Author Topic: I do not agree on all points, but..... (Read 1473 times)

blitz · « **on:** February 28, 2003, 05:19:09 PM »

nice read, anyways

http://www.tamera.org/english/aktuelltext/ddirak_letter.html

Regards Blitz

America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous

Toad · « **Reply #1 on:** February 28, 2003, 05:36:35 PM »

Been wanting to ask you for your suggestions on resolving that little problem with North Korea starting up their reactor. The news says they could put together a few bombs by the end of summer at the rate their going.

I'm sure you know the IAEA has referred the matter to the Security Council? What do you think the SC should do? Knowing that the NK's are about 5-6 months away from having ~ 5-10 nukes?

Thx.

funkedup · « **Reply #2 on:** February 28, 2003, 05:51:21 PM »

Obviously to solve the PRK nuke issue we need a morphogenetic field building new life forms which are planet-wide functional for the building up of a new world of trust, love, sexuality, truth and community. Then all will be well and the PRK will convert their nukes to bongs and dance around them singing kumbayah and playing hackeysack.

Hangtime · « **Reply #3 on:** February 28, 2003, 07:56:07 PM »

..and then there are times i wonder where the quarters go.

bounder · « **Reply #4 on:** February 28, 2003, 08:02:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
Obviously to solve the PRK nuke issue we need a morphogenetic field building new life forms which are planet-wide functional for the building up of a new world of trust, love, sexuality, truth and community. Then all will be well and the PRK will convert their nukes to bongs and dance around them singing kumbayah and playing hackeysack.

Yay funked, welcome to the program! =)

blitz · « **Reply #5 on:** March 01, 2003, 07:39:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Been wanting to ask you for your suggestions on resolving that little problem with North Korea starting up their reactor. The news says they could put together a few bombs by the end of summer at the rate their going.

I'm sure you know the IAEA has referred the matter to the Security Council? What do you think the SC should do? Knowing that the NK's are about 5-6 months away from having ~ 5-10 nukes?

Thx.

Don't think we should go with a pre-emtive strike.
Threat them with a strike if THEY attack and try to get over with them by time like ya did with russia.

Regards Blitz

America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous

Toad · « **Reply #6 on:** March 01, 2003, 09:45:45 AM »

So you have no problem with them building nuclear weapons, then, correct? You think the UN SC should just ignore the problem as brought to them by the IAEA?

And we should only attack them if they attack South Korea or perhaps the US?

Realizing that their missile/weapon technology is their only "cash" export, you have no problem with them selling missiles and WMD to whoever can come up with the Euros?

If they perhaps were to sell a nuke to Al Qaeda and we could trace it my it's "signature" to NK, would you then approve of a massive WMD retaliation against them?

Just curious. Thanks.

blitz · « **Reply #7 on:** March 01, 2003, 10:14:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
So you have no problem with them building nuclear weapons, then, correct? You think the UN SC should just ignore the problem as brought to them by the IAEA?

And we should only attack them if they attack South Korea or perhaps the US?

Realizing that their missile/weapon technology is their only "cash" export, you have no problem with them selling missiles and WMD to whoever can come up with the Euros?

If they perhaps were to sell a nuke to Al Qaeda and we could trace it my it's "signature" to NK, would you then approve of a massive WMD retaliation against them?

Just curious. Thanks.

1.I don't like them to have WMDs but i don't think war is the way to deal with it.

2.Why should they want to attack the USA? And how? And with which results?
Not even Hitler was dumb enough to use WMDs against allies in WW2 because he did know very well what would have happened then.

3.Western countries are selling weapons all over the world all the time to nearly every country, as vicious it may be as long as they friendly -> Iraq.
Same goes for Russia.

We have a vicious circle here. Only chance for little countries to protect themselfs is to Have WMDs, today

To whom N-Korea has sold WMDs?

4. Quote:
If they perhaps were to sell a nuke to Al Qaeda and we could trace it my it's "signature" to NK, would you then approve of a massive WMD retaliation against them? Quote

To much 'if' for me.

A nation that would sell WMDs to any other nation knowing that these nation will use it as an attack weapon against a Superpower would face serious answers. Won't happen.

Answers would be even worse if WMDs would be sold to AL Quaida.

Regards Blitz

America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous

Toad · « **Reply #8 on:** March 01, 2003, 11:37:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by blitz
1.I don't like them to have WMDs but i don't think war is the way to deal with it.

No war ever? Or just no war initially?

For example, if the US withdrew its troops serving under the UN banner on the DMZ and then NK attacked SK... would you support military action then?

Quote

Originally posted by blitz
2.Why should they want to attack the USA?

I'm sure I wouldn't know. The US is one of their biggest food donors, after all.

However, it is NK that has been making threats of war, so what actions would YOU think are justified if they attack SK and concurrently the US troops on the DMZ?

Please humor me and answer that question.

Quote

Originally posted by blitz
3.Western countries are selling weapons all over the world

Of course. That isn't the issue or the question.

So far, NK hasn't had the nukes to sell. That is about to change, apparently.

So, once again, please answer the original question.

If they DO start making nukes and sell them to the highest bidder... say Al Qaeda... you have no problem with that?

If you do, what action would you suggest?

Quote

Originally posted by blitz
To much 'if' for me.

A nation that would sell WMDs to any other nation

[/b]

Again, I admit it is a hypothetical. But I'm interested in knowing if you've thought about this in depth.

So, please humor me and tell me what you would suggest we do if they perhaps were to sell a nuke to Al Qaeda and we could trace it by it's "signature" to NK. Thanks.

Also, you never addressed this question:

I'm sure you know the IAEA has referred the matter to the Security Council? What do you think the SC should do? Knowing that the NK's are about 5-6 months away from having ~ 5-10 nukes?

What do you think the UN/SC role is in this "NK building nukes" situation?

Thanks again!

blitz · « **Reply #9 on:** March 01, 2003, 01:22:31 PM »

also, you never addressed this question:

I'm sure you know the IAEA has referred the matter to the Security Council? What do you think the SC should do? Knowing that the NK's are about 5-6 months away from having ~ 5-10 nukes?

What do you think the UN/SC role is in this "NK building nukes" situation?

Thanks again! [/B][/QUOTE]

I didn't understand that sentence Toad.

Don't know IAEA? Is it international Nuclear Control unit ?

Regards Blitz

qts · « **Reply #10 on:** March 01, 2003, 01:37:52 PM »

Personally, I think America should either stop all aid to NK or adopt the solution the Israelis applied to the Iraqi reactor - bomb it to rubble. Send in a couple of Stealth Bombers if you want it covert.

Toad · « **Reply #11 on:** March 01, 2003, 01:59:25 PM »

IAEA Mission Statement

Quote

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):

is an independent intergovernmental, science and technology-based organization, in the United Nations family, that serves as the global focal point for nuclear cooperation

assists its Member States, in the context of social and economic goals, in planning for and using nuclear science and technology for various peaceful purposes, including the generation of electricity, and facilitates the transfer of such technology and knowledge in a sustainable manner to developing Member States

develops nuclear safety standards and, based on these standards, promotes the achievement and maintenance of high levels of safety in applications of nuclear energy, as well as the protection of human health and the environment against ionizing radiation

verifies through its inspection system that States comply with their commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and other non-proliferation agreements, to use nuclear material and facilities only for peaceful purposes.

These are the SAME folks that are participating in the Iraq weapons inspections.

Here's their latest release on NK:

Quote

News Update on IAEA and North Korea

FEBRUARY 2003

27, Thursday: IAEA Seeking to Verify Restart of Unsafeguarded Facility in North Korea.

Reacting to news reports that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has restarted its nuclear reactor at Nyongbyong, the IAEA has deplored such moves and said restarting the “unsafeguarded” facility shows the country’s disregard for its treaty obligations. “We are aware of press reports. We have observed through satellite imagery indications at the reactor.

However, without inspectors on the ground, we are not in a position to verify whether the DPRK has restarted the reactor, though we are pursuing other technical means of independently determining the operating status of the facility," the Agency said. “However, if this is true, the IAEA deplores the operation of the DPRK’s nuclear facilities without the presence of safeguards inspectors,” the statement added. “Restarting this now unsafeguarded nuclear facility will further demonstrate the DPRK’s disregard for its nuclear non-proliferation obligations.”

The Agency also said its 35-member Board of Governors has confirmed that Pyongyang’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA remains “binding and in force.”

Toad · « **Reply #12 on:** March 01, 2003, 02:00:21 PM »

And please answer my other questions too, even if you find them hypothetical.

I'm trying to understand your position.

Thanks!

blitz · « **Reply #13 on:** March 01, 2003, 04:19:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
No war ever? Or just no war initially?

For example, if the US withdrew its troops serving under the UN banner on the DMZ and then NK attacked SK... would you support military action then?

Sure. (to your example)

Although i have a problem with UN like it shows today.
It's far away from being able to solve the worlds problems.
There's some developpment needed which includes some sort of real power to UN and no veto for single countries.
This will takes decades if it happens at all, though.

Quote

I'm sure I wouldn't know. The US is one of their biggest food donors, after all. . [/B]

That's a step in the right direction.

Quote

However, it is NK that has been making threats of war, so what actions would YOU think are justified if they attack SK and concurrently the US troops on the DMZ?

Please humor me and answer that question. [/B]

Try chase a rat into a corner and it might get aggressive.
NK, as evil it might be is threatened by US manoeuvers and the comin Iraq war.

Kim Dae Jung from SK has started his friendly attack on NK already just as Egon Bahr/Willy Brandt did with former DDR in the seventies.
Was called : Politik der Annäherung' and worked pretty well but needed its time. [/B][/QUOTE]

Quote

So far, NK hasn't had the nukes to sell. That is about to change, apparently.

So, once again, please answer the original question.

If they DO start making nukes and sell them to the highest bidder... say Al Qaeda... you have no problem with that?

If you do, what action would you suggest? [/B]

If there is clear evidence of that im with you if it's goin to war.

Quote

Again, I admit it is a hypothetical. But I'm interested in knowing if you've thought about this in depth. [/B]

Just to make you happy. I don't claim to have a solution to all problems of this world. Happy now?

Quote

Also, you never addressed this question:

I'm sure you know the IAEA has referred the matter to the Security Council? What do you think the SC should do? Knowing that the NK's are about 5-6 months away from having ~ 5-10 nukes?

What do you think the UN/SC role is in this "NK building nukes" situation?

Thanks again! [/B]

Definately not goin to threaten NK with a pre-emtive strike. What will NK do? Conquor the whole world?

Why Pakistan, unstable as could be, isn't a big threat to us?

Un/SC can't do nothin violent at the moment. Every nation has the right to developp weapons for their self defense.

Ask yourself Toad, which country got the most WMDs in the world and how is their politics?

They act often only to their needs and spit on the international community sometimes:Kyoto protocoll, landmines, internatinal court D-Haag.

What will little countries think of that???
Be big (get WMDs) and ya can do what ya want.

Maybe we in the west should look in our backyard sometimes and change ourselves before we ask others to change themselves.

Regards Blitz

btw
Toad, you agree with me that after 30 years have gone by and wounds on both sides healed a bit it would be honorable to have an apologize from America to Vietnam?

America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #14 on:** March 01, 2003, 05:32:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by blitz

Threat them with a strike if THEY attack and try to get over with them by time like ya did with russia.

You mean like Japan threatened to do? Maybe they missed the missle that PRNK shot into the ocean last week.

Just as Iraq is now aware that UN threats dont mean anything, SK is testing the waters (no pun intended) and is discovering the same thing.

Keep putting flowers in your hair, but please promise not to breed.