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.

 

POLITICS: North Korea Says US Stealth Bomber Move Signals Nuclear War

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   
i think this is a joke.can we start up old world war 2 wounds again.seems to me that the only thing this will start is a real world war.and oh yes using of nukes.no point having foot soldiers this time around.who is not paying attention to those who wish to put the world on fire.seems we have button pushers and no peace makers.where are you out there knock knock echo echo.the line of peace is a blur and the old farts need to leave before somebody does a dumb chess move.......




posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   
The UN Sanctioned the response to the NK invasion of the SK.The USSR boycotted the security council meeting when the vote was taken. So this was a UN sanctioned police action. A declared war.

Its uncool to riddicule someone for doing something they think is the right thing to do. This man's reason for enlisting may be very good ones. YOU don't know why he did this. Don't insult him because you feel a need to Insult his father.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by Rasputin13
I'm getting fed up with all the sissy liberals who are always afraid of confronting evil where evil exists. "Don't be mean to Kim Jong Ill, he might do something bad!" Gimme a break, would yas?


Rasputin, are you signed up in the US or NK military?



Even if Rasputin isn't in the the U.S. military, there are plenty of others like my son who voluntarily signed up to guarantee your right to think and say whatever you want - even if it doesn't make much sense.

[edit on 6/3/2005 by centurion1211]


Well, since you made that statement without having any idea how I think, I'll tell you.

I think if your son is volunteering his life to defend sissy assed liberals, you should want to be damn sure there's a good reason and his life isn't going to be pissed away for somebody's hidden agenda.

Take 10 minutes and read this article:
The North Korea Nuclear Confrontation: A History of Efforts
For your son's sake.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hajduk

Originally posted by titian
The war never ended, technically.



Was the Korean "War" actually even a declared war to begin with, or was it just an intervention like Vietnam?


It wasn't declare because it was not a national conflict. It was a UN intervention authorized by the Security Council (The Republic of China occupied the seat now held by the PRC and Russia boycotted the vote on those grounds, allowing America, Britain, and France to undertake the war under UN auspices with full legality)

So in a sense it was declared, in that a statement of intentions was given by the powers who initiated outside involvement. In another since, there was no declaration of war because it was not viewed as a war, but as a "police action", basically a very high intensity peace-keeping effort. Either way there isn't much parallel to Vietnam because 1. There was a legitimite devide in Korea, while Vietnam was started almost purely by America with negligible domestic support for the ARVN and 2. Vietnam was a primarily unilateral and wholly undeclared effort while Korea was multi-lateral and legal- not just done on the word of one president.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

How much longer can the US continue to provoke North Korea before Kim Jung Il decides to commit his country to a nuclear exchange with the US?

For however long it takes the Koreans to engineer a nuke small enough to fit on their missiles, only 5 of which can even reach the United States according to estimates at GlobalSecurity.org.


Uh, just a thought here, Vagabond, but aren't five nuclear tipped missles enough if fired into the US to precipitate a retaliatory strike?


Besides that, there is really not rhyme or reason to a first strike. The most certain way for the little dictator to get nuked is to launch one first, and how could he fail to know this? The Alpha and Omega of North Korean security has to be developing and protecting their deterrent so that it can deter us. If you launch your deterrent you lose it.


Yes, this would normally be a true and logical assumption if you are dealing with a leader sane enough to override his own impulses. I, unfortunately can not assign that assumption to Mr. Kim.




[originally posted by lightseeker]I don't know about others but as for myself, this is scary stuff! I resent both the powers that be in Washington and the crazy leaders of N Korea playing nuclear one-ups-manship with the stakes being the possible destruction of the civilized world.


If it makes you feel any better, the stakes are mainly Japan and the Koreas. It would still be quite possibly the largest single loss of life in human history, so it probably shouldn't make you feel any better. At the end of the day though, Kim is making the Cuban Missile Crisis mistake. He is on the brink of starting a war with us in his attempt to keep us from doing something we never intended to do anyway. In my humble opinion, the primary fault for this situation rests with him.


I agree for the most part with this, however, I don't trust Kim to have the sense to back down the way Khruschev did with Cuba, although I pray he will.




posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Do not feel too bad for "going over the top". In this day and age, it it the norm. Anyway, who are we to stop all of the feces hitting the fan? We are for the most part just like Sheepel



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   
I would doubt that the US would strike NK, to do so would bring in China I fear and that would be the end of the US. The only thing that worries me is that people in China may start to feel that if war is envaribly, maybe a first strike is best, and if you are going to strike it is always best when the enemy is busy somewhere else. Especially if they are envolved with people you happen to get oil from, or could get more should the US be wiped off the face of the map.

Just food for thought.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Iran is just as dangerous as North Korea (if not more). Anyone who keeps up on world politics and current events should be aware, regardless of their politics, that we are at a breaking point. Iran and North Korea both harbor terrorists, promote the development of offensive nuclear weapons, hate America and western Europe and openly challenge anyone and everyone on a daily basis. The comparison could be made to an inner-city gang member looking to kill someone important just to gain notoriety.
We are stuck with a catch 22: If we placate them and bow to their demands, terrorists will soon be controlling the lives of everyone through the fear factor. If we take them on, it will NOT be like Iraq. Both Russia and China have openly admitted that they supply Iran and North Korea with weapons and computer technology. They have also openly expressed their intentions to back those countries, should we confront them.
Regardless of where you live or whether you give hugs or slugs, I see no way out of this without serious bloodshed on both sides. I pray I am wrong, but the facts are there.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 06:40 AM
link   
BLUEKNIGHT:

Very true, but isn't that really the eventual outcome of any aggression? Isn't that why it is a journey the first step should never have been made. However seeing as it has....

I am not sure what you can do with all sides saving face. It is really sad that when this many peoples lives are on the line it is still about appearances than the reality.

IMO, the easiest way is to change the definition of terrorist to be a more specific thing - or, rethink this entire war or some abstract concept. But that would imply that Bush and Co are wrong and they won't do that, and they will convience many John Wayne Wanna Be's that "we will win", when the cold hard reality is that no one will win.

IMO, the war on terror was a loser to begin with. You can not declare war on a concept. You can not wage a war on abstractions, and you can not close a war without a concrete enemy.

The US would do well to sit back, focus on patching Iraq and leaving with no strings attached. Even Bushg wouldn't be foolish to open up a secondary battle front, and until the Iraq one closes, the US better pray to high heaven that NK or China don't chose to rid themself's of a major problem.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueknight
Iran is just as dangerous as North Korea (if not more).

Based on what? They dont like America? They have a reason for that, I suggest you research Iran's last Shah.


Originally posted by blueknight
Anyone who keeps up on world politics and current events should be aware, regardless of their politics, that we are at a breaking point.

Yeah I suppose we are. Not for the reasons you'd think though.


Originally posted by blueknight
Iran and North Korea both harbor terrorists,

Iran maybe, but North Korea? Wheres your evidence for that? I've researched North Korea quite a bit and I have never even heard the U.S State Department of accusing North Korea of harbouring terrorists.


Originally posted by blueknight
promote the development of offensive nuclear weapons,

North Korea have developed nuclear weapons. Saying they're offensive is a deliberate attempt to demonize them. Are the American nuclear weapons offensive as well?

Iran, on the otherhand, is a complete lie. The Bush adminstration hasnt even attempted to back up their propaganda that they are pursuing nuclear weapons. The Iranians have allowed IAEA inspectors into all their nuclear sites and they have ruled the Iranians programme to be completely peaceful in nature. If the Bush administration has evidence, just accusing them is not evidence, that shows they are trying to produce a nuclear weapon then they should show the World.


Originally posted by blueknight
hate America

Last time I checked it wasnt a capital crime to hate America.


Originally posted by blueknight
and western Europe

We actually have good diplomatic relations with Iran and my best friend and his family are Iranians. They do not hate Western Europe at all. They dont even hate Americans either for that matter.


Originally posted by blueknight
and openly challenge anyone and everyone on a daily basis.

How do they? They challenge aggressive American interference maybe but they dont challenge everyone on a daily basis. That is a lie.


Originally posted by blueknight
The comparison could be made to an inner-city gang member looking to kill someone important just to gain notoriety.

More demonization here. Are you a deliberate attempt by the Bush administration to sway sentiment on these boards? Its a little blatant dont you think? What happend to subtlety?


Originally posted by blueknight
We are stuck with a catch 22: If we placate them and bow to their demands, terrorists will soon be controlling the lives of everyone through the fear factor.

I'll take my chances with the terrorists thanks. Seems we've already given control of our lives and liberty over to our politicians for the very same fear factor. Atleast I know where I stand with a terrorist.


Originally posted by blueknight
If we take them on, it will NOT be like Iraq. Both Russia and China have openly admitted that they supply Iran and North Korea with weapons and computer technology.

So the propaganda net widens to include arch enemies China and Russia. Is there a law that says they cannot supply weapons and computer technology to these countries? Western Europe supplies Iran with all their telecommunications technology. Are we evil? The United States was building 2 Light Water Reactors for North Korea, does that make you evil as well?


Originally posted by blueknight
They have also openly expressed their intentions to back those countries, should we confront them.

Damn right they have. Russia has also said they will forcibly stop the U.S government from weaponizing space. The days of America acting unilaterally are fast coming to an end. I welcome that change.


Originally posted by blueknight
Regardless of where you live or whether you give hugs or slugs, I see no way out of this without serious bloodshed on both sides. I pray I am wrong, but the facts are there.

Well you are wrong, North Korea has said they will give up all their nuclear weapons and close down their reprocessing plant if America signs a non-agression pact with them. Iran has repeatedly said they are not aiming for nuclear weapons. Until you have evidence they are there is no reason to intervene militarily.

So basically sign a bit of paper which only limits you from invading another country that Bush has said he has no intention of invading in the first place and sit back and wait with regards to Iran and no lives lost.

Guns blazing wont solve a damn thing.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by blueknight
We are stuck with a catch 22: If we placate them and bow to their demands, terrorists will soon be controlling the lives of everyone through the fear factor.

I'll take my chances with the terrorists thanks. Seems we've already given control of our lives and liberty over to our politicians for the very same fear factor. Atleast I know where I stand with a terrorist.


There's also the fact that their 'demands' are simply to be left alone to exercize their sovereign rights. They're not on our doorstep threatening aggression, we're on their doorstep threatening aggression.

Terrorists? The only foreign terrorist attack on our soil was committed by 19 Saudi Arabian members of al Queda, led by a Saudi Arabian called Osama bin Laden. Why aren't we on their doorstep? Will attacking Iran and North Korea in addition to Afghanistan and Iraq, stop those Saudi Arabians from terrorising us?



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
There's also the fact that their 'demands' are simply to be left alone to exercize their sovereign rights. They're not on our doorstep threatening aggression, we're on their doorstep threatening aggression.

Well said, also Iran has just as much right to nuclear weapons as the United States. It has as much right to withdraw from the NPT as Bush did from the ABM treaty. Imposing your will on a sovereign nation with no incentives other than the absence of annihilation is abhorrant to me. Im not for the proliferation of nuclear weapons but I am for equality and respect from both sides. Something that cannot arise in this climate of brow-beating, suspicion, insults, threats and lies.


Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Terrorists? The only foreign terrorist attack on our soil was committed by 19 Saudi Arabian members of al Queda, led by a Saudi Arabian called Osama bin Laden. Why aren't we on their doorstep? Will attacking Iran and North Korea in addition to Afghanistan and Iraq, stop those Saudi Arabians from terrorising us?

Money, money, money. Abba got something right atleast


Perspective and rationality along with the truth were the greatest American casualities of 9/11. Saudi Arabia has been implicated more than any other nation on the planet in the 9/11 attack yet they are immune from even pejorative comments from the Whitehouse. Why? Saudi Arabia owns a major chunk of the American economy. If they take their money out the whole economy will go into depression. Thats all folks, no elaborate theories or stories.

BTW thanks for including a link to my Op/Ed peice on North Korea's nuclear history. I appreciate the inclusion



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
subz, withdrawing from the NPT is a totally different situation than from the ABM Treaty. With the ABM the U.S. and U.S.S.R. simply promised to not develop a technology, but with the NPT non-nuclear signatory states get nuclear technology for peaceful purposes from the nuclear states. If they then withdraw and use that gained technology to develop weapons, its still a breach of the treaty and actionable by the UN Security Council.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
subz, withdrawing from the NPT is a totally different situation than from the ABM Treaty. With the ABM the U.S. and U.S.S.R. simply promised to not develop a technology, but with the NPT non-nuclear signatory states get nuclear technology for peaceful purposes from the nuclear states. If they then withdraw and use that gained technology to develop weapons, its still a breach of the treaty and actionable by the UN Security Council.

What? Thats the most contrived view of the NPT that I've ever read.

If they withdraw from the NPT under Article 10 of the treaty they are not bound to adhere to its content any more. Leaving the treaty itself is their right and releases them from its constraints.

Being held accountable for going against the NPT after excercising their sovereign right to leave it is absurd.

If that was the case then Israel, Pakistan and India should be hauled over the coals for becoming "nuclear". They are legally bound to the NPT just as much as a country that formally witdraws from it are.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
You seem to be ignoring the facts...India, Pakistan and Israel never signed the NPT and never received any nuclear technology from the U.S., Britain, Russia, France or China. Iran and North Korea were signatories and did receive such technology. The Treaty requires for withdrawal that the UNSC get involved, it's not an arcane reading, it's in the plain text:



Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.


Obviously the UNSC needs to go over the reasons why the country wants to withdraw and determine if it will use any nuclear technology gained by the treaty for weapons use and the country could face consequences from the Council.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
()!()!()
Nuke War? What about the war in Iraq, We allready may be bombed affter Russia supposedly'lost' one hunder suitcase nukes.

Ya, personally... I think were all just gonna die. Damn it... there goes my diet... I wonder what the nieghbors will think..?

[edit on 5-6-2005 by The Surrealist]



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
You seem to be ignoring the facts...India, Pakistan and Israel never signed the NPT and never received any nuclear technology from the U.S., Britain, Russia, France or China. Iran and North Korea were signatories and did receive such technology. The Treaty requires for withdrawal that the UNSC get involved, it's not an arcane reading, it's in the plain text:

When you withdraw from a treaty it means you are no longer bound to it. Much like Israel, Pakistan and India have no responsiblity to abide by the NPT.


Originally posted by djohnsto77
Obviously the UNSC needs to go over the reasons why the country wants to withdraw and determine if it will use any nuclear technology gained by the treaty for weapons use and the country could face consequences from the Council.

They dont have to. When North Korea withdrew from the NPT the UNSC did nothing. They didnt have to authourize North Korea's withdrawal. All North Korea is required to do is given written notice to the UNSC and 3 monhs notice before they proceed with nuclear weapons research.

You've obviously read more into the NPT than is actually there.

[edit on 5/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Besides, why shouldn't the US move super fighters to the border of an enemy that its at war with and who is threatening to use nukes against it??

So I take it you think the US was in the wrong in the Cuban missle crises?



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Maybe my intentions were misinterpreted by some like Subz. The point of my original thoughts on this subject were that the PEOPLE do not control the government..........any government. The rich people and corporations control government and my thoughts posted previously were what I assume most Americans think. We don't have any control over this situation and we are doomed to ride out the shockwave (no pun intended) of our government's decisions.
I did vote for Bush, but am quickly learning to regret it. He is no different than any other corrupt rich jerk with too much power.
My previous thoughts were not intended to propagandize or demean the peoples of other countries, I was speaking of one government versus another. Sorry for the misunderstanding..........maybe it was my Yankee accent.........lol!!!




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join