north Korea

[Warrior]

They crashed the Nasdaq with this stunt!

[firmechicano831]

yeah no reason but the U.S knew that the Japanese would fight to the end. They were very loyal like the North Koreans and are stronger mentally then we are. The only way to stop them was to nuke them or else they would of won I think.

[Badgerman]

yeah no reason but the U.S knew that the Japanese would fight to the end. They were very loyal like the North Koreans and are stronger mentally then we are. The only way to stop them was to nuke them or else they would of won I think.

There is no excuse to bomb civilians........especially with nukes.......especially twice.........

[firmechicano831]

I believe that is Japan would of had nukes at the time of WWII they would of nuked us first. We all learned from it and it's why we are trying to avoid it happening again.

[Kärnfysikern]

We have been developing an anti-missile defense with limited success for ICBM's. It's costing a lot of money and has faced strong opposition from the left side of the House. Funny it would actually protect Western Europe as well as japan, canada and other Allies but we are the only ones footing the bill to develop it.

I think many nations feel its a waste of cash because it will never be anything but a very limited defense against maby a few icmb's. It would not be able to prevent a full scale launch. I guess european countries feels having nukes is enough of a deterant and the defense would be redundant.

I think however japan is co developing it with you guys? Or alteast are getting into it.

[Kärnfysikern]

yeah no reason but the U.S knew that the Japanese would fight to the end. They were very loyal like the North Koreans and are stronger mentally then we are. The only way to stop them was to nuke them or else they would of won I think.

No they could never have won. When the bombs where dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan was almost defeated. But the descision to bomb those citys was made to avoid a bloody invasion of japan.

[Kärnfysikern]

Well let me ask you a question USfighter; lets pretend that you are the president of Japan and responsable for all your citizens. If North Korea starts shooting nuks over your country what would you do"
1. Tell the U.N when the north koreans won't sit or listen to them?
2. Sanctions them on the exports you send over?
3. Call the U.S president and begg him to help you?
4. All the above and start building you're own missles and weapons?
5. other?

They have already done 1 and 2, but I doubt they would ever build there own nukes. Since ww2 Japan has been very pacifistic.

[Superhuman]

No they could never have won. When the bombs where dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan was almost defeated. But the descision to bomb those citys was made to avoid a bloody invasion of japan.

exactly! Japanese leaders actually came to the US and thanked our government for using the bomb because if we would have invaded, there would have been twice as many people killed on both sides.

[Ufa]

Use a small nuke. Wait until wind is blowing from the south.

[The OutLord]

What is the gole with NK:s Politic???

NK:s Leader Must have a fichbrain ore somthing!!
In my thought I belive the NK leader commit Human rigth crime when thay Put all of the mony in a war machine and other hand let the people of NK to starve.


It is unbelievable!
Just lock att all of this Marxsism Nation over the world.
Not even One stand fore the Kommunist Utopi!!
I wonder if thay even know what it stands for!!

Ha ha ha This leaders was born in the garbage tip..!!

[USfighterFC]

Well the U.S did have missles pointing at Cuba because it was communist like North Korea. They had missles that were 80 or so miles away from the U.S. We also did use nukes in Japan because they attacked us first on Pearl Harbor.

That's actually somewhat off. We used the atomic bomb on Japan so we could hopefully end the war quicker which in fact it did. The use of the weapon was so that the U.S. did not have to invade the Japanese mainland where hundreds of thousands of casualties just on the U.S. side was expected. When the U.S. prepared to invade hokaido island off of southern japan, american intel suspected there were 5 divisions of Japanese forces guarding the coastline. It wasn't learned until later that there were a full 13 divisions ready to fight. That's 1 island and a small one at that. There are 5 islands that make up the japanese mainland. in retrospect as savage as WWII was the use of atomic weapons actually saved countless lives. For weeks straight we used incendiary weapons on Tokyo which were killing 10's of thousands per night. if the U.S. was forced to fight the Japanese on their mainland then you could easily expect the casualty rates to run into the millions.

On to Cuba. The U.S. only began threatening nules against the island because the Soviets were secretly shipping nukes and ballistic missiles to the island. The missiles were capable of reaching upwards of NYC and Boston.

[USfighterFC]

There is no excuse to bomb civilians........especially with nukes.......especially twice.........

Actually it is a perfect excuse. I'm sorry to say that of course. Using 2 atomic bombs ended the war in two days. Before that, the Japanese had absolutely no intention of surrending and promised a fight on the Japanese mainland which in essence would have killed MILLIONS....very very easily. Two atomic weapons killed around 250,000 people but saved the Japanese people far a far worse consequence if they continued the fight.

[USfighterFC]

i see many of your points guys, and usfighter, you gave me some info i didn't know about involving this whole situation. i'm just not really into politics so i never heard about any of this until the recent developments.

i definitely agree that these guys are not the kind of people we'd want to have nukes, and i agree as well that they're being careless with them. all i'm saying is if a country is going to tell another that they can't have nukes, they certainly shouldn't have any themselves. that's like me telling you i have a gun and might use it on you one day but you aren't allowed to have one.

i'm just curious now as to who it is that decides who gets to have nukes and who doesn't and the reasoning behind it all? to me, it's just looking like a power trip on all sides of this.

I think that is somewhat over simplification. To me it's much more than saying that you cannot possess a gun. This is a gun that is capable of annhilating an entire city of people. Even when the shit hit the fan we never threatened North Korea with a nuclear strike or invasion, however we did say "We reserve the right" meaning if North Korea crosses that border, then it's on.

Everyone knows the last thing we want to do is fight North Korea. We have 30,000 American soldiers at the DMZ. They have over 1 million. Seoul lies within artillery range of North Korea. It's estimated that over 10,000 shells an hour would fall on Seoul with the amount of artillery North Korea has in the mountains just above the 38th parallel. It would be an absolute disaster.

[USfighterFC]

I think many nations feel its a waste of cash because it will never be anything but a very limited defense against maby a few icmb's. It would not be able to prevent a full scale launch. I guess european countries feels having nukes is enough of a deterant and the defense would be redundant.

I think however japan is co developing it with you guys? Or alteast are getting into it.

You're correct to a point I think. In the sense it would provide limited protection against a handful of ICBM's you're totally correct. However I think of it as this. When the gun was first developed it was a long musket that fired a single shot and took a lifetime to reload. Now weapons can fire thousands of rounds non-stop without reloading (Gattling gun). It all takes time to develop the science to it. It's impossible to just dive in and figure it all out right away which is what everyone wants. If we take the time to perfect the science than it is very feasible that instead of shooting down a handful of missiles we can shoot down hundreds if we had to.

[Phreak101]

China has already decided against economic sanctions along with Russia. Why? That is beyond me. Perhaps because they all shared the same history of being rogue, stalinist, closed off nations. North Korea can offer them nothing and yet they still side with them. With China it is more understandable for a variety of reasons; i.e. a war on the Korean Peninsula would spill over into China causing instability as well as the fact as why not have them be a thorn in the side of the opposition. As long as America is busy with North Korea they will not pay close attention to other things, such as the military machine China is becoming as well as the heavy industrial revolution it is going through.

China is against imposing sanctions because there would be 20 million North Korean refugees spilling into an already impoverished and overcrowded China. They don't want them there. Russia is doing it because..well...Russia still has a bruised ego from being an equal superpower to the U.S., and is now practially nothing. They have oil reserves up the ass in Siberia that they are hoarding, and they now have the same poltical agenda as China, the most populous nation on earth (ie greatest number of soldiers).

China's army + Russia's technology + NK's insanity = Big problems for the U.S. in the near future....

[spywizard]

i still say stop sending over the 1,000,000 tons of grain we send over there.. let them eat.. whatever it is they eat..

Korean Cabbage Kimchi
3 tablespoons plus 1 teaspoon pickling salt 6 cups water
2 lbs. Chinese (Napa) cabbage, cut into 2-inch squares
6 scallions, cut into 2-inch lengths, then slivered
1 1/2 tablespoons minced fresh ginger
2 tablespoons Korean ground dried hot pepper (or other mildly hot ground red pepper)
1 teaspoon sugar

[Kärnfysikern]

You're correct to a point I think. In the sense it would provide limited protection against a handful of ICBM's you're totally correct. However I think of it as this. When the gun was first developed it was a long musket that fired a single shot and took a lifetime to reload. Now weapons can fire thousands of rounds non-stop without reloading (Gattling gun). It all takes time to develop the science to it. It's impossible to just dive in and figure it all out right away which is what everyone wants. If we take the time to perfect the science than it is very feasible that instead of shooting down a handful of missiles we can shoot down hundreds if we had to.

I have to say I am doubtfull that the money put into the missile defense will ever be put to good use. Because it is easier to build a better missile than it is to uppgrade the whole system. So no matter how good the system get russia for instance will have missiles that can penetrate it.

Im not sure its worth the money put into it. But then again it aint my tax money and against a smal threat like N.Korea it might be effective.

I would not support any swedish participation in such a project though and I guess that is how most europeans feel. Untill we face a threat of a rouge nation.

[Kärnfysikern]

Putting harder economic sanctions against north korea seems like it would only further hurt the people whitout effect on the ruling elite??

It seems like the leaders of north korea doesnt care one bit about the suffering of the people...

[Phreak101]

Putting harder economic sanctions against north korea seems like it would only further hurt the people whitout effect on the ruling elite??

It seems like the leaders of north korea doesnt care one bit about the suffering of the people...

This is exactly correct. Kim Jong Il leads a more capitalistic lifestyle than anyone of us can imagine. He drinks Scotch, smokes Cubans, dines on French cuisine, drives fast cars, etc., yet his people starve. He is pretty much just like every other megolomaniacal sociopath leader that preaches against the west yet lives like Donald Trump. (Sadamm anyone?)

It's a good tactic really. It feeds on the envy, jealousy, and anger of the impoverished, making it sound like the U.S. is a bunch of fat hogs plundering the world of it's resources, and that keeps his people chanting against the West, while keeping him in power. The West then sends these nations food and supplies to shut them up, they squander it and sell it off for money, the ruling elite live like kings, the people continue to starve none the wiser, and then it happens again in 6 months.

All in all, Kim Jong Il needs a good

[USfighterFC]

This is exactly correct. Kim Jong Il leads a more capitalistic lifestyle than anyone of us can imagine. He drinks Scotch, smokes Cubans, dines on French cuisine, drives fast cars, etc., yet his people starve. He is pretty much just like every other megolomaniacal sociopath leader that preaches against the west yet lives like Donald Trump. (Sadamm anyone?)

It's a good tactic really. It feeds on the envy, jealousy, and anger of the impoverished, making it sound like the U.S. is a bunch of fat hogs plundering the world of it's resources, and that keeps his people chanting against the West, while keeping him in power. The West then sends these nations food and supplies to shut them up, they squander it and sell it off for money, the ruling elite live like kings, the people continue to starve none the wiser, and then it happens again in 6 months.

All in all, Kim Jong Il needs a good

Couldnt have put it better myself.

[spywizard]

No they could never have won. When the bombs where dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan was almost defeated. But the descision to bomb those citys was made to avoid a bloody invasion of japan.

werd

[bigpapabuff]

That's no reason to bomb civilians

I agree that we should never have to bomb civilians, but I am not against the bombing of Japan. Think of how many tens of thousands of american lives, and Japanese lives, it would cost to take Japan by force with a ground assault. Think of D-Day, I know this is one of the first things I think of when thinking about WWII because of how terrible it was. That's what daily battle would have been against Japan. Know matter where we attack we would have been storming the beach.

To avoid that the US decided to drop the bomb, which I'm sure was a terrible and tough decision. That was when it fell into the hands of Japan, the reason for that bomb was to force surrender, hence save tens of thousands of American lives, but what did Japan do? They didn't surrender forcing a second bomb. I know that dropping the bomb was terrible but more than the US's decision it was Japans decision, at least their emperors.

I know it's terrible to kill civilians, but at what point is a Japanese civilian's life worth more than an American soldier's life.

[Logan13]

i see many of your points guys, and usfighter, you gave me some info i didn't know about involving this whole situation. i'm just not really into politics so i never heard about any of this until the recent developments.

i definitely agree that these guys are not the kind of people we'd want to have nukes, and i agree as well that they're being careless with them. all i'm saying is if a country is going to tell another that they can't have nukes, they certainly shouldn't have any themselves. that's like me telling you i have a gun and might use it on you one day but you aren't allowed to have one.

i'm just curious now as to who it is that decides who gets to have nukes and who doesn't and the reasoning behind it all? to me, it's just looking like a power trip on all sides of this.

What if, from your example above, the person who wanted the gun was Charles Manson. "Better give Chuck a gun, we must be fair." I do not call that being fair, I call it being naive and stupid. BTW, The US has never threatened nuclear weapons on n korea, actually the reverse is true.
So is it your assertion that only the US is wanting n korea do get rid of it's nukes? The world is in on this one, not just the US. I suppose you would have been supportive of Hitler having a nuke as well.....Let's throw some common sense into this and get the politics and uninformed opinions out of the mix. Your sense of fair play was absent in regards to the hundreds of thousands of n korean civilians killed by the n korean gov't or the 300,000 bodies found stacked in mass graves in Iraq. Do you not have any outrage over how these human beings are being mistreated(unfairly), Where is your sense of fair play on this? Or do you just arm-chair quarterback the US only. If the US is such a bad place, perhaps you should pursue a better life in Iraq or n. korea......
Guys, this is the real world. This theoretical thought process that you have may be good for the creative arts, but it is an impractical and silly process in regards to Geo politics.
-Logan13

[kis55]

What if, from your example above, the person who wanted the gun was Charles Manson. "Better give Chuck a gun, we must be fair." I do not call that being fair, I call it being naive and stupid. BTW, The US has never threatened nuclear weapons on n korea, actually the reverse is true.
So is it your assertion that only the US is wanting n korea do get rid of it's nukes? The world is in on this one, not just the US. I suppose you would have been supportive of Hitler having a nuke as well.....Let's throw some common sense into this and get the politics and uninformed opinions out of the mix. Your sense of fair play was absent in regards to the hundreds of thousands of n korean civilians killed by the n korean gov't or the 300,000 bodies found stacked in mass graves in Iraq. Do you not have any outrage over how these human beings are being mistreated(unfairly), Where is your sense of fair play on this? Or do you just arm-chair quarterback the US only. If the US is such a bad place, perhaps you should pursue a better life in Iraq or n. korea......
Guys, this is the real world. This theoretical thought process that you have may be good for the creative arts, but it is an impractical and silly process in regards to Geo politics.
-Logan13

A big fat amen to that. Cutting through BS is certainly your forte!

[zodiac666]

What if, from your example above, the person who wanted the gun was Charles Manson. "Better give Chuck a gun, we must be fair." I do not call that being fair, I call it being naive and stupid. BTW, The US has never threatened nuclear weapons on n korea, actually the reverse is true.
So is it your assertion that only the US is wanting n korea do get rid of it's nukes? The world is in on this one, not just the US. I suppose you would have been supportive of Hitler having a nuke as well.....Let's throw some common sense into this and get the politics and uninformed opinions out of the mix. Your sense of fair play was absent in regards to the hundreds of thousands of n korean civilians killed by the n korean gov't or the 300,000 bodies found stacked in mass graves in Iraq. Do you not have any outrage over how these human beings are being mistreated(unfairly), Where is your sense of fair play on this? Or do you just arm-chair quarterback the US only. If the US is such a bad place, perhaps you should pursue a better life in Iraq or n. korea......
Guys, this is the real world. This theoretical thought process that you have may be good for the creative arts, but it is an impractical and silly process in regards to Geo politics.
-Logan13

very well put

[ascendant]

What if, from your example above, the person who wanted the gun was Charles Manson. "Better give Chuck a gun, we must be fair." I do not call that being fair, I call it being naive and stupid.

i never once indicated allowing north korea to have nuclear weapons was ever a good idea. all i stated is that it's not our business to tell another country what they can and can't do, especially when we're telling them they can't possess something that we do because we don't see eye to eye with them. of course the US isn't going to want them to have nukes for that reason, but that doesn't mean we're right.

if it weren't for us arguing with them about being able to have nukes, we'd have no issues with them to even be concerned about at this point. what's causing the concern for them using them is all the other countries making a fuss about it and harassing them. if we'd just leave them alone, they wouldn't have a reason to use the nukes. again, not saying i think they should possess nukes, but what we're doing right now is aggravating the situation.

BTW, The US has never threatened nuclear weapons on n korea, actually the reverse is true.
So is it your assertion that only the US is wanting n korea do get rid of it's nukes? The world is in on this one, not just the US.

what is the point in having nukes if you would never use them? time and time again, n korea's threats have proven to be hollow. however, the US has continuously intervened in other countries affairs when they had no business to. that's the reason Bin Laden hates the US and why 9/11 happened.

also, i see this situation as a similar relation to the old saying "it's the silent ones you have to worry about". we don't talk about using our nukes, but you know very well if that's what it would take to win a war, the US govt would not hesitate to use them in a heartbeat rather than lose. the only reason they don't is because they're more powerful. that's not more civilized, that's simply being more powerful. if n korea was in a place of higher power, they'd have no need to threaten with nukes either. it's a matter of desperation.

i'm also well aware that the UN is concerned as well and not just the US. however, the UN also wanted the US to not go to war with Iraq, finding it's justification and insubstantial evidence for any legitimate reasoning unfounded, yet our govt disregarded the UN. the UN's intents are to keep more countries from possessing nukes and the intent is clearly understandable, but it's just hypocritical.

I suppose you would have been supportive of Hitler having a nuke as well.....

that's just ridiculous and i can't believe you'd make a relation to this situation such as that.

Let's throw some common sense into this and get the politics and uninformed opinions out of the mix. Your sense of fair play was absent in regards to the hundreds of thousands of n korean civilians killed by the n korean gov't or the 300,000 bodies found stacked in mass graves in Iraq. Do you not have any outrage over how these human beings are being mistreated(unfairly), Where is your sense of fair play on this? Or do you just arm-chair quarterback the US only. If the US is such a bad place, perhaps you should pursue a better life in Iraq or n. korea......
Guys, this is the real world. This theoretical thought process that you have may be good for the creative arts, but it is an impractical and silly process in regards to Geo politics.
-Logan13

i know how twisted n korea is. however, our history books grossly twist the history of the US to cover our bloody past as well. fighting england for our "freedom", who were the ones who provided us with the means to get to what we now know as the US. killing off the indians to spread across this nation. numerous wars to establish borders to our nation of how much we can "control. not saying n korea is better by any means, but our countries history is very questionable as well. after all, we slaughtered almost all the indians, leaving what was left on "reservations" where we "allowed" them to be. now imagine how many indians were slaughtered for what we now know as the US. all countries make mistakes. if you read history books in countries other than the US, you'd find quite a different picture painted than what you see here.

i'm personally against war in all aspects, save for a very very select few extreme circumstances where it's intent is to save innocents or something similar where it's intended outcome is truly benevolent and not just about conflicting beliefs of different countries/nations. war just creates more division and more hate. since the iraq war, there are more people in more countries now that hate the US than ever, including many in iraq.

as i've already stated, i don't think n korea having nukes is a good idea for concerns of the fact they might use them. my entire point is just that it's hypocritical to tell someone they can't possess what you do. though we see them as twisted, i'm sure they see us the same way.

[Oki-Des]

It would never happen. Nobody will ever make it that close to him. We have absolutely ZERO intel on North Korea. Not a single agent in the CIA has ever penetrated there. But if he was assassinated a general of the armed forces would most likely succeed him for the time being. And all their generals are the ones pushing him to be more hawkish and begin pressing the action.

It is not that I do not beleive you, but how do you know this? This seems like something that the president himself may not even know but could be true, couldnt it? I mean after the liberals all made it nearly impossible to hire people of this nature, maybe it all went underground.

[Teabagger]

Your very long post was quite illumative of how the revisionist history taught in primary and secondary schools, along with colleges has been a prime cause of our own citizens hating their country. And don't respond by saying you don't hate your country...you do...its all too apparent in your other posts as well. I find it sad that several generations now have been poisioned by the public school systems that are run by left wing, socialist, America hating "scholors", (I use that term very loosesly here).

I find it hard to understand how people like you, who are obviously on such a higher moral plane, continue to live and work in such a horribly despicable, war mongering, oppressive, hypocritical, and ignorant country. I would think each day for you must be terrible. My question is really, why don't you and those of your philosohy move to a country that shares your philosohy and exists in such a highly moral and fair state??

[Kärnfysikern]

Your very long post was quite illumative of how the revisionist history taught in primary and secondary schools, along with colleges has been a prime cause of our own citizens hating their country. And don't respond by saying you don't hate your country...you do...its all too apparent in your other posts as well. I find it sad that several generations now have been poisioned by the public school systems that are run by left wing, socialist, America hating "scholors", (I use that term very loosesly here).

I find it hard to understand how people like you, who are obviously on such a higher moral plane, continue to live and work in such a horribly despicable, war mongering, oppressive, hypocritical, and ignorant country. I would think each day for you must be terrible. My question is really, why don't you and those of your philosohy move to a country that shares your philosohy and exists in such a highly moral and fair state??

I think you are overreacting to his posts. Its one thing to hate a country and a whole different thing to be against the actions of the goverment(both past and present).

There isnt a country in this world that doesnt have a dirty past. Its something everyone should be aware of so that we can prevent it from happening again.

Hating what the american goverment did to indians isnt hating america. It would be like saying a german that hates nazis hate germany, or that I hate sweden because I dislike some of the things former swedish kings have done.

[Phreak101]

BOLD

i never once indicated allowing north korea to have nuclear weapons was ever a good idea. all i stated is that it's not our business to tell another country what they can and can't do, especially when we're telling them they can't possess something that we do because we don't see eye to eye with them. of course the US isn't going to want them to have nukes for that reason, but that doesn't mean we're right.

The United States is an acknowledged world superpower. If we are going to have countries begging us for support and demanding that we act to intervene (Mogadishu, Rwanda, Bosnia, etc) then the rest of the world better put up or shut up when it comes time for us to make some demands. Plain and simple.

if it weren't for us arguing with them about being able to have nukes, we'd have no issues with them to even be concerned about at this point. what's causing the concern for them using them is all the other countries making a fuss about it and harassing them. if we'd just leave them alone, they wouldn't have a reason to use the nukes. again, not saying i think they should possess nukes, but what we're doing right now is aggravating the situation.

Kim Jong Il has constantly sent open threats against the United States for the sole reason of beign bought off by the U.S. We cannot go after North Korea and his lunacy because of China and Russia and he knows it. his country is flat broke because they have one of the biggest standing armies in the world, so the only way he can get some semblance of a GDP is to extort the U.S. with nonsense rhetoric and hollow threats, backed by the power of nukes. We are NOT aggravating the situation by any means, he is.

what is the point in having nukes if you would never use them? time and time again, n korea's threats have proven to be hollow. however, the US has continuously intervened in other countries affairs when they had no business to. that's the reason Bin Laden hates the US and why 9/11 happened.

What's the point of learning how to fight if you are never going to fight? To be prepared that's why. You know why I don't mess with Chuck Liddell? Because he'll beat my ass and I know it. Same logic. And 9/11 did NOT happen because the U.S. is intervening in the affairs of other countries. There are many theories but the one that holds the most water is the U.S. backed support of Israel. We are seen as Zionist supporting infidels to these people. We got bombed for supporting an ally. Same thing happened in WW2.

also, i see this situation as a similar relation to the old saying "it's the silent ones you have to worry about". we don't talk about using our nukes, but you know very well if that's what it would take to win a war, the US govt would not hesitate to use them in a heartbeat rather than lose. the only reason they don't is because they're more powerful. that's not more civilized, that's simply being more powerful. if n korea was in a place of higher power, they'd have no need to threaten with nukes either. it's a matter of desperation.

And why would we hesitate? If you had Chinese soldiers rolling up into your yard threatening to torture your family and throw you in prison, would you be against the power of nuclear weaponry putting a stop to all of that? Of course not. How about if you had to choose between your son's life and the soldiers and civillians of a country you are at war with? Be reasonable...

i'm also well aware that the UN is concerned as well and not just the US. however, the UN also wanted the US to not go to war with Iraq, finding it's justification and insubstantial evidence for any legitimate reasoning unfounded, yet our govt disregarded the UN. the UN's intents are to keep more countries from possessing nukes and the intent is clearly understandable, but it's just hypocritical.

Incorrect statement. As a whoel the UN majority backed the United States, it was the major Veto Powers that did not unanimously agree. Would you give a murderer 10 years unguarded to tell you where he his his bodies? No. So why was Sadamm allowed 10 years without weapons inspections? Attempting to keep the most destructive technology known to man out of the hands of people who have no intent but war is NOT hypocritical.



i know how twisted n korea is. however, our history books grossly twist the history of the US to cover our bloody past as well. fighting england for our "freedom", who were the ones who provided us with the means to get to what we now know as the US. killing off the indians to spread across this nation. numerous wars to establish borders to our nation of how much we can "control. not saying n korea is better by any means, but our countries history is very questionable as well. after all, we slaughtered almost all the indians, leaving what was left on "reservations" where we "allowed" them to be. now imagine how many indians were slaughtered for what we now know as the US. all countries make mistakes. if you read history books in countries other than the US, you'd find quite a different picture painted than what you see here.

Brush up on your history man. Taxation without representation, plain and simple. The Indians? We tried to trade with them, there were even Indians who colloborated with US troops to bring down rival tribes! It's real easy to bash the big boy, but cmon examine the facts. Of course you're going to see a different history than the one the U.S. is portraying. History is written by those who win wars. It's all about who you're hearing it from. You wouldn't be sitting on your comp bashing this country today if it wasn't for the "bloody past" of the U.S.

i'm personally against war in all aspects, save for a very very select few extreme circumstances where it's intent is to save innocents or something similar where it's intended outcome is truly benevolent and not just about conflicting beliefs of different countries/nations. war just creates more division and more hate. since the iraq war, there are more people in more countries now that hate the US than ever, including many in iraq.

as i've already stated, i don't think n korea having nukes is a good idea for concerns of the fact they might use them. my entire point is just that it's hypocritical to tell someone they can't possess what you do. though we see them as twisted, i'm sure they see us the same way.

Alright, when they start a war with japan that we are sucked into, you let me know how hypocritical it was when millions are dying ebcause we let them have nukes.

[Logan13]

BOLD

Thank you for taking the time and saving me the typing by posting your retorts. Well put.

-Logan13

[Kärnfysikern]

What options exist regarding N.Korea??

1. War.
Totaly unthikable. It would mean the instant death of 30 000 american soliders and uncountable deaths in south korea.

2. Sanctions.
This will only hurt the population of N.Korea more, it wont effect the leaders at all.

So what other options are there? What can the world do besides just poiting there fingers saying "dont do that"?? All actions seems to costly in terms of lifes lost.

[RA]

You gave the options:

Sanctions
War
Do nothing


You know I did hear that one of those missles might have been shot down.

[Kärnfysikern]

Aim not ascendant but Im gonna answere anyway...

The United States is an acknowledged world superpower. If we are going to have countries begging us for support and demanding that we act to intervene (Mogadishu, Rwanda, Bosnia, etc) then the rest of the world better put up or shut up when it comes time for us to make some demands. Plain and simple.

Wrong. The world has no obligation to do anything that the US demands. None.

[Kärnfysikern]

You gave the options:

Sanctions
War
Do nothing


You know I did hear that one of those missles might have been shot down.

That would certanly prove me wrong on my scepticism towards the missile defense. Lets se if there is any official word.

Which of those 3 options do you think is best?

[Phreak101]

Aim not ascendant but Im gonna answere anyway...




Wrong. The world has no obligation to do anything that the US demands. None.

I never said they did. I just said put up or shut up. I believe we have somewhat of a privledge to be catered to because of our contributions to this world no? Demands are one thing, polite suggestions are another.

[RA]

He pointed one of those ICBMS at Hawaii. Thats provocation.

Condemnation from the U.N. (which no one takes serious) then direct talks between the U.S. and North Korea. I would not open our pocket books but they need to know we are just as serious as they are.

If they pull out-sanctions. If that doesnt work-war.

[Kärnfysikern]

I never said they did. I just said put up or shut up. I believe we have somewhat of a privledge to be catered to because of our contributions to this world no? Demands are one thing, polite suggestions are another.

Well it depends. To me aid for instance is given without any strings attached. Like a christmas gift.

America has done alot of good and alot of bad just like most other nations.

Demands regarding north korea and to some extent Iran though I back fully and I hope sweden officialy does aswell. But telling the world to shut up regarding the Iraq war for instance isnt right.

It all depends on the nature of the demands and the situation.

American can be seen as hypocrits because they more or less support india and israel to have nukes despite the Non-Proliferation while they oppose Iran and N.Korea. Offcourse IMO India and Israel can handle them while Iran and N.Korea cant.
But to stay true to the treaty USA should be openly oposed to Israeli nukes aswell and not support Indian nuclear industry. Otherwise the whole thing is just a joke and the NPT is the best hope we have of keeping this world free of nuclear weapons. I have to say that the UK is just as hypocritical though because they helped israel develop there nukes.

[Kärnfysikern]

He pointed one of those ICBMS at Hawaii. Thats provocation.

Condemnation from the U.N. (which no one takes serious) then direct talks between the U.S. and North Korea. I would not open our pocket books but they need to know we are just as serious as they are.

If they pull out-sanctions. If that doesnt work-war.

But the worst case scenarion in case of war is a nuke dropping on tokyo and Seoul beeing destroyed by conventional weapons. Millions of lifes could be lost. Is it worth it to keep N.Korea nuclear free?

[RA]

But the worst case scenarion in case of war is a nuke dropping on tokyo and Seoul beeing destroyed by conventional weapons. Millions of lifes could be lost. Is it worth it to keep N.Korea nuclear free?

Its not about the nukes. N Korea does this every couple years to shake us down. If they actually thought we were serious they would stop. You dont deal with a bully by giving him what he wants time after time.

Besides...we could carpet bomb the place with nukes. They know that.