your populace of over 20 million is completely reliant on foreign aid just to eat, but you still have money to field one of the largest armies in the world, I consider that whacky. And I am not even as "leftist" as you are. I have also read quite a bit about Kim's personality and behavior, and he is not psychotic ... But he is personality-disordered. He is messed up, and he is not one of the people who should have his finger on the red button.
    And finally, I think Pakistan having nukes is a very bad thing. Please find where I said it was not, and I will retract. I know, we can't all be as "detailed" as you.

    america is the richest country in the world and look what happened after katrina ... canada is rich but our child poverty rate is going up ...

    you could have responded initially with these reponses but look at what you wrote ... do you consider that a reasonable response?

    as for pakistan - you don't think its the same thing ... how is it not?
  • dg1979usdg1979us Posts: 568
    polaris wrote:
    dg1979us wrote:

    doesn't bush believe he talks to god?


    Do you think thats wacky?

    Because it was you, not me, who said Kim Jong Il wasnt the wackjob that team america made him out to be. But Im sorry, anyone who thinks they were born on a mystical mountain and had a double rainbow and a new star in the sky because of his birth is a wack job, and dont tell me he isnt.
  • dg1979us wrote:
    polaris wrote:
    read the whole thread ... you can choose to discuss the talking points or not ... i've talked about people who have relations with kim jong il ... but you would rather believe he is some wack job like in team america ...

    quote]


    "Kim Jong-il's official biography also holds that his birth at Mount Paektu was foretold by a swallow, and that his birth was heralded by the appearance of a double rainbow over the mountain and a new star in the heavens."


    Nothing wacky about him at all.

    The man is wacky, so is the Iran president. But what kind of logic is behind: "this country has the right to have one, this country has no right to have one." Israel, USA, Russia are not what i consider peacefull country, and they all own nuclear weapons, they claim it's for defense, same as Iran and N.K., go figure.

    That's why it should be all out banned from this planet, then everyone could agree to use more agressive means against rogue country trying to build one, it wouldn't be hypocrite to condemn them. Right now the fact that N.K. are trying to get a more powerfull bomb is use as a justification by other country to keep their own bombs (same with Iran vs. Israel), when in fact they should all finally acknowledge that nuclear bombs shouldn't exist at all, and dismantle, condemn and banned all the nuclear bombs existing on this planet.
    "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Sign In or Register to comment.