Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Neubob on October 08, 2006, 09:53:23 PM
-
Nuclear test (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15190745/)
And if they did, which I assume will take a little while to confirm or disconfirm, then the true test of the world's resolve will be upon us. I'd like to take bets on this one, but I won't. My guess is that the sabre rattling will reach a crescendo, but will ultimately die down when we realize, or re-realize, that it is not within our intestinal ability to defang a confirmed nuclear power. Not at this stage, anyway.
I sure don't want to see the next stage.
-
Next stage: Nuclear War
Stage after that: Sticks and stones.
-
It's still seven minutes to midnight ...
http://www.thebulletin.org/
-
No confirmation yet of a test. It is possible that they are only talking at this point. Even if a test has been done and was successful it does not mean that they have a weapon capable of being fielded in any battlefield situation.
-
CNN reports that South Korea is reporting it now. They may have detected it seismically.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/korea.nuclear.test.ap/index.html
-
http://aslwww.cr.usgs.gov/Seismic_Data/telemetry_data/INCN_24hr.html appears to show a seismic trace from a half hour ago. (this will be out of date about 30 minutes after I post this)
-
If it's true, then good for them!
Everyone knows that South Korea and the US have always wanted to invade North Korea and capture all of its wealth and technology.
Seriously, what justification does NK have in buidling a nuke?
-
Because all the cool countries have 'em?
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Everyone knows that South Korea and the US have always wanted to invade North Korea and capture all of its wealth and technology.
Your source for this is?
-
Maverick, he's very subtly sarcastic. North Korea is very, very, very poor. It'd be like wanting to invade a Tijuana that doesn't have alcohol or donkey shows. Why bother?
-
Oh I know he doesn't have anything to base it on. I was hoping he'd try to back his statement up.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Oh I know he doesn't have anything to base it on. I was hoping he'd try to back his statement up.
That's two times over your head now. :D
-
I wonder what the yield is. While the media typically makes little distinction and instead prefers the "OMG NUCLEAR!" fearmongering, there's a huge difference between a few-kiloton tactical bomb and a multi-megaton strategic weapon.
People who think any nuclear war would wipe out civilization are misinformed. It'd take an all out, total nuclear war between the US and Russia to accomplish that. Hundreds, if not thousands, of nuclear weapons have been detonated over the years, including a few insanely high-yield weapons (The Tsar Bomba being the most insane). We're still here, no nuclear winter.
J_A_B
-
bye bye,
Delusions are a functional part of your day aren't they. :rolleyes
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Oh I know he doesn't have anything to base it on. I was hoping he'd try to back his statement up.
Originally posted by Maverick
bye bye,
Delusions are a functional part of your day aren't they. :rolleyes
Mav, what are you smoking? He was joking. Even _I_ can tell that.
-
this is freaking wild...they are now saying China had 20 minute prior warning of the test...geez louise, tomorrow is definately a "new day"
-
The Japanese have gotta be nervous as hail.
-
I wonder where the Russians are standing with all this going on right under their noses.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
this is freaking wild...they are now saying China had 20 minute prior warning of the test...geez louise, tomorrow is definately a "new day"
well, I'd figure that they would never do this test without China's permission. That doesn't suprise me at all. They probably even had Chinese help.
China wants to try to keep the US off balance.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Mav, what are you smoking? He was joking. Even _I_ can tell that.
No sheite sherlock, Occasionally I like to yank a troll's chain a bit.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
No sheite sherlock, Occasionally I like to yank a troll's chain a bit.
you sure got me! ;)
-
Originally posted by cav58d
this is freaking wild...they are now saying China had 20 minute prior warning of the test...geez louise, tomorrow is definately a "new day"
It's not that big of a deal, really. Think about it.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
It's not that big of a deal, really. Think about it.
I dunno, you remember that we ARE still technically at war with them That's a first.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The Japanese have gotta be nervous as hail.
how long would it take a missile to reach a target in the U.S. from over there
-
Raider, an ICBM could cover the distance in less than 30 minutes....but they're nowhere near developing that type of delivery system.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
how long would it take a missile to reach a target in the U.S. from over there
If NK even does have a nuke, I doubt they could mount one on a missle that could range ver far beyond the launch pad.
-
If they have true ICBMs, akin to the Russian and American weapons that can reach across the ocean, launch to impact is about 30-35 minutes.
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICBM)
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
It's not that big of a deal, really. Think about it.
Thinking about it... Kim Jong-il has a nuclear weapon...yes, its a big deal...especially for S. Korea, Japan and Taiwan...Not to mention we are still technically at war with the Koreans, and have tends of thousands of uniformed soliders just south of this nuclear nut!
-
Originally posted by Neubob
If they have true ICBMs, akin to the Russian and American weapons that can reach across the ocean, launch to impact is about 30-35 minutes.
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICBM)
The reason our government fears a NK nuke has more to do with the technology leaking/feeding out to terrorists than it does to NK ICBM threats.
Look how long China has had nukes, and look at their ICBMs. China is barely a threat in that regard, and they've had decades with nukes.
-
Quick poll:
You guys think W is awake or asleep right now?
-
Definitely awake.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Thinking about it... Kim Jong-il has a nuclear weapon...yes, its a big deal...especially for S. Korea, Japan and Taiwan...Not to mention we are still technically at war with the Koreans, and have tends of thousands of uniformed soliders just south of this nuclear nut!
Other than US troops in Korea ( 30k, I think), why is it really that big of a deal?
What is NK going to do, even if they have a nuke? Do you think they want to go offensive? I serioiusly doubt that.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Quick poll:
You guys think W is awake or asleep right now?
The irony is that Clinton, who allowed this, is probably sound asleep.
-
This isn't easy to do, but walk a mile in the other guy's shoes. If x number of nations have nuclear weapons, and as a sovereign nation you think you should have some too, where do the nuclear haves get off telling you that you can't have any?
They can huff and puff and threaten and bluster and sanction and sanctimonify, but bottom line is you resent being bullied and treated as an inferior.
You're being disrespected.
And that's the ultimate insult.
On the other hand ...
If a neighbor (all nations are neighbors) has a lousy reputation and constantly threatens harm to you, when do you do something about it?
When he threatens to get a very harmful weapon?
When he gets a very harmful weapon?
When he points the very harmful weapon at you?
When he fires the very harmful weapon at you?
When he hits you from the very harmful weapon?
Tough choice. Here's another milestone where leaders earn their paychecks. Or don't.
-
Originally posted by Halo
This isn't easy to do, but walk a mile in the other guy's shoes.
I know what you are saying, but .....
If you walked a mile in Hitler's shoes, you might understand why he did what he did.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
I know what you are saying, but .....
If you walked a mile in Hitler's shoes, you might understand why he did what he did.
ummm....No, I'm sorry. I dont care who's shoes I walked in, I would never justify the genocide of a race...
-
It also means Know Thy Enemy.
E.g.,
Is North Korea going to attack anyone with a nuke, either itself or via a terrorist surrogate?
Is Iran going to attack anyojne with a nuke, either by itself or via a terrorist surrogate?
If the answer to either of these is yes, then there are going to be some scary days ahead soon.
If the answer to either of these is maybe, then there is going to be a lot of turmoil and confusion for a long time.
If the answer to either of these is no, then the Doomsday Clock can stay at 7 minutes to midnight.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
I know what you are saying, but .....
If you walked a mile in Hitler's shoes, you might understand why he did what he did.
He had Parkinson's, and was a lunatic, only bested by Himmler and Stalin. I wouldn't even LOOK at his shoes.
-
byebye is using up all his bait in one fishing trip.
-
The US response should be to deploy nukes in South Korea. That'd pretty much end the China farce in the matter.
Deploying US nukes in SK is the logical next step.
-
I'm sure China would lead any strike into NK. Having your nutso cousin next door is one thing. Having your nutso cousin with a nuke next door is much different.
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
byebye is using up all his bait in one fishing trip.
He wishes.
-
that was no nuke that was teh bestest kimchee evar!!!1(http://community.allhiphop.com/images/smilies/fart.gif)
-
:rofl :lol
-
This is what we get for not doing that yongbyon mission in OFP.
-
on a more serious note...
a quote from Einstien: "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
-
News reports are saying NK was hoping to have a weapon along the lines of 400kilotons, and has fallen short...How big were the A bombs dropped in 45, and how would compare even 100 kilotons to that?
-
"How big were the A bombs dropped in 45, and how would compare even 100 kilotons to that?"
I believe the Hiroshima bomb was on the order of 15 kilotons.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by cav58d
News reports are saying NK was hoping to have a weapon along the lines of 400kilotons, and has fallen short...How big were the A bombs dropped in 45, and how would compare even 100 kilotons to that?
Fat man(Nagasaki) yielded 21 kilotons. Little Boy(Hiroshima), about 15.
How do they compare to 100 kilotons? Do the math.
The scary thing is that within 10 years of those two bombings, the Superpowers were testing weapons upwards of 1000 times that power, culminating in the 57 megaton behemoth exploded by the soviets in 1961. The original design called for a weapon that would yield an even 100 megatons, but they decided to scale it down by substituting certain radioactive components with lead. I believe the quote from Kruschev was 'we didn't want to end up breaking our own windows when it went off'.
PS: USGS just confirmed a 4.2 magnitude 'seismic event' in North Korea.
-
Frankly, I think every country should have nukes. Balance of power and all that. It will make any first use of nuclear weapons a suicide mission when all of the other countries dump on the initiator. It may also get the electorate in the professed "free" countries to pay a bit more attention to whom they vote into office.
-
the tsar bomb.
it pwnd.
iirc the same concept as the castle bravo device, but bigger & without the last fission stage active too
zOMG the test device was delivered by air
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c6/Tsar_Bomba_under_plane.jpg) :O :O
http://www.archive.org/details/MilitaryEffectsStudiesonOperationCastle1954
http://www.archive.org/details/CastleCommandersReport1954
-
Originally posted by Auger
Frankly, I think every country should have nukes. Balance of power and all that. It will make any first use of nuclear weapons a suicide mission when all of the other countries dump on the initiator. It may also get the electorate in the professed "free" countries to pay a bit more attention to whom they vote into office.
MAD may have worked fine during the cold war but those days are long gone.
There's to many nations run by nutters in the world that would like to use nukes if they had them, or even more likely, they would provide them to terrorists who wouldn't hesitate to use them.
-
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob
on a more serious note...
a quote from Einstien: "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
Billy, thanks for the thoughtful post.
hap
-
Mutual Assured Destruction was a farce of a policy that nearly killed us more than once.
-
Seriously... who cares if he has it?
Kim Ill like all them commie leaders is to eager to remain alive and in power to use it. Getting it is a PR stunt to raise the morale of his people and look like a big boy in the region. I would be far more worried if someone like Osama or his followers had it.
-
North Korea has on the order of 50 submarines. If they had to, they could sneak one of their boats onto the shores of any country with a coastline, and detonate the weapon.
-
So, what happens if NK sells one of these nukes to a terrorist element? Can we track the bomb, by the radioactive signiture after it goes off in Los Angeles, DC or NY back to NK?
Would we destroy NK by nuclear attack if they did? Or would we worry to much about Russia or China getting too pissed off about us dropping nukes near their border?
-
Originally posted by Stang
Mutual Assured Destruction was a farce of a policy that nearly killed us more than once.
But it didn't.
MAD is aptly named, and seemingly a ludicrous situation to be in , but I would have thought it must have played a part in preventing a strategic nuclear war with the Soviets just by the necessity of it's existence and use.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
So, what happens if NK sells one of these nukes to a terrorist element? Can we track the bomb, by the radioactive signiture after it goes off in Los Angeles, DC or NY back to NK?
Would we destroy NK by nuclear attack if they did? Or would we worry to much about Russia or China getting too pissed off about us dropping nukes near their border?
If a nuke attack was traced back to NK, I would expect no less than an equal reply not nessessarily traced back to the US. A good time to earn many brownie points and set nuclear policy.
-
How does a kid with a rock (North Korea) hurt a man with a rifle (USA)? By waiting until someone else staggers the man, perhaps knocking him down, then running up and smashing his head.
Real life situation: The US gets hit by another terrorist attack. Confusion and casualties. Then a nuclear weapon goes off in DC.
Nuclear weapons can be traced to where they were mined. Most of Russias weapons were mined in China for example. Whos to say NKs werent mined there too?
-
Why can't they test them in the pacific or Kazakhstan like civilised nations...whoopeeed heathens! :mad:
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
North Korea has on the order of 50 submarines. If they had to, they could sneak one of their boats onto the shores of any country with a coastline, and detonate the weapon.
I guess that SOSUS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS) and its modern equivalent must be a real waste of taxpayer money. Either that or the North Koreans are weilding the Red October.
-
Would it be possible to fake the test? As the power of atomic bombs is measured in tons of TNT, is it possible just to blow up 100 000 000kg's of TNT inside a mountain and say "Gee. our bomb works"
TNT only costs like 0.5euro/kg... even less
ok... spysatelites should spot those 10 000 trucks carrying explosives but anyways, is there something unique in fission bomb compared to regular explosives (when detonating underground.)
-
Originally posted by Excel1
MAD is aptly named, and seemingly a ludicrous situation to be in , but I would have thought it must have played a part in preventing a strategic nuclear war with the Soviets just by the necessity of it's existence and use.
I wonder if you realize HOW close it came?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
If he hadn't disobeyed orders, we'd have had war. The early warning system detected a nuclear war at a time when tensions were high. He decided to violated orders and wait until he had radar confirmation (if it was real, then by that time it would have been too late).
-
Originally posted by Koonan44
Would it be possible to fake the test? As the power of atomic bombs is measured in tons of TNT, is it possible just to blow up 100 000 000kg's of TNT inside a mountain and say "Gee. our bomb works"
TNT only costs like 0.5euro/kg... even less
ok... spysatelites should spot those 10 000 trucks carrying explosives but anyways, is there something unique in fission bomb compared to regular explosives (when detonating underground.)
Yes it is VERY POSSIBLE that the test is faked, and waiting to see what happens next.
-
Relax guys, Bush said it's 'unacceptable'. Everything will be alright.
-
Originally posted by Auger
Frankly, I think every country should have nukes. Balance of power and all that. It will make any first use of nuclear weapons a suicide mission when all of the other countries dump on the initiator. It may also get the electorate in the professed "free" countries to pay a bit more attention to whom they vote into office.
Not when you have nut jobs who put their ideology over their own surivial
-
I was listening to BBC this morning, and it was pretty funny. The reporter was talking to some international expert on the subject and kept trying to find ways to blame this test on the US, and the expert was having none of it. She would ask questions like "Doesn't the US deserve some measure of responsibility for driving North Korea to this?" and "Doesn't President Bush's use of the phrase 'axis of evil' make this something that was inevitable?". Each time, the expert guy would essentially say "Uh, nooooo" and I was left with the indelible impression that the reporter was an idiot. It was fantastic.
He quite clearly said that NK has pledged not to do this, had accepted hundreds of thousands of tons of free fuel oil in exchange for not doing this, and that the US was essentially feeding everyone under 14 in that country through a massive relief effort, and despite all of this, NK had poked everyone in the nose. He predicted that there would be an immediate response in the form of reduced aid, and that NK had caused China (it's biggest ally) to lose face, a dangerous thing to do.
-
LMAO! You guys are a riot. This went down EXACTLY how I said it would.
NK says they did it, but they have no proof at all.
Therefor, they have not done it, and have no nuclear bombs.
-
Laser, the seismic evidence seems to suggest otherwise, and the official US position is that it did happen. Can you cite a source for your assertion?
-
Frankly; NOBODY should have nuclear weapons, unfortunately that's not the case. The ball is in Chinas court they won't do a thing, hell I bet they helped them make it; or at the very least a wink & a nod agreement to keep the U.S. off balance while they went about their rat killing. Reminds me of the "cheat & retreat" policy nations take when they want to do something the U.N. is against.
China: We agree with the U.S., this would be a very bad thing to have come about
U.S.: China & the U.S. are in agreement that the N.Koreans can't be allowed to have a nuclear device
N.Korea: Screw you American dogs; you are zionist hounds barking in the kennel of capitalism
China whispering: Pssttt; Kim....PSSSSSTTTT over here! Hello glorious neighbor; go ahead & send a train across the border & we'll load you up with whatever you need to make this happen - food - money - oil - scientists; just whatever. We love seeing these Americans run in cirlces like small noisy dogs.
N.Korea: Oh thank you very much, can we sell these once we knock out a few?
China: Sure, as long as none get into the hands of the un-happy student population of this country who detest our communist society & remember the tanks grinding their friends into paste in tiananmen square. Lisbon or London or even Washington D.C. would be ok though.....rice?
N.Korea: Yes thank you; umm, shouldn't we invite the Americans & the Japanes & S.Koreans to another set of talks? I think they are begining to get suspicious because of all the Chinese take out boxes in my trash.....
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Laser, the seismic evidence seems to suggest otherwise, and the official US position is that it did happen. Can you cite a source for your assertion?
The "official position" is still, no radiation detected & there is the possibility this was just a large amount of TNT that was detonated...(but I believe as you, it WAS a nuke)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
LMAO! You guys are a riot. This went down EXACTLY how I said it would.
NK says they did it, but they have no proof at all.
Therefor, they have not done it, and have no nuclear bombs.
You're kidding, right?
-
Not at all. A large amount of TNT set off underground would have produced the same results. NK still has jack **** in the way of nuclear weapons.
-
Lasersailor: Can you explain why they would do something that could so easily be disproved and face international mockery?
Also, if the confirmation comes that there WAS a nuclear detonation, will you man up and say you were wrong? Inquiring minds want to know.
-
If they did test a nuke I think Japan is going to have to respond with a change to their constitution and a buildup. A nuclear NK is a threat that Japan cannot ignore.
-
I will man up. But so far, I've been completely right, and everyone has been taken for a ride.
For YEARS now NK has claimed they have nukes. Everytime they did so, the entire world would say, "Bull****! Prove it." and it would go away for a while.
The difference is this time NK claimed they have nukes, everyone in the world said, "Really?" and NK has been playing us ever since.
What do they have to gain? Everything. They are at rock bottom and incapable of anything. But claiming to have power, they are pushing over all the *****-footers who will not call them on it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Not at all. A large amount of TNT set off underground would have produced the same results. NK still has jack **** in the way of nuclear weapons.
You know this for a fact? I was under the impression that the siesmic signature of massed high explosives and atomic detonations were not similar--something to do with the expansion rates of gases. Of course, what do I know, I don't have a degree in geology or related fields.
-
I've heard that the time it would take for Japan to manufacturer its first nuclear weapons can best be described as "a long weekend". I'm pretty sure that they have finely machined casings that need only the insertion of some custom made plastique, a ball of fuel from one of their power plants, and a timer/activation circuit that just happens to be in storage sitting somewhere. Everything inert and nicely legal (in terms of their non-militarization laws) but ready to be turned into megatons of fun in a couple days or less.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
You know this for a fact? I was under the impression that the siesmic signature of massed high explosives and atomic detonations were not similar--something to do with the expansion rates of gases. Of course, what do I know, I don't have a degree in geology or related fields.
The shockwave for a nuclear event is sharper than the equivalent chemical explosion. The data is out there and being analyzed right now, we'll know by this evening if it was real or not.
-
Err, when I said "same" I meant "Seismic." That's what I get for typing this in class and not paying attention.
-
China has a black eye now..... and I guarantee they are real concerned
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Lasersailor: Can you explain why they would do something that could so easily be disproved and face international mockery?
Also, if the confirmation comes that there WAS a nuclear detonation, will you man up and say you were wrong? Inquiring minds want to know.
I have no idea if it was real or not but to think that something easily disproved would mean NK wouldn't do it is flat out wrong. Just look at the urban myths that are taken as fact right now. Global warming.....ahhh....I won't get started on this one but how about the one about Jews being warned to stay out of the twin towers for instance. Completely asinine claim and totally discredited by the facts, witnesses, and the list of dead yet this story is believed by large majorities in Europe and the Middle East. They could easily be counting on generating fear amongst the great unwashed masses to make it hard for governments to act or even change government positions similar to the Madrid train bombings which resulted in the election of a liberal government and pullout from Iraq. What affect would this have on the government of SK? As someone else mentioned, there are plenty that want to blame the US for the NK breaking their agreements. Given such a large anti-US mindset amongst the leftists in the world I can forsee significant condemnation of the US for what NK has "done" whether or not the facts support the claim or not.
-
IF they did have a bomb, my worry would not be whether it was capable of being put on a misile but whether it would fit in a standard 38ft container.
IMHO we are much more likely to have the next "Big Bang" come sailing in to somehwere like LA, Seattle, New York in a big annonymous box with 6000 others labeled "Microwave ovens - made in China"
-
I guess it's time to start stockpiling canned supplies to the basement.. :rolleyes:
-
I dont see why people are questioning, and finding it so hard to believe that NK does have a nuke...I mean its not like Clinton, Carter and Albright didnt just hand them over two reactors in the mid 90's!
-
It's not "people in general", it's just Lasersailor.
-
The biggest factors to consider is this right now. China and Russia probably wanted NK to have Nuclear powerplants due to the influx of cash to the two countries. Neither wanted them to have Nukes. Because now China has lost face and will be held responsibility of what has happened in one shape or form. NK missils do not have the capacity to carry a Nuke to hit the US at the moments. But it can hit Japan (Huge US Ally), South Korea(US ally), CHina(HAS NUKES), and Russia(HAS NUKES). If NK was to bomb either South Korea or Japan with Nukes the US would respond. ANd do to numerous treaties between China, Russia, and NK they would respond. See where this is all going. NK has screwed themselves over on this one. China could very well go to F*** U NK your on your own and if Russia done the same. Can we so in future History Books could have this line. Here is Country of kore formely South Korea. There was a war on the Korean Pennisula all the way up to around 2010. In the year 2006 NK denoted a Nuke and sent the world against it. It was focred to stand alone. Shortly after that in a failed attempt to bomb either SK or Japan the US respond with a Nuke as well. NK was whiped out and ever since then the Country of NK became a Nuclear Wasteland with no life in it. The lesson to learn today students. one DONT PISS OFF YOUR NEIGHBORS and two dont piss of the US. Or you will find yourself on your own and destroyed. We shall all see hopw the world reacts to this. And we all know many will try to say this is because of the Americans and they did something. Well as an American is this remember when we shared fault with the rest of the world for its problems. Maybe one day we shall see most of the World take responbility of its own actions and not blame us for it all. Kinda thinking along those lines. How would the world feel about thsi one. We dont want to be blamed for your problems you solve them and leave us alone. I bet the worlds tune would changwe faster then Micheal Jackson appearance. :O
-
"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."
I have my reasons, which I clearly laid out. What's so hard to understand about it?
-
Originally posted by Sparks
IF they did have a bomb, my worry would not be whether it was capable of being put on a misile but whether it would fit in a standard 38ft container.
IMHO we are much more likely to have the next "Big Bang" come sailing in to somehwere like LA, Seattle, New York in a big annonymous box with 6000 others labeled "Microwave ovens - made in China"
Do you really think they would want to be implicated in such an attack, by proving their ability to do so before hand?Why not just load the device onto the 38 foot container and ship it over, nice and subtle?
-
Bottom line for me: As more and more nations hostile towards the united states aquire nuclear weapons, all humanity slips closer and closer towards finally killing itself off. Maybe the asteroid wont get here in time, doesnt matter. The universe will no doubt be better off without us.
Love while you can :cry
-
Originally posted by Neubob
You know this for a fact? I was under the impression that the siesmic signature of massed high explosives and atomic detonations were not similar--something to do with the expansion rates of gases. Of course, what do I know, I don't have a degree in geology or related fields.
TNT in large amounts COULD have the same effect. Seismic signatures are measuring soundwaves, nothing else.
I could DEFINATELY see them "testing the rest of the world" on how they could "React to a Bluff". Not too stupid of a plan as well. Hitler did the same thing a few times before WWII (Sudetenland, Austria, Rhineland).
-
Originally posted by Warchief
The biggest factors to consider is this right now. China and Russia probably wanted NK to have Nuclear powerplants due to the influx of cash to the two countries. Neither wanted them to have Nukes. Because now China has lost face and will be held responsibility of what has happened in one shape or form. NK missils do not have the capacity to carry a Nuke to hit the US at the moments. But it can hit Japan (Huge US Ally), South Korea(US ally), CHina(HAS NUKES), and Russia(HAS NUKES). If NK was to bomb either South Korea or Japan with Nukes the US would respond. ANd do to numerous treaties between China, Russia, and NK they would respond. See where this is all going. NK has screwed themselves over on this one. China could very well go to F*** U NK your on your own and if Russia done the same. Can we so in future History Books could have this line. Here is Country of kore formely South Korea. There was a war on the Korean Pennisula all the way up to around 2010. In the year 2006 NK denoted a Nuke and sent the world against it. It was focred to stand alone. Shortly after that in a failed attempt to bomb either SK or Japan the US respond with a Nuke as well. NK was whiped out and ever since then the Country of NK became a Nuclear Wasteland with no life in it. The lesson to learn today students. one DONT PISS OFF YOUR NEIGHBORS and two dont piss of the US. Or you will find yourself on your own and destroyed. We shall all see hopw the world reacts to this. And we all know many will try to say this is because of the Americans and they did something. Well as an American is this remember when we shared fault with the rest of the world for its problems. Maybe one day we shall see most of the World take responbility of its own actions and not blame us for it all. Kinda thinking along those lines. How would the world feel about thsi one. We dont want to be blamed for your problems you solve them and leave us alone. I bet the worlds tune would changwe faster then Micheal Jackson appearance. :O
Spell check and paragraphs should be utilized. I dropped my pitons and chaulkbag on this wall of text.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Bottom line for me: As more and more nations hostile towards the united states aquire nuclear weapons, all humanity slips closer and closer towards finally killing itself off. Maybe the asteroid wont get here in time, doesnt matter. The universe will no doubt be better off without us.
Love while you can :cry
Ahhhh...right. You can't seriously believe that. Maybe mankind has a history of war but it doesn't seem to have stopped progress. We have more humans on Earth than at any time in history. We have more civilized democracies and less tyranical regimes than at any time in history. We have greater freedom, wealth, health and lifespans than in any time in history. What you're saying sounds similar to those that belive in Gaia, "Mother Earth". Those same people that view humans as a "virus" infecting Gaia. That's fine if they want to believe something so asinine but if they were "true believers" why don't they do their part to eliminate the virus and commit suicide? Life is what it is, you've gotta take the bad along with the good.
-
In this world where guerilla warfare can make a fool out of the best militaries in the world, by hiding amongst the civilains, perhaps the nuke will be the answer for it. We would just have to be hard enough to want to use it.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
TNT in large amounts COULD have the same effect. Seismic signatures are measuring soundwaves, nothing else.
I could DEFINATELY see them "testing the rest of the world" on how they could "React to a Bluff". Not too stupid of a plan as well. Hitler did the same thing a few times before WWII (Sudetenland, Austria, Rhineland).
Mash, seismic waves contain information (time-varying amplitudes, much like an AM radio signal), information that can (to a certain extent) be used to make educated inferences regarding the source of those signals. While many factors come into play when trying to evaluate siesmic data, you'ld be quite amazed at how much information can be gleaned from it. Seismic waves are similar to sound waves in that they represent pressure waves propagating through a medium (sound through air, seismic through rock/earth). In the same way that we humans can identify the source of many sounds, scientists can quite often distinguish the sources of seismic data. However, the signal processing can be quite complicated, and it can take quite a bit of time (hours, or even days) to reach a conclusion.
-
Lol...the Dems get control of Senate and House, we might get some amusement:
Reid: Investigate Bush Over North Korea Nukes
Reacting to the announcement that North Korea successfully conducted a nuclear test, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called Monday for an investigation of the Bush administration's "failed North Korea policies."
In a release, Reid said that "on the Bush Administration's watch, North Korea's arsenal has grown to as many as a dozen bombs," because he said Bush is "distracted by Iraq and paralyzed by internal divisions."
Calling the test "reckless and counterproductive," Reid called on Bush to "rally the international community and ... directly speak with the North Koreans so they understand we will not continue to stand on the sidelines."
Reid also called for a "full review" of the Bush administration's "failed North Korea policy," the development of "recommendations to change course," and direct communication with the North Koreans about "the consequence of their actions and the administration's new course."
In an election-year call for support, Reid said Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress "have made America less secure. It is time for a new direction," he said, referring to the Democrats' campaign slogan.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200610/POL20061009b.html
retort: John Kerry was on MSNBC's Hardball college tour the other night, and retailed one of the great liberal lies of contemporary political discussion: that President Bush caused the North Korean crisis (the president is apparently a very busy man).
Kerry said of this administration's performance in North Korea: "They've handled it miserably. Abysmally. This has been one of the greatest abdications of foreign policy that I've seen in all the years that I've been in the Senate. And it began with a disastrous decision by the president to reverse the decision of Colin Powell to engage the North Koreans and pick up where Secretary Perry and Bill Clinton left off.
"We should have been engaged in bilateral negotiations from the get-go, from the beginning. And it was obvious that when you announce a policy of preemption and you invade another country, and you begin to build bunker-busting nuclear weapons, that Kim Jong Il was going to find a way to get the attention of this administration and he did."
Kerry clearly was creating the impression that North Korea's cheating on the 1994 Agreed Framework came about because of Bush's Iraq policy and the administration's interest in studying — nothing has been built yet — new bunker-busting nukes. The problem with this scenario, as I demonstrate in my new book Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years, is that the North Koreans were cheating during the Clinton administration.
The secret North Korean uranium-enrichment program — to which they confessed in October 2002 — had been in operation since 1997 or 1998. If the North Koreans were cheating in 1998 because they already knew that Bush would be elected and invade Iraq, maybe Kim Jong Il really is the bizarre paranormal being he sometimes seems.
Actually, the North Korean cheating wasn't the least bit surprising. The CIA had thought North Korea wouldn't comply with the agreement all along. "Based on North Korea's past behavior," the CIA reported in 1995, "the [intelligence] community agrees it would dismantle its known program, [only] if it had covertly developed another source of fissile material."
The U.S. came to believe in 1997, for instance, that North Korea had built an underground nuclear facility in Kumchang-ri. The administration still dishonestly maintained that all was well with the Agreed Framework. On July 8, 1998, Albright told Congress, the Agreed Framework had "frozen North Korea's dangerous nuclear-weapons program." When intelligence about the suspect site at Kumchang-ri became public in August 1998, Albright told frustrated senators at a hearing that she hadn't known about the information until later in July. The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, present at the hearing, had to interrupt her: "Madame Secretary, that is incorrect." She had been told many months earlier.
It was clear by the late 1990s to honest observers that North Korea still had a nuclear-weapons program, while it was spreading missile technology far and wide and battening itself on U.S. support in keeping with the Agreed Framework. In response to congressional outrage, the administration tapped former defense secretary William Perry in late 1998 to review its North Korean policy. He said in March 1999, "What they're doing is moving forward on their nuclear weapons." He added, "We believe this is very serious. The long-range-missile program itself suggests in parallel the development of a nuclear weapons program."
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200310221200.asp
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
If it's true, then good for them!
Everyone knows that South Korea and the US have always wanted to invade North Korea and capture all of its wealth and technology.
Seriously, what justification does NK have in buidling a nuke?
What justification does Iran have? What justification did Pakistan have? What justification does crazy joe living in the mountains of West Virginia have (if he could)?
You're familiar with the ancient story of "Pandora's Box?" ;)
-
LOL every time I hear Harry Reid speak it makes me want to throw **** at the TV. The only worse speaker out there is Dubya.
-
Originally posted by Stang
LOL every time I hear Harry Reid speak it makes me want to throw **** at the TV. The only worse speaker out there is Dubya.
Well, if you compare GW's oration skills right after 9/11 and now, he's improved, relative to his competition.
I remember watching his state of the union right after the attack, being so pissed off - and I don't remember if I was pissed off at the attack or at him so sounding like a 6 year old with down syndrome.
-
Reid and Kerry....what a pair of a**holes. This is the perfect example of why I dispise the Democrat party. They have no ideas at all. Doesn't matter to them the ramifications of their actions, only what issue can they spin to use against Bush so they can regain political power. They have no problem ignoring the previous administration. It's all about Bush. Like I've said before, don't these guys realize that Bush is term-limited? They keep trying to run against Bush, and they don't seem to do very well at that even after years of practice. Like I said, they're a**holes.
-
Originally posted by Auger
Frankly, I think every country should have nukes. Balance of power and all that. It will make any first use of nuclear weapons a suicide mission when all of the other countries dump on the initiator. It may also get the electorate in the professed "free" countries to pay a bit more attention to whom they vote into office.
Good point.....how Chirac ever got elected is beyond me.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
how long would it take a missile to reach a target in the U.S. from over there
Fedex or UPS? It sure aint flying under its own power.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
How does a kid with a rock (North Korea) hurt a man with a rifle (USA)? By waiting until someone else staggers the man, perhaps knocking him down, then running up and smashing his head.
Real life situation: The US gets hit by another terrorist attack. Confusion and casualties. Then a nuclear weapon goes off in DC.
Nuclear weapons can be traced to where they were mined. Most of Russias weapons were mined in China for example. Whos to say NKs werent mined there too?
A nuclear weapon going off in Washington DC would be a marked improvement.
-
You have a guy in a crowded bar with an ak47. You can walk into the bar with 3 ak47's and kill the guy and probably a lot of innocent people. You can also walk in the bar with an ice pick (or screw driver) and just kill the guy with the ak47. The answer is in diplomacy. Diplomacy gets you close. Then you just need something sharp.
-
Don't we have an energy bomb/device that can take out all electric equipment in a certain radius? Aside from the unlucky few with pace makers, that might be an option. That's if it exists. I forget where I read about it.
-
Second explosion detected.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20554779-1702,00.html
-
Originally posted by BTW
Don't we have an energy bomb/device that can take out all electric equipment in a certain radius? Aside from the unlucky few with pace makers, that might be an option. That's if it exists. I forget where I read about it.
Weapons are easilly protected from EMP, the threat you describe.
-
All jokes and comments aside, some of us are actually a little nervous about this. Its scary to think what would happen if sombody actually used a nuke.
-
I'm not scared nor worried.
-
I am, the only thing I know about Nuclear power is when they explode its bad.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Weapons are easilly protected from EMP, the threat you describe.
Yea but the rest of North Korea would be in the dark. It destroys (or severely damages) the electrical equipment. I think it would send North Korea back on it heals. Could North Korea replace all the electronics in its infrastructure? The point is, the 1960's cold war was a war of visible weapons. Now its a cold war of visible and *invisible* weapons. I don't think North Korea appreciates this. They are pretty much isolated and dumb. They're gearing up for a war 40 years old. Their "units" may be outdated. They're no good if they don't fly. Unless they fall back on sewerciding North Korea.
Other than the energy device, there are biological weapons not designed to kill but bring great weight on a country. North Korea is pretty much isolated and could not support that weight. No, North Korea is all about showing off their weapons. They have no idea what they face.
-
"Could North Korea replace all the electronics in its infrastructure? "
a hell of a lot easier than you could, at any rate. being next door and on friendly relations to a very large manufacturer of well, everything helps a lot...
-
Originally posted by vorticon
"Could North Korea replace all the electronics in its infrastructure? "
a hell of a lot easier than you could, at any rate. being next door and on friendly relations to a very large manufacturer of well, everything helps a lot...
You're absolutely wrong on that. North Korea is pretty much isolated.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I'm not scared nor worried.
Me either. NK having a nuke....doesn't worry me personally at all. It sure worries the policy makers though. And I find that to be the one funny thing in a screwed up mess we call the U.S. Government. They all make up the tail on a huge wagging dog.
My 1 vote this election season , will not be the one that wins anyone anything. Nor will it be the one that the U.N. considers when kissing yet anothers *** in this world. Nor will it gain any assurances from any politician about doing GOOD things while in office , instead of spending their whole term trying to get re-elected.
It will not be anything to do with disarming Iraq , Bin Laden , Hezzbooloo's , Taliban , NK , Iran , Insurgents in Iraq. It will not make one difference in my belief is religeon , abortion , stem cell research , the death penaly , taxes , fair play in anything.
So...I'll vote and know that it was no more than a cleansing of the mind knowing all I had was that and I exercised it.
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
byebye is using up all his bait in one fishing trip.
:D
-
Originally posted by BTW
You have a guy in a crowded bar with an ak47. You can walk into the bar with 3 ak47's and kill the guy and probably a lot of innocent people. You can also walk in the bar with an ice pick (or screw driver) and just kill the guy with the ak47. The answer is in diplomacy. Diplomacy gets you close. Then you just need something sharp.
Diplomacy = Icepick...
Tony Soprano for UN General Secretary!
-
its so funny how many anti government conspiracy theorist we have on this BBS..
anyways, I thought I heard something about US and Korean guards on the border all having a mininum height prerequisite? something like over 6 foot? Can anyone expand?
-
NK having a nuke isn't an immediate threat to the continental US but it most definitely is to our allies living next door to them. Having a nuke may embolden the north to invade the south. That will certainly mean war for the US on a large scale.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
its so funny how many anti government conspiracy theorist we have on this BBS..
anyways, I thought I heard something about US and Korean guards on the border all having a mininum height prerequisite? something like over 6 foot? Can anyone expand?
All the U.S. personel have that minimum height requirement for guards at Panmunjom (not sure about the R.O.K. soldiers) The reasoning behind the decision was because the N.K. soldiers are rarely tall & it gave the U.S. guards at the shared site a commanding presence. Violence & deaths are not an uncommon occurence there. At one time, more soldiers were dying at the DMZ in Korea than in Vietnam on a daily basis.
Edit: Here's an interesting read on the DMZ during a "hot" period
Hot DMZ (http://www.koreanwar.org/html/dmz_war.html)
-
Diplomacy = tactic
WF Buckley Jr. for UN secretary:D
-
Interesting comments from the French Atomic Energy Commission:
His agency estimated the North Korean blast at around 1 kiloton or less _ equivalent to the explosive force of 1,000 tons of TNT. For a nuclear device, that would be so weak that the French defense minister suggested that "there could have been a failure" with the North Korean reported test.
Clement said it could take days before scientists can declare with certainty whether the explosion was nuclear. And when blasts are very weak, "we could be in a situation where we cannot tell the difference between the two," he said.
Interesting. 1kton? Tiny by comparison to the US Trinity test (19kton).
-
Originally posted by lukster
NK having a nuke isn't an immediate threat to the continental US but it most definitely is to our allies living next door to them. Having a nuke may embolden the north to invade the south. That will certainly mean war for the US on a large scale.
I would disagree...The top three exports from NK include counterfeit US currency, drugs, and military equipment, in specific, missile technology...
I am not worried about kim jung-il attacking the US, or Japan, taiwan or South Korea with Nukes...I dont think he is that suicidle (sp)...I am worried about him selling a nuclear weapon to Iran, Al Qaeda, or even some modern day neo nazi group, which would use it against the US
-
He probably will want to keep all he can make for a while, especially if he's having trouble getting more than a 1k ton yield.
-
Originally posted by lukster
He probably will want to keep all he can make for a while, especially if he's having trouble getting more than a 1k ton yield.
I dont think we can take the risk of what he probably will do, and what he probably wont do...
People need to understand that there is a big difference between the UK and NK having nuclear weapons...It's bad enough Pakistan has them...(yea yea they are an ally in the WOT sorta, but what happens if they get out of mushareefs control)...anyways, its bad enough a twisted state like pakistan has them...i dont feel comfortable adding NK to the list....
correct me if I am wrong, the known powers with nuclear weapons are...
US and A (lmao i love borat)
Russia
UK
France
China
India
Pakistan
and now NK
It's almost certain that Israel has nuclear weapon's, and im willing to bet that half a dozen other nations like Japan and Australia have a complete set up, and only need to introduce some uranium to get their program set up in months.....
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons
-
Originally posted by cav58d
US and A (lmao i love borat)
Russia
UK
France
China
India
Pakistan
and now NK
Correction:
+Israel
+Republic of South Africa
-
Why can't China just be in an expansionist kinda mood? It'd probably be the only time throughout history the entire world (well, save NK) would applaud one country's hostile takeover of another.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Why can't China just be in an expansionist kinda mood? It'd probably be the only time throughout history the entire world (well, save NK) would applaud one country's hostile takeover of another.
Why China has to do that? Only one country who would applaud were the USA.
Personally, I applaud NK. I would prefer every country on the world has A bomb with the missiles which can hit any point on this planet. The world would be much better if it came to true.
-
Yeah, Libya, Iran and Lebanon with Peacemakers and SS-18 Satans. There's a song to sleep by. It would be about 13 seconds before a group of 'freedom fighters' expedited meetings with Allah for half the world's population.
That theory belongs on the same shelf with popular hits like: 'Why Communism works' and 'Islam: Religion of Peace'.
-
If I were looking for a nuclear weapon, Id call Kim Jung.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Yeah, Libya, Iran and Lebanon with Peacemakers and SS-18 Satans. There's a song to sleep by. It would be about 13 seconds before a group of 'freedom fighters' expedited meetings with Allah for half the world's population.
I'm pretty cure that theory belongs on the same shelf with 'Why Communism works' and 'Islam: Religion of Peace'.
No, it is not about communism or islam.
Lazs, who are American, published here a lot of about weapons which every "free" man has right to carry to protect himself from goverment, other bad guys, etc.
Why other nations don't have right to protect themself from "democratization"? You don't think that they are "free' enough? Or you just don't think that they are enough human? Or grown-ups enough to make their own decisions?
Practice shows that US goverment doesn't consider US citizens grown-ups enough to decide how to spend their own money. They are children in the eyes of the elected senators, they even can't play poker in the Internet what any other nations on the world can do. And you think that you are grown-ups enough to decide who can have nuclear weapons, and who can't? :)
-
No Vad, I just don't want a world where people who toss everything they have, bomb-laden teenagers included, at civilian targets whenever the whim strikes, finally acquire the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.
You think that the responsibility of owning a nuclear weapon will cause nations with fanatical psuedo-government branches like Hezbollah to suddenly up and civilize themselves? They won't. They'll be empowered. They'll find Allah in the fission-fusion process, the strongest evidence of him yet, and they'll wave that weapon around, knowing that even in a nuclear world, it still comes down to will-power. Will power....While most lack it, the idiots with nothing to lose don't. Instead of airliners on 9/11, we'll have airliners with tactical warheads onboard, instead of katuyshas fired on Israel, we'll have medium-range missiles with 50 kiloton warheads. The organization that we stupid, ignorant, childlike Americans use to protect our arsenal, will not be used elsewhere, and even if these theoretical nukes aren't placed into the wrong hands initially, they will wind up there soon enough. No I don't think they are grown up enough to make decisions that can end my life and the lives of everyone I know. No way. Never.
I don't want to live in that world. It will not be the great equalizer. It will one big ****-storm and then the rise of the insects upon our powdered remains.
I spoke of Islam and Communism only as a parallel to the absurdity that you presented.
As for us being children. I have a legally-registered shotgun in the closet, a license to drive, a savings account, a checking account a brokerage account, and a passport--and I'm still just a student. I've never used any of those items to commit a crime. If I did, I'd justify my loss of one or all of those items. If I want to play poker, I can fly to Vegas--ever been there? You do with your money what you please until there's nothing left. Perfectly legal. You can drive there at 80 mph in the desert, and fire a machine gun once you get there. Perfectly legal. You can start a business, go bankrupt, become a doctor or a lawyer, or come here as an immigrant and make $12.8 billion starting the world's most popular search engine. You can dabble in porn, drive a stock car, work at a restaurant, and play the lottery. You can pull teeth for a living, rope horses, or build homes. Hell, you can even marry a foreigner and then get a divorce because you don't get along. You can divorce her, get remarried to her, and move to a different state without too much trouble. You can believe in Jesus or Mahummed or the tooth fairy, or nothing at all, and it won't cost you your life. You canmarry outside of your sect and it will be illegal for your brother to slit your throat. You can sue a cop, a doctor, another lawyer, or the US government, and you can win. You can vote against the incumbant, you can create a scene at a peaceful presentation at a top university, you can even make a movie about gay cowboys. You can invest in the future, invest in penny stocks, or invest in alcohol, and you'll only be responsible for giving Uncle Sam his share of the profits--if there are any. You can come here with nothing, not even knowledge of the language, and become rich, famous, powerful, loved, hated, or, if you're really good, You can go from 'Terminator' to 'Governator' inside of two decades. You could do all this stuff, or you can become just another shlub who's up way too late talking on the computer to another shlub who's probably up way too early.
Not bad for a bunch of children.
-
Originally posted by Vad
Only one country who would applaud were the USA.
Bzzzzt.
The Chinese would applaud, if they did it successfully.
The South Koreans would applaud - better chance to help their cousins stop starving, without 20m refugees pouring into Seoul.
The Japanese would applaud - although the Chinese can fly missiles over Japanese territory if they choose to, they don't, in stark contrast to NK.
The Russkies would applaud, as long as they were given access to some of the development contracts which would inevitably follow. Pipeline or two, powerplants, that kind of thing.
Given a couple of months to uncover the full extent of Kim's atrocities against his own people, the rest of the civilised world would applaud.
In short, a Chinese takeover, leaving the apparatus of the DPRK intact but without Kim in charge would be streets better than what we have now.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
As for us being children. I have a legally-registered shotgun in the closet, a license to drive, and a passport. I've never used any of those items to commit a crime. If I did, I'd justify my loss of one or all of those items.
If you have passport (American, I mean) you did. You country invaded another country without any reasons. All that bull**** about weapon of mass destructions happened to be bull****. And as you should know from history (WW2) everybody who particuipated or supported unlawful actions had to pay. Ask Germans, they know.
I see nothing wrong if any country in the world would do its best to protect itself from Iraq's fate.
And about rest of you posting.... I don't think that they are "fanatical psuedo-government". I really do think that American goverment (present, I have nothing against Reagan or old Bush) much more fanatical than any muslims in the world. And, btw, much more stupid. Sorry.
-
I refered to Hezbollah as the fanatical 'Psuedo Government'. They seem to have been in more control than any official governing body this summer. If you disagree, and they(Hezbollah, or any similar organziations) do acquire nuclear arms, then I will happily help finance your move to Israel to help you prove your point about the defensive propensities of Islamic Freedom Fighters and the governments that harbor and support them.
If you live in Israel now, I retract my offer, of course, but grant you my pity in advance.
-
Originally posted by Scherf
Bzzzzt.
The Chinese would applaud, if they did it successfully.
The South Koreans would applaud - better chance to help their cousins stop starving, without 20m refugees pouring into Seoul.
The Japanese would applaud - although the Chinese can fly missiles over Japanese territory if they choose to, they don't, in stark contrast to NK.
The Russkies would applaud, as long as they were given access to some of the development contracts which would inevitably follow. Pipeline or two, powerplants, that kind of thing.
Given a couple of months to uncover the full extent of Kim's atrocities against his own people, the rest of the civilised world would applaud.
In short, a Chinese takeover, leaving the apparatus of the DPRK intact but without Kim in charge would be streets better than what we have now.
Nobody would applaud besides US. Yes, you are right, everybody would try to get some profit from the situation. But nobody would applaud. It's simple as egg: US win another battle, and nobody in the world will applaud. Haven't you realized that yet? Oh, my God....
-
Why would China want to remove the stone from our shoe? Sure, NK got out of line and made China lose face a bit...but all in all... NK helps keep japan and the US off balance a bit. They wouldn't remove that kinda card from the game.
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
If I were looking for a nuclear weapon, Id call Kim Jung.
I'm sure the Russian Mafia could get you one faster, thats bigger and actually works for only a case of us dollars, a mercedes SLK 55 AMG, and a bottle of vodka - replete with original soviet manuals...
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Vad
It's simple as egg: US win another battle
Sorry, perhaps you missed the part about the applause being for a *Chinese* takeover of North Korea. Do try to pay attention.
-
North Korea Threatens to Fire Nuclear Missile if U.S. Won't Commit to Talks.
Still not worried? (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,219121,00.html)
If China doesn't do something soon this is going to be uglier than Iraq.
-
Someone needs a warm cup...
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Yeah, Libya, Iran and Lebanon with Peacemakers and SS-18 Satans. There's a song to sleep by. It would be about 13 seconds before a group of 'freedom fighters' expedited meetings with Allah for half the world's population.
That theory belongs on the same shelf with popular hits like: 'Why Communism works' and 'Islam: Religion of Peace'.
Shcweeet; I can here the chorus now. Good one Neubob
I hear N.K. is threatentening to arm a missle with a nuclear warhead & launch it if the U.S. doesn't do some bi-lateral talks. We can't win, if we do it that way the rest of the world cries we're not embracing multi-lateralism & if we don't we're ignoring the threat. "cheat & retreat" - screw world opinion, we need to do what's in our best interest & that of our allies even if we have to go it alone.
Blockade North Korea please. <---- there's my single vote
-
Originally posted by Vad
And as you should know from history (WW2) everybody who particuipated or supported unlawful actions had to pay. Ask Germans, they know.
I think the marines waiting for trial for unlawful actions would disagree. But that probably wasn't your point, you are most likely referring to Bush and the rest of his administration, needing to face trial. Sorry Bush hasn't committed any war crimes. I know you would like to compare Bush's actions being similar to Hitler marching Jews off to concentration camps like most left wing extremists, but Bush hasn't done anything that would compare to such a crime.
and nobody in the world will applaud.
Japan would applaud any tough action taken against NK, Western Europe is not the entire world like it thinks it is....
:D
-
Originally posted by Mightytboy
North Korea Threatens to Fire Nuclear Missile if U.S. Won't Commit to Talks.
Still not worried? (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,219121,00.html)
If China doesn't do something soon this is going to be uglier than Iraq.
Big difference between NK and Iraq. South Korea is poised to assume control and govern North Korea should it be necessary to oust the commie govt in NK.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Reid and Kerry....what a pair of a**holes. This is the perfect example of why I dispise the Democrat party. They have no ideas at all. Doesn't matter to them the ramifications of their actions, only what issue can they spin to use against Bush so they can regain political power. They have no problem ignoring the previous administration. It's all about Bush. Like I've said before, don't these guys realize that Bush is term-limited? They keep trying to run against Bush, and they don't seem to do very well at that even after years of practice. Like I said, they're a**holes.
Heaven forbid that the Democratic party question the Republican party. The horror! Pssst, this just in. Hot off the presses. Republicans distrust Democrats. Democrats distrust Republicans. Republicans will question everything the Democrats do, and the Democrats will question everything the Republicans do.
p.s. Noone is running against Bush, noone has to. He's doing a great job defeating himself as well as the Republican party. Go down with the ship though, it's very admirable of you.
-
Originally posted by Vad
If you have passport (American, I mean) you did. ..... I really do think that American goverment (present, I have nothing against Reagan or old Bush) much more fanatical than any muslims in the world. And, btw, much more stupid. Sorry.
These threads always bring out the fruitloops :)
Vad, do you actually play AH or do you come here to spread the virtues of communism and islam?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
These threads always bring out the fruitloops :)
Vad, do you actually play AH or do you come here to spread the virtues of communism and islam?
He's just another social scientist who's dissatisfied with the way things are and is proposing a readily feasible remedy for some of the world's major problems... Utter annihilation.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
These threads always bring out the fruitloops :)
Vad, do you actually play AH or do you come here to spread the virtues of communism and islam?
This thread in O'club was the first after months where I've posted something.
And I said nothing about communism or islam. This thread is not about that.
And I really don't understand why Israel, or the USA, or Russia can have nuclear weapons but NK not.
And yes, I actually play AH much often than post here. I dobn't think it's polite to use AH disk space and traffic here not being AH customer. So, I pay my bills.
Any more questions?
-
Originally posted by Recap
Heaven forbid that the Democratic party question the Republican party. The horror! Pssst, this just in. Hot off the presses. Republicans distrust Democrats. Democrats distrust Republicans. Republicans will question everything the Democrats do, and the Democrats will question everything the Republicans do.
p.s. Noone is running against Bush, noone has to. He's doing a great job defeating himself as well as the Republican party. Go down with the ship though, it's very admirable of you.
OK, let's recap what I said versus your version of what I said. It is one thing to honestly question an administration and it's actions while presenting an alternative path. It is particularly relevant when you actually believe your criticisims. Reid and Kerry do neither of these. What they do is a concerted and dishonest smear campaign and they do this BECAUSE they have no legitimate alternative path.
They like to wave the "loyal opposition" flag but they are anything but loyal, as in loyal to the US. The Democrats go far beyond "questioning," they are the ultimate in contrarians, it doesn't matter what Bush says or does, it's wrong. If Bush came out and said the sky was blue these a**holes would call him a liar and the press would not only publish what the a**holes said as if it were legitimate and reasoned commentary but would dredge up some mouthpiece to explain why Bush only believes the sky is blue because his Daddy told him it was. The Dems have spent years making one outrageous claim after another regarding Bush. If this was not a public debate involving public officials they could and would have been sued successfully for both slander and liable because they know that what they say isn't true, it's malicious.
Here's what's even worse for them, any good news from the WOT is bad news for them and they know it. Why? Because they have proposed absolutely nothing except "vote for us, we're not Bush" and have come out against everything being done to win the war. They have tied the Democrat party to defeat in that victory in the war means defeat for them so they are not for victory, they are against it and they are against it for one reason and one reason only. To regain political power in the US.
Finally, there is a strong arguement that reasoned debate based upon facts is legitimate and necessary, especially in time of war and I agree with that. However, the vast majority of Democratic criticism is neither reasoned or fact based. It's the same crap as we heard during Hurricane Katrina. Bush hates blacks so he personnally blew up the levees and stopped FEMA and the National Guard from helping because he wanted to kill all of them. For the Democrats to continue to make such outrageous claims, outrageous claims that are repeated throughout the world is, in my opinion, traitorous. I loved it whan Hugo Chavez spoke at the UN and then pompous left wing American a**holes had the audacity to criticise him....why should they criticise him when he wasn't saying anything that they hadn't said themselves?
As far as going down with the ship...who's worse, the guy who stands up for what he believes or the a**wipes trying to sink the ship so that they may profit?
-
Originally posted by Mightytboy
North Korea Threatens to Fire Nuclear Missile if U.S. Won't Commit to Talks.
Still not worried? (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,219121,00.html)
If China doesn't do something soon this is going to be uglier than Iraq.
nope, its fox news.....
-
Its sad a madman finaly got his millitary toy,
but most Americans do not want to recognize -- that the United States dominates the world through its military power.
The U.S military deploys well over half a million soldiers, in other nations.
According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries !
I doubt someone in the US would tolerate a, lets say turkish military base inside the US ?
but the NK millitary !!!!... its laughable.
-
why are you all worried about NK having nukes, but not Israel?
-
Regarding why we're more scared of N Korea than Israel, 3 words: "Ronery Rittle Me"
-
Originally posted by Overlag
why are you all worried about NK having nukes, but not Israel?
Are you serious? There are so many reasons, it's not even funny.
The most obvious one that should jump out at you is that Israel never tested a nuke.
But, just have a look at how the world is reacting to the situation with NK if you need a clue as to what the differences are.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Are you serious? There are so many reasons, it's not even funny.
The most obvious one that should jump out at you is that Israel never tested a nuke.
But, just have a look at how the world is reacting to the situation with NK if you need a clue as to what the differences are.
the problem is we can no longer bully NK. Thats why we are all upset.
Iran is the same... we constantly bully the country, then wonder why they want nukes.
Israel has probably tested a nuke with South african help.
-
A couple reasons:
1. We're not at war with Isreal.
2. Isreal hasn't repeatedly threatened people with nuclear annihiliation, especially not recently.
3. Isreal isn't led by an insane cuckooclock of a dictator.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
the problem is we can no longer bully NK. Thats why we are all upset.
Iran is the same... we constantly bully the country, then wonder why they want nukes.
Israel has probably tested a nuke with South african help.
How has NK or Iran been bullied?
Maybe closer to the truth is the rethoric and unpredictable nature of these two self-isolated countries has caused the world to view them with caution.
Maybe if Israel had been saying it will whipe the Arabs off the face of the map, or that they could send a nuke into Los Angles ( like NK has warned), then the world would take note.
As it is, NK and Iran are outcast, nutjob countries that nobody much trusts.......for good reason.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
Israel has probably tested a nuke with South african help.
So, are you saying that they might have done it in secret, rather than intentionally creating an international crisis, like NK did?
That's another difference. Israel didn't use it's nukes as toys in order to play games with the world and get attention. They seem to have nukes only for self defense reasons. And they have good reason to have them, unlike NK.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
why are you all worried about NK having nukes, but not Israel?
what`s up with u brits allways freaking about israel?
was it israelis blowing up ur subways and buses in london?
come to ur sences already!!!
-
Originally posted by Overlag
the problem is we can no longer bully NK. Thats why we are all upset.
Iran is the same... we constantly bully the country, then wonder why they want nukes.
Israel has probably tested a nuke with South african help.
Israel has never used the nukes in anger, and they've 'had them' for close to 30 years. Yet this doesn't stop the various Arab countries from, as you say, 'bullying' them. It doesn't stop the suicide bombings, it doesn't stop the shellings from Lebanon, it doesn't stop the flag burnings and, in the early 90s, the SCUD attacks. Israel has proven their Nuclear Level-headedness by never using it, even in times when it would have been concievable. The fact that they may or may not have tested it is irrelevant. The whole world didn't sit, with baited breath, and wait for the result, as they do now. Furthermore, Israel isn't a destitute, isolated nation with nothing to lose and no role in greater human society. They have very much to lose, and besides their military might, have a great deal to offer their own people. According to Warren Buffet, it's also not a bad place to invest 4 billion dollars... All these things make the parallel invalid.
Israel didn't need nuclear weapons to wave around in everyone's face like a stock covered in feces. They keep the arsenal in case the unthinkable happens--the same reason we do.
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
what`s up with u brits allways freaking about israel?
was it israelis blowing up ur subways and buses in london?
come to ur sences already!!!
Don't understand it either. I think it's a built in mental defect in some people......I really do.
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
what`s up with u brits allways freaking about israel?
was it israelis blowing up ur subways and buses in london?
come to ur sences already!!!
ualla eyze matshik!
A lot of arabs in UK.
Every conflict between arabs and jews reflects on UK one way or another,hate crimes,ter.attacts.
-
Originally posted by KgB
ualla eyze matshik!
A lot of arabs in UK.
Every conflict between arabs and jews reflects on UK one way or another,hate crimes,ter.attacts.
lo matzhik bichlal..
i`d expect more from the brits than simply bending over..where`s churchill when we need him...
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
what`s up with u brits allways freaking about israel?
was it israelis blowing up ur subways and buses in london?
come to ur sences already!!!
they're still afraid of te stern gang
(http://images.chron.com/content/news/photos/04/07/18/hstern.jpg)
few people remember howard stern's political activites before his radio career, but he pwnd Lord Moyne
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
where`s churchill when we need him...
Deader than a gym-bag-carrying Palestinian at a Mossad shooting range.
-
Bravo Nuebob & Mace2004...Bravo! I couldn't have said it better myself.
The main reason I personally am not worried about Israel having nukes is - They don't threaten to kill us on a daily basis or desire to sell weapons to people who not only threaten to kill us everyday but try to & succeed all too often. I am more worried about the French nuclear stockpile than I am the Israeli one, at least the Israelis know which way to aim theirs.
-
Why would Israel even need to test nukes.If Israel will ever detonate nuke it's gonna be American made nuke just like any other weapon in Israely army.
No offence
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
= =However, the vast majority of Democratic criticism is neither reasoned or fact based. It's the same crap as we heard during Hurricane Katrina. Bush hates blacks so he personnally blew up the levees and stopped FEMA and the National Guard from helping because he wanted to kill all of them. For the Democrats to continue to make such outrageous claims, outrageous claims that are repeated throughout the world is, in my opinion, traitorous. I loved it whan Hugo Chavez spoke at the UN and then pompous left wing American a**holes had the audacity to criticise him....why should they criticise him when he wasn't saying anything that they hadn't said themselves?
As far as going down with the ship...who's worse, the guy who stands up for what he believes or the a**wipes trying to sink the ship so that they may profit?
Those views are a bit extreme for my taste. But you seem determined to demonize anyone with a different view than you. Your words are mixed with generalities, vulgarities, and hatred. I can't take anyone seriously, regardless of their views, when it's so apparent their entire focus is berating the other guy. Ultimately it's a defensivene mechanism (see fight or flight) borne out of the party's own ineffectiveness and failure.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
They seem to have nukes only for self defense reasons. And they have good reason to have them, unlike NK.
NK has to defend itself from countries who seem to think its there right to goven the world, and force there ideals on them.
now NK has nukes, you will never see a full scale ground invasion as they would drop one of those right on the invading troops.
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
what`s up with u brits allways freaking about israel?
was it israelis blowing up ur subways and buses in london?
come to ur sences already!!!
because israel has created this mess.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Deader than a gym-bag-carrying Palestinian at a Mossad shooting range.
Oh don't go there plz.And get of off pedestal,if call yourself a Jew then why don't you actualy fight for Israel.Pouring crap verbaly on arabs don't help your country.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
because israel has created this mess.
Yep, it's crazy the way they jumped into all those ovens.
Oh wait....
Anyhow, Israel is no shirking violet, but the troubles may have had something to do with the constant attacks from Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and so on during the 1950s through 1970s. Ya think?
-
Originally posted by Recap
Those views are a bit extreme for my taste. But you seem determined to demonize anyone with a different view than you. Your words are mixed with generalities, vulgarities, and hatred. I can't take anyone seriously, regardless of their views, when it's so apparent their entire focus is berating the other guy. Ultimately it's a defensivene mechanism (see fight or flight) borne out of the party's own ineffectiveness and failure.
I agree. The Dems are a bit extreme for my taste also. Your entire post defines the problems they have, including their ineffectiveness and failures.
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
lo matzhik bichlal..
i`d expect more from the brits than simply bending over..where`s churchill when we need him...
The whole world bends over to Israel and lets them do ethnic cleansing within the palestine state that they have no right to be in......
i hate extremists of all religions... Muslims, Christians, Catholics and JEWS included.
open your eyes and see what israel does OUTSIDE of its borders EVERY day.
-
Originally posted by KgB
Why would Israel even need to test nukes.If Israel will ever detonate nuke it's gonna be American made nuke just like any other weapon in Israely army.
No offence
No offense, but you do realize the british (edit) Nuclear weapons are also American designs? Just thought you'd like to know.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Yep, it's crazy the way they jumped into all those ovens.
Oh wait....
Anyhow, Israel is no shirking violet, but the troubles may have had something to do with the constant attacks from Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and so on during the 1950s through 1970s. Ya think?
the problem stems back to what i first said about NK, and the US wanting it to do think its way, or not at all. Thinking we have the right to rule other nations.
so we (brits/france) break a large nation up, and create many other nations, as well as adding a new nation (and allowing MASS migration) of people that really dont mix well with the natives...................... ............:o
But then the the UK we currently have a labor party that gives muslims more rights than us... and if we say anything against it, we are a nazi, racist scumbag.... Whatever. If i wanted to live in a nation full of Muslims, i would have moved to Iran.
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
No offense, but you do realize the british weapons are also American designs? Just thought you'd like to know.
hmm hes talking about the whole army. and i think you find most British weapons are...... err british (except the nukes, subs and newest Navy ships)
Israel is just a America settlement to be fair.... with out america Israel wouldnt be there.
-
I should've edited before you posted as I meant "Nuclear Weapon" designs are American designs, i.e. W76 warhead, Polaris and Trident Systems.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
3. Isreal isn't led by an insane cuckooclock of a dictator.
no, its just ruled by a crack pot president.... much like America
ooooops :p
edit: thought so wolfala
-
Originally posted by Overlag
open your eyes and see what israel does OUTSIDE of its borders EVERY day.
your not getting off that easy.
start citing references.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Anyhow, Israel is no shirking violet, but the troubles may have had something to do with the constant attacks from Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and so on during the 1950s through 1970s. Ya think?
And that nation is trying to rule the world!
Looks like geography is not popular in US schools.
Israel borders on Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. No way it could be attacked from Iran or Iraq, they are too far from it.
PS:
Vulcan, just for the record - it is not about communism or islam. It is about flagrant ignorance of the "rulers of the world".
-
isn't hezzbollah supported by Iran/Syria?
you won't find that in geography.
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
isn't hezzbollah supported by Iran/Syria?
you won't find that in geography.
Isn't the hezbolla resistance to Israelys
occupation?You won't find it in US or Israelys books that's for sure.
-
Originally posted by KgB
Why would Israel even need to test nukes.If Israel will ever detonate nuke it's gonna be American made nuke just like any other weapon in Israely army.
No offence
I didn't realize that this This (http://www.imi-israel.com/Templates/Homepage/Homepage.aspx?FolderID=11) was an American company.
I suppose you've never heard of the Merkava Tank, or the dozens of other products you'll find on this site. See, the Israelis actually produce things. If you want to point fingers at groups of people that produce nothing, point it at their neighbors.
As for me and my Jewishness, please don't act like you know me. There are more Jews in the US than in Israel, and if it wasn't for their support, Israel would have ceased to exist a long time ago.
As far as 'going there', thanks but no thanks. I'll practice my right to free speech just like they practice their right to burn flags, effigies, and blow up cafes whenever the mood strikes or the world forgets, momentarily, that they're alive and kicking. I have no sympathy for any of them and I never will. I don't expect you to have any for Israel, or, for that matter, for the Jews as a whole.
The difference, is the Jews don't need it.
EDIT:
Hezbollah as resistence? That's a laugh. I've never heard of a resistence force implementing a first-strike strictly on civilian target policy. I would, however, like to see who edited YOUR history books. Everyone seems to think that only theirs tell the truth.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
How has NK or Iran been bullied?
Maybe closer to the truth is the rethoric and unpredictable nature of these two self-isolated countries has caused the world to view them with caution.
Maybe if Israel had been saying it will whipe the Arabs off the face of the map, or that they could send a nuke into Los Angles ( like NK has warned), then the world would take note.
As it is, NK and Iran are outcast, nutjob countries that nobody much trusts.......for good reason.
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
isn't hezzbollah supported by Iran/Syria?
you won't find that in geography.
I won't look for this in geography books, I studied not only geography.
Let do not talk about Hezzbollah. First, it's politics, and second, Vulcan doesn't like islam subjects.
Let look into the history. First terrorists on the Middle East were Jews. Arab world had no idea about terror methods until Jews came there. Ask Britons, they should remember King David Hotel, Natanya, Lord Moyne in Cairo, etc. Hostages, letter-bombs - all that were brought to Midle East by Jews, illiterate arab peasants just had no idea about existing of such things.
But looks like they can learn.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
because israel has created this mess.
If Israeli behaved like their neighbors, there would not be a Middle East. Israel started this mess by coming into existence. They exist, and therefore there are problems. Asking somebody to cease and desist from that particular course of action is not realistic.
Originally posted by Vad
Hostages, letter-bombs - all that were brought to Midle East by Jews, illiterate arab peasants just had no idea about existing of such things.
But looks like they can learn.
The Jews had pretty good teachers too, far more efficient than any before or since... Of course, your next statement may be that perhaps there is no concrete proof that that whole thing even happened.
-
kgb-
Hezbollah's goal is to destroy Israel, not resist occupation.
Vad-
you stated that Iran cannot attack Israel, yet the do constantly thru hezbollah.
edit to add: Vad it seems you have some deep bias here.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
...
The Jews had pretty good teachers too, far more efficient than any before or since... Of course, your next statement may be that perhaps there is no concrete proof that that whole thing even happened.
No, I don't want to deny Holocaust if you meant that.
But could you explain me why Jews blew up Britts? I always thought that it was Germany who was responsible for concentration camps, Holocaust, 6 millions killed... And in some history books I read that Great Britain was our ally., who actually saved Jews from complete elimination.
Did that books lie?
Why Jews blew up Britons?
Did they study history in American schools?
And what a hell arabs did wrong?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
If Israeli behaved like their neighbors, there would not be a Middle East. Israel started this mess by coming into existence.
Israel was proclamed iregardles on protests
of Palestinians,on territory that Israel had no rights for.First war with arabs was two weeks later(what a surprise it was).
As for US jews supporting Irael,I don't think so.US tax payers support Israel.Israely weapons,I'm not even gonna look,I bet components of that tank are American,plus where the hell Israel gets that much iron,oh righ,US money.
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
Vad-
you stated that Iran cannot attack Israel, yet the do constantly thru hezbollah.
Hezzbollah is product of Israel occupation of Lebanon. Do you see anything wrong in Resistance in France during WW2? I don'tt think so. But Germans considered them as bandits. Now history repeated, but you are on the German side.
edit to add: Vad it seems you have some deep bias here.
I don't have any bias. It is not my life, and it never was. I just can look on that from different points of view. I saw and heared a lot in my life, and now don't believe anybody. I just try to think and analize by myself. Living now in North America I can see that 99.99% of local population can only watch TV and eat what they were served. I asked some questions here, and I don't see any answers, just batlle-cries, cliche from TV.
-
Originally posted by KgB
As for US jews supporting Irael,I don't think so.US tax payers support Israel.Israely weapons,I'm not even gonna look,I bet components of that tank are American,plus where the hell Israel gets that much iron,oh righ,US money.
Once again, Kommitechik, don't pretend like you know me. Don't pretend like you know where, how and to whom I make financial contributions. As for the site, I wasn't expecting you to look. People like you are never short on certainty, in anything they say.
Israel has no right to exist, yeah yeah, learn a new song... The Arabs won't rest until it is so, well, I think that that sort of resolve needs to be answered with similar resolve.
Here's my version: If the middle east were turned into a glass parking lot tomorrow, with Israel as the sole oasis amidst the landcape of total annihilation, the world would be a better place the day after.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Its sad a madman finaly got his millitary toy,
He had a lot of help and received enough western aid $$$$ to finance it.
Abdul Qadeer Khan, nuclear proliferator extraordinaire, gets most of the credit
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10405285
Khan, who developed the world's first Islamic nuclear bomb for Pakistan in a top-secret programme, in the mid-1980s opened his own private "supermarket", which sold secrets to anyone who would pay
Through his network, Khan sent North Korea nearly two dozen P-1 centrifuges, and an unknown number of more sophisticated P-11 centrifuges, says President Pervez Musharraf, who debriefed the Pakistani scientist after his fall from grace
-
Originally posted by Vad
I won't look for this in geography books, I studied not only geography.
Let do not talk about Hezzbollah. First, it's politics, and second, Vulcan doesn't like islam subjects.
Let look into the history. First terrorists on the Middle East were Jews. Arab world had no idea about terror methods until Jews came there. Ask Britons, they should remember King David Hotel, Natanya, Lord Moyne in Cairo, etc. Hostages, letter-bombs - all that were brought to Midle East by Jews, illiterate arab peasants just had no idea about existing of such things.
But looks like they can learn.
OK Vad, lets look at history and see who learned from whom:
First, for those that claim the Jews "stole" Arab land:
The Jews first established a Jewish nation in Canaan around 1300BC, that's about 3,300 years ago. Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the 1st Temple in 587BC afterwhich Babylonian, Persian, Greek Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Empires, Islamic and Christian crusaders, Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire all ruled the area.
Arabs were an almost non-existant population in the region the Roman's renamed "Palestine" until the fall of the Byzantine empire (a Christian empire BTW) and the six Muslim crusades of 632-750AD during which the Arabs conquered all of what's now called the Middle East, Persia, North Africa and Spain. Palestine was occupied by both Jews and Christians before the Muslim crusades. The first Christian Crusade to retake the Holy Land from the Muslims came in 1099 (so much for who started what and the oft-quoted idea that the Crusades were just an evil Christian attack on innocent little Muslims).
After the fall of the Ottoman Empire following WWI the Palestine region was controlled by the Brits. It was during this time the "modern" conflict began.
-The first attacks by Arabs against the Jews in modern times began in 1920. In March, Arabs attacked Jews in Galilee.
-Apr4-7 1920 the first large Arab/Jewish conflict were the Nebi Musa riots in which an Arab mob attacked and killed 5 jews.
-In 1929 the Palistine Riots (133 Jews dead).
-What could arguably be called the first terrorist attack by the Arabs against the Jews was probably the Hebron Massacre in 1939 where Arabs murdered 67 Jews after which they occupied the town and held it until the 1967 war.
-1936 "The Great Uprising". Probably the first conflict that could be called a war. The Arabs revolted against the Brits for allowing Jewish immigration. 4000 Arabs, 400 Jews and 200 Brits died. The great majority of the Arabs were killed by the Brits (including 140 executed). The Jewish Irgun terrorist organization was formed during the uprising.
-From 1939-1945 the Black Hand, an Islamist terrorist group conducted what could have been the first purely religiously motivated terrorist activities against the Jews destroying synagoges, Jewish businesses and killing 6 Jews.
-In 1930 20 Arabs were killed by a bomb and 13 more killed by shooters. The attack isn't credited to any particular group.
-From 1940 to 1949 Lehi, Irgun and Haganah all participate in attacks on British forces and all three are arguably Jewish terrorist organizations.
-1946. Irgun bombs the King David Hotel killing 91. The hotel was the British administration headquarters, not a civilian hotel. The Brits were warned of the attack about half an hour before the bomb went off but they didn't evacuate the building.
Since you're historically challenged, I'll remind you that Israel was not established until 1948. Since 1948 over 3,200 Jews have been murdered by Arab terrorists and thousands injured.
-
Once again, Kommitechik, don't pretend like you know me. Don't pretend like you know where, how and to whom I make financial contributions. As for the site, I wasn't expecting you to look. People like you are never short on certainty, in anything they say.
Calm down Neubob......your contributions are made by your daddy anyway:rofl
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
kgb-
Hezbollah's goal is to destroy Israel, not resist occupation.
Hezbollah has done pretty well defending lebanon against occupation dont you think?
Hezbollah is fighting against lebanon and palestine occupation. I dunno if you relise but Israel occupies a rather large chunk of Palestine. They also regularly knock down Palestine houses (read ethnic cleansing), and put its people in jail without trial. But the rest of the world only worry about the 2 or 3 israeli troops that got taken.
-
I screwed up my last post.
How has NK or Iran been bullied?
How about usurping Iran's democratically elected government and reinstalling the Shah? How about supporting Iraq's invasion of Iran? How about giving SH WMDs that he used against Iran?
Imagine if another country did those things to US.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Since 1948 over 3,200 Jews have been murdered by Arab terrorists and thousands injured.
how many lebanese did Israel kill in just 2 months this year???? and that was just 2MONTHS....
but omg 55 Yews died every year since 1948
-
Originally posted by Overlag
how many lebanese did Israel kill in just 2 months this year???? and that was just 2MONTHS....
but omg 55 Yews died every year since 1948
You think it's alright to kill Jews because Israel defends itself from people who have sworn to destroy them just because they exist?
Tell me WHY so many lebanese died from the attacks?
Was it because Israel was just killing them for the fun of it or was it that Hezzbolla(sp) was hiding behind them firing rockets so they WOULD get killed?
Sorry but your statement is one of the dumbest I've seen in some time.
-
Originally posted by Mightytboy
You think it's alright to kill Jews because Israel defends itself from people who have sworn to destroy them just because they exist?
Tell me WHY so many lebanese died from the attacks?
Was it because Israel was just killing them for the fun of it or was it that Hezzbolla(sp) was hiding behind them firing rockets so they WOULD get killed?
Sorry but your statement is one of the dumbest I've seen in some time.
defend itself?!?!?! Its settled inside ANOTHER country. Its occupied the rest of palestine and FILLED it with Israeli settlements. This is where most Israeli's DIE. in OCCUPIED LANDS.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
how many lebanese did Israel kill in just 2 months this year???? and that was just 2MONTHS....
but omg 55 Yews died every year since 1948
I didn't include all the Jews killed in the wars started by the Arab countries. Here's a quick question for you, how much does Lebanese Hizballah care about Lebanese civilians? Israel attacked Lebanese Hizballah who were busy launching rockets from schools, hospitals, and Mosques. LH tried to prohibit civilians from leaving the border area also. Why? Don't you think it might be that they were concerned about losing their human shields and the propaganda war? Oh, and lets not forget what's rarely mentioned by the press and never mentioned by Arabs, the 4,000 rockets launched by LH were almost exclusively targeting Jewish civilian populations without even a pretense of attacking the Israel's army. I also didn't talk about the Arabs killed because they attacked Israel. The question is how much should Israel be concerned about enemy civilian casulties when they're being attacked by multiple Arab countries at the same time?
Seems pretty clear to me, maybe the Arabs ought to stop trying to destroy the Jews and then the Jews can stop defending themselves.
-
The right-wing jews and hezbollah equally bad. Its just a shame that in between them lives a few million normal folks just trying to have a normal life.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
I agree. The Dems are a bit extreme for my taste also. Your entire post defines the problems they have, including their ineffectiveness and failures.
"I know you are but what am I?" I would have expected nothing less than a juvenile response.
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
your not getting off that easy.
start citing references.
still waiting
-
Originally posted by Overlag
defend itself?!?!?! Its settled inside ANOTHER country. Its occupied the rest of palestine and FILLED it with Israeli settlements. This is where most Israeli's DIE. in OCCUPIED LANDS.
Israel is not "inside" of another country. Palestine is not and never has existed as a country, it is a region named Palestine by the Romans when the people living there were predominantly Jews and Christians, not Arabs. After being occupied by numerous empires the Palestine region ended up being managed by the Brits after WWI with a mandate from the League of Nations after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Emir Faisal, signed an agreement on the establishment of an Israeli state with the Brits in the early 1900s. The UN agreed with the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948 in the region of Palestine which had no established states or governments.
As far as "occupied" lands, this is a canard often used regarding lands outside of the UN established boundaries of Israel. Of course, the reason the Israelies have occupied this additional land is that they defeated the attacks of numerous Arab countries and in the process took vast amounts of territory from them. Name one other country besides Israel that has given land back after being attacked in 5 consecutive wars. With the exception of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan heights Israel has given all territories back to the very people that started the wars.
-
Originally posted by Recap
"I know you are but what am I?" I would have expected nothing less than a juvenile response.
Why don't you just say na na nana na? You've argued nothing but non-specifics and personnal insults. I haven't personnaly attacked or insulted you yet you have not even attempted to explain what the Democrat proposal is or why they're entitled to call Bush a liar, nazi, racist, etc. Why? Because the Dems don't have any ideas to explain which leaves you nothing but ad hominem attack as your only option.
-
The Democrats have a plan Mace, at least some of them do, but they know that the majority of Americans would recoil in revulsion if it were fully revealed so they have little left but to try to tear down Republicans.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Why don't you just say na na nana na? You've argued nothing but non-specifics and personnal insults. I haven't personnaly attacked or insulted you yet you have not even attempted to explain what the Democrat proposal is or why they're entitled to call Bush a liar, nazi, racist, etc. Why? Because the Dems don't have any ideas to explain which leaves you nothing but ad hominem attack as your only option.
I'm not agruing the Democrats side, as I'm not a Democrat. All I'm saying is your argument is filled with generalities, vulagarity and hatred. You are so blinded by your own partisanship that you can't see the forest for the trees. Please stop trying to paint me as being something I'm not. Just because you believe something is so, doesn't make it true. My whole point is that you are no better than those you preach against. It's called hypocrisy. Of course I don't expect you to see it, how could you? You are so caught up in your own self righteousness to understand.
-
Why don't you guys start another Isreal vs rest of ME thread somewhere else instead of hijacking one about a situation on the other side of the globe. I'd have thought that there would be enough about korea to keep the thread alive by itself.
News this morning indicated nk says sanctions would be considered an act of war. The rhetoric seems to be ramping up inspite of China backing away from them. I wonder what's next, a blockade?
-
You gotta know that Hillary goes to bed cussin' Kim Jong every night. :aok
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I screwed up my last post.
How about usurping Iran's democratically elected government and reinstalling the Shah? How about supporting Iraq's invasion of Iran? How about giving SH WMDs that he used against Iran?
Imagine if another country did those things to US.
Ummm...sorry Thrawn....no one gave Sadaam nukes, chemical weapons or biological weapons. More than one Western nation DID sell him items that had dual uses though, including the USA.
*edit* Also, putting the Shah back in power was done at the request of the British gov't and....the Brits even helped....so yeah....the good ol USA did these things all by themselves.....
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The right-wing jews and hezbollah equally bad. Its just a shame that in between them lives a few million normal folks just trying to have a normal life.
EXACTLY nilsen....... well said.
-
I look for this topic to be locked soon since it's so far off topic. It amazes me to see the ignorance of human beings who defend terrorists & terrorist supporting nations. They are either A: terrorists themselves or B: dumb enough to think the terrorists would spare them because of their liberal anti-jew & anti-U.S. rhetoric. Maybe the conservative christian nations & their allies SHOULD rule the world before all the people on earth who hate the U.S. kill us all.
I think my dad was right, this is a religious & ideological war of annihilation whether we here in the U.S. agree with it or not, we have two choices lay down & be taken apart by the rest of the world because of jealousy or fight.
I say fight. And I mean all comers. It's time for uncle sam to pick up his weapons & hang out his shingle because it's them or us.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
I look for this topic to be locked soon since it's so far off topic. It amazes me to see the ignorance of human beings who defend terrorists & terrorist supporting nations.
And in the next breath you defend the US which has supported terrorism for ages.
-
on the nuclear clock are we like 2 hours from midnight
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
on the nuclear clock are we like 2 hours from midnight
Actually, it's at 7 minutes from midnight and has been there since 2002.
http://www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock/timeline.htm
-
Since you mentioned it my response is - What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The U.S. should wipe out every threat no matter how minor to our country, countrymen or our allies! Let's see how loud the radicals scream for the destruction of Israel & the U.S. if we start screaming for their destruction. Oh but wait; we're bad people if we take the exact words spoken against us & the same actions taken against us & turn them around...suddenly that's not fair or politically correct. Case in point; the Israeli - Hezbollah shoot out, it was just fine with the (soon to be dead) radicals that they kidnap Israeli soldiers & send suicide bombers into civillian areas & fire rockets indescriminately across the Lebanese border killing Jews & Arabs alike, but as soon as Israel defends itself, Oh Brother, they're the bad guys. I say tough titty kitty put up or shut up. Also I find your claims to be unsupported since the U.S. has NOT supported terrorism. The U.S. has made it's mistakes but that's no one of them.
-
A "Confederate" nationalist screaming out for the destruction of non-Christian people (whom just happen to be brown). How awfully original.
-
Originally posted by Viking
A "Confederate" nationalist screaming out for the destruction of non-Christian people (whom just happen to be brown). How awfully original.
You mean "original" as in your prejudiced assumptions you just posted?
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
You mean "original" as in your prejudiced assumptions you just posted?
He just hates the US. I think it's becasue we whupped the Soviet Union.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Since you mentioned it my response is - What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The U.S. should wipe out every threat no matter how minor to our country, countrymen or our allies! Let's see how loud the radicals scream for the destruction of Israel & the U.S. if we start screaming for their destruction. Oh but wait; we're bad people if we take the exact words spoken against us & the same actions taken against us & turn them around...suddenly that's not fair or politically correct. Case in point; the Israeli - Hezbollah shoot out, it was just fine with the (soon to be dead) radicals that they kidnap Israeli soldiers & send suicide bombers into civillian areas & fire rockets indescriminately across the Lebanese border killing Jews & Arabs alike, but as soon as Israel defends itself, Oh Brother, they're the bad guys. I say tough titty kitty put up or shut up. Also I find your claims to be unsupported since the U.S. has NOT supported terrorism. The U.S. has made it's mistakes but that's no one of them.
because becoming a extremist to fight an extremist is a bad idea.
you forgot to mention how many people Israeli capture every day and put in jail.
oh and the fact they occupy TWO countries, but the resistance group are terrorists right??!?! :rolleyes: So i guess the french resistance are also terrorists in WWII?
-
Originally posted by Overlag
because becoming a extremist to fight an extremist is a bad idea.
you forgot to mention how many people Israeli capture every day and put in jail.
oh and the fact they occupy TWO countries, but the resistance group are terrorists right??!?! :rolleyes: So i guess the french resistance are also terrorists in WWII?
Defending yourself against extremists doesn't make you an extremist any more than fighting the Nazis in WWII made the UK, US, etc., Nazis.
How many people does Israel "capture" every day and put in jail? How many are kept out of Israel by the wall that everyone likes to object to? How would you fight against numerous groups that are willing to come right out and say they want to push your country into the sea and slaughter all of your citizens?
I've pointed this out before but Israel isn't occupying any countries. "Palestine" is not and never has been a country, it's a region, with bits and pieces of tribes and various "empires" which ruled it for 3,000 years. It is the historical land of Canaan and Israel and the Jews were there long before Arabs and long before Islam was invented. Any other land currently "occupied" such as the Golan Heights were captured in wars started by the Arabs. Name another country which has given back 99% of the land it captured after being attacked in five wars.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
oh and the fact they occupy TWO countries, but the resistance group are terrorists right??!?! :rolleyes: So i guess the french resistance are also terrorists in WWII?
Odd comparison there overlag.
Germany attacked and invaded France.
Israel was attacked, and won the land in a counter attack.
Both the French and the Israelis were victims of aggression.
How could you confuse something so simple as who attacked whom?
Let's not even get into the fact that the Israeli occupation is lawful.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Let's not even get into the fact that the Israeli occupation is lawful.
the only countries that think that are Israel and USA, hence why Hezbullah and Hamas are not seen as terrorist organisations by some countries.....
so you agree that Israel is into empire building and stealing land, they want Lebanon's defences taken away (Hezbullah ) so they can take that land too?
-
The Arab countries and the Palestinians could have opted for peace in 1948, but chose war, so how about a nice big cup of tough s***, honestly.
...The hypocracy of the Europeans and British never ceases to amaze me regarding Israel...you want a list of the Colonial Wars and Empire building do we?
"that Israel is into empire building and stealing land"
Cue the violin music :cry
-
When Hamas and Hezbullah stop the violence then Israel would do the same.
If Israel wanted the land they could have taken it years ago but as it is now they are even giving land back as part of a peace offering that was rewarded by more violence against them.
Israel offers peace and is told to piss off.
And yet you still see Israel as the aggressor.
I sure hope you are a troll if not you need to start the meds.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
so you agree that Israel is into empire building and stealing land, they want Lebanon's defences taken away (Hezbullah ) so they can take that land too?
Yeah, they're Empire building. That's why they've given back most of the land they've taken in the wars between their formation and now. If they're empire building, then they're not doing a very good job at it.
Mightyboy is correct. If the Arabs stopped fighting (shelling civilian targets), there would be peace. If Isreal stopped fighting, there would be no Israel.
The fact of the matter here is much more simple. If you had as many Jews walking the streets of Europe as you did Arabs, the lot of you would be crying for krystalnacht part 2.
Just like we Americans are a bunch of gun-toting, bible-thumping rednecks, you suffer from geosocially-induced antisemitism. The things to which you're blind, we see, and vice versa, and it'll be a cold day in hell before either side admits to being wrong, morally questionable, or logically-flawed. Stereotypes suck, but there's often a morsel of truth in them all.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Mightyboy is correct. If the Arabs stopped fighting (shelling civilian targets), there would be peace. If Isreal stopped fighting, there would be no Israel.
all of Israels fighting is outside of its boarders, it is the aggressor because of this.
Israel cant be defending itself if its always outside of its boarders, its one of the prime reasons everyone bordering this country hates it.
-
Overlag: To support your assertion, please provide some good examples of Israel attacking without provocation. I'm looking for examples where they weren't invaded, shelled, attacked with rockets, bombed, attacked by fighter planes, and so on.
Germany invaded poland, give me an example of one of Israel's equivalents.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
Israel cant be defending itself if its always outside of its boarders, its one of the prime reasons everyone bordering this country hates it.
So what is it doing, Overlag? Empire's aren't built by returning conquored lands. Empires aren't built by making concessions to people who've sworn to wipe you from the face of the Earth. If Israel wanted an empire, they would have razed the region, to the best of their ability, a long time ago. What are they doing then? Palestine, whatever is left of it, whatever exists today, would have long ago been converted into a condo subdivision.
Israel is aggressive about it's survival. They are guilty of nothing else. They've long since accepted the 'them or us' condition that they were tacitly given by their neighbors. Furthermore, they were taught well by various Europeans, and continue to be taught, that trust is not to be handed out liberally.
It seems like it's not just this country's neighbors that hate it, and the answer to the question of why is the most intriguing of all.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
the only countries that think that are Israel and USA, hence why Hezbullah and Hamas are not seen as terrorist organisations by some countries.....
so you agree that Israel is into empire building and stealing land, they want Lebanon's defences taken away (Hezbullah ) so they can take that land too?
Anybody who doesn't think Hezbollah or Hamas are NOT terrorists isn't worth holding a conversation with.
Their ignorance is to the point of "How do you function in the world".
Go to Dictionary.com. Type in HEZBOLLAH or HAMAS
Hezbollah
n : a Shi'ite terrorist organization with strong ties to Iran; seeks to create an Iranian fundamentalist Islamic state in Lebanon; car bombs are the signature weapon
Hamas
n : a militant Islamic fundamentalist political movement that opposes peace with Israel and uses terrorism as a weapon; seeks to create an Islamic state in place of Israel; is opposed to the PLO and has become a leading perpetrator of terrorist activity in Israel; pioneered suicide bombing
If it's in the friggin dictionary, it's pretty accepted. The only people who do NOT consider them terrorists are either terrorists, or people that really need to take one for the team and clean the gene pool. I mean really, how totally clueless do you have to be to NOT consider them terrorists? One would thing the whole "car bomb" thing would be a clue.
(edit: Israel is 100% within international law to occupy the captured territories btw. what's it like not even sorta kinda having a clue? is ignorance indeed bliss? please let me know, i'm curious.)
-
Overlag, out of curiosity, how old are you?
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Anybody who doesn't think Hezbollah or Hamas are NOT terrorists isn't worth holding a conversation with.
ouch dbl negative.
Anybody who THINKS Hezbollah or Hamas are NOT terrorists isn't worth holding a conversationg with.
-
so if we talk about brits bagging on israel on nukes..
the uk has nukes as well. the uk has lands that are considered occupied by some that live on that land. how about going back to 1982 and look how the uk sent over all it`s military might over a few marines displayed lying on the the streets in the falklands. how about gibraltar? and lets come to the biggest of them all...northern ireland. ok,u can say that there`s a peace process. but u sure need a partner to talk to. were the irish sworn to destroy england, would u want to talk to them?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Germany invaded poland, give me an example of one of Israel's equivalents.
Palestine.
and i didn't say hamas and hezbollah wasn't terrorists.... I said a few countries don't see them as terrorists.
Car bombing happens a lot in Iraq as well doesn't it.... Probably because they arent happy with being occupied either.
-
overlag
are u a muslim living in the uk,or do u have an arab girlfriend giving u an awsome head and filling ur head with bs afterwards in exchange?
-
Originally posted by Overlag
palestine.
Gonna give you a chance to shine here Overlag.
Explain.
That's all. EXPLAIN how it all happened. Give me dates, facts, cite sources, all that. Now I am not asking for a huge post, just a paragraph or 3 explaining just how Israel invaded Palestine. Who was involved. What dates. Sequence of events etc, etc...
I would like to see just where your version of history is coming from. So don't just say it happened, SHOW me where it happened and how it happened.
With Google this should be a 5min exercise. Please provide links. If it's a book, please provide ISBN #. If it's all just an opinion, then my apologies in advance for what my reply will be.
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
and lets come to the biggest of them all...northern ireland. ok,u can say that there`s a peace process. but u sure need a partner to talk to. were the irish sworn to destroy england, would u want to talk to them?
ah here comes the Northern Ireland talk...
very simular to what Israel has done/doing with palestine, and lebanon... But i dont remember the brits killing 700-1000 odd people per year...
and then, while we on the subject, can you see what i mean about some countries not labeling Hamas as terrorists but freedom fighters? the USA suppied IRA.... IRA was only a terrorist to us, not the rest of the world. Exact same as Israel and its allies label hamas and hezbullah as terrorists..... well duh. ;)
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Gonna give you a chance to shine here Overlag.
Explain.
That's all. EXPLAIN how it all happened. Give me dates, facts, cite sources, all that. Now I am not asking for a huge post, just a paragraph or 3 explaining just how Israel invaded Palestine. Who was involved. What dates. Sequence of events etc, etc...
I would like to see just where your version of history is coming from. So don't just say it happened, SHOW me where it happened and how it happened.
With Google this should be a 5min exercise. Please provide links. If it's a book, please provide ISBN #. If it's all just an opinion, then my apologies in advance for what my reply will be.
read any media source OTHER than Fox (any US/Israel) news, i cba doing the work for you, because i think no matter how much proof there was, you still wouldnt believe it.
earlier someone whined that 4000 Jews have died since 1948, yet Israel killed that many people (note, all religions) between 2000-2005 alone.
I have a question for you all.
If a foriegn country occppies your country and starts ethnic cleansing by forcing you out of your homes, destorying houses, you would just sit down and take it?
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
overlag
are u a muslim living in the uk,or do u have an arab girlfriend giving u an awsome head and filling ur head with bs afterwards in exchange?
:rofl :rofl
ha ha that is extremely funny.!!!! :rolleyes: :lol
I hate the invasion of Muslims to the UK, much the same as Muslims hated the Invasion of Jews in 1930........ because the exact same thing is happening here.... Radical muslims calling for "muslim areas" within london etc..... **** off and go home
-
Originally posted by Overlag
:rofl :rofl
ha ha that is extremely funny.!!!! :rolleyes: :lol
I hate the invasion of Muslims to the UK, much the same as Muslims hated the Invasion of Jews in 1930........ :noid
Arab chicks give hummers? Where is the Madras I can visit to sign up for that class? Whats the cirruclium like "Suck dick or die?"
Wolf
-
Originally posted by Overlag
read any media source OTHER than Fox (any US/Israel) news, i cba doing the work for you, because i think no matter how much proof there was, you still wouldnt believe it.
Didn't think you could/would do it.
If you have "proof", and it's viable, post it. If you are just tossing stuff out from some screwed up perspective, just say it.
There is no shame in havin' an opionion.
The shame is not being able to back it up.
(not that you could actually, which is painfully obvious to all here)
But WTG on doing exactly what I expected you to.
I wouldn't want to try to support your argument either. It's HARD to find sources to "made up" historical events.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
Didn't think you could/would do it.
If you have "proof", and it's viable, post it. If you are just tossing stuff out from some screwed up perspective, just say it.
There is no shame in havin' an opionion.
The shame is not being able to back it up.
(not that you could actually, which is painfully obvious to all here)
But WTG on doing exactly what I expected you to.
I wouldn't want to try to support your argument either. It's HARD to find sources to "made up" historical events.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696
you will probably stop after 30seconds. If you dont watch the whole thing, you dont get to see what the US media says, vs the world media..
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/media/Which_deaths_matter.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4294502.stm
a aggressive, oppressive ocupation of palestine, which is Illegal.
-
Originally posted by lukster
... so they have little left but to try to tear down Republicans.
Actually, all they really have to do is wait for the ultra rad right faction of the Republicans to tear down the GOP, themselves. (Hoping they don't try to throw a last minute nuclear hissy fit first.) ;)
-
anyways...
i think norht korea should be invaded by south korea,aided by bombing of the us,than flooded with cash and video games. that`d solve the problem.
as far as the mid east go.....it`ll be never solved....not as long it`s turned into a glass ashtray by either side:(
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
anyways...
i think norht korea should be invaded by south korea,aided by bombing of the us,than flooded with cash and video games. that`d solve the problem.
as far as the mid east go.....it`ll be never solved....not as long it`s turned into a glass ashtray by either side:(
You want South Korea to bomb the US?!? ;)
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
anyways...
i think norht korea should be invaded by south korea,aided by bombing of the us,than flooded with cash and video games. that`d solve the problem.
as far as the mid east go.....it`ll be never solved....not as long it`s turned into a glass ashtray by either side:(
you cant invade a country that has a much larger military, and is now backed up with nukes (no matter how weak, they WILL destory any invasion force).
and why should we invade NK anyway?
and i agree........ ANYWAY.....back to subject.:o
Originally posted by Engine
Overlag, out of curiosity, how old are you?
how old are you? A,S,L??? :aok
-
Originally posted by Overlag
you cant invade a country that has a much larger military, and is now backed up with nukes (no matter how weak, they WILL destory any invasion force).
and why should we invade NK anyway?
and i agree........ ANYWAY.....back to subject.:o
I don't know about the we part but NK is threatenting war against the US now. South Korea, Japan, and US forces already in the area can defeat NK.
-
Originally posted by lukster
You want South Korea to bomb the US?!? ;)
u know what i mean...
but on a second tought....they should bomb the baldvins
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
u know what i mean...
but on a second tought....they should bomb the baldvins
Barbara Streisand too. ;)
-
Originally posted by lukster
I don't know about the we part but NK is threatenting war against the US now. South Korea, Japan, and US forces already in the area can defeat NK.
its still AT war.....it never really ended.
the only way NK will "die" is if it kills itself...kinda like the orignal war.. they attack.... run out of forces, and fall back. and basicaly loose... However this time i VERY much doubt china or Russia will be helping them this time. We shouldnt start it... we should prepare just in case....
-
Originally posted by Overlag
its still AT war.....it never really ended.
the only way NK will "die" is if it kills itself...kinda like the orignal war.. they attack.... run out of forces, and fall back. and basicaly loose... However this time i VERY much doubt china or Russia will be helping them this time.
The only way there will be a resumption of war is if NK strikes the first blow. If you want to call that suicide it's fine by me.
-
Originally posted by lukster
The only way there will be a resumption of war is if NK strikes the first blow. If you want to call that suicide it's fine by me.
thats basically what i said wasnt it? :)
-
Originally posted by Overlag
thats basically what i said wasnt it? :)
I guess it was. You did ask why "we" should invade NK though and I gave you a reason even though I don't believe we'll fire the first shot.
-
Looks like the UK has promised to be on-board for action similar to the one taken vs. Saddam Hussein. Maybe one more insane leader taken out by a united force is what's needed for the rest of the world to understand the rules. Here's what was pledged long ago by PM Blair:
Tony Blair today pledged that after dealing with Iraq, the UN would confront North Korea about its nuclear weapons programme.
The prime minister was giving an impassioned defence of the government's position on Iraq during his weekly question time when an anti-war MP shouted: "Who's next?"
Replying to the heckle, Mr Blair said: "After we deal with Iraq we do, yes, through the UN, have to confront North Korea about its weapons programme".
FROM: Blair: North Korea is next
Staff and agencies
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,884753,00.html
*edited-->this is an old article. Was searching for recent stuff and for some reason this was in the pile I was looking through.
What ever happened to the meeting last year? BBC article:
N Korea to 'give up nuclear aims'
North Korean delegates gave a standing ovation as the talks ended
North Korea has agreed to give up all nuclear activities and rejoin the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, in a move diplomats called a breakthrough.
-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4259128.stm
-
take `em out before they can put that thing on the tip of a missle.....and screw koffi
my 2 cents
-
actually getting a south korean in the place of koffi could be the best thing to do. he won`t be crying he`s eyes out about lebanon while letting scores getting raped and murdered in darfur.....i`m sure he`ll stick it up to nk as well. it`s time the un gets some credibility.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696
you will probably stop after 30seconds. If you dont watch the whole thing, you dont get to see what the US media says, vs the world media..
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/media/Which_deaths_matter.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4294502.stm
a aggressive, oppressive ocupation of palestine, which is Illegal.
OMG, Noam Chomsky is the first listed on the board of directors for the film producer (Media Education Foundation) of the film and the first interviewed. Look at the other stuff on MEF's website, just a tiny bit left-wing. Here (http://www.mediaed.org/videos/index_html)
They tip their hand right up front with the text "In 1967, following a war between Israel and the countries of Syria, Jordan and Egypt, Israel militarily occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem."
Let deconstruct this. On reading this, wouldn't you have to wonder who started the war? I do wonder why it isn't mentioned since it has a significant impact on the reason Israel still controls these three areas. Isn't it significant that it was a defensive war where three Arab countries attacked Israel at the same time?
Here's a small but interesting point, notice the use of the word "countries" in front Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Not really necessary unless the viewer is an idiot and doesn't know this but why, if necessary to clearly state that the Arab states are "countries" why is Israel just called Israel? Perhaps a subtle hint that Israel isn't really a legitimate country? It's sort of like the left that drops the title "President" when talking about George Bush. It's just a subtle but childish attempt to say he's not legitimate, or he's not "my" president.
Nowhere does the film show what started particular conflicts depicted, only showing the Israeli response. Notice that they only show Palestinian kids throwing stones....let's not have any of that nasty bombs and RPG stuff...unless you can use it to make the Israelies look bad. Sort of like ignoring Hitler and only showing D-Day and the bombing of Berlin. This isn't any different than left-wing propaganda.
I love them bringing up economic issues as if an Intifada has no negative results for the locals while the Israeli response does. BTW, you happen to see that Arafat's wife Suha is receiving a multi-million dollar a year stipend to spend as she wants? You'd think at least some of that money Arafat and his family collected could have helped the average Palestinian, but I'm glad to see that Suha won't have to pinch too many pennies. Oh, and speaking of Arafat, here's a nice little summary of one of his heroic acts as an "insurgent":
Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children. Here (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/11/11/arafat_the_monster/) Jezze...I am really, really surprised this didn't make it into the film, I mean to be fair it covers both sides of the issue doesn't it?
Also, note that they mention things like blockades, control of the roads and delayed ambulence service. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with attempting to stop the transportation of weapons and terrorists could it? Maybe the Intifada? Oh, and the ambulance thing....guess what one of the terrorist's favorite transportation means is....yeah...ambulances.
That and more propaganda is in only in the first 10 minutes.
Goebbles would be very happy with this "film".
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
actually getting a south korean in the place of koffi could be the best thing to do. he won`t be crying he`s eyes out about lebanon while letting scores getting raped and murdered in darfur.....i`m sure he`ll stick it up to nk as well. it`s time the un gets some credibility.
no one listens to UN.... not even israel ;)
-
Originally posted by Overlag
no one listens to UN.... not even israel ;)
On that we can agree. Huge money sink that can be put to much better use.
-
Quick question about the Palestine thing.
I read long ago in several sources that there was no country called 'Palestine' or a 'Palestinian' racial origin. According to some old UK sources the only people inhabiting the region when the state of Israel was formed were some Bedouin nomads.
Sort of like building a hotel and asking the homeless man with a cardboard box in the alley if he'd mind the construction of it. And offering him a free room once it's been built.
If the Arab states are so worried about the current people referred to as "Palestinians", why hasn't Jordan, Syria, Egypt or any of the others offered them property to establish a home within their borders? Maybe it's easier to keep them stirred up by refusing such a thing.
And what's the deal with the advertisment on the tv channel with a child telling his friends that he's sacrificed himself for his people and that he now has a place in paradise with Allah for eternity. Does Mohammed need children martyrs now or something?
Sometimes I wish we'd just park an Aegis cruiser off the coast and 'adjust' the programming of some of the propaganda channels with a few 'accidentally released' Tomahawk cruise missles.
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
Quick question about the Palestine thing.
I read long ago in several sources that there was no country called 'Palestine' or a 'Palestinian' racial origin. According to some old UK sources the only people inhabiting the region when the state of Israel was formed were some Bedouin nomads.
Sort of like building a hotel and asking the homeless man with a cardboard box in the alley if he'd mind the construction of it. And offering him a free room once it's been built.
If the Arab states are so worried about the current people referred to as "Palestinians", why hasn't Jordan, Syria, Egypt or any of the others offered them property to establish a home within their borders? Maybe it's easier to keep them stirred up by refusing such a thing.
And what's the deal with the advertisment on the tv channel with a child telling his friends that he's sacrificed himself for his people and that he now has a place in paradise with Allah for eternity. Does Mohammed need children martyrs now or something?
Sometimes I wish we'd just park an Aegis cruiser off the coast and 'adjust' the programming of some of the propaganda channels with a few 'accidentally released' Tomahawk cruise missles.
and how about the refugee camps in lebanon,jordan and gaza? i mean there have been refugee camps in europe after countless conflicts and changed borders. them people have been helped and integrated into whatever country`s society they were in. these poor bastards are kept for decades as political weapons.....
...just as bad as a country having a nuke that can`t feed it`s people. btw i`m more worried about pakistan having the bomb. their president is sure in the crosshair of some terrorists.who knows when he`ll be popped and he`s country with all it`s nukes taken over by some numbnutts?
-
Originally posted by lukster
On that we can agree. Huge money sink that can be put to much better use.
i aggree.but maybe if it won`t be a biased punk as koffi or a former ss running the show,things could change. i mean is the us was going and doing as it pleased just because it could,that`d be pretty dangerous too.
i know americans belive that whatever is good for them is good for everyone else,but even americans aren`t allways right.
let me just hope for the best...
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
and how about the refugee camps in lebanon,jordan and gaza? i mean there have been refugee camps in europe after countless conflicts and changed borders. them people have been helped and integrated into whatever country`s society they were in. these poor bastards are kept for decades as political weapons.....
...just as bad as a country having a nuke that can`t feed it`s people. btw i`m more worried about pakistan having the bomb. their president is sure in the crosshair of some terrorists.who knows when he`ll be popped and he`s country with all it`s nukes taken over by some numbnutts?
israel has destroyed countless refugee camps...... :huh
any anyway why should they move away from there land?
-
Originally posted by Overlag
israel has destroyed countless refugee camps...... :huh
any anyway why should they move away from there land?
You just don't pay attention do you?
Chew on these numbers a bit sport. Israel has 1,377,100 Arabs living within the borders and this doesn't include the West Bank and Gaza. How many Jews have been allowed to live in Arab countries? Last count was about 6,000 total Jews living in Arab countries. That's 6,000 Jews total in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., etc. Israel is smaller than New Jersey but they've got almost a million and a half Arabs? Seems sorta strange that if the Israelies are committing Arabic genocide there would be that many Arabs still living within Israel. Oh, and every year the number goes up. Guess the Jews just aren't as good at genocide as the Arabs.
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
Quick question about the Palestine thing.
I read long ago in several sources that there was no country called 'Palestine' or a 'Palestinian' racial origin. According to some old UK sources the only people inhabiting the region when the state of Israel was formed were some Bedouin nomads.
You got it right. There never has been a country of Palestine. The region that was called "Palestine" actually included Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and all of Jordan . I find it interesting that nobody seems to question the fact that "Palestinians" only claim rights to the country of Israel and are second class citizens at best in Jordan.
-
Israel's War of Independence is the first war between the State of Israel and the neighboring Arab countries. It started on the eve of the establishment of the state (May 14, 1948) and continued until January 1949. The war broke out following the rejection of the United Nation's Partition Plan, Resolution 181 of the General Assembly (November 29, 1949), by the Arab states and the Arab Higher Committee. The representatives of the Arab states threatened to use force in order to prevent the implementation of the resolution.
Stage 1: November 29, 1947 - March 31, 1948
Arab violence erupted the day after the ratification of Resolution 181. Shots were fired on a Jewish bus close to Lod airport, and a general strike declared by the Arab Higher Committee resulted in the setting fire and the plundering of the Jewish commercial district near the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem. There were still 100,000 British troops stationed in Palestine, which were much stronger than both Arab and Israeli forces. Nevertheless, the British policy was not to intervene in the warfare between the two sides, except in order to safeguard the security of British forces and facilities. During this period, Arab military activities consisted of sniping and the hurling of bombs at Jewish transportation along main traffic arteries to isolated Jewish neighborhoods in ethnically mixed cites and at distant settlements.
vs. what you posted
After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab State which did not come into being.
We have to disect your version a bit as it glossed over, or left out, some important facts.
Yours skipped over the whole "the Arabs rejected the UN resolution and attacked the Jew's" bit. Israel was not the agressor, the Arabs were.
On 14 May 1948 the State of Israel was proclaimed according to the UN partition plan (1947). Less than 24 hours later, the regular armies of Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq invaded the country, forcing Israel to defend the sovereignty it had regained in its ancestral homeland. In what became known as Israel's War of Independence, the newly formed, poorly equipped Israel Defense Forces (IDF) repulsed the invaders in fierce intermittent fighting, which lasted some 15 months and claimed over 6,000 Israeli lives (nearly one percent of the country's Jewish population at the time).
The Jews accepted the U.N. plan, the Arabs didn't. Instead of living in peace, the Arabs attacked the Jews Your version just omitted some stuff. I GUESS the author of your article just assumes that people have a basic grasp of history and know how those events unfolded. Granted, most people do.
You really need to try harder Overlag. I asked for FACTS and uou gave me biased opinions. Show me something that is considered factual that backs up your position. The opinions given so far are nothing short of comical.
THANKS you for posting that vid, which btw I had already watched before. THAT bunch of tripe is pathetic. The picture it paints isn't even kinda sorta based in this reality. Is it THAT kinda garbage you are basing your opinions on? Here's a clue, go read a history book.
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
You got it right. There never has been a country of Palestine. The region that was called "Palestine" actually included Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and all of Jordan . I find it interesting that nobody seems to question the fact that "Palestinians" only claim rights to the country of Israel and are second class citizens at best in Jordan.
Palestinian was a phrase coined by Yasser Arafat in 1974 in front of the U.N. General Assembly. Amazing that 32 years later people are so ignorant of history that they think it means a race of people.
The Palestinians have no more claim the that region then any other Arab from that region. Heck, I am 1/2 Lebanese and I have as much of a "Right" to have an independant country in that region as any so called "Palestinian" does.
-
You mean like an independant nation called Lebanon?
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
You mean like an independant nation called Lebanon?
Tronsky
You're not really clear but I take it that your post is refering to the Israelie invasions of Lebanon.
Just suppose we had a Mexican Hezbollah crossing the US border, kidnapping, bombing, and launching those ever-so-cute little Katusha rockets at San Diego, Yuma, El Paso, etc. You know those little things that some sensible people would probably view as at least "un-neighborly", many believing in that little thing known as International Law might even call it an act of war.
Of course their justification is that we took the whole of the American Southwest from Mexico and therefore are actually conducting a "military occupation" of North Mexico. Don't forget the Mexican government does nothing to stop them.
Then, from your point of view, the US would probably be launching an "illegal war of aggression and occupation" if we were to go across the border to stop them. Yeah.....right....you've hit the nail on the head. It would be our fault, we would be the aggressors and "occupiers".
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
You're not really clear but I take it that your post is refering to the Israelie invasions of Lebanon.
Just suppose we had a Mexican Hezbollah crossing the US border, kidnapping, bombing, and launching those ever-so-cute little Katusha rockets at San Diego, Yuma, El Paso, etc. You know those little things that some sensible people would probably view as at least "un-neighborly", many believing in that little thing known as International Law might even call it an act of war.
Of course their justification is that we took the whole of the American Southwest from Mexico and therefore are actually conducting a "military occupation" of North Mexico. Don't forget the Mexican government does nothing to stop them.
Then, from your point of view, the US would probably be launching an "illegal war of aggression and occupation" if we were to go across the border to stop them. Yeah.....right....you've hit the nail on the head. It would be our fault, we would be the aggressors and "occupiers".
did funked put you up to this post?
-
Not to hijack the hijack, but now they're saying that there was no radioactive elements in the initial air sampling over NK.
article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15249383/)
Maybe you nutjobs that were saying this was a hoax aren't so nutty afterall :)
-
I wonder if it was a test failure or a hoax? If it was a hoax, I'll have to hold my hat and hang my head. If it was a failure (uneven implosion, for instance, w/ partial fission) then that's even better.
-
Awesome, now they claim that they'll set off an H-Bomb. That's... unlikely.
http://times.hankooki.com/service/print/Print.php?po=times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200610/kt2006101217510111990.htm
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Not to hijack the hijack, but now they're saying that there was no radioactive elements in the initial air sampling over NK.
article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15249383/)
Maybe you nutjobs that were saying this was a hoax aren't so nutty afterall :)
If you know anything about how testing is done, if you do the test correctly, all of the radioactive gases remain safely below ground and you wouldn't find anything by air sampling.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Not to hijack the hijack, but now they're saying that there was no radioactive elements in the initial air sampling over NK.
article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15249383/)
Maybe you nutjobs that were saying this was a hoax aren't so nutty afterall :)
the bomb "failed"
it was suppose to be 15kt but only did like 2-5kt
-
`If the Bush administration makes more provocations, both New York City and Tokyo will be blazed` Kim said
wow, get ready people! ;)
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
`If the Bush administration makes more provocations, both New York City and Tokyo will be blazed` Kim said
wow, get ready people! ;)
lol how is that fool going to get them here :rofl
-
air samples negative (http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/10/13/498275.html&cvqh=itn_nkorea)
Nuke or not nuke ,, that is the question .
so far our Weather bird hasnt came up with any Radioactivity . nor has China and Japan .
-
overlag
Ever hear of boats?
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
You're not really clear but I take it that your post is refering to the Israelie invasions of Lebanon.
No i was referring to the post directly above mine...
Tronsky
-
we have no plan for north korea, that I know.
-
....Wow, where to begin...?Time to make a supposition. NK MAY have detonated a weapon. whether successful or not, It's not a very large device(IRBM, or SRBM warhead, at most.) Anywhere from 1-15Kt. Now, we don't know anything else about this device except that it possibly works. If it's not too large, It would be unwise to assume that The NK did'nt build it outside of the paramaters that would allow it to be used on one of their domestic missiles. I.E., The device may have been built so they can immediately top one of their missiles with it, therefore giving them a delivery system. If they can manage to build one in the first place, It's a sure bet they realized that they needed a weaponized bomb. And since it's small, It leads to a rash of other considerations. Is it small so that it can be sold or exported? Is it small, because it's intended to be a tactical weapon for use against SEATO forces In-Theatre?(Based on Kim's behaviour, one could assume that he believes a limited tactical usage won't be followed by a U.S. counterstrike.)Is China using this as leverage to further their position in the world(Basing this on the moves they've been making on the U.S. economy.)
The answers to all of these questions will be given soon. If I had to make a bet, however, China will use this against us, both diplomatically and economically, to the fullest extent.
-
They've detected Radiation in air samples. N. Korea is saying that they'll detonate a thermonuclear device next.
"In Washington, a preliminary U.S. intelligence analysis has shown radioactivity in air samples collected near a suspected North Korean nuclear test site, a U.S. official said on Friday, five days after Pyongyang announced it conducted the test"
Looks like it's pretty much confirmed that the explosion was nuclear in nature, unless they've seeded the air above the test with radioactive material.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061014/ts_nm/korea_north_dc_99;_ylt=Akgpwg8vUgdG2qWg_XUWPi.CscEA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
-
Originally posted by Maverick
overlag
Ever hear of boats?
no...what are they? the new type of ICBM that gets to the US in 30minutes? or a SHIP that will never be allowed to leave port in NK? :p
-
Originally posted by Overlag
no...what are they? the new type of ICBM that gets to the US in 30minutes? or a SHIP that will never be allowed to leave port in NK? :p
I hear that bombs are illegal in the UK, so I'm sure everything is under control over there.
It's not like people can't blow things up if they want to, right? Now multiply that times a thousand with a nuke. It doesn't have to come on the tip of an ICBM you know.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
no...what are they? the new type of ICBM that gets to the US in 30minutes? or a SHIP that will never be allowed to leave port in NK? :p
Last I heard there was no blockade of any nk ports at this time. That also doesn't rule out the use of a proxy from a group that profited from nk sharing technology or weapons.
-
Calll me stupid if ya like , but IF , they detonated even a 1kt nuke , isn't that enough to be worried about?
NOt that it would level L.A. I guess , but it would kill a bunch of it landed someplace densely populated.
I mean to read some of thse posts in this thread , some seem to lead on that a small 1-15kt nuke is no big deal.
AM I wrong in thinking that even one that"small" is still pretty dang bad?
-
Retop, those who say this doesn't worry them say that not because 1kt is small, but because even if it had been 100kt, they don' t think that the North Koreans have the will or ability to actually hit us with one of them. In fact, a couple people are arguing that nuclear arms are the unalienable right of any soveriegn state.
I'd have to agree with you. No enemy, in the modern day and age, is worth underestimating.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Me either. NK having a nuke....doesn't worry me personally at all. It sure worries the policy makers though. And I find that to be the one funny thing in a screwed up mess we call the U.S. Government. They all make up the tail on a huge wagging dog.
My 1 vote this election season , will not be the one that wins anyone anything. Nor will it be the one that the U.N. considers when kissing yet anothers *** in this world. Nor will it gain any assurances from any politician about doing GOOD things while in office , instead of spending their whole term trying to get re-elected.
It will not be anything to do with disarming Iraq , Bin Laden , Hezzbooloo's , Taliban , NK , Iran , Insurgents in Iraq. It will not make one difference in my belief is religeon , abortion , stem cell research , the death penaly , taxes , fair play in anything.
So...I'll vote and know that it was no more than a cleansing of the mind knowing all I had was that and I exercised it.
RedTop's 2nd post....
Calll me stupid if ya like , but IF , they detonated even a 1kt nuke , isn't that enough to be worried about?
NOt that it would level L.A. I guess , but it would kill a bunch of it landed someplace densely populated.
I mean to read some of thse posts in this thread , some seem to lead on that a small 1-15kt nuke is no big deal.
AM I wrong in thinking that even one that"small" is still pretty dang bad?
It's as I said not that I am "Worried" about them as much as I am them selling it. But mainly what my point is that no matter the size , it seems like a "Big" deal to me as far as a nuke goes. ANy size nuke is a big nuke....they just grow from BIG to biggest I guess. IMHO
Confusing enuff? :)
-
Whats unfortunate is that nearly ANY war-like move by the west, Seoul is wiped off map, and they can just do that with artillery from the other side of the DMZ
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Whats unfortunate is that nearly ANY war-like move by the west, Seoul is wiped off map, and they can just do that with artillery from the other side of the DMZ
Certainly North Korea could do some serious damage to Seoul but Seoul is a large sprawling city. The North is not going to be allowed to hammer away at Seoul using their artillery with impunity.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Certainly North Korea could do some serious damage to Seoul but Seoul is a large sprawling city. The North is not going to be allowed to hammer away at Seoul using their artillery with impunity.
the problem is, theres like 15000 pieces aimed at Seoul.... and nukes can be launched by cannons.... :O
-
with our counter-battery abilities the NK guns won't be firing long.
-
we hve like 30000 troops there, is it possible that ALL of them are arty guy?
-
I'm talking about counter-battery radar, silly.
the second that they fire the cannon we know it's position.
you can wipe out thier emplacements with your weapon of choice.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
the problem is, theres like 15000 pieces aimed at Seoul.... and nukes can be launched by cannons.... :O
Let NK set off one nuke in SK and it's game over for Kimmy.
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
I'm talking about counter-battery radar, silly.
the second that they fire the cannon we know it's position.
you can wipe out thier emplacements with your weapon of choice.
thats never true....
-
Originally posted by lukster
Let NK set off one nuke in SK and it's game over for Kimmy.
exactly. The only way NK are going to die, is if they commit suicide. Both China, Russia, and USA should be signing plans on "what happens next" right now... USA cant be throwing nukes around when they dont know exactly how china and russia feel about something like this happening on there door step
-
Originally posted by Overlag
the problem is, theres like 15000 pieces aimed at Seoul.... and nukes can be launched by cannons.... :O
Really? I know that the US can do it, but I doubt that NK can.
Anyway, if NK fired one nuke ANYWHERE, they'd be blown off the map.
The real threat in a NK nuke is that they would sell it to somebody.
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
I'm talking about counter-battery radar, silly.
the second that they fire the cannon we know it's position.
you can wipe out thier emplacements with your weapon of choice.
Yah...but can we do that 15,000 times before Seoul is leveled?
-
Originally posted by Overlag
thats never true....
Really, whats your experience with counter-battery fire?
-
The same thing we did in the 1st gulf war.
After seeing many of the batteries around them get wiped out, Iraqi arty just quit shooting for fear of drawing fire.
edit to add: I promise if NK has a conventional threat we have a contengecy plan for it.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
exactly. The only way NK are going to die, is if they commit suicide. Both China, Russia, and USA should be signing plans on "what happens next" right now... USA cant be throwing nukes around when they dont know exactly how china and russia feel about something like this happening on there door step
I think the USA most definitely will respond way out of proportion if NK sets off a nuke in SK. The question then becomes will China and/or Russia risk annihilation to defend NK with their nukes? I don't think so.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Oh I know he doesn't have anything to base it on. I was hoping he'd try to back his statement up.
Uhh... he was making a joke? I suppose it went a little bit over your oh-so-defensive head...
-
Originally posted by lukster
I think the USA most definitely will respond way out of proportion if NK sets off a nuke in SK. The question then becomes will China and/or Russia risk annihilation to defend NK with their nukes? I don't think so.
China and Russia are our Allies
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
China and Russia are our Allies
If/when NK pops a nuke in SK watch how fast China and Russia warn us not to retaliate in kind. Will be much too late for that though then. Time to prevent this is now. Perhaps sanctions will work.
-
well then we are screwed
time for sanctions is now:furious
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
well then we are screwed
time for sanctions is now:furious
whys the point? sanctions dont work.
-
sanctions work very well, but they must be delivered properly so the sanctioned leader grasps the severity of the situation. first you write up the petition, get it approved by the U.N. security council. as the delegates argue the relative merits a copy of the sanction is faxed to the white house, president bush reads it upside down and backwards, sends it to the joint chiefs of staff, they fax it to a carrier, some E-3 tapes it to the business end of a J-dam and we deliver it to pyongyang. sanctions are a beautiful thing.
-
Overlag is either a worthless troll or lazy.
He posts contradiction after contradiction, but never backs up his opinion.
-
They're amending their conclusions again. Now they're saying that the test did take place, and this time, they sound sure.
Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15287725/)
Should we start building those bomb shelters again?
-
i m not te smart about nukuler espionage - how do u get airborn samples from a beloe ground test?
-
The same way you get pregnant while using a condom.
Leaks.
-
u m33n |ike +his?
(http://images.flabber.nl/1154891594680.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The same way you get pregnant while using a condom.
Leaks.
Someone should warn the kid in Rip's caption this. ;)
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
Overlag is either a worthless troll or lazy.
He posts contradiction after contradiction, but never backs up his opinion.
:rolleyes:
the country has been under economic sanctions since the end of the NK/SK war , and STILL its able to produce nukes, and it still has a crack pot leader.
Iraq had been under sanctions since 1991 (maybe before) but we still had a reason to invade the country later (even though it turned out not true)
Sanctions only punish Joe public, not crazy leaders. NK leader still has everything he wants, much like Saddam did......
by putting the country under more sanctions you are:
1: risking the life's of millions of Koreans (economic genocide)
2: going to piss him off more, giving him more reason to do what hes doing
oh yeah, and Japan was under Sanctions as well.... and look what she did.....
Originally posted by -Concho-
The same thing we did in the 1st gulf war.
After seeing many of the batteries around them get wiped out, Iraqi arty just quit shooting for fear of drawing fire.
edit to add: I promise if NK has a conventional threat we have a contengecy plan for it.
those batteries was "units" of easy to spot artillery tanks.
NK's are hidden inside encasement's, caves and what not. I really don't see how USA's army is going to be able to move its self, from Iraq/Afghanistan, all the way over to SK, then pin point all those artillery pieces within a week, let alone a day.
then, as i said, some of them cannons are able to fire shells large enough to carry small nukes.... even if 1 of them landed it would be enough.
I'm not saying NK will win, but i'm just telling you that those fantastic US artillery units will not be able to kill NK's units before Seoul is Leveled...
-
Counter Battery Radar (http://hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-battery_radar)
you don't think that there be atleast one of the units like the one in the article above in SK?
You don't think that ther might be one or more ATG squadrons in SK?
you don't have much of a grip on US capabilities.
-
Fine--we kill EVERY gun after it fires its FIRST round=== that's 15 THOUSAND rounds of 150mm (or whatever the Chinese or Russians sold them with our food money) fired at Seoul. Prolly mess it up a TEENY bit
-
who says they have 15000 guns? the NK?
-
Originally posted by Overlag
then, as i said, some of them cannons are able to fire shells large enough to carry small nukes.... even if 1 of them landed it would be enough.
Do you have any idea what sort of advancement it takes to produce a shell that small? The North Koreans just detonated their first weapon, in history. It took the Americans, and the Russians, years to get to the point where they could build one small enough to fit down the barrel of an artillery piece. And besides those two nations, I don't know of any others that currently have this capability. And if any do, I'm willing to bet that they've had the bomb for more than a week. Just because North Korea's first test was likely a small one doesn't mean that the package it came in was small.
If you're gonna be paranoid about this, and argue over the validity of this specific line of reasoning, why don't you argue for something just a little more likely, and relevent. Argue that the North Koreans have a 10 megaton hydrogen bomb waiting for us. Argue that they have a 100kt strategic nuke(which, incidentally, would also fit in a 38ft crate, and would be, well, about 100 times more effective than a tiny micro warhead) on the tip of a missile that's pointing at us. I think it's pretty safe to say that they would develope either, or both, before going into something as specialized as a tiny tactical nuke.
-
as bob said, I would be far more concered about bio/chem warfare than nukes.
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
who says they have 15000 guns? the NK?
He did:D
Originally posted by Overlag
the problem is, theres like 15000 pieces aimed at Seoul.... and nukes can be launched by cannons.... :O
Also here:
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/currentconflicts/a/koreanmilitary_2.htm
Artillery
North Korea has an estimated 13,000 artillery sites stationed in secure bunkers, many of which are aimed at targets in and around the South Korean capital, Seoul. Such a large collection of artillery could potentially drop 300,000 shells per hour on the city.
Indeed, the presence of such a large force is seen by many as a significant threat. However, due to the fact that U.S. officials believe every fourth round has a chemical tip, the artillery arm of the DPRK military could inflict a considerable amount of casualties upon the population of South Korea.
Now WHERE would we get Hyundai parts from THEN????
-
this is a lot and I'm not saying it won't be bad, but we have some very impressive couter battery techniques that will tear them up as soon as they start.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
He did:D
Also here:
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/currentconflicts/a/koreanmilitary_2.htm
North Korea has an estimated 13,000 artillery sites stationed in secure bunkers, many of which are aimed at targets in and around the South Korean capital, Seoul. Such a large collection of artillery could potentially drop 300,000 shells per hour on the city.
oops.... i always over exaggerate size/numbers :rofl
Originally posted by -Concho-
this is a lot and I'm not saying it won't be bad, but we have some very impressive couter battery techniques that will tear them up as soon as they start.
but are they sitting there, ready for action?
-
same site
Final Assessment
In the event that the world witnesses a second Korean War, all indications point to the high probability that the conventional forces of the North would prove to be a mere paper tiger. Certainly their numbers are significant. However, the technological superiority of the U.S. based weapons systems would eventually eliminate this advantage.
The greatest threat comes from the weapons of mass destruction contained in the North Korean arsenal. And while it is doubtful that the DPRK would be able to deliver any WMD outside of the Korean peninsula via their missile system, the fact remains that the South could be decimated by a massive biological / chemical attack.
In addition to this, the humanitarian track record of the Kim Jong-il regime is quite poor - therefore, it is entirely within the realm of possibility for the North to utilize WMDs within their own borders to severely hamper the advance of any invasion force. All in all, the dynamic of a second Korean War would be radically different from the nature and course of the first Korean War.
-
theres also the fact that NK troops dont even have uniform.... (a UK newspaper posted pictures of troops in just there baggy boxers lol)
if they cant afford uniform, how are they going to get guns? :lol
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
you don't have much of a grip on US capabilities.
yeah.... a army that's overstretched and stuck in Afghanistan, and Iraq...and has no conscription, so very small troop numbers.
sure, they have some great planes, and warships, but troops win wars.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
yeah.... a army that's overstretched and stuck in Afghanistan, and Iraq...and has no conscription, so very small troop numbers.
sure, they have some great planes, and warships, but troops win wars.
Wrong again.
US Overseas Deployment (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/deploy.htm)
World 540,076
Rest-of-World [all but USA] 146,507
United States 393,569
That dosen't count active or inactive reserves either.
-
Originally posted by -Concho-
...That dosen't count active or inactive reserves either.
but it does include him (http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Starfighter/1107/)
-
Originally posted by Debonair
but it does include him (http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Starfighter/1107/)
That's the most amazing thing I've ever seen in my life, and I've seen a Russian guy say no to free Cognac.
-
i turned down a free doughnut once, a good one, from a great german bakery (Heidelberg, on Lee Highway in Arlington inbetween Glebe Rd & George Mason Dr - that place owns)
-
They definitely have chemical weapons. Tested on political prisoners and their families, according to a commandant I saw interviewed after he himself fled via China.
Kim has apparently survived several attempts on his life. There's speculation that a massive explosion which levelled most of a northern town was intended to take out his personal train as it passed through.
-
News update, - they did it again. And they're showing the finger to the rest of the world as well :(
-
They did what again?
-
Japan and SK are saying they've detected a possible second test. Unconfirmed it seems.
-
nah, kim jong il just got new subwoofers for his subaru XT6
-
Originally posted by Debonair
but it does include him (http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Starfighter/1107/)
ya know the pilot really wanted to "accidently" swerve closer and hit full throttle for a sec or 2 then.....oooops :huh
-
Nothing of the sort is being reported in Japan. Who is reporting this, Angus or Scherf?
-
The news I read seems to have been erronous and has disappeared. Could have been a bad translation from this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6057718.stm
oddly enough it did mention a measured earth movement, if I remember right.
Anyway, the reaction of N-Korea seems to be in harmony.
-
This is what is being reported universally, I think:
"Both South Korea and Japan have said they are aware of intelligence suggesting North Korea is possibly preparing for a second nuclear test."
-
A look inside North Korea, and what they are, and AREN'T, spending their money on (note: the period depicted is mid to late 90's, when the US and several other countries were bribing Kim to play nice)
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24942
The United Nations must have heard that the aid was not being distributed, because an inspection was organised. The party cadres, who had been alerted in advance, had rice delivered to the schools from state storehouses, which were apparently far from empty. The children were told to tell the UN inspectors that this diet was perfectly normal. On the day of the visit there were all kinds of dishes on the menu: noodles, maize soufflé. Once the UN team set off again, the cadres took back everything, including all the uneaten food from the tables where the children were still sitting.
Hunger engulfed my little universe. The poorest children lived on nothing but grass, and during class their stomachs rumbled. After a few weeks their faces began to swell, making them look well nourished. Then their faces went on growing until they looked as though they had been inflated. Their cheeks were so puffy that they couldn’t see the blackboard. Some of them were covered with impetigo and flaking skin.
My classmates started dying during the summer of 1996. One girl spent her days by her dying brother’s bedside, going short herself so that he would have more to eat. She died before he did.
As time passed there were fewer and fewer of us sitting at the school desks. Sometimes there were only about 10 in a class of 35. The teachers themselves no longer had enough energy to take their classes. They sat shapelessly in their chairs, cane in hand, while we repeated by heart lessons we had already learnt about the childhoods of Kim Il-sung and his son and successor Kim Jong-il, the Dear Leader.
The famine encouraged the most selfish kinds of behaviour. My grandmother sold soya dishes and soups at home, a little trade that helped her to survive. I remember one father who regularly came to my grandmother’s house in secret to eat his fill far from the eyes of his family. Many parents left their homes in search of food, and most didn’t come back.
People generally died at night, and every morning we counted five or six deaths in our neighbourhood. Most of them were ordinary people, because neither party cadres nor policemen nor high-ranking military officers suffered as a result of the famine. My father calculated that the district where we lived had shrunk from 4,000 to 2,000 inhabitants.
Eventually, after contracting typhus from infected lice, my father was granted provisional release on condition that he would go back to prison if he recovered from the illness. Depressed, he hit the bottle and one evening he suddenly started shouting at the top of his voice: “Kim Jong-il, son of a ***** . . . bastard, swine!” My mother, in a panic, jammed both hands over his mouth. Our house was under constant surveillance from neighbourhood informers, and this sort of outburst could get us all shot.
He made up his mind to smuggle us to China. For more than a month he tried everything he could think of to persuade us, but my mother wasn’t convinced. “In spite of the shortages,” she insisted, “North Korea is without a doubt one of the most prosperous countries in the world!” I told him I would rather be a beggar in North Korea than follow him to China. I spouted phrases that I had learnt at school: “Let us safeguard socialism . . . I will fight to the death to protect socialism and the Great Leader Kim Il-sung!” My father went on insulting Kim Jong-il in the worst possible terms. My mother finally yielded. In turn she tried to persuade me, the confused 13-year-old. She said we would spend a year in China, no more, and we would earn money and come back to North Korea.
-
I'm pretty certain that the North Koreans, at least those who have a say in it, want war. There's nothing worse than a totalitarian government that runs every aspect of the affairs of a well-armed, yet poor nation. They have a big army, they have nothing to lose, and societies like theirs would thrive off the pride generated from a national campaign.
They want to get into it with somebody. They're betting we don't have the resolve to hit them with any lasting effect. They're pretty certain that they'll get a few good licks in before things come to a stop. At this point, it's just a matter of provoking the other guy into starting it, thus legitimizing their righteousness.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
I'm pretty certain that the North Koreans, at least those who have a say in it, want war. There's nothing worse than a totalitarian government that runs every aspect of the affairs of a well-armed, yet poor nation. They have a big army, they have nothing to lose, and societies like theirs would thrive off the pride generated from a national campaign.
They want to get into it with somebody. They're betting we don't have the resolve to hit them with any lasting effect. They're pretty certain that they'll get a few good licks in before things come to a stop. At this point, it's just a matter of provoking the other guy into starting it, thus legitimizing their righteousness.
those jerks!:mad: we should kick their bellybutton just for that!!!1:mad: :mad: :furious :furious :furious :O
-
Originally posted by Neubob
I'm pretty certain that the North Koreans, at least those who have a say in it, want war. There's nothing worse than a totalitarian government that runs every aspect of the affairs of a well-armed, yet poor nation. They have a big army, they have nothing to lose, and societies like theirs would thrive off the pride generated from a national campaign.
They want to get into it with somebody. They're betting we don't have the resolve to hit them with any lasting effect. They're pretty certain that they'll get a few good licks in before things come to a stop. At this point, it's just a matter of provoking the other guy into starting it, thus legitimizing their righteousness.
Well, Neubob, I'm pretty certain that they don't. What they want seems not to be part of this discussion.
I think it would be a good exercise for someone here to assume their role for debate purposes. I nominate you, since an aspiring lawyer needs to be able to take either side. You game to try it?
By the way, what continent do you live on? Just curious.
-
Based on the rhetoric and recent rally (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?101706/101706_sr_rosen&Special_Report&Pageantry%20of%20Dictatorship&acc&Politics&-1&News&173&&&new) it looks to me like they are planning for war or at least want us to believe they are.
-
Kimchi's make champion soldiers, but they fill the ranks of lackluster armies.
An 18D of 1st Group once said to a young suave that if war ever broke out on that penninsula he would "put his gun to the pilot's head and tell him to turn around", He was a soft spoken introverted type not prone to hyperbole, and his green beanie comrades tacitly communicated agreement with his statement.
If we ever go to war with DPRK, lets hope they run out of koreans fast like they did in the 1st match.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Well, Neubob, I'm pretty certain that they don't. What they want seems not to be part of this discussion.
I think it would be a good exercise for someone here to assume their role for debate purposes. I nominate you, since an aspiring lawyer needs to be able to take either side. You game to try it?
By the way, what continent do you live on? Just curious.
Sure, I'm game. In response to your question: I live in North America.
what I think the North Koreans want?
Well, and this may go with my previous statement, albeit in a broader sense, I think that they want the world to respect their sovereignty, they want freedom from the threat of foreign incursion, and they want attention. They may also want foreign aid, much in the way that Israel receives, and may be using their recent most technological developements as a fulcrum over which to leverage the richer nations. What they do not want, or, I should say, what they will not accept, is an ultimatum. Acceptance of an ultimatum is tantamount to waving the white flag.
I do not think that they seek active membership in this alleged international community that the rest of the civilized world is supposedly nurturing. They simply want to be able to remain on the sidelines, live as they've lived, and do so without the threat of "liberation" (I use quotes because this has become a euphemism) at the hands of certain superpowers.
Not too much to ask for a soveriegn nation, I don't think.
Now, this is what I believe NK wants,--if North Korea's future is in the hands of a single person. It is hard to say what the masses there want.
If this is not the format in which you envisioned my response, I'll change it for next time.
-
One further note. We were closer to war back then because Kim's father was in power. Despite Kim's childhood, or perhaps because of it, Kim is more sane than his father.
Kim likes booze, tall, fair women, pop cinema.
His father killed and risked his life for ideology.
I can't speak for everyone but I know which behavior is more consisent with my idea of sanity.
The world is lucky that the living god of the dprk is no longer the Fatherly Leader.
I say living because Kim's dad is still officially the president.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Sure, I'm game. In response to your question: I live in North America.
what I think the North Koreans want?
Well, and this may go with my previous statement, albeit in a broader sense, I think that they want the world to respect their sovereignty, they want freedom from the threat of foreign incursion, and they want attention.
Yeah that's pretty much how I see it. The Kim regime wants acceptance and legitimization much more than it wants "reunification" which is what Kim's dad wanted.
Hell, when I played the PC game Civilization, the first thing I did was set my tech-tree goal to "nuke".
-
I think that's a good synposis, Neubob. I think you'll agree that the final part about the future of the leadership or the view of the masses isn't part of the equation, since the current leadership is whom those who feel they have to do something about NK have to deal with.
Okay, so now the question is what changed the uneasy, but contained 50-year relationship.
How did their attempt to open up a little and engage the world a few years ago get turned around?
1. How does isolation frame the fears and thinking of leaders when there is no direct communication with the perceived adversary?
2. Why do they perceive they are threatened? What specific actions were the catalysts for them developing and testing a nuclear device?
3. I trust you know that Korean cultural pride is stronger and more dedicated than perhaps any other in the world. How does that fit into finding a solution or miscalculation by those who do not understand it?
4. Will you violently confront any attempt to board and search any of your vessels in international waters?
After this, we can look at both sides' position and actions and see where, or if, any solution not requiring people to die is out there.
-
I think that one major thing that has changed is that Korea now sees the US as a superpower without a much needed super-advesary to check and balance its ambitions. Back in the good old days of duck and cover, the US and Russia were so afraid of one another that they went to war in secondary arenas, and did so without ever confronting each other directly. Yeah, the Chinese had some Soviet Mig pilots. The Vietnamese had their advisors, not to mention equipment, but the big show never came to fruition, and thankfully so...
Now that the super adversary is effectively gone, the ambitions of this empire of ours are unchecked. The result? A deposed Saddam... An America whose nationalistic fever is rising by the day... An egocentric superpower, still armed to the teeth, that now has no ideological foe as it did with the Soviets. Yes, the Muslims are starting to fill that role, but their religion, technical backwardness and fanatical practices make them more of a frightening joke than the nuclear-tipped evil empire that was the USSR. I'm sure they'll get less funny and more frightening soon enough, but, for now, I think the sentiment is that if push comes to shove, we'll bury them. There was never such a chance with the Soviets. It was either we live together, or we die together. And it could all happen in less than an hour, totally and completely.
Kim saw what happened to Saddam. He knows that the US's hunger for this sort of prey may not have been quenched in Iraq. He's been building up his forces, his readiness, doing all he could, despite the poverty, to have that one ace--a weapon against which nobody, not even a superpower, will wager. And, as you said, his pride, the Koreans' collective pride, will not allow this thing to continue. Respect, stature, and, perhaps most importantly, an image before his people are all things that are worth fighting for. Perhaps he's also sick and tired of these bloated, ignorant, gun-weilding cowboys hopping around the globe with no care for international boaders, UN resolutions, or public opinion. He may want to be the one to make the American Empire finally blink. It would a legacy to be proud of, and I bet he doesn't have a stable of 1000 luxury cars to taint the image of a leader of men--like Saddam did through his idiot older son. You ask about communication? I think that the actions of the US of the past several years speak more than any direct dialog between leaders ever will. Actions, not words, and there have been plenty of the former.
Is he wrong in all this? No. It's not hard to imagine exactly what place in people's hearts is occupied by modern America. Hell, I've grimaced before at some of the very audible commentary erupting from the mouths of my countrymen in international airports abroad. 'God, this country sucks!!'--London Heathrow, out of a 13 year old brat a couple years back. That's a spitball in the face. I cannot imagine what a soveriegn leader must feel getting told what and how from a nation on the other side of the globe.
Is he wrong in the way he handles his country? You know, I've lived in the US since age 4, and now, a quarter century later, I'm willing to say that it's just not our whoopeeed business. I still believe that every nation, be it the US or Lebanon or Korea, every nation deserves the leadership they have. If they don't like it, it's their duty to change it. Not ours. Will this risk another holocaust? Perhaps. If we continue on our current course, however, I'm afraid that we're gauranteeing another holocaust--our own. What do we do with Kim, now? I have no answers. What I would like to see, however, is some other powerful nation take the lead in this initiative, and the US take an unheard of backseat.
Maybe Kim doesn't want a war, per se. I do believe that he will fight one, though. There's a great chance that he's got the one thing that the US hasn't had in decades--resolve. Resolve to fight the enemy to the death, not to some state of GOP-defined enlightenment or Americanization. I think that Kim is ready to leave his enemy in smoking ruins. We are not. That lack of resolve is our greatest weakness. The credit for exposing that weakness goes to the planners and executors of 9/11.
It's a lesson that neither Kim, nor anyone like him will soon forget.
Sorry for the long, diggressive response, but it seems that these issues all gradually blend into one indistinguishable cluster****.
-
The Clinton administration took the approach of dealing with NK by treating them with respect and trust. NK decieved the US and continued their nuke program.
Nobody was a threat to NK.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I think that's a good synposis, Neubob. I think you'll agree that the final part about the future of the leadership or the view of the masses isn't part of the equation, since the current leadership is whom those who feel they have to do something about NK have to deal with.
Okay, so now the question is what changed the uneasy, but contained 50-year relationship.
How did their attempt to open up a little and engage the world a few years ago get turned around?
1. How does isolation frame the fears and thinking of leaders when there is no direct communication with the perceived adversary?
2. Why do they perceive they are threatened? What specific actions were the catalysts for them developing and testing a nuclear device?
3. I trust you know that Korean cultural pride is stronger and more dedicated than perhaps any other in the world. How does that fit into finding a solution or miscalculation by those who do not understand it?
4. Will you violently confront any attempt to board and search any of your vessels in international waters?
After this, we can look at both sides' position and actions and see where, or if, any solution not requiring people to die is out there.
Take everything you just typed and reverse it.
-
Good Post Neubob.
Tho some of it i kind of see different...I think that was well put.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
The Clinton administration took the approach of dealing with NK by treating them with respect and trust. NK decieved the US and continued their nuke program.
Nobody was a threat to NK.
I think the point of the exercise is to deduce exactly what business the US has, specifically, in limiting the technological advancement of any sovereign nation.
If we say that the US has interests so all-encompassing that any such activity is threatening enough to warrant intervention, be it diplomatic or military, then we've just laid claim to this whole planet as our jurisdiction.
Not fun.
-
It could have something to do with the fact that the North and South are still technically at war and we are committed to defending the South in the event of further aggression.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
I think the point of the exercise is to deduce exactly what business the US has, specifically, in limiting the technological advancement of any sovereign nation.
If we say that the US has interests so all-encompassing that any such activity is threatening enough to warrant intervention, be it diplomatic or military, then we've just laid claim to this whole planet as our jurisdiction.
Not fun.
I can understand why countries like Iran and NK would want nukes. That's not the issue.
The fact is that military might and the use of force is the law of man and has been since we have existed.
The US has just as valid a reason/reasons for preventing a nation from gaining a such a weapon as any other nation has a reason of aquiring such a weapon.
The US is doing EXACTLY what any nation in our position would do. Same goes for NK. Unfortunatley for NK, they are not a super power.
-
Originally posted by lukster
It could have something to do with the fact that the North and South are still technically at war and we are committed to defending the South in the event of further aggression.
I think that this technical state of war, at this point, is nothing but a loophole. There is no practical state of war, at least yet. If it breaks out between north and south, the war on paper will grandfather us into a shooting war. Do we want this? I think some very important people in the States just might.
As to ByeBye's post, I have to agree with you, the US has a vested interest, as does the rest of the world, in limiting the spread of nuclear armament. Yes, we are playing the role, and so is NK.
My main problem with this whole thing, and I'm nowhere near a personal concensus as to what should be done, is that I seriously doubt Kim's plans to actually use the weapon. In fact, his nuclear program's most potent aspect may just be the defiance with which he tests and demonstrates his power. After the shock of that developement has passed, our collective fear of his possessing this power will settle into a stable uneasiness--just as it did when the Soviets first got theirs, not to mention, more recently, Pakistan and India. It's the testing, the thumbing of the nose, if you will, that is the strongest messege he is likely to send. We can sit back and take it, thus allowing peace to continue but setting a dangerous precedent (or, I should say, re-setting it), or we can smush him and risk a real nuclear exchange.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
I think that this technical state of war, at this point, is nothing but a loophole. There is no practical state of war, at least yet. If it breaks out between north and south, the war on paper will grandfather us into a shooting war. Do we want this? I think some very important people in the States just might.
My main problem with this whole thing, and I'm nowhere near a personal concensus as to what should be done, is that I seriously doubt Kim's plans to actually use the weapon. In fact, his nuclear program's most potent aspect may just be the defiance with which he tests and demonstrates his power. After the shock of that developement has passed, our collective fear of his possessing this power will settle into a stable uneasiness--just as it did when the Soviets first got theirs, not to mention, more recently, Pakistan and India. It's the testing, the thumbing of the nose, if you will, that is the strongest messege he is likely to send. We can sit back and take it, thus allowing peace to continue but setting a dangerous precedent (or, I should say, re-setting it), or we can smush him and risk a real nuclear exchange.
Nothing can be done about NK's nukes, short of war. I don't think NK would use a nuke unless attacked, but I do think they could possibly sell the technology/material.
I don't think it's a good thing to allow NK to have nukes, but I'm not sure what should be done about it.
-
Thanks for your level-headed and reasoned demeanor in this little exercise, Neubob. The question of the catalyst hasn't been talked about, as I hoped it would.
Nationalism, principles or ideology may sprout blinders and earplugs on the heads of people, but disagreements about money raises their fists. Things were going well with North Korea prior to the summary judgement of "axis of evil" status - visits by the South Korean president and Japanese Prime minister, an admission to kidnapping Japanese nationals with accompanying remorse and general thawing of the freeze.
Things were being patched up again during the 6-way talks and the agreement last year by North Korea to continue not developing nuclear weapons in exchange for a promise of non-aggression and to not invade Korea as Iraq was invaded was hailed as a stepping stone back on the path to quasi-normalizing relations.
Three days after the agreement was signed, international banks, under duress from the U.S. Treasury Department, began freezing North Korean assets and all international cash transactions of North Korea. It wasn't a focused measure on questionable accounts, it was a blanket seizure of assets intended to deny North Korea any international trade.
As hard pressed as North Korea is for hard cash, that was a declaration of economic war and slap in the face after all the smiles and hand shaking during the signing of the agreement. The tests we see now is the measure they took to display their anger at what they perceive as a double-cross.
The problem with perceptions of double cross, intensified with the multipliers of money and pride, is that it makes otherwise reasonable people go nuts. What does it do to the marginally sane? Osama bin Laden is just such an example of what happens.
Will shots be fired if attempts are made to board ships in international waters? I don't have any doubt at all. It's happened a few times in the Sea of Japan in the past few years, with all the North Korean sailors dying in the process.
How will the US or Japan respond if they are the one's shot at? I have no confidence that either government leaders are listening to the professionals who have spent a lifetime studying North Korea, or diplomacy in general.
The North Koreans have always been looked at by advanced nations as being clumsy in diplomacy, but it appears they are no more clumsy than any other country.
In conclusion, I think we're witnessing a textbook repetition of how wars began in our textbooks - money, nationalism, pride and stubborness.
-
I don't get N-Korea at all.
I mean, they're asking the world for feeding assistance while arming up with nukes and basically telling everybody to get lost.
In a sum-up, - they're asking for trouble. Wars start that way yes, - with one country crossing a line that has been drawn by otherS.
-
There have been many shots exchanged between the North and South over the last 50+ years and many killed. Is Kim Jong Il simply posturing for internal and external power and respect? Only time will tell.
President Bush has warned him not to sell weapons. He should understand that a nuke made in the DPRK and detonated in the US by terrorists will likely be viewed as an attack by North Korea itself. There are just too many ways this could lead global thermonuclear war.
-
Originally posted by lukster
global thermonuclear war.
Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
-
As hard pressed as North Korea is for hard cash, that was a declaration of economic war and slap in the face after all the smiles and hand shaking during the signing of the agreement. The tests we see now is the measure they took to display their anger at what they perceive as a double-cross
Umm..they PRINT their hard cash, whick looks more like US money than money printed here in the states, unfortunately
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Umm..they PRINT their hard cash, whick looks more like US money than money printed here in the states, unfortunately
that is more of a result of how NK gets treated by the US
-
Originally posted by Overlag
that is more of a result of how NK gets treated by the US
You mean like how the US gives more money and aid to NK than any other Asian country? And like, you know, how we gave them nuclear technology and reactors?
All the food and money we gave them is a real insult to them, I'd bet.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
You mean like how the US gives more money and aid to NK than any other Asian country? And like, you know, how we gave them nuclear technology and reactors?
All the food and money we gave them is a real insult to them, I'd bet.
I think it's more a matter of our redneck dollars interbreeding with their enlightened currency that has caused the recent mutation.
-
Hey everyone! The crises is over.... the NK leader just said he was sorry.
World Peace at LAST!!! WOOOHOOOOO!!!
-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6350325 (linky to the sorry)
-
Looks like Kim got spanked by the Chinese.