There is a lot of talk about the pending success of the Nintendo Wii, but as of today
NORTH KOREA MIGHT BE A NUCLEAR SUPER POWER! Shit! Is this bad!?
Is it something we should worry about or should we just banter on about whether a fucking console will be "good" or "crap" because it's got a dumb name, less processing power than its rivals and a stupid hand-held remote controller that would be more suited to a shape shifting matress? :P
Someone said when Kim Yong-il kicks it he'll probably give the order to nuke somewhere, does todays news mean that statement could be a reality?
I'm just eager to know what others think about North Korea setting us up the bomb, but if not, you're more than welcome to continue talking about the Wii... :p
Articles in point:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6034873.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2340405.stm
I'd rather talk about the Wii.
Real world stuff scares me. :'(
For those who have a hatred towards Nintendo, maybe North Korea can fly a nuke into their headquarters. BOOM!!! No more Nintendo, no more Mario. :(
Cool, but you LIVE in the real world dude, not a freakin' console :P Though I'm sure a lot of people genuinly think they do!
If you get blown up your Wii isn't going to save you. In fact, it's just going to melt all over you and ruin your shirt. But then for that matter, you're also going to melt all over IT! :p
Quote from: m0ds on Mon 09/10/2006 21:54:17
Shit! Is this bad!?
Well, duh...
No seriously, on the other hand it's a good thing. I hate the shitty feeling of only a few nations that are basically making us do what we want, and I find it good that this international tension is stabilised even a bit. On the other hand though only countries that are making nuclear weapons secretly are full of maniacs, just like that one there. Well, there's reasonable people there too, but we all know the drill, and I don't mean the household tool.
Then again, in my opinion, thre's no reasen to be afraid of a nuclear strike. At least within Ã, the next 50 years, no grounds, just a hunch...
but yes I'm bored of the Wii talk
The Wii IS the nuclear bomb. Just an innocent game of pong and BLAMMO!
I'm sure that North Korea is high on America's list of countries to "Liberate".
Newklear boms are bad, y'all!
What exactly can talking about it achieve? It's not like anyone really thinks that crazy dictators with nuclear weapons is a great idea, it's that noone can do anything about it.
nobody but
(http://www.locustleaves.com/1019416122-00.jpg)
lol - well I totally trust those guys!
Quote from: Tuomas on Mon 09/10/2006 21:59:34
[Then again, in my opinion, thre's no reasen to be afraid of a nuclear strike. At least within Ã, the next 50 years, no grounds, just a hunch...
North Korea is poor, selling nuclear bombs makes a lot of money. I can think of some people who'd like to buy a nuclear bomb.
It's a great asset for making a deal. Libya gave up a weapons program that didn't exist and got lucrative oil deals and had sanctions dropped against it, if North Korea has genuine weapons to give up, they'll probably get a free car in the deal as well. After all, if you simply don't have a weapons program, and then deny that there is one, and then have observers come in to prove you don't have one, you end up being invaded.
I wonder if Kim Jong-il is just overcompensating for the size of his Wii?
America can't just sit around 'n wait fer the terr'ists who hate us for our freedom to drop the biggun on us! We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud! We've gotta fight 'em there so we do not have to fight 'em here, and so we can keep our freedom of speech and proceed to ban flag burning!
I'm assuming N.K. actually has nuclear power. In which case, fighting it would be the stupidest thing anyone could do. Things will go on as before, except N.K. will have nuclear power. And get great deals.
...I hope.
I suggest everbody start building Bomb Shelters and stocking up on non-perishable foods, like canned soup and ravioli. Hopefully some of us will be playing the Wii run on a generator until the nuclear winter ends and we are safe to come out of our holes.
Will there be a Mittens after World War III? I am hoping that most of our members here don't become flesh eating zombies due to the massive radiation given off one of those nukes. Please pray for humanity.
A few things to keep in mind here:
1. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any 3rd-party confirmation yet that North Korea has actually done what it claims.
2.
If they actually detonated a weapon, they're still far from actually having a useable missile. First, the weapon is most likely too big and bulky to be fit into a missile. And second, when they conducted missile tests earlier this summer, their prototype exploded seconds after take-off.
3. If they ever do get nuclear missiles, they'll probably be pointed at the U.S., since Kim thinks we're arming up to invade him. So everyone else can relax and keep playing their video games. :)
In short: while this is obviously bad news, I don't think there's no reason to panic. Hopefully international pressure will keep him in line. Unfortunately, Kim Jong Il is very unpredictable, and I think he grows only more defiant as pressure mounts against him. But other than dramatic posturing, I'm not quite sure there's anything he can do about it .... yet.
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Tue 10/10/2006 00:26:33It's a great asset for making a deal. Libya gave up a weapons program that didn't exist and got lucrative oil deals and had sanctions dropped against it, if North Korea has genuine weapons to give up, they'll probably get a free car in the deal as well. After all, if you simply don't have a weapons program, and then deny that there is one, and then have observers come in to prove you don't have one, you end up being invaded.
First off, Libya did have an operational weapons program, and (in additional to Iran and North Korea) had even received equipment through Pakistan's black market. However, they weren't anywhere close to having a functioning weapon.
Second, Iraq was less than honest - and in fact deliberately deceptive - about the state of their weapons program. The inspectors eventually gave up because they weren't able to conduct inspections to their satisfacation. Not that I'm condoning America's invasion, but the truth is that nobody knew what kind of weapons Iraq had until after they were invaded.
Quote from: Zooty on Mon 09/10/2006 22:53:55What exactly can talking about it achieve? It's not like anyone really thinks that crazy dictators with nuclear weapons is a great idea, it's that noone can do anything about it.
Uh, perhaps to stay informed about important world events? Or maybe because our governments might try to do something about it, and it would be nice to know enough to make an informed decision about whether or not I agree with what they're doing? Or maybe because, if I decide it bothers me enough, I can find out how I
can do something about it?
Quote from: EagerMind on Tue 10/10/2006 04:37:01
1. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any 3rd-party confirmation yet that North Korea has actually done what it claims.
Errr... Japan, Australia, Russia, the USA, &c have confirmed it.
http://news.google.com/news?q=confirmation+of+korean+nuclear+test
Quote
3. If they ever do get nuclear missiles, they'll probably be pointed at the U.S., since Kim thinks we're arming up to invade him. So everyone else can relax and keep playing their video games. :)
Oh, well, that's all right then :P As long as you believe they'll be pointed at the USA, rather than the countries all around NK that their conventional weapons are pointed at. See for example the section "Preventing North Korean Retaliation" in
http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/dprkmil.htm
Quote
Second, Iraq was less than honest - and in fact deliberately deceptive - about the state of their weapons program.
Really? They maintained that there weren't weapons, and so far there's no evidence to the contrary. And there was intel corroborating their story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749_page2.shtml
Quote
The inspectors eventually gave up because they weren't able to conduct inspections to their satisfaction.
No, they had to leave because the UN determined they wouldn't be safe since the coalition of the willing was about to start an invasion.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=6502&Cr=iraq&Cr1=inspect
Quote
Not that I'm condoning America's invasion, but the truth is that nobody knew what kind of weapons Iraq had until after they were invaded.
And now...?
EDIT: Nothing. Nevermind.
I think they should give a better use to such a nice building the UN is. Maybe doing a huge sex shop or something. Avoiding NK to get nukes is probably the most important issue they have dealt with in 60 years, and they did nothing
Let' s be serious, the dicators let their citizens die by hungry, someone honestly thinks that a sanction here and there is going to make them change their mind? The local Hitler is not going to say "Oh, 4 guys voted in NY that I can' t invade Bananastan! I think I am going to retreat!" if the resollution is not followed by a serious threat of military action...Also, if one the US are decided to attack, they are going to do, no matter if UN agrees or not, as seen in Iraq.
I can' t honestly think in which is the reason to give the UN a status of "police of the world". The non gouvernamental actions they do, like UNESCO, and the work with medical aid, famines and refugees, for instance, is perfect... But threatening dictators with making resolutions is completelly ridiculous because nobody respects them. It' s like sending a police to arrest the local mob band with a wristle...
Surelly some military actions went terribly wrong, but even if the percentage of success is less than 10 %, they should go for it, since making something wrong is better than doing nothing. Somalia went bad? Well... Lesson learned, we will allow them to kill till extermination in Darfur. How cool we are.
NK is small and poor, it should have been (militarily talking) easy to invade it 10 years ago, but now it seems a pretty difficult bet. It' s amazing how people in this thread uses Iraq as an example of a mistake. Was it a mistake? Probably, but the mistake was not attacking Korea instead of Iraq, not "no attacking", as these posts seem to suggest.
-You attacked Iraq and they were no weapons! Ha, ha!
-Well, yes... Then you say that the attack should have been justified if there have been weapons?
-I guess so, yes...
-But now we know there are weapons in North Korea... If you were able to go back to 1997, knowing what you know now, would you have attacked North Korea?
-No!!! South Korea rocks! Kill that Bush, Kim Jong Il!!! Har Har!
The worst of all is than the invasion of Iran is even less remote, since the territory and the population are bigger than in NK. So, the result is probably going to be that a criminal which denies the existance of Israel is going to have nukes. Maybe there could have been possible to make a serious negotiation if Ahmadinejad had fresh on his memory the example of a invassion in NK, but now everything is lost. And the possibility of giving nukes to Hizbullá or Al QuaedaÃ, is not impossible.
Aaaah! How I'd like to be pacifist! That would mean that my country haven' t been put by Al Zawahiri as a territori to be recovered by Islam, besides with Palestine. Maybe it should be easier to be Pacifist if I were Finish? Mmmm...
How great examples we are going to see of what a high percentage of "pacifists" really are...
"Nuclear? No thanks! Keeping stability by threats of preventive attacks, by overwhelming military power, or nukes is bad!!! Well... If Iran investigate, then nuclear energy is cool, because the poor guys need clean electricity, you know? And if North Korea has the nukes, great, then it won' t be attacked by Japan, or South Korea, of the Imperialist Yankee devil... yes, I hate the americans, and now leave me alone, I gotta go to the Nike factory, I' ve seen a pair of Levi' s that will look terrific with my pink Ipod and my Motorola Peeble... Come on! don' t put in front of my Mustang, I might ruing my "Snakes on a plane" sticker if I crash with you..."
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 10/10/2006 11:40:24
Maybe it should be easier to be Pacifist if I were Finish? Mmmm...
yeah, you'd only go to prison for that. Or join Jehovas Witnesses...
Anyway, be it, that NK had a NUCELAR weapon, I still don't think it's justified to attack/invade them or Iraq for that matter. In that case you'd have to go to India and Pakistan and Russia and France and so on and so on. Besides, most countries, like NK in this case if they are building a nuclear weapon, are doing it for their own protection. Seriously, there are shitloads of countries that have the ability of blowing them up in the sky with a snap of fingers. Now if NK had that possibility too, the others would probably not be so keen on trying their luck. Kim is no fool. He knows he's not the most liked person in the world, I think he's just trying to save his own ass. There's no reason for him to attack anyone with a nuclear weapon, that'd send 20 equal bomb knocking on his door.
Fight me, I don't give a shit. Sure, chemical weapons are a good enough reason to disarm a country, but nuclear isn't. And it isn't a threat. Actually a nuclear war would be good, refreshing, give us something to think about. It's idiotic that the world "peace" is kept up by this tension where everyone is afraid of each other.
I'd say instead of pointing bombs at each other we could go to Congo or Darfur and try and make them stop the fighting. 100 years of civil war makes no sense.
I am also assuming (may it's wishful thinking, but I don't think so) that nobody is stupid enough to use nuclear weapons. Like Tuomas said, it's more of a preventative measure to stop from being attacked. Hence what I said about only a very, very idiotic person attacking N.K. now. In a perfect world there would be complete unilateral disarmament, peace and all that jazz, but we know that is never going to happen. The next a country would do is try to be on level with all the other countries. This way, instead of brotherly love being the reason not to attack someone, it'll be fear of retaliation.
HOWEVER, what I thought is wrong (although my opinion would not have, nor can it now make any difference), was that with so many other things that N.K. needed to fix up, they sent all this money into a hole which (I'm assuming) they never plan to use.
I am not going to reply. I will just highlight a pearl.
Quote
A nuclear war might be good, refreshing...
Some posts portait the person which write them.
EDIT: I am seeing that some poeple are taking the debate into the "North Korea mustn' t be invaded!"... Like if someone said it should!
It must be clear that what I said was "It should have been attacked 10 years ago, now we can' t"
Taking the debate into "Pacifists Vs. Walter Sobchak Fascistswho want to kill poor asian innocent civilians" might be enjotable, as usual, but, unfortunatelly, a complete lie...
What we must discuss is if it should have been correct to attack them 10 years ago. If it should have been correct to stablish a democrat, non beligerant and economically effective government in spite Kim Jong Il, a guy who allows their citizens to die of famine spending 80% of the national budged into something useless with the only objective of increasing his ego, as Babar said. And if something simillar should be done with Iran.
Indeed, you immediately spot the ones that understand sarcasm
I spot some... Some I don' t. What is the meaning of the sentence of me going to jail or joining the Jehova' s witnesses?
Well I reckoned by Finish you meant Finnish considering the context. And in Finland they put pacifists in prison unless they are Jehovas witnesses.
O_o
Eeer... I think I should elaborate the reply more... But I don' t honestly know what to say, or what does the sentence have to see with me...
EDIT: So, back on topic.
Nacho, do you think that maybe China might have objected to an invasion of North Korea 10 years ago? Do you think the US was maybe a little bit wary of China?
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 10/10/2006 12:26:59
EDIT: I am seeing that some poeple are taking the debate into the "North Korea mustn' t be invaded!"... Like if someone said it should!
No, I don't think anyone said this, but I think it's still worth discussing. I think it's good to be brought up in any way, since it's bound to come up. And the question is crucial considering how they've been driving their business lately, NK and the other half (agreeably US mostly). If you see my point here.
Then you' ll have to find someone considering the option of invading NK now... As I don' t consider it can be done, I can' t discuss...Ã, :)
And SSH, you mentioned the reason why NK was not invaded... China and also Russia were not happy about Korea. But maybe it should have been reasonable to make a test... I honestly think that the result of a military disembark in South Korea with a real threat of invassion should have ended with China, Russia and the USA convincing Korea to give up for the benefit of all...
Now, the most predictible result is US sending Nukes to Taipei, Taiwan and Japan... Dunno what is better...
QuoteWhat we must discuss is if it should have been correct to attack them 10 years ago. If it should have been correct to stablish a democrat, non beligerant and economically effective government in spite Kim Jong Il,
Are you asking us if one country should have invaded another to change their mode of goverment? Would you be suprized if the answer was 'no'?
Deppends. if the invassion costs 10,000 lives, and leaving the government costs 100,000 deaths by famine, maybe the answer is not so obvious.
I dunno, it's pretty obvious to me who doesn't subscribe to this bullshit utilitarian sort of ethics.
It's the eternal discussion if we must do something if we are able to, or leave the nature follow its path, even if the results are worst. Maybe we haven' t done as much as possible, but we can feel happy because everything has ended in a "natural way". You have prooved to be a very ethic guy who can handle the results of an attack in spite of trying to prevent it.
That' s the greatest proof of ethic and valour. But you must understand that not anybody is like that.
I am not, so, all I can say is that I am happy to have such a great friends like you. ^_^.
Thank you, Nacho. Please remember that a country has the sovereign right to self-regulate. Everybody should sort their own shit out without external invasion. "Killing for peace". It's one thing to put diplomatic pressure, cut aid, whatever, and another to invade another country, go into war, to 'liberate' them. Let them sort their own shit out. Multinational cooperation is only that until it's not, it cannot and should not be enforced with the threat of military force. If there's a third world country where a dictator is killing all his people, that is tragic, and we should do well to oppose it via diplomatic means, but in the end, if they don't listen, they just don't listen. Let them sort their own shit out.
And about nuclear weapons. Let's say they do have them. Until they attack someone, they are no different than the US having military weapons. And the US are the only ones so far that have used them. Is it because we put this value judgement that this or that person is a derranged bucher that makes it okay for us to step in and take his nuclear toys away? I happen to think Bush is a derranged butcher, is it ok to go to war with the US over their nuclear arsenal? Of course not. And more importantly could we win that war? Of course not...
There are no ethics behind US invasions. There is the geopolitical powerplay, where influence and control are an end in themselves. It's not about saving lives. It's about playing monopoly.
Anyway, you are making a slight change of the sense of my post. It derivated into if it' s ethic to invade countries if their governments are corrupt or unnefective... On a second thought, even considering that it' s sad that such governments exist, we can' t do anything aboout it, so, basically you are right. But the casus belli for attacking NK was the possibility of getting nukes.
It' s an important distinction because whereas I don' t agree with you with "let them sort their own shit out" if there are nukes involved (Basically because then, "their shit" can easilly be transformed into "our shit") I agree with you that we can' t interfere if that government does not represent an external threat.
Lets hope if some powerful aliens come along and discover our planet that they don't consider us an external threat.
If they exterminate us, God would forgive them, as his son was sent here to tell the message that we are all forgiven.
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/)
Quote(Basically because then, "their shit" can easilly be transformed into "our shit")
Easily yes, but easily doesn't mean it has happened yet.
But I forget, in spain you get tried and jailed for intention.
And apparently in Finland (where FiNNish live, hehe...) You can go to jail if you are pacifist, unless you are Witness of Jehova, according to a conversation I had with Toumas via msn.Ã, ;D
EDIT: Wow, Jet... That film, in Spanish is called "Red telephone, we're flying to Moscow" We should nuke the spanish translators as well.
In all honesty, I'm not particularly worried at this time. So North Korea might have the bomb.
My main concern here is that my country (U.S.A) is going to freak out and go all Operation North Korean Freedom and stick its nose where it doesn't belong, and thus provoke something we all really don't want to see.
Quote from: Raggit on Tue 10/10/2006 15:53:19
Operation North Korean Freedom
I thought it was called bringing democracy what they are doing
Tuomas, what they're REALLY doing (in Iraq) is called imperialism. But they CLAIM to be bringing "democracy," and try to suggest that with Bush's clever title, Operation Iraqi Liberty. (Later changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom after the unsettling acronym was discovered in the first title.)
OIL! hahah! Sorry, I didn't realize. That's brilliant.
Fearing a nuclear war is ABSOLUTELY pointless, IMO.
Dude. It's Nuclear Bomb.
It's not a thug who could attack you on street and make you disabled with well placed knife hit.
Either a disease. Or an ordinary war, where people run and bullets fly. Where you are scared, abandoned and in constant danger for a long time.
It's the nuke.
One boom, and no worries no more.
You even don't have a second to be afraid or unhappy about it.
And if you're lucky, you're able to see the greatest, most advanced and powerful view, the Man has ever created on this planet. The moment where Man totally 0wnZ the nature.
I don't mind seeing this before I die. But please, wait until I'm old...
But what's the point in worry?
He just has annexated Austria, The Sudetes and Renania... who cares? ;)
InCreator, unless I'm mistaken, not everyone would die instantly and painlessly. I'm pretty sure a lot of people would be in agony for a while.
It's not me I'm worried of but my children :( And the future of Planet Earth
We would all die only if there's a large scale retaliatory strike and another and another... as history shows, a single nuke brings not the end of the world, but lots of dead and dying, suffering and radiation.
You might not die. Your face might be burnt off, you might break your neck when the shockwave throws you through the room or car, you might be trapped for days under rubble, you might hear children being burnt to death, your body might rot away because the gamma rays burnt your white blood cells, you might get sick from drinking the black rain that stings your tongue and burns your eyes, you might be exposed to more radiation after you go back and look for survivors, you might get cancer 30 years later and maybe you survive but your children get leukemia.
The flash is only the beginning of the trouble.
Look, I'm FROM the future... And I'm ok!
These aren't tumors, they're future bumps! They're all the rage! Get 'em tattooed! Get 'em pierced! Put a little hat on them! It's awesome!
QuoteInCreator, unless I'm mistaken, not everyone would die instantly and painlessly.
Unless I'm mistaken, I was simply kidding... :D Nobody wants to die in 3000C...
QuoteI'm pretty sure a lot of people would be in agony for a while.
But yes, shit happens.
I think we're all forgetting the events of the wonderful little film "Red Dawn." In the film (BASED ON TRUE EVENTS, of course) Russia tried to invade the US, but high school students from a small midwesteren town fought back and wiped the forces out!
We don't need to worry, folks. High School students are all we need to SAVE THE WORLD! In fact, in Bettendorf (a midwesteren town that which I am from) they're rounding up most of the varsity football team from the high school right now. They're gonna arm them with Bazookas and AKs and liberate the hell out of NK. Kim-Jong is shitting in his pants right now.
How could the americans lose the Vietnam war having Patrick Swayze, Rambo and Chuck in their armies?
I wish they would take away the space nuke test ban.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29]
Project Orion
[/url] was SO perfect. Now, I wouldn't want to launch this in, say, the atmosphere, but if we want to get beyond the moon, this is the only way to to fly.
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 10/10/2006 17:45:55
He just has annexated Austria, The Sudetes and Renania... who cares? ;)
THe Sudetes sounds like a 60s girl group.
And next on the Ed Sullivan show... Renania and the Sudetes singing River Deep Mountain Heil
Perhaps we could get Kim Jong Il to give up his nukes in trade for a certain forum member:
(http://www.thexiis.com/media/kimjungscotch.jpg)
That son of a bitch enjoys watching James Bond Movies?? Maybe he should be watching The Lifetime Network instead. It might make him more compassionate. Oh, and bye Scotch, enjoy living in North Korea. :)
Kim Jong Il is an arrogant stupid fuck. End of story, he wants to be an impressive dictator and OMGROFLNUCLEARBOMSJOO. There is nothing anyone can do because he is an asshole and his bloody country are either too stupid or too opressed to stop him. Now he has nukes, there is no threatr that America can realistacally impose upon him that will take any thinking about. Allw e have to hope is that he stops being a mass murdering fuckhead before its too late.
Worked with Hitler I guess, and Polpot.
Quote from: SteveMcCrea on Tue 10/10/2006 06:09:48Errr... Japan, Australia, Russia, the USA, &c have confirmed it.
At the time I wrote the post, there hadn't been any confirmation. At least, not from any of the articles I read. And this article (http://economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8019401) and this article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/10/korea.building.bomb.ap/index.html) would suggest we still don't really know.
Quote
Quote
3. If they ever do get nuclear missiles, they'll probably be pointed at the U.S., since Kim thinks we're arming up to invade him. So everyone else can relax and keep playing their video games. :)
Oh, well, that's all right then :P As long as you believe they'll be pointed at the USA, rather than the countries all around NK that their conventional weapons are pointed at.
I was being sarcastic ... note the smiley. You take exception to this, and not to people saying "This is too scary, I'm going to stick to my video games!"?
I don't doubt that North Korea has lots of weapons pointed at lots of different countries. What I was referring to was that Kim Jong Il has specifically cited American "belligerence and pressure" (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/korea.nuclear.test/index.html?section=cnn_topstories) as the reason for developing nukes.
QuoteReally? They maintained that there weren't weapons, and so far there's no evidence to the contrary.
Hmmm ... kind of like Iran today. And yet, there's quite a bit of international diplomacy going on to try to get them to stop their nuclear program out of fear that they may actually be trying to develop nukes.
QuoteNo, they had to leave because the UN determined they wouldn't be safe since the coalition of the willing was about to start an invasion.
You're right, I was mistaken. But does that change the fact that the Iraqi government didn't let them see everything they wanted to, and that the inspectors still didn't have the full picture when they left?
QuoteAnd now...?
Uh, what's your point? I was taking issue with the comment that Libya got rewarded for giving up a weapons program that "didn't exist" and that Iraq was invaded even after "proving" they didn't have a weapons program. Did Iraq have WMD? No. In fact, it doesn't even look like there was even much of a program left. Of course, hindsight is 20/20. Does that mean Saddam Hussein wasn't trying to violate UN sanctions and get a program restarted (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/)? No. Did he throw open his doors for all to see and show the world he had no WMD? No. Do I think he deserved to be invaded? No. But he certainly wasn't an angel from heaven either.
Quote from: Raggit on Tue 10/10/2006 15:53:19My main concern here is that my country (U.S.A) is going to freak out and go all Operation North Korean Freedom and stick its nose where it doesn't belong, and thus provoke something we all really don't want to see.
Don't worry ... we're way too far over our heads in Iraq to spare any time for the real nuclear threats in the world, or to even to pacify the first country we invaded, which had the full support of the world and was initially stunningly successful. >:(
Quote
QuoteReally? They maintained that there weren't weapons, and so far there's no evidence to the contrary.
Hmmm ... kind of like Iran today. And yet, there's quite a bit of international diplomacy going on to try to get them to stop their nuclear program out of fear that they may actually be trying to develop nukes.
What the hell does this even mean? It's besides the point. There were no WMDs. What Saddam was 'intending' to do hadn't happened yet. Saddam might have been intending to butcher the baby Jesus next christmas for all we know. Next christmas did not come. How much can a single simple point be sidestepped? THERE WERE NO WEAPONS. Saddam is a bad boy, yes. Saddam is a killer yes. Saddam is a monster yes. We're all better off without Saddam, yes. BUT THERE WERE NOT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Hence, the reason the US presented as grounds for invasion was fabricated. Say the word with me:
faaaaabricated. I
dare you to say it. Say it!
I honestly don't care what North Korea does, and how nuclear what they're doing really is. It seems to me, however, that people LOVE being scared and wary of something. Fear brings people together, causing more babies.
There's going to be a point in time where either all the nuclear weapons are destroyed, or they're fired off. Whether I'll care about that is that time. The "threat" of something isn't going to make me all scared and nervous, while a lot of people (noticable from my own environment and online remarks/clips from shows) seem to be all "OMG OMG OMG NUCYALUR!" and I'm just going "So?"
I've got far too many things on my to-do list to care about a bomb in North Korea. As if they're going to fire it. They're just trying to make sure America thinks twice before invading. Whether that'll work, I also don't care about.
Quote3. If they ever do get nuclear missiles, they'll probably be pointed at the U.S., since Kim thinks we're arming up to invade him.
DUUUH! There's been enough threats from Bush towards NK, and since North Korea was thrown onto the Axis of Evil pile together with countries that are being much bigger bullies than North Korea (which seems to be content just focusing on its own country, and leaving other countries (save for perhaps SK) alone). That'd make me go "Hrrm, better get insurance before shit hit fan."*
* mistakes on purpose
I don' t know if we have global anmesia or something... Saddam had WMD, he bombed the Kurds with them, and used them in the Iranian-Iraqian war. He still had them during the Gulf War. All the "non for War!" governments, France, Germany, and the democrat party, including John Kerry, in the USA said he had WMD. He expulsed the inspectors in 1992, and they left the country knowing he had them. He accepted inspectors shortly before the war as a final resource, but he was not able to prove them he made specific acts to destroy the waepons. The 1441 resolution specifically said that Saddam had to prove to the inspectors that he destroyed the WMD. And he was everything but collaborative with the inspectors, so, basically, again, he gave the US a casus belli.
So, now we are there and we can' t find them. Why? I personally think that he was not able to keep the WMD arsenal. Maybe the chemical products were rooten or something, but what I can' t imagine is Saddam suddenly thinking in some moment between 1992 and 2002 "Mmmmm... Nothing forces me to do it, the inspectors are not here and the UN does not preassure me, but I am going to destroy my WMDs... I am that cool"
So, the question is that if the USA knew if the WMD were unnoperative. I personally think they didn' t, as Saddam, in my opinion, thought that if the amercians thought he still had the WMDs, they were not going to attack him. We have evidences of that. Saddam was offered via Syria a huge amount of american money to abandon the presidential seat two days before the war started (I think the amount of money offered was brutal, something like the gross national product of a small country) but he rejected... why? I think he thought that the americans were sure that he still had the WMDs, and that they were an insurance against an attack.
I respect that people think that the evidences were fabricated, but some informations aim into the other direction. We won' t really know unless we enter in Pentagon and take a look to the... X-Files!
We could also stop caring. Whatever the start of it was, the war in Iraq at THIS moment is a big steaming pile of shit. It's the most shameful performance the Great American Army Boy Band has ever given.
That' s true, as well... :)
When did this thread get so boring?
ooh Tuomas is bored. Let's entertain Tuomas. This thread, as all others are here for his constant amusement.
Quote from: Nacho on Wed 11/10/2006 11:58:27
I don' t know if we have global anmesia or something... Saddam had WMD, he bombed the Kurds with them, and used them in the Iranian-Iraqian war. He still had them during the Gulf War. All the "non for War!" governments, France, Germany, and the democrat party, including John Kerry, in the USA said he had WMD. He expulsed the inspectors in 1992, and they left the country knowing he had them.
Actually the inspectors left Iraq in 1998. And https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html#sect1 says that "Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. We found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
As for North Korea being afraid, obviously... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_research_programs
Quote from: Helm on Wed 11/10/2006 12:18:53
ooh Tuomas is bored. Let's entertain Tuomas. This thread, as all others are here for his constant amusement.
Don't know about that, but it's basically the reason every thread ends up in the position of some 2-4 people arguing and some random people posting more or less funny comments every now and then.
Oh, I thought WMDs were chemical and nuclear weapons, but apparently WMD is equal to Nukes... Sorry SSH...
The only question is... Why using two words for describing just one weapon? Mmm...
The definition of WMDS is contested, which is exactly what suits the US anyway.
Quote from: Nacho on Wed 11/10/2006 13:04:14
The only question is... Why using two words for describing just one weapon? Mmm...
I know you're kidding, but it's a serious point.
"They've got Weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION! We've got a
deterrent nuclear capability."
"They've got
Improvised Explosive Devices! [The bastards!] We've got good old-fashioned bombs."
"We're in a GLOBAL WAR on TERROR." We're fighting a noun. Great. Not engaged in a regional spat against a small group of extremists.
Quote from: Helm on Wed 11/10/2006 11:02:35QuoteHmmm ... kind of like Iran today. And yet, there's quite a bit of international diplomacy going on to try to get them to stop their nuclear program out of fear that they may actually be trying to develop nukes.
What the hell does this even mean?
Well, I guess it means that, just because a dictatorial regime
says they don't have WMD, and just because there
aren't flashing neon signs identifying their weapons stockpiles,
doesn't make it true that they don't have weapons or are trying to acquire them. Especially when said regime does everything possible to prevent the international community from verifying it.
QuoteI dare you to say it. Say it!
Hold on, let me just make sure I get this right ....
faaaaabricated. There, feel better?
Although this report (https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2002.html#4) and this report (https://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr11282003.html) might disagree.
Quote from: EagerMind on Tue 10/10/2006 04:37:01Not that I'm condoning America's invasion ...
Quote from: EagerMind on Wed 11/10/2006 05:40:54Do I think he deserved to be invaded? No.
Is there some confusion about where I stand here? Let me say it again so as to be clear:
I do not think America should have invaded Iraq.
Look, I can see I'm coming down on the wrong side of an argument I wasn't trying to get into. I was merely taking issue with the comment that certain countries had been rewarded or punished for doing nothing. Libya, although not a world threat,
did have a weapons program. Iraq, although as we now know was just bluffing, had not
proven they didn't have a weapons program and in fact was deliberately deceptive about their capabilities.
The implication is that we should just leave countries like Iran and North Korea to their whim because we don't know with certainty that they have WMD. Even now, we don't know what North Korea's true capabilities are. But short of them dropping a nuke on somebody, will we ever know with certainty? But when a country violates international treaty, throws weapon inspectors out of their country, makes belligerent remarks about destroying another country, and is implicated in smuggling black-market nuclear technology, surely the international community should take notice and use reasonable steps to prevent said country from acquiring dangerous technologies? And use incentives and rewards to encourage them to embrace peaceful means? Iraq, if nothing else, has shown us why we shouldn't invade countries based on what we
think we know. But history has certainly shown us that we shouldn't just sit idle and let threatening nations arm themselves to the teeth.
Quote from: EagerMind on Wed 11/10/2006 16:44:46
Especially when said regime does everything possible to prevent the international community from verifying it.
Verifying what, exactly? They say they don't have WMD, and after prolonged sanctions and bombing agree to let the UN inspectors in to verify this claim. There are two possibilities:
1. They did have WMD, and in this case they were obviously hiding them, and "doing [just about] everything possible" to hide them.
2. They didn't have WMD, and were in the impossible position of proving that they weren't hiding them.
The inspectors were there to see if (1) was the case. The White House FABRICATED evidence that it was (2), and convinced Congress to invade based on that lie.
Now it may well be that (1) was the case, but there hasn't been any evidence of it found in Iraq, and anyway that is irrelevant. The point is that Bush wasn't prepared to wait and see, despite the lack of a credible threat.
Quote
QuoteI dare you to say it. Say it!
Hold on, let me just make sure I get this right .... faaaaabricated. There, feel better?
Although this report (https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2002.html#4) and this report (https://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr11282003.html) might disagree.
Fair and balanced. Well done, sir.
Those reports don't deny the fabrication. They just present other suspicions, and as such were the reason the UN inspectors were in the country to begin with.
Quote from: EagerMind on Tue 10/10/2006 04:37:01
Is there some confusion about where I stand here? Let me say it again so as to be clear: I do not think America should have invaded Iraq.
You do seem to be justifying their reasons, if not their decision. But their reasons were fabricated. Go on, say it again. This time without a qualifying statement or reversal.
Quote
Iraq, although as we now know was just bluffing, had not proven they didn't have a weapons program and in fact was deliberately deceptive about their capabilities.
Bluffing? They said they didn't have WMD and had inspectors in the country. Where's the bluff?
Quote
The implication is that we should just leave countries like Iran and North Korea to their whim because we don't know with certainty that they have WMD.
Perhaps Helm was implying that, although I doubt it. I certainly don't think that's a wise course of action. I don't see how you can use what was done in Iraq to justify any course of action against NK, since the evidence shows that the situations are totally different.
Quote from: SteveMcCrea on Wed 11/10/2006 17:38:59
I don't see how you can use what was done in Iraq to justify any course of action against NK, since the evidence shows that the situations are totally different.
Yeah, North Korea's oil reserves are much smaller... ;)
But still, a bit higher than in Serbia... no?
Or Normandy...
QuoteBut when a country violates international treaty, throws weapon inspectors out of their country, makes belligerent remarks about destroying another country, and is implicated in smuggling black-market nuclear technology,
Wait, you mean like the US? Are you disarming your WMDS? Are you not on an ill-defined WAR ON TERROR? Are you not selling arms?
Quotesurely the international community should take notice and use reasonable steps to prevent said country from acquiring dangerous technologies? And use incentives and rewards to encourage them to embrace peaceful means? Iraq, if nothing else, has shown us why we shouldn't invade countries based on what we think we know. But history has certainly shown us that we shouldn't just sit idle and let threatening nations arm themselves to the teeth.
Yes definately! Apply diplomatic pressure, use foreign aid as leverage, play the political game. I am saying, in the end, I don't see the reason for an agressive military step like oh... going to war, over
intentions, suspicions and lies. That's what the US have been doing for the last decade. If you ask yourself why, would you be able to answer truthfully: because in each case there was an understandable world threat that needed to be adressed, or would you answer: because the US seize the opening to solidify geopolitical footholds in an one-super-power powerplay?
And yes, please say it again. Say it clearly and like you believe it: Your country's goverment has deliberately misled the american people, it has fabricated evidence, spun falsehoods into useful propaganda in order to establish footholds outside it's own soil for want of power as an end in itself. Not because a nasty dictator is scary, but because it desires control and power. Say it.
You'll feel better.
Off topic, but Bush has kidnapped an helicopter, killed all the crew, and crashed it into a residential building in New York, where lived a person who had important information that could have taken him into jail, re-editing also the images of hysteria of the 9/11, helping in this way of making more popular the war on terror... Two birds for one bullet.
Just before the conspiraniods start to threw the shit, I' ll do it... ^_^
I don't see your point, Nacho. Are you talking to us, or to some other, theoretical conspiracy theorists that have yet to enter this discussion? And if you'd rather they didn't, why call them out like that?
It was a silly joke about conspiranoids (Bush launched a missile against the Pentagon, Nixon killed Kennedy, etc...) It was non related with the topic, and it' s horrible to make fun about planes crashing in buildings, I feel bad about that, and now I am sorry.
So, apologies for the thread and the bad taste.
EDIT: In my deffense, it' s slightly related with the thread, but I should ellaborate my point too much, and I don' t feel with strenghts to do it... :)
Again, sorry.
Sorry to go off-topic, but has anyone yet seen Death of a President? It's on Channel 4 next week :)
Come on Helm, admit that he completely and utterly tore down that Straw Man. Take that hypothetical posters!
QuoteAnd yes, please say it again.
Nah, I'm done with this silly little condescending game. I said this was an argument I didn't want to get into, because there's nothing to argue about, and I'm not going to have my words twisted into a defense of Bush or his policies. We're arguing about something we more or less agree about. I think I made it quite clear in my last post that I was merely trying to advocate diplomatic engagement in an international community to jointly resolve differences and deal with troublesome/rogue states instead of embracing isolationism and letting problems grow unchecked. As a part of this, I think it's important for citizens to keep themselves informed and engage in discussion so we can hold our governments accountable.
That's what I was attempting to do when I joined this thread, especially as some of the initial posts suggested that this issue was above our heads and we should just stick to our video games. I acknowledge I made a muddled point about Iraq that was generating the wrong response, and I've tried to clarify my position, keep the conversation civil, and steer it back to topic. Yet it's been repeatedly pulled back to the invasion of Iraq and has degenerated into baseless, off-topic accusations of my country which I have already freely admitted has acted wrongly. Since no one's bothered to respond to my comments on North Korea or engage in thoughtful discussion on any other topic, I'll assume there's nothing to talk to about.
The plot thickens! N Korea warn that any US sanctions imposed on them will be a "declaration of war", and they're preparing to test a second nuke. Although this is highly interesting I still find it highly worrying!
Don't worry, m0ds (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/16/usa_pleased_to_be_of_service/)
Interesting, thanks SHH. Oh well, nothing to be afraid of then :)
We might as well worry just as much about an asteroid/comet/meteor hitting the Earth or about global warming....... Both of those situations would be much worse then North Korea's tiny nukes......
N...no. Not at all...
North Korea makes a nuke, sells it to a group of jerks, the jerks detonate it in a city, thousands and thousands of people die.
I still don't get the 'nukes in the wrong hands' argument. Because US hands are sensible? Them being the only ones to have dropped such armaments in densely populated areas thus far?
I didn't say US hands are sensible.
A better argument is that since they do not appear to have succeeded in refining uranium, what bombs they're making will have to come from a very modest supply of plutonium from the existing reactors, which isn't worth many bombs. If they only have enough for a few, they have to decide whether having them on hand as a bargaining chip is worth more than the cash they'd get from selling them, and the former would have to be more attractive to those in power, even assuming that they found a buyer.
Wasn't sayin you did. Just don't understand the 'oh no, NOW nukes are terrible!' type of mentality that some people show whenever there's news of this or that dictator getting his own arsenal.
Quote from: m0ds on Wed 18/10/2006 01:15:40N Korea warn that any US sanctions imposed on them will be a "declaration of war"
I think North Korea is still technically at war with the U.S. and South Korea. Not much of a threat, is it? :)