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 "Sanctions = war"

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Does anyone else think the timing between these nuke tests and the newly appointed head of the UN to take Kofi Annan's place being South Korean may have something to do with this?



Pie




posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
No, not really.

It's an interesting, a recen poll in I believe it was June, of South
Koreans showed that 37% wanted to see a reunified Korea, and I
believe it was something like 46% saw the USA a greater threat to
S. Korea than N. Korea.

So even though S. Korea is an ally country, were not buddy buddy
chums with them.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   


He wants money. It is called EXTORTION. He wants his US promised reactor finished which will now NEVER happen since he is nuke tech for wartime purposes.

He wants MONEY, TECHNOLOGY and NUKE POWER... none of which he can be trusted with which is why talking to him is a moot point.

Hmmm this sounds reminiscent to...well, us...lets think hard, one nuke for an unconditional surrender moments after we realized it worked, on a country that had already been discussing the terms for their surrender, and a second nuke to make them think we had an endless supply. No talks, just the massacre of civilians. Noone ever said our prez was crazy.
We did it so quickly to backstab russia out of their share of spoils as we were supposed to cooccupy Japan. We found out we could do it alone. At least Kim Jong Il told the world Ok now we got em, will you take us seriously.
In the international community, if you dont have nukes you aren't talked too. The big guns (russia and US) understood that if they went about flinging nukes other countries would do the same when they got the power. They set the example by showing the world that if you HAVE a nuke, you're worth a #.
The superpowers had since been able to walk all over nukeless countries for decades and now not only are they tired of being walked on they have nukes to assure they wont continue to be. Think of how many countries now have Walmart and McDOnalds there. Thats a new kind of Colonialism...Thats money thats being removed from on country and pumping into our economy...how many NK corporations does anyone know exsist throughout the world, or African, or Latin American....i know theres some good fast food chains in Latin American countries that never leave...not only that how many countries have bases all over the world for their protection?
I say do what you gotta do Kim Jong IL, because we never hesitated or thought of the consequences of our actions in the name of MONEY TECHNOLOGY AND POWER. IF we get nuked, which i doubt, it will show that now we aren't the only country with the balls enough to nuke innocents for political gain.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
whoops, that top paragraph was supposed to be a quote, sorry for not giving credit where credits due.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by kojac



N.K needs to be punished or brought into line somehow, that's obvious, but how?


Whilst I do not condone NK’s actions in any way shape or form, I think it very odd that you say they need “punishing”?

After all, EVERY major country pointing fingers and tsk, tsking (USA, Britain, France, Russia, China et. Al) have ALL in the past exploded nuclear bombs in "tests"!

In fact, it was only a few years ago that France was blowing up innocent atolls in the Pacific Ocean – devastating marine life for miles around.

Was France punished? Was France sanctioned against? Hmmm, no they were not…probably because they are big players in the UN.

I am not having a go at you – I am just appalled at the blatant double standards.

I have a great idea – how about all the countries without nukes, impose sanctions against all those countries that do have them – because the best way to avoid a nuclear war, is not to have any nukes at all!




posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
When my children were young, they preferred to talk to Mom or Dad individually. Then they tried to play us off on each other. NK has been sucking China's tit for the last fifty years. Why the demands for independant talks with the U.S.? Clinton tried the one-on-one talks and it didn't work. It doesn't matter who talks with them. In the end Kim is going to do whatever he wants. The man is insane.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   



After some quick observations, it appears that the American people want some action taken against N. Korea. Yet, our "representative" governments sit on an idle pedestal: let's hurry up and wait.


For once they are doing the right thing. Wait for North Korea to make a big mistake where the world will create a coalition to bring the regime down.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
You know North Korea better be careful how they proceed. If they puff the chest out a little bit more, they may soon get a butt kicking.. If it wasnt for all the liberal "tolerance, love thy enemy" bs in this country we would have already done what I belive our Grandparents would have...Kick there butt up and down and all around.
It makes me sick how this country has gotten soft. If someone was holding a knife in your face what would you do? I personally and as a proud red blooded american would grab up anything i could and turn that person into mush. Wake up America before its too late.....There was a time when this country answered to no one.....why should we start now



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor



After some quick observations, it appears that the American people want some action taken against N. Korea. Yet, our "representative" governments sit on an idle pedestal: let's hurry up and wait.


For once they are doing the right thing. Wait for North Korea to make a big mistake where the world will create a coalition to bring the regime down.


I agree, in the world now, this is the only way it should be done. There are too many problems that result from just rushing right it.

For example, we rushed right into Korea to gain leverage on China in the Korean war...
what was the result? Millions of Chinese troops marching into Korea to get us out because they knew what was going on. The whole world knew what was going on and thats why nobody came to help us when the time got rough.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WatchNLearn

Originally posted by kojac



N.K needs to be punished or brought into line somehow, that's obvious, but how?




I am not having a go at you – I am just appalled at the blatant double standards.

I have a great idea – how about all the countries without nukes, impose sanctions against all those countries that do have them – because the best way to avoid a nuclear war, is not to have any nukes at all!



O.K, good point WatchNLearn, but as far as i'm concerned 2 wrongs don't make a right. IMHO, there should be no Nukes owned by anyone. For that matter, according to the N.P.T the major powers should be downscaling their Nukes, but that is a matter for another thread.

I am against Nucleur weapons altogether, but while their still here, I am totally supportive of Non Proliferation. It's a simple matter of the Law of Averages. The more countries that have Nukes, the more likely it is that they will get used. Personally, I enjoy the world i live in without Nucleur War. Don't you?


Let me ask you a question WatchNLearn, would you trust the current N.K dictatorship with Nucleur Weapons?

Do some research on this country. They make Iran look like paridise.



[edit on 12/06/2005 by kojac]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I think we should threaten to nuke them, and if they don't obey the inter-
national community, we hit every military base with a few ICBM missiles
and set off a small tactical nuke off 10 miles from Pyonyang (in an unpop-
ulated area).


This course of action would result in massive civilian casualties in Seoul. I posted the same question in another NK thread and got no response, if you go and bomb them, what are you going to do about the heavy artillery pointing at Seoul?

It's very easy to say let's just go and bomb them into the stone age but it's a simplistic view that doesn't really take into account the possibility of North Korean retaliation.

A couple of interesting links:

Stratfor

CNS

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Chris McGee]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Couldn't we hit their artillery as well?

[edit on 12/10/2006 by malganis]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by malganis
Couldn't we hit their artillery as well?


Those are my thoughts as well. I'm not really well versed in military possibilities and perhaps somebody could answer that. I'm sure they have evacuation procedures and shelters in Seoul, in a massive first strike, would it be impossible to pinpoint and take out artillary positions with guided weapons while at the same time sound the alarm for folks in Seoul to get to shelter? It may not eliminate civilian casualites completely, but I would think it would dramatically reduce them...



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiantPanda1979

It makes me sick how this country has gotten soft. If someone was holding a knife in your face what would you do? I personally and as a proud red blooded american would grab up anything i could and turn that person into mush. Wake up America before its too late.....There was a time when this country answered to no one.....why should we start now


Yes and you'd prabably end up dead.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by malganis
Couldn't we hit their artillery as well?


From the link I posted which you obviously read:


Because North Korea has a wide range of military means (including artillery, missiles, and ground-force operations) that can inflict significant damage on the South, pre-emptive strikes could not destroy all of North Korea's weapons before they could be used. Pre-emptive strikes against North Korean artillery and missiles would require South Korean cooperation and the deployment of additional U.S. aircraft, reconnaissance assets, and artillery. Counter-battery artillery fire and air strikes could be used to target North Korea artillery, but would be unable to prevent North Korea from doing considerable damage to Seoul.


CNS

There's a huge amount of firepower there in fortified positions. Taking it all out before they did huge damage to the South Korean capital would be next to impossible.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
After reading earlier reposrts from today's meetings, this can't get any better. Talks aren't going to work. Especially with all the hidden agenda's. I agree that N.K. needs liberation, but we(USA) have our own problems to worry about. We are "liberating" Iraq and see where that is getting us. Let N.K. keep threatening with nuke attacks. Ya think the administration really cares, it would be nothin but a green light to go start WW3, and that's what old georgie is waitin on,,,,,

news.yahoo.com...

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Stress]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
There's a huge amount of firepower there in fortified positions. Taking it all out before they did huge damage to the South Korean capital would be next to impossible.


That link seemed to imply it would be very difficult, but not impossible. Of course there would have to be an acceptance of likely damage to Seoul, but I'm sure every measure would be taken to minimize it. I guess it just depends on how much the parties involved think it's worth to take Kim out....

[edit on 12-10-2006 by 27jd]



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
One thing that doesnt get much media attention is that NK has chemical and biological weapons that have been fine tuned by tests on "political prisoners", its own citizens!

I would like to refer you to this informative documentry by BBC world on google video:
video.google.com...

It highlights the fact the NK already sells its weaponry to US-unfriendly countriess or possibly organisations.

NK has got to be one of the most understated problems of our modern times and yet this fact is downplayed by American/Chinese and South Korean governments.

Perhapse they hope that NK will simply implode?

What happens after the implosion, how do you council a nation of brainwashed citizens who believe that the USA is the cause of all their problems? The potential theat makes Al Qaeda look like 'they're' just playing.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by freeradical
One thing that doesnt get much media attention is that NK has chemical and biological weapons that have been fine tuned by tests on "political prisoners", its own citizens!


Yeah, well, I would think bio weapons would probably backfire on them since they have crap for medical facilities and would risk their own soldiers being infected by them wouldn't they? I'm sure chemical weapons could be a problem, but that would pretty much legitimize and give the green light for WMD's to be used against NK in retaliation, IMO. That would end the war REAL quick, and it wouldn't be in Kim's favor....

Either way, I hope somehow this all gets resolved peacefully.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
That link seemed to imply it would be very difficult, but not impossible. Of course there would have to be an acceptance of likely damage to Seoul, but I'm sure every measure would be taken to minimize it. I guess it just depends on how much the parties involved think it's worth to take Kim out....


From the link:


One U.S. military estimate suggested that U.S. and South Korean military forces might suffer 300,000-500,000 casualties within the first 90 days of fighting, in addition to hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties


CNS

No, it wouldn't be impossible. Sustaining those kinds of casualties would be a catastrophe considering the threat we face, there has to be another option.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join