Screw the Wii, lets talk nuclear bombs!

[EagerMind]

Errr... 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 and this article would suggest we still don't really know.

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 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" as the reason for developing nukes.

Really? 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.

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.

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?

And 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? 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.

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.

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.

[Helm]

Really? 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!

[voh]

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.

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.

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

[Nacho]

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!

[voh]

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.

[Nacho]

That' s true, as well... 

[Tuomas]

When did this thread get so boring?

[Helm]

ooh Tuomas is bored. Let's entertain Tuomas. This thread, as all others are here for his constant amusement.

[SSH]

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

[Tuomas]

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.

[Nacho]

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...

[Helm]

The definition of WMDS is contested, which is exactly what suits the US anyway.

[Kweepa]

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.

[EagerMind]

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?

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.

I 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 and this report might disagree.

Not that I'm condoning America's invasion ...

Do 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.

[Kweepa]

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.

I 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 and this report 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.

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.

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?

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.

[SSH]

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... 

[Nacho]

But still, a bit higher than in Serbia... no?

Or Normandy...

[Helm]

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,

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?

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.

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.

[Nacho]

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... ^_^

[Helm]

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?