It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: North Korea Warns UN Sanctions Will Be a `Declaration of War'

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I agree that my posts have warranted name calling. When you can't argue with someone on logical grounds, that's the time to resort to name calling. Perhaps if you were a better man my post wouldn't have warranted name calling.
Some times irrationality can be met in kind and I dont think questioning my integrity as a man puts you above it.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
Not analogous at all. The North Koreans can't take us right now- they could destroy a city or five- nothing compared to having a maniac's regime with the ability to wipe out our entire country.
If we'd knocked the snot out of the Soviet Union when they first got the bomb, before they had enough to destroy us, we could have ended the coldwar and invested in something worthwhile with all that money that went in to defense just to keep us from being anhilated.
I think youre missing one very important historical fact. The United States entered into the Cold War arms race at the same time as the Soviet Union so assuming the USA had vastly more nuclear weapons is false. There was virtual parity in nuclear stockpiles so your pre-emptive nuclear war would of not seen the United States as the victor. To assume anything else is a lie. A pre-emptive War back in the 1950's would of ended in both countries facing similar levels of destruction.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
Be more specific if you don't mind. Are you referring to a war with Korea or a war with the USSR when they were at the stage North Korea is at today?

What dont you get about the "United States" and "Europe"? How can I be more specific? I was refering to the fall out generated from the USA and the Soviet Union coming to nuclear blows. The fallout from that would of contaminated all of the USA and Europe - specific enough for you? If I was talking about a war with North Korea then obviously the fall out would affect Eastern Asia now wouldnt it.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'd be interested in hearing how you figure the few nukes it would take to destroy the Korean nuclear program and military would be enough to wipe out the world.
So would I considering I never said that.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
Same for taking out the Soviets early on. We could have crippled them before they ever stood up with just a few bombs. Waiting until they built enough to cause a major war was exactly the problem.
Just how would you carry that off when the United States had comparable nuclear weapons at the time? Your trying to compare historical apples and oranges here.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
We're on the back edge of the window of opportunity with North Korea. North Korea should have been destroyed back in 96 when they fired a stragetic missile over Japan to test their capability to launch MIRVs.
With what justification? Because they test fired a missile? Well stop the presses, they must be the first country to ever do that. As said earlier, where are they meant to test fire missiles? Into mainland China or South Korea? Or is it more to the point that you think the North Koreans have no right to any military technology whatsoever. This is the crux of the American foreign policy, they are loathed to have to fight against countries with half a chance. Their foreign policy is an extention of their military to limit potential rivals means to fight wars regardless of purpose be it of agression or self-defence.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
This status quo can not endure. This status quo is allowing developments which threaten to destabilize it, not to mentionn cause even more deaths that a war would cost right now. The current status quo stands idle while every maniac in the world pursues weapons of mass destruction. Take a gamble at forcing a sollution, and if it doesn't work destroy the maniacs and the status quo along with them.
Youre talking like your country has the moral authourity over the entire planet. Just where is it written that the United States is the epitome of how a country should be run. Youre saying that all dissenting opinion on how countries are administered should be wiped out. Newsflash buddy, you dont solve differences with killing unless your prepared to be on the recieving end of it yourself. If youre prepared to embark on the destruction of other countries over differences then dont complain if other countries seek to destroy your country.



Originally posted by The Vagabond
We're not talking about "sh*ts and giggles". It's not that I just want to see the mushroom clouds rise. I don't know if you're paying attention to the world we live in, but this is a dangerous age we are entering. People who believe in blackmail, and people who have religious beliefs which may not be deterred by MAD are gaining access to nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.
Really? What currently is the driving force in World conflict? Who has invaded 2 countries in the last 5 years? Your highlighting a problem but overlooking at the cause of it all.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
We seem to have suddenly forgot the lessons of the mid 30s.

Now we seem to agree. The rise of Hitler was surrounded by fear-mongering with the crescendo coming with the burning of the Reichstag. He then used the fear he created to justify his invasions whilst other countries either bought into it or tried to appease him. Hmmm sound familiar?

Hitler = Bush
Burning of Reichstag = 9/11
fear of Jews = fear of terrorists (arabs)
a few countries in Hitlers Axis were Italy and Japan = a few countries in Bush's Axis are Britain and Australia
countries that tried to appease Hitler were Britain and the United States = Europe, Pakistan, India and Turkey are trying to appease Bush

Seems the United States and Britain learnt quite a lot from Hitler and the 1930's.

There will come a point when Bush overplays his hand and he will be met with a similar backlash that Hitler's seemingly invincible army faced. They will overstretch their military and, god willing, try to march on Moscow.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
The very lessons which have guided foreign policy for over 50 years, which gave us the common sense to stop maniacs like Saddam in 91, suddenly they are thrown out the window. The lesson is simple and must be remembered: When an aggressor is arming himself, you fight now or fight later. The longer you wait, the worse it will be.
Define a maniac, what exactly disqualifies President Bush from being questioned in the same light as Saddam Hussein? He's directly responsible for thousands and thousands of innocent civilian deaths around the globe. Reasoning and intentions dont change that fact. Its a matter of interpretation and youre answer of bombing the hell out of those you interpret as a threat could bite you in the ass.




posted on May, 1 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I agree that my posts have warranted name calling. When you can't argue with someone on logical grounds, that's the time to resort to name calling. Perhaps if you were a better man my post wouldn't have warranted name calling.
Some times irrationality can be met in kind and I dont think questioning my integrity as a man puts you above it.


You are the one who chose to stoop to this level. Not only did you choose to do that, but you made a pathetic attempt at justifying it. So cry me a river if I gave you a dose of your own medicine.



Originally posted by The Vagabond
Not analogous at all. The North Koreans can't take us right now- they could destroy a city or five- nothing compared to having a maniac's regime with the ability to wipe out our entire country.
If we'd knocked the snot out of the Soviet Union when they first got the bomb, before they had enough to destroy us, we could have ended the coldwar and invested in something worthwhile with all that money that went in to defense just to keep us from being annihilated
I think youre missing one very important historical fact. The United States entered into the Cold War arms race at the same time as the Soviet Union so assuming the USA had vastly more nuclear weapons is false. There was virtual parity in nuclear stockpiles so your preemptive nuclear war would of not seen the United States as the victor. To assume anything else is a lie. A preemptive War back in the 1950's would of ended in both countries facing similar levels of destruction.
You stipulated the 50s. I did not. Going to the 50s bypasses the relevant timeframe of the cold war during which the Soviet Union's relationship to America was partially analogous to North Korea's at present (or especially a couple of years ago).
The United States gained nuclear weapons in 1945. The Soviet Union gained them in 1949. At any point during that time we could have destroyed Soviet military forces and industrial centers and made it impossible for them to become the threat they eventually did. Well guess what- it's 1949. If we don't act now we are going to find ourselves in a nuclear stalemate with North Korea which may very well lead to war. .


Originally posted by The Vagabond
Be more specific if you don't mind. Are you referring to a war with Korea or a war with the USSR when they were at the stage North Korea is at today?

What dont you get about the "United States" and "Europe"? How can I be more specific?
You ask a question.


I was refering to the fall out generated from the USA and the Soviet Union coming to nuclear blows.

You answer your own question.
Somehow I didn't put it past you to suggest that the entire would might be destroyed by the fallout from an exchange with Korea. Afterall, my initial point does regard a war with Korea, and in theory that is what you are arguing against, correct? Let me check the thread title... well I'll be danged, this is a North Korea thread.



The fallout from that would of contaminated all of the USA and Europe - specific enough for you? If I was talking about a war with North Korea then obviously the fall out would affect Eastern Asia now wouldnt it.

That would depend in large part on your own sanity, which I may have ever so slightly underestimated due to your first post. At any rate, you've now articulated your completely incorrect point and I will respond to it.
A few nuclear attacks around Moscow would hardly have been the death of Europe in the mid to late 40s. We could have crushed the Soviets with minimal force and without facing significant retaliation. The fallout from nuking Moscow have been no more deadly to Western Europe than the fallout from Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to China.
This analogy carries over to the current situation with North Korea. Our chance to nip the North Korean threat in the bud is rapidly passing us by.




Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'd be interested in hearing how you figure the few nukes it would take to destroy the Korean nuclear program and military would be enough to wipe out the world.


So would I considering I never said that.


So what exactly is your point? Are you just starting a fight over the Soviet analogy for sh*ts and giggles when you have no quarrel with my actual point that we have an opportunity to stop the Korean standoff before it gets out of hand?



Originally posted by The Vagabond
Same for taking out the Soviets early on. We could have crippled them before they ever stood up with just a few bombs. Waiting until they built enough to cause a major war was exactly the problem.
Just how would you carry that off when the United States had comparable nuclear weapons at the time? Your trying to compare historical apples and oranges here.


Repeat after me. The United States was the first nation in the world acquire nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union was the second.
Again, repeat after me, I will not ignore the relevant timeframe. I will try to get it around my head that the Soviet Union is being used as an analogy for the current situation with North Korea, and that North Korea does not have comparable nuclear weapons to the United States.



Originally posted by The Vagabond
We're on the back edge of the window of opportunity with North Korea. North Korea should have been destroyed back in 96 when they fired a strategic missile over Japan to test their capability to launch MIRVs.
With what justification? Because they test fired a missile? Well stop the presses, they must be the first country to ever do that. As said earlier, where are they meant to test fire missiles? Into mainland China or South Korea? Or is it more to the point that you think the North Koreans have no right to any military technology whatsoever. This is the crux of the American foreign policy, they are loathed to have to fight against countries with half a chance.

And you are displaying the crux of internationalist foreign policy: to ignore violations of international law unless they can be blamed on America.
North Korea reneged on the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. They reneged on the Framework Agreement. North Korea carried out an illegal nuclear weapons program in clear violation of its treaty obligations. Furthermore they have been deliberately provocative towards the United States and its allies at every turn, including violating Japanese airspace with their test of a Taepo Dong II missile.
There are two basic tracks for this argument to follow.
1. That Korea has a sovereign right to nuclear weapons which cannot be hindered by international law. If that is the case then America has a sovereign right to defend against any nuclear threat which is equally unfettered by international law, which strips you of any right to argue that it would be illegal for us to unilaterally make a preemptive strike on North Korea.
2. That North Korea is in clear violation of international law but that America has no right to do anything about it without the Security Council's say-so. This would likely be the preferred argument of an internationalist but implies that certain members of the Security Council have no will to enforce international law, placing the blame for any ensuring war squarely on the Axis of Appeasement, represented on the Security Council primarily by France and Russia, and perhaps in the future by another aspiring permanent member- Germany. In the interest of fairness though, I will acknowledge the equal part of China in this mess, as they have clearly been giving aid and comfort to an international criminal through their dealings with North Korea.



Their foreign policy is an extention of their military to limit potential rivals means to fight wars regardless of purpose be it of agression or self-defence.

As opposed to much of the world, whose foreign policy must act in lieu of their negligible military power by protecting belligerent violators of international law, who they hope will accomplish their strategic goals for them by checking the ability of the United States to defend its vital interests in key strategic areas.
This is the pot calling the kettle black by virtue of pursuing different means- not different ends.



Originally posted by The Vagabond
This status quo cannot endure. This status quo is allowing developments which threaten to destabilize it, not to mentionn cause even more deaths that a war would cost right now. The current status quo stands idle while every maniac in the world pursues weapons of mass destruction. Take a gamble at forcing a solution, and if it doesn't work destroy the maniacs and the status quo along with them.

Youre talking like your country has the moral authourity over the entire planet.

When the proper authorities fail to enforce international law it falls upon any willing nation to take up the burden unilaterally. Let's break it down into real-world terms. Suppose that the police in your city were on the take and did nothing to prevent a gangster from arming himself and his thugs to the teeth in a manner which could only threaten the peace and security of your city. Regardless of who holds a mandate to enforce the law, would it not fall upon any good man to organize a resistance to the threat without the assistance of the failed law enforcement agency?
In a word, yes, we do hold a moral right to stand in the way of a cruel tyrant who perpetuates a tremendous threat of war, even nuclear war now. We don't hold a legal mandate to do so, and you seem to be confusing moral with legal.


Just where is it written that the United States is the epitome of how a country should be run.

You're changing the subject, as I've found liberals are wont to do when faced with undeniable logic. The subject is not how a country should be run, it is the right of a nation to stand up to the belligerence of tyrants. Furthermore, you again confuse moral with legal. The law is written, morality is not necessarily.


Youre saying that all dissenting opinion on how countries are administered should be wiped out.

Again trying to shove words in my mouth because you can't defeat the clear fact that we have a right to check aggressors before they grow powerful enough to visit massive destruction upon the world. I take it that you are a European- probably British. As I understand it, most of the civilized world has a better education system than America. So I would infer that you've probably read about Hitler. Do you see where this is going, or should the American barbarian draw you a picture?


Newsflash buddy, you dont solve differences with killing unless your prepared to be on the recieving end of it yourself. If youre prepared to embark on the destruction of other countries over differences then dont complain if other countries seek to destroy your country.

Spoken like a true European (read coward). I've already made it clear that I'm prepared for this war to be a two-way affair, and living on the outskirts of LA, there's a pretty fair bet that if North Korea's missiles are any better than we generally suspect at all, I will be in the line of fire (not to mention that I'd be begging the Marines to let me back in, despite my back injury).
Do you not realize that tyrants only grow stronger and bolder when not challenged initially? How many lives might have been saved if Russia and America had joined the war against Hitler in the beginning, when Britain and France did? Who would have thought that those who had it right in '39 would have ended up doing exactly what nations of lesser resolve had done to them, while the later stepped forward?
I'll also correct you on another crucial point. It is not "differences" that we seek to eliminate by killing. It is a THREAT that we seek to eliminate.



Originally posted by The Vagabond
We're not talking about "sh*ts and giggles". It's not that I just want to see the mushroom clouds rise. I don't know if you're paying attention to the world we live in, but this is a dangerous age we are entering. People who believe in blackmail, and people who have religious beliefs which may not be deterred by MAD are gaining access to nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

Really? What currently is the driving force in World conflict?

The nations which arm rogue regimes, especially with the capacity to produce nuclear weapons. Pakistan and Russia would have to be the biggest offenders in terms of nuclear technology. North Korea and Iran have a nice little missile exchange going too.
America, Britain, France, Germany, China, and virtually every other major power have a lesser stake in it- dealing both in conventional weapons and in biological/chemical weapons.


Who has invaded 2 countries in the last 5 years? Your highlighting a problem but overlooking at the cause of it all.

You're right. We are overlooking the cause. We attack the problem (the little tyrants) but so far we haven't hit the big fish- Russia, Pakistan, NK, and Iran.



Originally posted by The Vagabond
We seem to have suddenly forgot the lessons of the mid 30s.

Now we seem to agree. The rise of Hitler was surrounded by fear-mongering with the crescendo coming with the burning of the Reichstag. He then used the fear he created to justify his invasions whilst other countries either bought into it or tried to appease him. Hmmm sound familiar?

Pick and choose, pick and choose. You love to compare our president to Hitler, but you hate to remember that your own nations are appeasing little dictators all over the world. You don't see America attacking neighbors who have done nothing to threaten us. Not analogous to Hitler's offensive moves at all.

Gotta cut short for work. We'll have to finish this later, assuming you have anything intelligent to say about how we should handle the current threats in our world. It's oh so easy to criticize. Let's see you come up with a better solution.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   
The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quotes in my last post should have been double-quotes. You will find statements from Subz not in quote boxes immediately below those quotes.

I wish I'd had more time to check that over before I left yesterday. Hopefully it won't be too tough to read.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
OK Vagabond heres the last reply from me, I'll refrain from direct quotes because I can see it confuses you when you try to reply.

You've still missed the point, and are wrong, of the reason why I mentioned how your concept of preventing large nuclear wars by starting one is flawed. After a few posts from me I cant seem to get my point across so, accepting my own failure on that, I'll quit on that analogy.

Let me try and articulate my whole position on the North Korean nuclear issue and how the United States figures into it. I'll try and make it simple, just how an ex-marine would like it


North Korea is a nuclear capable Communist nation and that does not sit well with the United States. It fought a Cold War for 30 years and does not intend to enter into another one.

US options:

1. Level North Korea with own nuclear weapons
2. Enter into another Cold War with North Korea
3. Diplomatically entice North Korea back to the negotiating table
4. Get International Sanctions placed on North Korea
5. A combination of the above 3

Whats the very essence of this whole North Korean problem? The very essence? Its "national security" for all countries involved (The United States, North Korea, South Korea, Japan and China). Your solution to this problem is to pre-empt a possible nuclear war by wiping out North Korea with U.S nuclear weapons. Am I correct so far? How does this work into the very essence of the problem?

Well for starters North Korea is gone, but what are the implications for the remaining countries "national security"?

Is the United States safer because of this pre-emptive nuclear strike? Yes and no, its safe from North Korea obviously as its a pile of ash but what now? The "national security" of every other country in the world is in jeapordy now. Does the United States now nuke Iran? and every other nuclear capable country because they possibly could nuke the United States? Pre-nuclear annihilation of North Korea the answer to that question would of been "ofcourse not" but since the precedent of nuclear destruction of North Korea has been set by the World's supposed world leader then all bets are off. Its now OK to nuke those countries that threaten you. The first dominoe has fallen and the shockwaves of that will be felt everywhere.

Every itchy trigger finger on the planet will be poised to pre-empt their own wars. Some of these trigger fingers will be pointed at the United States (China and Russia) and because they do not know for sure if they will be next on the United States hitlist the chances of them launching their own pre-emptive wars skyrocket which brings us right back to square one only magnified a thousand fold. The United States's national security is in worse jeapordy now than it was before it vapourised North Korea.

Get me?

North Korea has obtained nuclear weapons as its the biggest stick a county can obtain in the defence of its "national security". Whether or not you agree with this is not up for question. It is assumed that nuclear weapons are a deterent by all countries, including the United States, they have never been pursued as offensive weapons at all. Their primary use is as a deterant.

Calling bluffs and pre-empting nuclear wars is the ONLY situation that will guarantee a nuclear holocaust.

Calling me a coward for not wanting to wage war is exactly what this European Brit would expect from an ex-marine. Ask yourself this, whats more cowardly? A man who confronts a threat with his mind and an empty hand or a man who shoots at everything that goes bump in the night.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
OK Vagabond heres the last reply from me, I'll refrain from direct quotes because I can see it confuses you when you try to reply.


Resorting to cheap shots once again I see. Maybe when you grow up and have a job you'll understand the concept of not having all the time you'd like to be sure you haven't botched the board code.


Let me try and articulate my whole position on the North Korean nuclear issue and how the United States figures into it. I'll try and make it simple, just how an ex-marine would like it


Another cheap shot, but not one that I particularly contest. Some of my fellow jarheads, especially the younger ones, god love 'em, just aint the greatest thinkers of our time. We're not all a bunch of idiots though, but deep down I think you've gathered that in the course of having your historically inaccurate and logically flawed assertions destroyed, unless of course you're completely delusional, as of course many pacifists are.



North Korea is a nuclear capable Communist nation and that does not sit well with the United States. It fought a Cold War for 30 years and does not intend to enter into another one.


An obvious, if incomplete and grotesquely oversimplified truth. What you miss is the incredible potential for this cold war to go hot. It simply was not thinkable to take a decisive stand against the Soviet Union at any point beyond the early 50s. It will be decades before North Korea has quite that level of deterrence. Furthermore, the Soviet Union did not directly attack at any point which it was impossible for America to concede. North Korea may well cross this line though. The Soviets were messing with nations that the West had few ties to, few interests in, and no troops in. The North Koreans are messing with South Korea and Japan- modern nations with valuable economic relationships with America which host strategically important American bases. Indeed we cannot enter a new cold war, especially in this case. The only way to prevent this cold war is to draw a line in the sand and punish them if they dare to cross it.


US options:
1. Level North Korea with own nuclear weapons

Or just destroy their NBC capabilities without entirely leveling the nation. It's not a horrible option really, considering the tremendous potential for a larger and far more disastrous war if we do nothing at all. Of course you conveniently ignored that a credible threat may be enough to get the job done. Afterall, you have admitted that they are bluffing.


2. Enter into another Cold War with North Korea
3. Diplomatically entice North Korea back to the negotiating table

These options are one in the same. Attempting to appease North Korea only encouraged them. They built these weapons while we were pursuing that avenue, and when we called them on it they redoubled their belligerent efforts rather than show us any sign what so ever that negotiation and "enticement" (appeasement) could still be fruitful.


4. Get International Sanctions placed on North Korea

Are you schizophrenic? First you want to entice them back to the negotiating table, now you want to choke the life out of them? (and perhaps you think this will curb their belligerence, even though they can scarcely fail to be aware the the UN is spineless, toothless, and utterly incapable of taking decisive action when defied?
The UN has already proven completely impotent in the enforcement of sanctions at best, and at worst has shown that its sanctions are nothing but a rape scheme designed to create lucrative black markets at the expense of people who suffer under rogue regimes. Sanctions only work when enforced and used as the first in a series of escalating consequences for non-compliance. If you look back at my earlier posts, I said that the UN should pursue sanctions simply to show North Korea that their saber-rattling doesn't work. I stand by that. I add however that in and of themselves, the sanctions will be virtually meaningless, although they will be at least somewhat beneficial to slowing the advancement of the North Korean threat if China and all other nations (including America, which dirtied its hands in oil for food) actually honor them (which obviously didn't happen in Iraq and probably won't happen in North Korea.). Ultimately, if we're going to be pacifists, and if we aren't going to stand up to Kim Jong Il should he keep crossing the line, then there is no point in introducing sanctions which will do nothing but further victimize those living under Crazy Kim's yoke.

So what you have really done here is submit a list of cuddly sounding non-solutions and an ugly misrepresentation of the REAL solution in an attempt to create a "forced choice" which corners the reader into agreement with your historically indefensible pacifist viewpoint. Your goal continues to be to press a pacifist agenda of peace at any price, not to address the problem in a manner that considers resolution to be paramount.


5. A combination of the above 3


You have obviously misspoken here (since the above 3 would include entering a new cold war, which is presumably what the above 2 would be aimed at preventing), but in so doing have said something absolutely correct. If we pursue a self-contradictory policy of trying to entice them while trying to choke their economy, (which wouldn't work even on their own, much less when enacted together and thus canceling eachother out) we will indeed also do the 3rd item above- find ourselves in a new cold war- because it will not stop the arms race and the belligerence. The only way we could fail to find ourselves in a cold war over this is if we found ourselves in a shooting war instead- a prospect which would be DRAMATICALLY increased by following your doctrine of appeasement and inaction.


Whats the very essence of this whole North Korean problem? The very essence? Its "national security" for all countries involved (The United States, North Korea, South Korea, Japan and China). Your solution to this problem is to pre-empt a possible nuclear war by wiping out North Korea with U.S nuclear weapons. Am I correct so far? How does this work into the very essence of the problem?

You're not far off at least. If you look back to the beginning of this argument, I repeatedly referred to "drawing a line in the sand". My point is not only that fighting the small war now would be preferable to an apocalyptic one later (although make no mistake, that is an integral part of my point), but also that we may not even have to take it that far if we lay down the law and make the consequences unmistakably clear. As you have said, they are bluffing. As I have said, if we keep backing down their demands will get bigger, and that's when the bluff must be called and a war will be fought. What I propose then is that we call their bluff now. If it means war, so be it; better now than later. If this works, it banishes the specter of any war in the future, drastically improving the national security of all nations involved. If this fails, it drastically improves the national security of America and Japan, primarily at the expense of North Korea. South Korea at least will not be directly hit with nukes- better than they would get from fighting the war later. China, in either case, will be absolutely fine as long as they don't try to go to war with America. If there is to be a war, China stands to suffer less fallout if it's a small one-way affair right now, rather than a large two-way affair later.



The "national security" of every other country in the world is in jeapordy now. Does the United States now nuke Iran?


Almost certainly not. Do I really have to tell you why? OK, the dumb Marine will draw you a picture. In the first picture, imagine an Iranian mullah pondering what it would be like to be converted into heat and light by a nuclear explosion. In the second picture, imagine that same mullah pondering what it would be like to truly compromise and be seen as the savior of his people. IF North Korea foolishly crossed the line when we called their bluff and we crushed them for it, do you really think that Iran would cross that same line? Far from destabilizing the national security of every other nation in the world, this would DRAMATICALLY enhance the national security of every Persian Gulf nation, as well as Turkey, Afghanistan, and Israel. This in turn would give the Arab world (including Iran if they made the smart move and compromised away from their nuclear program) the moral highground to go after Israel's nukes in the UN. Hell, that could even be a condition of the compromise to abandon their program- US support in such an endeavor.


and every other nuclear capable country because they possibly could nuke the United States?

First you seem to be taking my comments on the merit of war now as opposed to later in isolation from my assertion that a line must be drawn and enforced by threat. This is EXACTLY what we would do if any other nuclear power were undertaking such belligerence with us. We wouldn't tell Russia "do whatever you want and we'll try to bargain with you because you have nukes". We'd say, and have said, "we have them too, so you don't want to go there".
Secondly, and of equal importance, the existing nuclear powers possess their arsenals in the name of deterrence. The new wave of proliferation has a dangerous aspect of blackmail and aspirations of regional hegemony to it (the later being particularly well illustrated by Iran). This type of proliferation warrants a higher level of preemption because it's nature is more aggressive and more conducive to "cold wars" going hot.


Pre-nuclear annihilation of North Korea the answer to that question would of been "ofcourse not" but since the precedent of nuclear destruction of North Korea has been set by the World's supposed world leader then all bets are off.

Only when you compare apples to oranges, as I have explained above. What do you think China would do to Taiwan if that nation was developing weapons of mass destruction to use as leverage against vital Chinese interests? The same thing I suggest that we do to Korea. Yet they wouldn't attack America just because there is a threat of future conflict. This is because the two scenarios simply are not analogous.



Get me?


I get that you don't get it, yes. Your school of thought creates major wars. My school of thought wins them.

Whether or not you agree with this is not up for question. It is assumed that nuclear weapons are a deterrent by all countries, including the United States, they have never been pursued as offensive weapons at all. Their primary use is as a deterant.

Deterrent against what though, that's the big question. We must question what a nation needs a deterrent for. The 5 nations permitted to have nuclear weapons under the NPFT are all global powers who have legitimate interests around the world which often conflict with one another. Their nuclear weapons serve to prevent them from warring with one another.
What actions might North Korea take which would be opposed unless they had a deterrent. An invasion of the Republic of Korea. Minor powers aspire to nuclear power so that they can act like major powers and assert their will on their neighbors without the major powers butting in. This is not a legitimate reason to need a deterrent.
I'll break this down Barney-style for you. Here are the reasons that every nuclear power in the world developed their nukes.
America- To preempt Axis development of the nuclear "super-weapon" and win the second world war. Russia- so that conflicts with America would not result in war. France and Britain- so conflicts with Russia would not result in war. China- so conflicts with US or Russia would not result in war. India- so conflicts with China would not result in war (These nukes are only legal because they predate the NPFT- there should be an effort to disarm) . Pakistan- so that conflicts with India could no longer result in war (should also make moves to disarm). Israel- so that their neighbors couldn't drive them into the sea (Because Israel lacks the broad interests and conflict with nuclear armed nations that global powers have, they have no right to these weapons and should be disarmed.) Then there is North Korea. Their nukes exist to prevent a war with the United States- a war that would never happen unless they attacked South Korea or Japan, and a war which China would never allow the US to undertake unprovoked. They don't need their nukes unless they plan to invade South Korea under the protection of deterrence. They MUST be disarmed.


Calling bluffs and pre-empting nuclear wars is the ONLY situation that will guarantee a nuclear holocaust.

Waiting too long to call bluffs ensures a holocaust. Doing it NOW, while there is a good chance that they will back down, and while we can punish them with far less consequence if they don't back down, presents a risk of a small exchange- not a holocaust.


Calling me a coward for not wanting to wage war is exactly what this European Brit would expect from an ex-marine. Ask yourself this, whats more cowardly? A man who confronts a threat with his mind and an empty hand or a man who shoots at everything that goes bump in the night.


Another faulty analogy- exactly what this barbaric Marine would expect from a faulty mind. Let's fix it up. Who is more cowardly: A man who would compromise the security of the world he leaves to his children, or a man who would risk a painful but far smaller fight for his own generation?


Now a last note and then I promise I'm done. I realize that this is a long post and that you've already complained about the length of my previous posts. You may not like the fact that I choose to nail down every point of debate and attack every fallacy, but my goal is to make my case with inescapable logic. I'd rather be a tad laborious than be one of the many one-line whackos who fails to make a convincing case for his views. There's no law saying you have to read my posts or interact with me in any way if you find me tiresome.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
An interesting article about Kim Jong Il using WWII as justification for his nuclear weapons.



May 4 (Bloomberg) -- At Pyongyang's Moranbong Middle School, 11-year-olds practice tae kwon do kicks and punches in a gym lined with skulls and photos of North Korean soldiers firing machine guns at U.S. troops during the Korean War. A 3-by-4-foot mural in a school corridor depicts a North Korean girl and boy impaling U.S., Japanese and Asian soldiers.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il uses the 55-year-old conflict as justification for developing nuclear arms, saying the U.S. wants to topple the regime built by his father Kim Il Sung.

U.S. President George Bush on April 28 called Kim Jong Il, 63, a ``dangerous person'' and a ``tyrant,'' who's alone in believing he ought to have nuclear weapons. North Korea hit back this week, calling the U.S. ``the kingpin of state-sponsored terrorism.''
quote.bloomberg.com...


Question: At what point to you stop ignoring the ravings of a mad man, and start taking the threats seriously.

This guy truly places himself on a god-like status. Sounds crazy huh? It is crazy, but he doesn't realize it, and when you wish to be treated like a god, you often attempt to treat others like you are a god.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Hold the hypocritical slander for a minute.



What does this monument mean to Americans? Setting up an American flag after laying waste to Iwo Jima. Thousands died on both sides yet its a moment thats commemorated.

Whats the difference between this monument and what you described?

Also where is he talking like he is a God? Dont get me wrong, I dont like Kim Jong Ill but I dont like it when corrupt countries such as the United States try to make political capital out of lies.


the kingpin of state-sponsored terrorism
Regardless of the messenger the words ring true enough.

Jong Ill is worried about America wanting to bring down North Korea? Well who wouldnt be? You think he is unfounded in his words? Its not for a lack of trying that the Americans didnt bring down North Korea in the 50's. They have every reason not to trust the Americans.

Also I dont think Communism is to blame for the dire straights that North Korea is in. Its the Capitalist states that stymied them at every turn IMO.

[edit on 4/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Kim perhaps is not personally stating that he is a god, but his propoganda machine is sure doing it for him. And when it is written and spoke so much about him, what do you think that does to his self image?



According to one legend, Kim Jong Il was born on a sacred Korean mountain amid double rainbows and bright stars. Others say he was born in 1942 in the Soviet Union, where his father served in the Communist army. An official North Korean account says that Kim was born at his father's guerilla base on Mount Paekdu, North Korea.

Although many North Koreans live humbly, Kim Jong Il grew up being told he was "the son of God," said Jerrold Post, a professor of political psychology at George Washington University. "One of the challenging aspects of trying to profile Kim Jong Il is separating the man from the myth."
edition.cnn.com...




When Kim Jong-il came to power he became a god like his father. Father and son were the life-givers, the true parents of all Koreans," said Kim Duk Hong.

"We all believed that Kim Jong-il was a genius from heaven. We had to recite this hundreds and thousands of times," said Lee Young Guk, a former bodyguard.

"He insisted we must be ready to die for him. We were not to take orders from anyone else. People say Saddam's palaces are grand, but they're nothing.
news.bbc.co.uk...




"Long Live the Sun of the 21st century, General Kim Jong-il," reads a wide red banner greeting passengers as they descend escalators to the "Prosperity" metro station.

"Our country is one big family, and our father is Kim Jong-il," said a translator assigned to foreign visitors.
www.theage.com.au...




General Kim Jong Il revered as god
Pyongyang, February 16 (KCNAkcna) - Secretary Kim Jong Il is trusted absolutely, eternally and fully as if he were god, says a political essay carried in Rodong Sinmun Saturday. The authors of the essay titled "General Kim Jong Il revered as god" stress among other things: Absolute trust in General is a strong support for our socialist motherland, mental pabulum for our people's revolutionary faith and the most powerful weapon to defeat any formidable enemy. This trust is the source of all our struggle and life, the Korean way and principle of life and a philosophy of eternal victory of the Korean revolution. The Korean people regard him as their god because he defends the destiny of the motherland, nation and people. He is the great sun for our life, so we follow him, entrusting our life, future and everything to him. The Juche cause is our lifeblood and lifelong mission. When we uphold this cause, we live and if not, we die. That is why we trust and follow General Kim Jong Il, the great successor to the Juche cause and the leader of the people. The Korean people are determined to uphold their leader and share weal and woe with him for all ages. As we believe in him as in god, we will win forever.
www.kcna.co.jp...



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Hail to the chief

Hail: To greet or acclaim enthusiastically

No no youre right, going over the top in showing displays of fealty is clearly a sign of a corrupt society.




MISSION STATEMENT

The United States Secret Service is mandated by statute and executive order to carry out two significant missions: protection and criminal investigations. The Secret Service protects the President and Vice President, their families, heads of state, and other designated individuals; investigates threats against these protectees; protects the White House, Vice President’s Residence, Foreign Missions, and other buildings within Washington, D.C.; and plans and implements security designs for designated National Special Security Events. The Secret Service also investigates violations of laws relating to counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United States; financial crimes that include, but are not limited to, access device fraud, financial institution fraud, identity theft, computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on our nation’s financial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure.

Theres even an entire armed force protecting the American leader. Wow they must clearly think alot about this guy. Sickening that such a man could illicit such things.

Dont get me wrong, Kim Jong Ill is a twat. But its a little rich when Americans criticises something when they do it themselves.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Trust me, I get that the US, and the presidency comes off as, well, way over the top. But I would not put it on par with N. Korea and Kim Jong Il. Not even close. Do you think that Kim allows any kind of mass media criticism from it's own press? What do you think happens to those who publicly denounce him? Now, look at America, and the CONSTANT Bush bashing that goes on everyday (and I'm a part of it). You can say just about anything you want about our pres, short of saying publicly you want to kill him.

The other big difference, Bush was elected by the people. Sure, is there some red flags going up about his rise to power and the possible election fraud? Yes. But in the end, the choice was left up to the people. In N. Korea, there is no choice.

[edit on 4-5-2005 by mpeake]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Well im glad you see both sides of it. I have nothing left to say on the matter then.

My whole agenda is purely that, to make sure Americans can see their administrations hypocrasy.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Well, it looks like N. Korea is poised to get themselves into a good position for a nucluear standoff. With the possible nuke test recently done, and the reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency stating that they have enough weapons grade plutonium to make about 6 nukes (and that's just what they know about... I'd guess the amount is higher)



VIENNA, Austria — North Korea (search) may have enough weapons-grade plutonium (search) to make up to half a dozen nuclear bombs, the head of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency said in another warning about the reclusive regime's secretive nuclear program.

International Atomic Energy Agency (search) chief Mohamed ElBaradei told Cable News Network on Sunday evening that Pyongyang has the nuclear infrastructure to convert the material into atomic weapons.

"We knew they had the plutonium that could be converted into five or six North Korea weapons," ElBaradei told CNN.

Recent satellite imagery suggests North Korea may be preparing to test a weapon underground, and the IAEA has been urging the international community to increase pressure on Pyongyang to refrain from any such test.

www.foxnews.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join