I do not agree on all points, but.....

[Hortlund]

punt for Blitz

[Toad]

Originally posted by Toad
And still waiting for Blitz to enlighten me with respect to his position on North Korea and the IAEA/UN Security Council. And how the US is forcing NK into a war.

Thanks.

[Toad]

[blitz]

:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Toad
And still waiting for Blitz to enlighten me with respect to his position on North Korea and the IAEA/UN Security Council. And how the US is forcing NK into a war.

Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



__________________
Toad




How can i enlighten you Toad, with all ya mighty friends you sure now much more than me




Buuut,  i'm  still scary that  with Bush & his boys every dangerous situation can get outa hand real quick.

I didn't say your government is responsible for Kim Il Sung being bad and dangerous.





Regards Blitz


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

[Toad]

Originally posted by Toad
And still waiting for Blitz to enlighten me with respect to his position on North Korea and the IAEA/UN Security Council. And how the US is forcing NK into a war.

Thanks.

I'd like YOUR position Blitz, if that wasn't clear. Do you have one?

[blitz]

Originally posted by Toad
So, where would an unbiased review place the responsibility for Pol Pot's rise to power? What "enabled" him to be in a position where he could slaughter his fellow countrymen?

Something else for the Vietnamese to apologize for?

Hey Toad,

i asked you politely if it wasn't time to apologize for America to the little country of Vietnam as what was done there in the name of freedom and democrazy needs to be forgiven  by their people who have suffered so hard from your nation.

The whole case was a political crime altogether committed in cold war times by the USA and  i can see no difference to Russia invasion of Afganistan or the bloody surpression of the Freedom revolt of Ungaria in 1965 by Russia.

The line you draw to Pol Pot  has noting to do with it or if it has your country is directly resonsible for 125000 iran soldiers killed by Saddam Hussein with chemical WMDs and all the bad he did to his own people.


Regards Blitz



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

[Toad]

Hey, Blitz.......

I told you I see nothing to apologize for, PARTICULARLY after what the North did to the population of the South after reunification and particularly after what a "reunited" Vietnam did to other sovereign nations in the region. If there was ever a vindication that the North needed to be stopped, those were it.

The reference to Pol Pot was in response to Straffo's laughable assertion that VietNam invaded Cambodia as "freedom fighters". VietNam is directly responsible for having put Pol Pot in power. They just had a problem with him after their puppet broke his strings.

But, hey......... nice try on changing the subject.

Now, please give me your position on the current NK "nuclear weapons" dilemma that has been sent to the SC by the IAEA. What do YOU think the SC should do? They've got about 5 months before the NK's start making nukes. Just exactly how is the US forcing the NK's into war?

[blitz]

Originally posted by Toad
Hey, Blitz.......

I told you I see nothing to apologize for, PARTICULARLY after what the North did to the population of the South after reunification and particularly after what a "reunited" Vietnam did to other sovereign nations in the region. If there was ever a vindication that the North needed to be stopped, those were it.

The reference to Pol Pot was in response to Straffo's laughable assertion that VietNam invaded Cambodia as "freedom fighters". VietNam is directly responsible for having put Pol Pot in power. They just had a problem with him after their puppet broke his strings.

But, hey......... nice try on changing the subject.

Now, please give me your position on the current NK "nuclear weapons" dilemma that has been sent to the SC by the IAEA. What do YOU think the SC should do? They've got about 5 months before the NK's start making nukes. Just exactly how is the US forcing the NK's into war?

Later, my DDR commie girl is commin soon, have to ask her first what the Politbüro found out to be the right answer on this


Regards Blitz


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

[Toad]

Good idea.

You wouldn't want to start thinking for yourself and risk a brain aneurysm at this late date.

I look forward to hearing from her through you.

[Puke]

In the real world, if your neighbor is brandishing a rifle at you with glee and later pointing it at you from out his window, you will call the police.  He's not done anything to harm you yet, but common sense dictates this to be not a good thing.  We will all agree on this.  But in the political arena between nations, there is no entity overseeing everyone who you can call to for help.  In my view, North Korea is basically pointing its rifle at a few neighbors on this planet right now with glee.  

To jump into this North Korea topic, as always, war is a method only of last resort.  Yes, even war-monger Puke feels this way about North Korea and I believe that we need to have some heavy negotiations.  I'm hesitant in thinking bombs are the solution right now.  The troubling thing about this is that North Korea can sure make a lot of nasty weapons while negotiations are ongoing.  

But before anyone takes what I just said and makes this same leap to Iraq, you must remember that we've had 12-years of negotiations with Iraq.  In fact, after the unsuccessful aggression against another neighbor in 1991, Iraq signed a cease-fire which stipulated that Iraq catalog all of its weapons of mass destruction for the UN, halt any construction of weapons of mass destruction, allow for ongoing monitoring in Iraq and provide proof that those weapons as catalogued were destroyed.  Well, we know the UN inspectors were booted out for a time in 1998 and he's been playing games with them all along anyway.  
Iraq never provided proof that many of those weapons as catalogued had been destroyed.. FACT!  (Thus, the agreement of peace is broken and technically we are at war again...that's how contracts work, you know.)  
There are Al Quaida training camps in northern Iraq...FACT!
Most recently, Abu Musab Zarqawi was arrested in the UK plotting to poison England's or the USA's water supply after exiting Iraq...FACT!  
We've had 12-years of negotians with Iraq and it is readily evident that negotiations will not work.  Couple this with how evil Saddam's regime is and I can't see why anyone isn't for the removal of Saddam from power.  

Blitz, shuddup about Vietnam.  I hate hearing this brainless rhetoric that you have heard from brainless-wonders and now regurgitate too.  There is no apology the USA needs to make, it was a noble cause.  How can you place our involvement in the Vietnam War next to the Russian/Afghanistan War and the Hungarian uprising?  (By the way, my grandmother was born in Hungary.)  If you learn nothing else about the Vietnam War, just learn this... the USA defended South Vietnam against an invasion by North Vietnam.  US troops never crossed the border into NVN but instead spent their time inefficiently fighting geurilla units in South Vietnam.  We tried to DEFEND a country, not invade a country.  I fail to see the comparisons you make.  Actually, I'll apologize that we didn't fight the war more brutally from the beginning.  In the long run, maybe more people would be alive.

{edit}  I found this in another post and amends my thoughts about our contract for peace being broken:

(6) Attacking Iraq would be unprovoked aggression. No, it wouldn't. Andrew Sullivan has pointed out a significant fact: There was no peace treaty, only the truce, so the state of war resumes when the conditions are violated. By attacking now, the United States would be ending the war, not starting it.

[blitz]

Originally posted by Toad
Good idea.

You wouldn't want to start thinking for yourself and risk a brain aneurysm at this late date.

I look forward to hearing from her through you.

Just up, evil commie girl hit me with Karl Marx ' Das Kapital' on the head all night instead of sex  



Ok, here we go.


1.Sure Bush chased NK into the corner when he made up his triangle of 'evil' : Iran, Iraq, NK last year.


2.Every nation has the right to arm themselfes for selfdefense even NK.

3.Every nation has the right to sign contractes and terminate them.

4.The 'Atomwaffensperrvertrag' has to be proven to be unjust.

The owners of Nuclear weapons have promissed to disarm them in this contract. Did they ? NO.

Did they developp new forms of nuclear weapons since 1985? yes

5. What's about ya allies Pakistan/Israel, did their big friend forced them to join the contract and/or get rid of their nuclear weapons ? Looks to me like the typical double standard.

6. Do i like NK government? No

7. Do i thing we have a dangerous situation there? yes



Regards Blitz

btw. NK wants a 'Nichtangriffspakt' with the USA to come back to 'Atomwaffensperrvertrag', seems reasonable for me.



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

[Monk]

Originally posted by blitz





btw. NK wants a 'Nichtangriffspakt' with the USA to come back to 'Atomwaffensperrvertrag', seems reasonable for me.

Sounds like Blackmail to me.

[Toad]

Originally posted by blitz


1.Sure Bush chased NK into the corner when he made up his triangle of 'evil' : Iran, Iraq, NK last year.

[/b]

He did put them in the "axis of evil" in a speech. US policy towards NK has absolutely not changed one bit, nor has any action been taken against NK as a result of that phrase. In fact, I believe we may have increased food aid since the Clinton administration.

So as far as "chasing them in a corner", that's just horse droppings. He said they were "evil"; yeah? Well they are; tough when somebody tells the truth about you isn't it? If your girlfriend iss ugly, she's ugly. If somebody says so, that's just the truth. You can always change girlfriends. And NK could change as well.

Originally posted by blitz

2.Every nation has the right to arm themselfes for selfdefense even NK.

[/b]

True. But not, however, with Nukes or other WMD.

From the UN site itself. I know you revere the wise UN.

Non Proliferation Treaty

The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. A total of 187 parties have joined the Treaty

North Korea is a signatory to that treaty.

Originally posted by blitz

3.Every nation has the right to sign contractes and terminate them.

[/b]

Article X
1. 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.

 

Failure to abide by the terms of a contract as Puke noted above.

Yes, they can withdraw. However, they should realize that a starving nation dependent upon handouts from other countries may find it in its best interest not to do so. You see, every nation has the right to sign contracts and terminate them. Like food supply contracts and stuff. Right?

Originally posted by blitz


4.The 'Atomwaffensperrvertrag' has to be proven to be unjust.

The owners of Nuclear weapons have promissed to disarm them in this contract. Did they ? NO. Did they developp new forms of nuclear weapons since 1985? yes

The "nuclear powers" did not promise to disarm, nor was there a ban on developing "new" weapons. Where do you see that in the NPT? Which Article?

Originally posted by blitz


5. What's about ya allies Pakistan/Israel, did their big friend forced them to join the contract and/or get rid of their nuclear weapons ? Looks to me like the typical double standard.

Might as well get it right.

Proliferation and Use of Nuclear Weapons

...

The United Nations (U.N.) has 190 member countries, but only eight are known or widely considered to have nuclear weapons. In order of their acquisition of nuclear weapons, these countries are as follows:

United States (first test, 1945)
Russia (first test, 1949)
Great Britain (first test, 1952)
France (first test, 1960)
China (first test, 1964)
India (first test, 1974)
Pakistan (first test, 1998)

...Most countries believe Israel possesses nuclear weapons, but it has never acknowledged possession and is not known to have conducted a nuclear test....

....Today, many countries are concerned that Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Iraq may be pursuing clandestine nuclear weapon programs.

No, we haven't "forced" anyone. We've worked with all of them trying to get them to eliminate their nukes in accordance with the NPT.

You'll note we have not "forced" NK as yet either. I think merely terminating all aid to them will resolve the problem in one way or another. I don't think we'll have to use force.

Originally posted by blitz

6. Do i like NK government? No

7. Do i thing we have a dangerous situation there? yes

btw. NK wants a 'Nichtangriffspakt' with the USA to come back to 'Atomwaffensperrvertrag', seems reasonable for me.

6. Well, join the club.

7. I'm sorry but America and South Korea are threatened by North Korea in no way, it's just plain ridiculous.

I believe the UN IAEA is the correct institution for that, if they truly wish to discuss it.

The way I see it, we have nothing whatsoever to discuss with them. According to Rumsfeld, we'll be pulling our troops off the Korean DMZ before too long and hopefully out of Korea entirely.

North Korean proliferation needs to be and should be addressed in the UN; that's where the treaty they signed originated. The US is not the "enforcement" arm for the NPT; there is no "enforcement". They could have pulled out legally with 3 months notice but they pulled out without notice.

In short, it's not our problem. We'll probably be out of Korea before they have very many nukes.

So, North Korea is threatened by the United Staes in no way, it's just plain ridiculous.

It's not our problem. You see, we don't want to be the world's policeman.

[blitz]

Originally posted by Toad


He did put them in the "axis of evil" in a speech. US policy towards NK has absolutely not changed one bit, nor has any action been taken against NK as a result of that phrase. In fact, I believe we may have increased food aid since the Clinton administration.

So as far as "chasing them in a corner", that's just horse droppings. He said they were "evil"; yeah? Well they are; tough when somebody tells the truth about you isn't it? If your girlfriend iss ugly, she's ugly. If somebody says so, that's just the truth. You can always change girlfriends. And NK could change as well.
[/B]

Ja, Ja, propaganda all over.
The context was 9/11 had happened and Bush defined his targets. If Bush wasn't such a dweeb he had keept his mouth closed and used diplomatic channels to find a way to deal with NK.

Nobody said your girl was ugly but heh it's up to you to change if ya don't feel comfortable anymore...

True. But not, however, with Nukes or other WMD.

From the UN site itself. I know you revere the wise UN.

Non Proliferation Treaty
[/B]

Non-Proliferation-Treaty is a good thing. But it was meant that countries without nukes before 1967 should not try to get em and US,Russia, France, GB, China should get rid of them and NEVER attack a country with nukes which has none.

What we see in Iraq is exactly the other way round. Tony already threatened Iraq with the use of NW.
[/B][/QUOTE]

North Korea is a signatory to that treaty.
[/B]

WAS, which is bad but i'm sure they will be back .
They usin it to blackmail the USA what isn't right but don't be dumb and go to war with them, China won't like that.


 

Failure to abide by the terms of a contract as Puke noted above.

Yes, they can withdraw. However, they should realize that a starving nation dependent upon handouts from other countries may find it in its best interest not to do so. You see, every nation has the right to sign contracts and terminate them. Like food supply contracts and stuff. Right?
[/B]

Sure it is.
And it is well known that all big countries blackmail little countries to get what they want, that's every day politcs.
Nobody is an angel.

The "nuclear powers" did not promise to disarm, nor was there a ban on developing "new" weapons. Where do you see that in the NPT? Which Article?
[/B]

Couldn't find it but several news artikels refers to it.

http://www.n-tv.de/3092683.html

We not talkin about developpin new weapons here, we talkin about developpin new WMDs.
Again, this is double standart at its best.

Might as well get it right.

Proliferation and Use of Nuclear Weapons

...

The United Nations (U.N.) has 190 member countries, but only eight are known or widely considered to have nuclear weapons. In order of their acquisition of nuclear weapons, these countries are as follows:

United States (first test, 1945)
Russia (first test, 1949)
Great Britain (first test, 1952)
France (first test, 1960)
China (first test, 1964)
India (first test, 1974)
Pakistan (first test, 1998)

...Most countries believe Israel possesses nuclear weapons, but it has never acknowledged possession and is not known to have conducted a nuclear test....
[/B]

What do you want to say with your answer, heh?

Your friends Pakistan and Israel doesn't have signed the NPT.
So why didn't ya government forced them to get rid of it by sanctions or whatever?
As i said: Typical double standart



 

No, we haven't "forced" anyone. We've worked with all of them trying to get them to eliminate their nukes in accordance with the NPT.

You'll note we have not "forced" NK as yet either. I think merely terminating all aid to them will resolve the problem in one way or another. I don't think we'll have to use force.
[/B]

Heh, heh, nobody force their 'friends' as evil they might be -> same as with Saddam Hussein before 1990.

6. Well, join the club.

7. I'm sorry but America and South Korea are threatened by North Korea in no way, it's just plain ridiculous.

I believe the UN IAEA is the correct institution for that, if they truly wish to discuss it.

The way I see it, we have nothing whatsoever to discuss with them. According to Rumsfeld, we'll be pulling our troops off the Korean DMZ before too long and hopefully out of Korea entirely.

North Korean proliferation needs to be and should be addressed in the UN; that's where the treaty they signed originated. The US is not the "enforcement" arm for the NPT; there is no "enforcement". They could have pulled out legally with 3 months notice but they pulled out without notice.

In short, it's not our problem. We'll probably be out of Korea before they have very many nukes.

So, North Korea is threatened by the United Staes in no way, it's just plain ridiculous.

It's not our problem. You see, we don't want to be the world's policeman. [/B]

Propaganda lies don't help here, Toad.

Bush and his warmongers have decided to be the worlds cop or to say it more clearly to be the ONLY cop. Sad but true.


Regards Blitz



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

[Toad]

Again, as in the other thread, you apparently can't distinguish between regimes that imprison, torture, murder and starve their own populace and those that would like to stop them from doing so.

NK is one of the worst and you can find evidence of that at any of the independent human rights websites.

Also, you obviously need to actually read the NPT. It's short, don't worry. It doesn't say the nuclear countries must get rid of their nukes. You are, again, simply wrong here.

We're not going to war with NK. I know that's going to prevent you from enjoying another "no war for kimchee" parade but sacrifices must be made. Even by you.

The Bush administration is handling this perfectly. It is a "regional issue", not ours. We're still supplying the food we said we would supply. Rumsfeld has already said we'll be pulling back from the DMZ and probably out of Korea entirely before long.

Perfect, simply perfect. If the two Koreas reunite peacefully, what could possibly be better? If the NK's reunite through war, well... that would be the UN SC's problem wouldn't it? After all, the blue flag flies at the DMZ. I'm sure Germany will take a leadership role there, as they are doing now. Do you think you'll send troops?
 
Nobody is an angel, I agree. But there are some that, despite their obvious failings and missteps aspire to sainthood and some others that are the very incarnation of evil. Too bad you are unable to tell the difference.

Know why you couldn't find it? It's not in there. Go ahead, read the actual NPT; it's quite short. But what you say is there, simply is not there. You are wrong. Again.

The only countries that have not become parties of the NPT are Cuba, India, Israel, and Pakistan. We haven't forced anyone to get rid of their nukes. We have no enforcement power over the NPT; it is purely a UN/IAEA function.

How do you suggest the UN "force" the non-signatory nations to follow the NPT? I'd love to hear your ideas on that.  

Would you (and Germany, France, Russia) support a unilateral invasion of Pakistan, Israel, and India authorised by the UN SC? Would you?

Propaganda lies don't help here, Toad.

I know but you seem to go on and on with them just the same. Probably easier than doing research and thinking for yourself, I guess. So, I'm sure you will continue.