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.

 

North Korea says talks or "a nuclear missile"

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by el_madmaster
Also interesting, I came across several articles originating from the Korea Times that in 2003 a NK missle warhead was found in Alaska, and I googled it and found several other sites that stated this. Is there any truth to this?

www.google.com...


I've been reading through some of the other results that popped up on Google. I don't think that claim was very valid.




North Korean Missile Warhead Found in Alaska
That's the headline in the Korea Times. All I can say is, I haven't seen any sign of it.


SOURCE:powerlineblog.com...




Sounds pretty fishy to me. Noticed the article at the bottom of paper "Elvis found at South Pole". Is this the equivalent to our Enquirer rag? I think this thing is a little outdated too. 3/4/03


SOURCE:www.freerepublic.com...




With Few N. Korea Facts, a Rumor Got Launched
A warhead found in Alaska? The report's longevity illustrates the uncertainty and fear.
By Barbara Demick

SEOUL ? The shocking rumor surfaced a few years back: A warhead from a North Korean ballistic missile had been found in the Alaskan tundra.

It made a few headlines before the U.S. Missile Defense Agency dismissed the story as a complete fabrication.


SOURCE:www.informationliberation.com...

Doesn't seem true to me at all.




posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATSGUY
man i just no if stuff gets out of control im going commando.


Honestly i don't see how not wearing underwear will help this situation. Yes bad joke.

Anyhow, This whole situation could be just what the US (politically) needs. Think about it, all we have to do is get a crazy mad man named kim to slip up and attack us or south korea and boom we have a large scale war that will build a huge coalition around the world and automatically make the US look like the good guys again. It would be stupid to attack him when we should be able to get him to attack us. and i don't think china wants this war to happen, because having a that much US and World Military power in the region isn't a good thing.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
JackJuice that is true, the world would rally behind the US if North Korea launched a nuke, and it was either intentional to hit Japan or South Korea or anyplace else, or unintentionally did so. And the world would also support action against Iran. I mean, if North Korea was crazy enough to do that, then Iran would be too.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I hate coming in late to a thread. Most of the pros and cons have already been discussed.

I'm just gonna have to quit my job and stay glued to the tube.


Anyway, this has probably already been said, but...

Remember when Clinton was Prez? We agreed to one-on-one talks. He (and Albright) negotiated a deal with NK. Aid and lotsa money, and in return, NK would drop their nuclear program.

They took the aid and the money, then continued with their program. Clinton had negotiated in good faith, and Kim screwed us.

That's why Bush wants 6-way talks.

We're not going to play Charlie Brown to Lucy holding the football any longer.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   
...and China is not afraid of NK militarily. They are afraid of the millions of NK refugees that would stream into China if sanctions are applied.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient

OK, I'm not particularly fond of the United States government. HOWEVER, we are in nowhere near the condition that North Korea is, at least not yet. Of course America has poor people. Many of them are poor because they choose to be, whether they choose to accept that or not. In North Korea, nearly EVERYONE is poor and nearly EVERYONE gets barely any food, apart from the military....... The US may have its poor people and homeless people, but we also have the richest.


- Thank you for the reply. I think you hit the point in your last line. Take a look at what Korea has to work with, then look at what America has to work with. Then take a look at the relative suffering on both sides. At the very least I think we can agree that while Korea may not be able to feed, care, manage and provide all the "luxeries"(Like medication, education, etc) America clearly could. That is what makes this much closure than "No where near" IMO.


Originally posted by Omniscient
I think your statement was made without thinking about what you said. While USA might be experiencing changes slowly leading to a more imperial state, it was nowhere NEAR the magnitude of "horrible" that NK is in right now. They are making these threats because they have NOTHING to lose. On the contrary, the US has EVERYTHING to lose being the #1 world superpower, at least temporarily.


- Well as much as I'd like to argue the statement was made without thinking, it does happen quite a bit. However, I don't think I am off of what I said, I do think it is being misintrerprited(sp?). Seriously think about it. Your news is censored. Your politicians have been caught lying and nothing has been done about it. Possibly 2 elections were stolen, and 2600+ servicemen and women are dead without any public approval, debate and none is going to be forthcoming. America may not be a despotic regime on par with Korea, but make no mistake that the seeds are planted, and it only took 5 years from going to having the complete world behind you and being a full democracy to where we are today. Which is really quite scary.

Now, please remember I am not saying that the USA is as horrible as such and such a country. Very few countries do I consider a better place than America - and ultimately that is just a personal opinion. But when you condemn a country for being bad because the leader is crazy - then your leader shouldn't have done anything crazy in recent memory. If you are going to condemn a country because of their military ambitions, then you shouldn't be demonstrating your own military ambitions.. My claims that you have to be put in jail because you constently beat your wife, wouldn't have very much power if my wife walks in sporting a shiner thanks to her once a week beatings.... I am not sure how this is so hard to understand?

Ultimately the US is still(hopefully) a democracy, and IMO I think the only thing that is reassuring anyone on this planet right now is that while most are sure your leader and his Admin is nuts, we all know that on an overall scale America is filled with great people who will eventually take back their government and this craziness will end. At least thats my hope.

Anyway, what is really the chance that NK has the ability to do any damage to anyone other than their neighbours, and if they don't mind then why bother?



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Remember the old Blondie song? "Heart of Glass"



How about a new one......


"Sheet of Glass"...........hmmmmmmmm



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Indeed the US has alot to lose and NK has not much to lose. However, what if we just sit around, and maybe talk to them a bit, while we let them go ahead and build up their nuclear arsenal? I'm not an advocate for war, especially the one in Iraq, but I think we are in a very tight spot right now, and I think in this case something needs to be done before they have the ability to makes things even worse. An international force might be the best answer. One might argue that many countries weren't all too willing to go into Iraq, but I think that more countries would be willing to strike NK and hold down the DMZ if need be, seeing how Korea does represent a threat unparalleled to the threat Iraq represented at the time we went in there.

What if they do develop missles that can reach the Western Seaboard in the near future, and then we are too late to deal with them without risking massive damage to our homeland?

Meanwhile, Iran just announced that they are not abandoning their nuclear program, and at the same time, Bush and his cronies seems ultimately fixating on going in there. Sheesh, Iran wants a nuclear program for supposedly "civilian use", while Kim blows off a nuclear bomb and threatens to launch missles - yet Bush still views Iran as the larger threat. Too bad Korea doesn't have oil
. Indeed things will become interesting in the near future, and probably in a very negative way...



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Come on people..
Really..
I just dont understand the logic of some posters on this board.
what exactly does HUMANITY have to lose, to sit down with this man and talk.
He hasnt attacked anyone in 50years.
HE warned us about his nuclear test.. and took enough measures to test it in a safe and measruable means.

Why dont we sit down wtih him..
tell him we will open up trade, give him incentives, remove sanctions and allow his country to flourish...

What harm is that ?

Really?
why are all you lunatics soo complelled to let the missles fly.
You all take shots at Clinton for negotiating and all that..
would you rather we just lit everyone up that didnt listen to the mighty usa?

He wants to talk.
he's asking for negotiations..

who are we to DENY him this?

Sorry mate.. I dont care about YOUR side of the story.. I dont like you.. I hate you.. and I wam going to make you suffer.. because it makes me feel good.
And if you for one second retalitate in any way against my sanctions.. we'll.. well totally obliterate you in a flash!

But please please PLEAASSSEEEE... stay friendly and just...

It stupidity on all friggen sections.

really..

I am just at a total loss here as to why we cant sit down with him.. hear his side and then decide what stance to take.

Bush is a god damn fool if he refuses talks and imposes sanctions.
He's a TRAITOR TO HUMANITY

I am just at a loss for words.. where has our logic gone people?



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Come on people..
Really..
I just dont understand the logic of some posters on this board.
what exactly does HUMANITY have to lose, to sit down with this man and talk.
He hasnt attacked anyone in 50years.
HE warned us about his nuclear test.. and took enough measures to test it in a safe and measruable means.

Why dont we sit down wtih him..
tell him we will open up trade, give him incentives, remove sanctions and allow his country to flourish...

What harm is that ?

Really?
why are all you lunatics soo complelled to let the missles fly.
You all take shots at Clinton for negotiating and all that..
would you rather we just lit everyone up that didnt listen to the mighty usa?

He wants to talk.
he's asking for negotiations..

who are we to DENY him this?

Sorry mate.. I dont care about YOUR side of the story.. I dont like you.. I hate you.. and I wam going to make you suffer.. because it makes me feel good.
And if you for one second retalitate in any way against my sanctions.. we'll.. well totally obliterate you in a flash!

But please please PLEAASSSEEEE... stay friendly and just...

It stupidity on all friggen sections.

really..

I am just at a total loss here as to why we cant sit down with him.. hear his side and then decide what stance to take.

Bush is a god damn fool if he refuses talks and imposes sanctions.
He's a TRAITOR TO HUMANITY

I am just at a loss for words.. where has our logic gone people?


OMG!!

If I thought, even for a second that logic would prevail on you, I might try to answer your post.....but all I can say is OMG! Simply mind boggling....Wow!


And that folk is why ol'kimmy will pull more funny business. As long as people think like that (agit8chop) then his tactics will be effective.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Come on people..
Really..
I just dont understand the logic of some posters on this board.
what exactly does HUMANITY have to lose, to sit down with this man and talk.
He hasnt attacked anyone in 50years.
HE warned us about his nuclear test.. and took enough measures to test it in a safe and measruable means.

Why dont we sit down wtih him..
tell him we will open up trade, give him incentives, remove sanctions and allow his country to flourish...

What harm is that ?

Really?
why are all you lunatics soo complelled to let the missles fly.
You all take shots at Clinton for negotiating and all that..
would you rather we just lit everyone up that didnt listen to the mighty usa?

He wants to talk.
he's asking for negotiations..

who are we to DENY him this?

Sorry mate.. I dont care about YOUR side of the story.. I dont like you.. I hate you.. and I wam going to make you suffer.. because it makes me feel good.
And if you for one second retalitate in any way against my sanctions.. we'll.. well totally obliterate you in a flash!

But please please PLEAASSSEEEE... stay friendly and just...

It stupidity on all friggen sections.

really..

I am just at a total loss here as to why we cant sit down with him.. hear his side and then decide what stance to take.

Bush is a god damn fool if he refuses talks and imposes sanctions.
He's a TRAITOR TO HUMANITY

I am just at a loss for words.. where has our logic gone people?



What harm is it? we tried talking to him as you said during the clinton years, guess what it didnt work and his behavior only got worse. So if we give in now all that would do is validate his behavior and embolden all of the US's enemies. Seriously you can equate this to negotiating with terrorists, let me spell out the logic for you. Someone kidnaps your kid, and wants a randsom to get him back, you give in. Well guess what now that guy made money, not only is he willing to kidnap again but so is anyone else that doesn't care about hurting people. Therefore by giving into his demands you have created more problems than had refused to negotiate in the first place. Is it perfect? no, nothing is but somehow I think this logic will fail to be impressed upon you.
Oh and by the way Bush is not refusing talks he is only stepping to the negotiating table if other nations are involved instead of one on one which is one of the smartest things he's done recently.

I really hope this doesn't turn into a war but i'm afraid we are heading in the direction, and backing down would be a worse solution than fighting here and now.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I am amazed that someone would think that violence is better than talking??? It is because of this level of thinking that has gotten the world in this mess. Seriously grow up. Violence has always lead to more violence. That is unalterable fact - so allow one possible scenerio to get you... THe US bombs the crap out of NK, China and Russia decide the US can't be trusted and for their own, mutually exclusive reasons, decide it is time for you to go. How is that? Or, China decides that you can buy stuff from them willingly or as subjects of China... or ... It is utter madness!!

Ignore the guy and let China and/or Russia deal with him. If they don't, then why is it the US's concern? He can't hurt the US, only NK neighbours.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imperium Americana
OMG!!

If I thought, even for a second that logic would prevail on you, I might try to answer your post.....but all I can say is OMG! Simply mind boggling....Wow!


And that folk is why ol'kimmy will pull more funny business. As long as people think like that (agit8chop) then his tactics will be effective.


Your probably right Imperium no amount of logic will ever convince some people.

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. ~William G. McAdoo



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by JackJuice

Originally posted by Imperium Americana
OMG!!

If I thought, even for a second that logic would prevail on you, I might try to answer your post.....but all I can say is OMG! Simply mind boggling....Wow!


And that folk is why ol'kimmy will pull more funny business. As long as people think like that (agit8chop) then his tactics will be effective.


Your probably right Imperium no amount of logic will ever convince some people.

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. ~William G. McAdoo


And cowards will always go for other people to go kill for them, while avioding all fighting themself's. If you want to fight someone that can't hit you back - there is a word for it...



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
I am amazed that someone would think that violence is better than talking??? It is because of this level of thinking that has gotten the world in this mess. Seriously grow up. Violence has always lead to more violence. That is unalterable fact - so allow one possible scenerio to get you... THe US bombs the crap out of NK, China and Russia decide the US can't be trusted and for their own, mutually exclusive reasons, decide it is time for you to go. How is that? Or, China decides that you can buy stuff from them willingly or as subjects of China... or ... It is utter madness!!

Ignore the guy and let China and/or Russia deal with him. If they don't, then why is it the US's concern? He can't hurt the US, only NK neighbours.



My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. - Neville Chamberlain 1938 after returning from Munich

Don't tell me that this reference has nothing to do with whats going on today because it very much does. So he can only hurt his neihbors huh? So we shouldn't honor our alliences with other nations, right..



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
And cowards will always go for other people to go kill for them, while avioding all fighting themself's. If you want to fight someone that can't hit you back - there is a word for it...



Your calling me a coward? LOL oh thats right because you know me and what I have and have not done for my country.
No sir, avoiding the issue with baseless personal attacks is cowardly.

EDIT: for typo

[edit on 10/10/2006 by JackJuice]



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JackJuice

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
I am amazed that someone would think that violence is better than talking??? It is because of this level of thinking that has gotten the world in this mess. Seriously grow up. Violence has always lead to more violence. That is unalterable fact - so allow one possible scenerio to get you... THe US bombs the crap out of NK, China and Russia decide the US can't be trusted and for their own, mutually exclusive reasons, decide it is time for you to go. How is that? Or, China decides that you can buy stuff from them willingly or as subjects of China... or ... It is utter madness!!

Ignore the guy and let China and/or Russia deal with him. If they don't, then why is it the US's concern? He can't hurt the US, only NK neighbours.



My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. - Neville Chamberlain 1938 after returning from Munich

Don't tell me that this reference has nothing to do with whats going on today because it very much does. So he can only hurt his neihbors huh? So we shouldn't honor our alliences with other nations, right..


Has he done anything yet? Has he done anything in the past? Which country has invaded a country(or two?) illegally? Which country has used WMD on civilians? Which country is currently talking about hitting a country with strategic nukes? There is a major threat here and it isn't comming from NK! He wants to talk..but that would be wrong?

Ofcourse we should honour our treaties, but nothing has happened. What you are propossing is hitting them because you suspect they might, possibly, eventually, do something to someone who might have a treaty with you.. Until they do something to someone you don't have a leg to stand on, not that that has stopped the US yet, but I guess that goes to my first point...



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JackJuice

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
And cowards will always go for other people to go kill for them, while avioding all fighting themself's. If you want to fight someone that can't hit you back - there is a word for it...



Your calling me a coward? LOL oh thats right because you know me and what I have and have not done for my country.
No sir, avoiding the issue with baseless personal attacks is cowardly.

EDIT: for typo

[edit on 10/10/2006 by JackJuice]


No more than you were calling those that disagree with going to war ignorant. If you don't like being called names, then don't call others names.


Your right, I don't know you and I really doubt you(or anyone here) is truly a coward. Merely trying to show how name calling will not get us anywhere.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
Has he done anything yet? Has he done anything in the past? Which country has invaded a country(or two?) illegally? Which country has used WMD on civilians? Which country is currently talking about hitting a country with strategic nukes? There is a major threat here and it isn't comming from NK! He wants to talk..but that would be wrong?


Hmm lets see he built a nuclear weapon after telling us he wouldn't, he launches test missles into the sea of Japan when he could just as easily send them south away from japan.

No US Official has stated that we are going to use Nukes strategically, again more baseless accusations.

So after disregarding all of the agreements in the 90's with us we should just sit down and let him con us again?


Originally posted by Waiting2awake
Ofcourse we should honour our treaties, but nothing has happened. What you are propossing is hitting them because you suspect they might, possibly, eventually, do something to someone who might have a treaty with you.. Until they do something to someone you don't have a leg to stand on, not that that has stopped the US yet, but I guess that goes to my first point...


Never in any of my posts have i said that we should attack NK, especially when if we keep the status quo he will attack us or one of our allies. Oh and just to clarify id rather not see a war, but war would be preferable to him increasing his nuclear stockpile and being allowed to sell them to terrorists.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waiting2awake

No more than you were calling those that disagree with going to war ignorant. If you don't like being called names, then don't call others names.


Your right, I don't know you and I really doubt you(or anyone here) is truly a coward. Merely trying to show how name calling will not get us anywhere.


You can hardly say that me declaring a point of view ignorant is the same as name calling, My Comment wasn't aimed at a specific person but at a point of view shared by more than one person. Besides ignorance in no way corrolates to intelligence.

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance. ~Saul Bellow




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join