What are are choices with N Korea?

[RedTop]

Originally posted by Nilsen
I know we have been allies since.... forewer, but..

Why should the US be allowed to have nukes along with 4 others countires, and the rest can't? Are these 4 nations moraly superior or more stable than the rest?

Does any nation have a right to own nuke while the rest does not?

Well now that is an interesting question. The countries that have them now , for reasons that have been documented , IMO have them more as a ditterant than anything. And , These countries , were at a time more powerful than others. By that I mean were more ambitious I guess.

Honestly , If noone had Nukes it wouldn't tick me off at all. If a war was started between 2 countries , then its just a good ole fashion brawl til someone wins. Now , as bad as it sounds , a country makes a few bad decisions when in a war , and they start losing , they can always fall back to what they have stored up. If you catch my meaning. NOT that they would , but if what they were trying to do really meant life and death to that country , then if they had nukes and felt that they were going to lose , what would keep them from using it?

Imagine if say...Australia was the ONLY nuke country in the world. We'd be having a Roo as our national pet. Its just a power thing. Thats all I can see it as. Nothing more.

I guess to honestly answer the last part...No...No one country should have what others dont in respect to nukes.

But , A Crazy Dictator doesnt need em either.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by RedTop


But , A Crazy Dictator doesnt need em either.

Very true, but whom is to decide witch dictator or leader is crazy? Some would say that Bush is crazy and others will say that the chinese or french leaders are crazy.

[RedTop]

Originally posted by Nilsen
Very true, but whom is to decide witch dictator or leader is crazy? Some would say that Bush is crazy and others will say that the chinese or french leaders are crazy.

Would say? I imagine they do already. I guess the world view of someone like Kim Jong is what you measure things by. His history of the way he does things and views things leads one to think he may be just a few bricks short of a load.

I really don't have a good answer to that. I guess a case by case thing?

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by RedTop
Would say? I imagine they do already. I guess the world view of someone like Kim Jong is what you measure things by. His history of the way he does things and views things leads one to think he may be just a few bricks short of a load.

I really don't have a good answer to that. I guess a case by case thing?

Yes, but he hasnt started any wars has he? Other world leaders posessing nukes has.

i agree tho...case by case it is. There is no final answers so therefore i think that nobody should have them period.

[RedTop]

I meant they are prolly calling Bush crazy:) (I personally think he is a fine president.)

In regards to noone having them , yeah that would be a good thing I think. It's not like that , but its nice to think about it.

My position , not that ya asked , is that there is a time for talk and there is a time for no more talk and let the butt whipping begin. Knowing when that time is , is the kicker.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by RedTop
I meant they are prolly calling Bush crazy:) (I personally think he is a fine president.)

In regards to noone having them , yeah that would be a good thing I think. It's not like that , but its nice to think about it.

My position , not that ya asked , is that there is a time for talk and there is a time for no more talk and let the butt whipping begin. Knowing when that time is , is the kicker.

Its all calculated guesswork isnt it? Bush guessed that Saddam would be a threat and that he had WMDs. Whats the truth? We will never really know. If the US had waited then maybe nothing or something bad would have happend but as i said, its only educated (or not) guesswork.

My personal view is that one should always wait until something happens. To take a funny scenario, I would rather wait and defend norway if sweden attacked than to launch a preemptive strike based on intel that said that they would. Reason is simple. The defendant usually wins.. maybe not the battle at hand but what follows in the eyes of the general public and the history books.

Name one real agressor in modern times that has won in the long run.

[RedTop]

Originally posted by Nilsen
Its all calculated guesswork isnt it? Bush guessed that Saddam would be a threat and that he had WMDs. Whats the truth? We will never really know. If the US had waited then maybe nothing or something bad would have happend but as i said, its only educated (or not) guesswork.

My personal view is that one should always wait until something happens. To take a funny scenario, I would rather wait and defend norway if sweden attacked than to launch a preemptive strike based on intel that said that they would. Reason is simple. The defendant usually wins.. maybe not the battle at hand but what follows in the eyes of the general public and the history books.

Name one real agressor in modern times that has won in the long run.

All good points there.

Well...I'll pass on the naming thing if thats ok. I will say..the jury is still out on the latest agression and who wins.

[Nilsen]

Yeah, the jury is still out.

I hope the coalition wins because of so many things, but because of alot of issues i also think they wont (and perhaps should not). If they do it will prolly mean that agression is seen as "a good way to go" and that is a rather scary thought you must agree, but if they "loose" then it will mean that so many good men have died for a lost cause and also that one can't actvily change a bad regime (and saddam was BAD).

There are too many "ifs" and whatnots to truly win me over on this one, but as a general rule i think that its better to be on the defese than on the offence when real peoples lives are on the line. The loss of my mother a few weeks ago war horrific and to think that this happens on a daily basis in some corners of the world is just to hard to really sink in.

Every day on either side of any conflict whatever the cause someone looses their loved once.

[RedTop]

I hope the coalition wins because of so many things, but because of alot of issues i also think they wont (and perhaps should not). If they do it will prolly mean that agression is seen as "a good way to go" and that is a rather scary thought you must agree, but if they "loose" then it will mean that so many good men have died for a lost cause and also that one can't actvily change a bad regime (and saddam was BAD).


Well..You have a point. In black and white the U.S. was the agreesor. Many will say that SH had a way out , or he could have complied and a 100 other reasons ,all GREAT ONES. But the fact is , WE DID INVADE. So in a black and white world that makes us the agressor I think. BUT , the agression was for a reason. See what I mean? Double edged sword. And I was and still am all for the action in Iraq. My judgemnet may be clouded but I dont think there are to many other countries that could be an agressor. At least to the point that the U.S. and a very few other countries could. I hope the coalition wins. I think they will.

There are too many "ifs" and whatnots to truly win me over on this one, but as a general rule i think that its better to be on the defese than on the offence when real peoples lives are on the line. The loss of my mother a few weeks ago war horrific and to think that this happens on a daily basis in some corners of the world is just to hard to really sink in.

A good Offense is a great defense. I'm facing that same road you just traveled. Sorry for your loss

Every day on either side of any conflict whatever the cause someone looses their loved once.

[Nilsen]

a good offence is a good defence when it comes to winning the battle at hand, but it does not have to be in the long run.

Anyways. You seem to be a very inteligent man and i look forward to perhaps debating this further at another time even if I think we may be on the same page so to speak.

Its 01:46 here and its time for me to join the missus in bed for what i hope will be some good offencive and defencive moves were we both end up as winners

Good night and enjoy the rest of the evning.

[RedTop]

Good Night and Good Luck:D

[Otto]

What are our choices with N Korea?

Bring all our Troops home as a sign of friendship toward the peace loving people of North Korea.

Send postcards to China, Japan, South Korea and.... aaaah.... Finland, wishing them the best of luck in handling this situation and suggest they might want to have the United Nations send a 'stern warning' to North Korea.

Get that damn Missile Defense system in Alaska operational ASAP.

[genozaur]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Do we allow them to accumulate nukes?  Do we bend over backwards to bribe them not to develope nukes?  Or do we attack them and make sure they dont have nukes?

Hawk,
Will you please first attack Russia, Britain, France,
China, Israel, (South Africa ?), Pakistan, and India. Or, maybe, you are afraid to do that ?  

[JoOwEn]

Do they have TVs and cell phones in NK. In that satellite photo, looks like they didnt even have any electricity let alone a clue.

[JoOwEn]

They probably dont even have computers, ring ring goto use dial tone in north korea. LOL!