More anti N. Korean propoganda

I don't know. Anyone who spends $600,000 a year on alcohol, probably shouldn't have nuclear weapons. That guy has issues.

What I really don't understand is why we need our 36,000 soldiers there? There's a million on each side. Why are we there anymore? If a war breaks out, all hell is going to break loose on the ground. Our best bet is in the air or at sea.

What I really REALLY don't understand is why that doofus would spend the fortune on a nuclear weapons program when his people are starving. What's worse is that he keeps blackmailing the world. He will ONLY stop the program if the USA signs a non-aggression pact with them. That's not negotiation, that's extortion.

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">Forum Assassin</A></font color=red>

I'm from the US and I don't like the fact that we tell other nations they can't have nuclear weapons yet we have them ourselves. On the other hand we don't have any political leaders as crazy as some of these other nations leaders. I agree with camie that the only way to quiet things is to have every nation undergo full eradication of nuclear weapons. Although we know that will not happen. I fear that a 3rd World War may not be to far off.

Crashman if you were in that situation here in the US I'm sure you would want other nations to get involved and end the suffering. Your right we're not suppose to police the world. The United Nations should be doing that, after all isn't that what they were created for? It's a shame that today we still have power hungry war mongers running 90% of nations today. I feel sad for the way the world is going.

<font color=red>My computer is like a woman, once a month I have to spend money on it.</font color=red>

I agree with some things u said and i just wanted to point things out. In most every case, when we are being "a big bully", it is based on a track record. Saddam in Iraq tried in the early 90's to completely wreak havoc on a small neighboring country. So the US fought him and kicked his rear and then said "so that you don't do this, or anything far worse than this again, we're going to make you agree not to make certain types of weapons". I never really saw that as too unreasonable.

If as a child (and countries do resemble children most often), if someone continously whacked your friend with a baseball bat until you worked hard taking away that bat, would you give it right back or hold onto it for awhile?

I'm just your average habitual smiler =D

Even if it reduces the chances that humans might actually continue to exist.

I'd be a bit more cynical about America's motives than that.

Call me - 1 900 MAN-MUCK

The only time you really, really hear of the UN is when it's efforts have failed. Usually the day to day running of things isn't exciting (if that's the word you would pick) enough for the press.

<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/viewtopic.php?t=324" target="_new">My System Specs</A> ~<font color=blue></b>

You've made my point succinctly!

"Should we allow"...what gives the US the right to 'allow' or not allow other nations to arm themselves. It's a U.N. matter. I'm no more for nations being armed for nuclear war than I am for the US being the only super power in the world.

Lets look at things here. All through the latter half of the 20th century the US did it's utmost to prevent any (not just Communist) nation from being too technologically (militarily) advanced in comparision to themselves. Why?

For defence? Probably, but why did the US bother to invade many nations on the grounds of freeing them? In many cases it was their choice (Freedom of Choice?) to choose Communism or whatever political leaning it happened to be. The US was a close ally of Argentina until the Falklands War. The ruling junta of the time had persecured, tortured and murdered many of their own, but because they were one of the only non-Communist nations in S.America they were 'friends'.

Bottom line being (and this had been standard American foreign policy for decades) if you're not for us, you're against us. First thing the US pressed Britain for at the end of WW2 was to give up portions of her Empire, simply because they knew they needed to divide and conquer wherever possible to become top dog. Now the UK is an aircraft carrier to the American military.

Anyway getting back to the point. Who has (without U.N. agreement) the right to stop a nation from arming itself? By equality I simply meant equal rights to arm yourselves from threats of perhaps larger nations who believe it's in their best interests to prevent this.

Oh please! Are you really trying to tell me that the US is squeaky clean on that old chestnut? Really?

...and where is it written that the US will be fully disarming their nuclear stockpile?

You're right on this. There <b>are</b> no perfect countries on this planet. To achieve the nuclear disarmament you mention, I think the US should lead by example.

<b><font color=blue>~ <A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/viewtopic.php?t=324" target="_new">My System Specs</A> ~<font color=blue></b>

When I say 'we', I mean you and I.

I hear this all the time. Unless the USA gives up their nuclear weapons, everyone should have the right to posess them. I think nobody should have them. Letting more people have them is not helping the situation.

I'm not arguing American policy. We can argue until we're blue in the face about right and wrong and in the end we'll find that everyone is both right and wrong. People love to bitch bitch bitch about the USA without a second thought. Let's not place blame on one country when the truth is that spreading nuclear weapons around is NOT good. Nobody seems to mention Pakistan's part in this either. That pisses me off too.

Also, don't forget that N Korea's argument is that they are defending themselves against American agression. They then go on to state that they will not build any nuclear weapons. What I really find odd though is that N Korea does not possess a delivery system capable of hitting any American targets beyond those few soldiers we have in south korea. So in order to protect themselves against american agression they would have to kill 1,000,000 south koreans. They might also be able to hit Alaska if they're lucky. What they can hit however is S Korea, Japan, China, and Russia. Even China and Russia who have supported N. Korea in the past are pissed off. This isn't just about the USA.

As a final solution to the whole problem, is it not possible for the UN to just pass a resolution banning all nuclear weapons? Isn't that the responsable thing to do? Which nation would veto it? Then again, who would see to it that they were all gone? It just takes one to wreak havoc...

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">Forum Assassin</A></font color=red>

so we should just let it happen? if you see some kid getting the [-peep-] beat out of him for his lunch money you would try to help right? its the same thing just on a much larger scale.

my computer is so fast, it completes an endless loop in less than 4 seconds!

Remember though that there are many extremists (and some do in fact control the government). People who believe that dropping one nuke in America is worth their entire country, family, way of life being destroyed are numerous. And considering that the rallies of N.Korea center on "holy war", they might consider drastic measures. I personally, though, agree with u on the fact that they are probably just trying to suck aid from us (which i haven't really taken a stand upon). Their people ARE dying from bad conditions and they do need help. However i don't agree with their tactics.

I'm just your average habitual smiler =D

Ah, but look at connecting issues, like the protest groups who gripe about multi-national corporations making themselves rich on the backs of third world populations, such as the Nike factory in Vietnam. Now a U.S. company is not welcome in Vietnam, I believe the factory is actually ran by Koreans who produce the shoes on contract with Nike. Anyway, protest groups claim that these people are poor only because U.S. companies have them produce products at phenomonally low labor rates, like $1.20 a day, etc. What they fail to consider is the fact that without that $1.20/day payment to the workers by outside sources, those people would have no money at all. And $1.20 a day is better than nothing.

Now, it's not just protest groups. Terrorist groups also hate us for "abusing" such people with these low labor rates, "stealing" natural resources by underpaying for them, etc. I say the best thing we could do is start withdrawing our business from such countries. Let them suffer. Because they blame US for their suffering whenever we offer them a way to get small amounts of money. They don't blame Germany, France, etc, they blame the U.S. because it's U.S. corporations behind most of these abusive sweatshops, etc. What I'm saying is that we can INCREASE their suffering and REDUCE the anger of our enemies all in one stroke by cutting them loose! Why increase their suffering? It certainly would prove that we aren't to blame!

There are other impoverished nations who would be more than willing to be cheap labor sources. Friendly nations who have seen that U.S. corporate "abuse" of their labor force bolsters their economies. So what if it cost us 30 cents an hour instead of $1.20 a day to make cloths in the carribean, they want our money, Asian countries don't. And the cost of those $65 shoes would raise from $4 a pair to $6 a pair, I don't think Nike would be hurt much by it! But it would go a long way towards improving international relations.

As far as the situation in the middle east, I think it's time to withdraw U.S. busninesses there too. If they want to sell oil here, let them ship it. When the U.S. no longer has a presense there, what can they complain about?

I've taken classes in Macroeconomics. I know the theories. I also know that we can produce things inexpensively in the U.S. and Mexico if we increase automation. In fact, Japanese companies have found that, using there automated processes, it's cheaper to build cars here for this market. There are a lot of things that could be produced here that aren't. And doing so would reduce unemployment and decrease the trade deficit.

China is pissed off that we sent millions or even billions of tons a year of CRT waste to their country. Vast areas of land there have become contaminated with toxic metals because of the dumping of these things. So they are closing their boarders to our trash. But guess what? Most of this stuff was PRODUCED there! Why BUY their toxic metals if they refuse to take them back? Can they blame US for their inability to recycle? We could easily produce CRT's in North America, and could easily set up a program that makes producers recycle them. Heck, it cost what, $5 more to recycle the materials in a monitor/TV than those materials are worth? Who wouldn't pay an extra $5 for a monitor? I mean, what does China DO with all that money they get from us, feed their people? NO, they build nukes that are pointed right back at us. In the end, dealing with comunist Asian countries is like paying for our own destruction. EVERYONE wants the U.S. to leave. I say let's go!

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>

Some of the horror stories I've heard about North Korea and their prison camps/weapons tests are just awful. And hasn't their brilliant leader amassed a large collection of Daffy Duck cartoons? He sounds wacko.

There won't be any action there anytime before action in the Middle East. Israel comes first in US policy, let's face it.

<font color=blue>
--------------------------------------------------
Guns kill people just like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
<font color=blue>

yes crash and so do those in iraq, the idea is that those people have been litteraly brain washed to believe that their government is a good one. How many of those people were educated and taught to think for themselves, they just accept the propaganda their government puts out as truth. The world may not want the united states to interfere just like a child may not want a spanking. It doesnt mean it won't do them some good. Weapons that can destroy our race must be kept under tight control and I do not believe that N.Korea should be allowed to have such a great responsibility. Perhaps if a nuclear missle fell on you you would understand the threat, they CAN be used and some people are just crazy and stupid enough to do it, I say keep it out of their hands.

smurf A- I saw you leave with smurfette
smurf B- oh man as soon as we got out of the bar she started smurfing me
smurf A- shut the smurf up
smurf A- right in the smurfing pariking lot?

Well, the thing was, once the UN was created, part of it's charter granted the US, USSR, England, France, and China (yes, China) the "right" to make and manufacture nuclear weapons. Now we all know that more countries have those weapons, like Pakistan, India, Israel, N. Korea will, and there are others I'm probably forgetting.

When you look at the Cold War, you see a game of brinkmanship going on, and the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Distruction) pretty much kept things from heating up too much (there were some scary times, thankfully I didn't have to live through more than the 80s).

Now, you have the problem of Russia possibly selling (or various people with access to them, not necssicarily the state) to other nations, such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc., and countries such as N. Korea that have nothing to lose (and in fact, everything to gain from) by developing missile and nuclear programs. The problem is that these countries have leaders who might not be the most caring about their country.... for all the rhetoric, it's not about national pride, but ego. They would probably give the command to launch from some distance from the country, and the go into hiding... probably leave only a token force, and hide everything else they can. Leaders of the US and USSR truely had pride in their nation, and did not really want their people (and power base... lets be honest) to evaporate in a mushroom cloud. There is nothing there to deter these "rouge" nations, other than a gun trained on their forehead.

Now, do I think that these nuclear programs are a threat to the US and Europe? No... they aren't ICBMs with multiple warheads and GPS guidance, but small, 500-2000 mile range rockets that are pretty much fired with the same precision of the V2 rockets in WWII by Germany at London and other English cities. Granted, it's "possible" that they could do a sea-based launch from off the coast... but I think it would be a sad state of affairs if a ship could slip past all those underwater microphones (the ones to detect Soviet subs... and now underwater sisemic activity) and the Pacific Fleet. Yeah, there are ways... but to be able to launch more than a shoulder mounted rocket (which has no range, and probably not able to carry more than a "dirty" bomb), you need a large platform... larger than most commercial ships, I'd think (would need a lot of ballast to support those heavy rockets and the launch platform, not to mention to make sure the force of the lauch didn't sink the ship). Too suspicious.

So at the end of the day, there are more things to worry about. N. Korea is something to worry about only because they can upset the balance of things in Asia... China, S. Korea, and Japan only coexist without killing each other because the West demands they do... there are too many grudges, many recent, to be forgotten about by now. The same is said about India and Pakistan... too many grudges, too many recent events that could turn it into a Hindu vs. Muslim fight... witness last year's rioting and killing on religious grounds when Muslims were attacked and killed by Hindus... it sparked a "war" that, if enacted on a worldwide stage would result in possibly a third of the world's population going to war (China isn't too fond of India or Pakistan, and wouldn't mind having a reason to claim some land that they think is theirs). WWIII isn't going to happen in America, Europe, or Africa... it will happen somewhere on the Asian continent, if only because the West arbitrarily divided up that land which wasn't in China's or Russia's hands into ways the created countries that had rival factions... as you can see in Kashmir or Iraq or Saudi or Iran or.... you get the point.

The West is now reaping the harvest of its days of Imperialism, when we made countries based not on national identity (such as how most of the West eventually settled out), but based on resources, outpost locations, and spheres of influence. Works fine if there is a strong internal force keeping everyone in check... but now there there is nothing really to hold those places together, and it's whoever was the most ambitious that grabbed power. India, if you disregard the Kashmir problem, it probably the most stable, since they do have the common religion working for them. China is stable mostly, only because the government is a strong internal force, and they have done a good job of instilling national pride.... you just have to disregard Tibet. Other than that, the area is a seething mass of age old wounds and worse, just needing the right spark to blow it all to bits. I have a feeling that, if people were smart, there would be a peaceful redrawing and redoing of geo-political boundries, but we all know that ain't going to happen.

BTW, I'm America... if that really makes any difference.

-SammyBoy

Some day, THG-willing, I shall obtain the coveted "Old Hand" title.

They only support their government because they have no ther choice. If they are even thought of being traitors they go straight to a prison camp. Gee let me see prison camp or support a government I don't believe in...which should I choose? There is a lot of talk about taking these "so called" leaders out of there leadership positions. Problem is that there will always be someone crazier to replace them. In the final days of man I believe one thing will be certain and that is Anarchy. In other words every man for themselves (for those who don't know what Anarchy is). Although now that I think about it, I'm not to sure even if Anarchy would ever come about. As humans it's in our nature to group with others and to seek solace with them. Well there goes my Anarchy theory. There are many good points being made here however. Maybe we need the world leaders to come here and do a little Sunday reading.

<font color=red>My computer is like a woman, once a month I have to spend money on it.</font color=red>

We're talking about ancient history and the word "If". You might as well give the Iberian peninsula to the Basques, and the British Isles to the Celts. Surely there is some sort of 'statute of limitations' when it comes to history?? Besides, the notion of a uniform, homogeneous state is a relic of the past. Zionism is exclusionary to all but the Semitic people, and involves the unavoidable issue of driving out people who are already living in the region.

<font color=blue>
--------------------------------------------------
Guns kill people just like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
<font color=blue>