Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: blitz on February 28, 2003, 05:19:09 PM
-
nice read, anyways :)
http://www.tamera.org/english/aktuelltext/ddirak_letter.html
Regards Blitz
America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Been wanting to ask you for your suggestions on resolving that little problem with North Korea starting up their reactor. The news says they could put together a few bombs by the end of summer at the rate their going.
I'm sure you know the IAEA has referred the matter to the Security Council? What do you think the SC should do? Knowing that the NK's are about 5-6 months away from having ~ 5-10 nukes?
Thx.
-
Obviously to solve the PRK nuke issue we need a morphogenetic field building new life forms which are planet-wide functional for the building up of a new world of trust, love, sexuality, truth and community. Then all will be well and the PRK will convert their nukes to bongs and dance around them singing kumbayah and playing hackeysack.
-
..and then there are times i wonder where the quarters go.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Obviously to solve the PRK nuke issue we need a morphogenetic field building new life forms which are planet-wide functional for the building up of a new world of trust, love, sexuality, truth and community. Then all will be well and the PRK will convert their nukes to bongs and dance around them singing kumbayah and playing hackeysack.
Yay funked, welcome to the program! =)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Been wanting to ask you for your suggestions on resolving that little problem with North Korea starting up their reactor. The news says they could put together a few bombs by the end of summer at the rate their going.
I'm sure you know the IAEA has referred the matter to the Security Council? What do you think the SC should do? Knowing that the NK's are about 5-6 months away from having ~ 5-10 nukes?
Thx.
Don't think we should go with a pre-emtive strike.
Threat them with a strike if THEY attack and try to get over with them by time like ya did with russia.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
So you have no problem with them building nuclear weapons, then, correct? You think the UN SC should just ignore the problem as brought to them by the IAEA?
And we should only attack them if they attack South Korea or perhaps the US?
Realizing that their missile/weapon technology is their only "cash" export, you have no problem with them selling missiles and WMD to whoever can come up with the Euros?
If they perhaps were to sell a nuke to Al Qaeda and we could trace it my it's "signature" to NK, would you then approve of a massive WMD retaliation against them?
Just curious. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Toad
So you have no problem with them building nuclear weapons, then, correct? You think the UN SC should just ignore the problem as brought to them by the IAEA?
And we should only attack them if they attack South Korea or perhaps the US?
Realizing that their missile/weapon technology is their only "cash" export, you have no problem with them selling missiles and WMD to whoever can come up with the Euros?
If they perhaps were to sell a nuke to Al Qaeda and we could trace it my it's "signature" to NK, would you then approve of a massive WMD retaliation against them?
Just curious. Thanks.
1.I don't like them to have WMDs but i don't think war is the way to deal with it.
2.Why should they want to attack the USA? And how? And with which results?
Not even Hitler was dumb enough to use WMDs against allies in WW2 because he did know very well what would have happened then.
3.Western countries are selling weapons all over the world all the time to nearly every country, as vicious it may be as long as they friendly -> Iraq.
Same goes for Russia.
We have a vicious circle here. Only chance for little countries to protect themselfs is to Have WMDs, today :(
To whom N-Korea has sold WMDs?
4. Quote:
If they perhaps were to sell a nuke to Al Qaeda and we could trace it my it's "signature" to NK, would you then approve of a massive WMD retaliation against them? Quote
To much 'if' for me.
A nation that would sell WMDs to any other nation knowing that these nation will use it as an attack weapon against a Superpower would face serious answers. Won't happen.
Answers would be even worse if WMDs would be sold to AL Quaida.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Originally posted by blitz
1.I don't like them to have WMDs but i don't think war is the way to deal with it.
No war ever? Or just no war initially?
For example, if the US withdrew its troops serving under the UN banner on the DMZ and then NK attacked SK... would you support military action then?
Originally posted by blitz
2.Why should they want to attack the USA?
I'm sure I wouldn't know. The US is one of their biggest food donors, after all.
However, it is NK that has been making threats of war, so what actions would YOU think are justified if they attack SK and concurrently the US troops on the DMZ?
Please humor me and answer that question.
Originally posted by blitz
3.Western countries are selling weapons all over the world
Of course. That isn't the issue or the question.
So far, NK hasn't had the nukes to sell. That is about to change, apparently.
So, once again, please answer the original question.
If they DO start making nukes and sell them to the highest bidder... say Al Qaeda... you have no problem with that?
If you do, what action would you suggest?
Originally posted by blitz
To much 'if' for me.
A nation that would sell WMDs to any other nation
[/b]
Again, I admit it is a hypothetical. But I'm interested in knowing if you've thought about this in depth.
So, please humor me and tell me what you would suggest we do if they perhaps were to sell a nuke to Al Qaeda and we could trace it by it's "signature" to NK. Thanks.
Also, you never addressed this question:
I'm sure you know the IAEA has referred the matter to the Security Council? What do you think the SC should do? Knowing that the NK's are about 5-6 months away from having ~ 5-10 nukes?
What do you think the UN/SC role is in this "NK building nukes" situation?
Thanks again!
-
also, you never addressed this question:
I'm sure you know the IAEA has referred the matter to the Security Council? What do you think the SC should do? Knowing that the NK's are about 5-6 months away from having ~ 5-10 nukes?
What do you think the UN/SC role is in this "NK building nukes" situation?
Thanks again! [/B][/QUOTE]
I didn't understand that sentence Toad.
Don't know IAEA? Is it international Nuclear Control unit ?
Regards Blitz
-
Personally, I think America should either stop all aid to NK or adopt the solution the Israelis applied to the Iraqi reactor - bomb it to rubble. Send in a couple of Stealth Bombers if you want it covert.
-
IAEA Mission Statement (http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/About/Profile/mission.html)
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):
is an independent intergovernmental, science and technology-based organization, in the United Nations family, that serves as the global focal point for nuclear cooperation
assists its Member States, in the context of social and economic goals, in planning for and using nuclear science and technology for various peaceful purposes, including the generation of electricity, and facilitates the transfer of such technology and knowledge in a sustainable manner to developing Member States
develops nuclear safety standards and, based on these standards, promotes the achievement and maintenance of high levels of safety in applications of nuclear energy, as well as the protection of human health and the environment against ionizing radiation
verifies through its inspection system that States comply with their commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and other non-proliferation agreements, to use nuclear material and facilities only for peaceful purposes.
These are the SAME folks that are participating in the Iraq weapons inspections.
Here's their latest release on NK:
News Update on IAEA and North Korea
FEBRUARY 2003
27, Thursday: IAEA Seeking to Verify Restart of Unsafeguarded Facility in North Korea.
Reacting to news reports that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has restarted its nuclear reactor at Nyongbyong, the IAEA has deplored such moves and said restarting the “unsafeguarded” facility shows the country’s disregard for its treaty obligations. “We are aware of press reports. We have observed through satellite imagery indications at the reactor.
However, without inspectors on the ground, we are not in a position to verify whether the DPRK has restarted the reactor, though we are pursuing other technical means of independently determining the operating status of the facility," the Agency said. “However, if this is true, the IAEA deplores the operation of the DPRK’s nuclear facilities without the presence of safeguards inspectors,” the statement added. “Restarting this now unsafeguarded nuclear facility will further demonstrate the DPRK’s disregard for its nuclear non-proliferation obligations.”
The Agency also said its 35-member Board of Governors has confirmed that Pyongyang’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA remains “binding and in force.”
-
And please answer my other questions too, even if you find them hypothetical.
I'm trying to understand your position.
Thanks!
-
Originally posted by Toad
No war ever? Or just no war initially?
For example, if the US withdrew its troops serving under the UN banner on the DMZ and then NK attacked SK... would you support military action then?
Sure. (to your example)
Although i have a problem with UN like it shows today.
It's far away from being able to solve the worlds problems.
There's some developpment needed which includes some sort of real power to UN and no veto for single countries.
This will takes decades if it happens at all, though.
I'm sure I wouldn't know. The US is one of their biggest food donors, after all. . [/B]
That's a step in the right direction.
However, it is NK that has been making threats of war, so what actions would YOU think are justified if they attack SK and concurrently the US troops on the DMZ?
Please humor me and answer that question. [/B]
Try chase a rat into a corner and it might get aggressive.
NK, as evil it might be is threatened by US manoeuvers and the comin Iraq war.
Kim Dae Jung from SK has started his friendly attack on NK already just as Egon Bahr/Willy Brandt did with former DDR in the seventies.
Was called : Politik der Annäherung' and worked pretty well but needed its time. [/B][/QUOTE]
So far, NK hasn't had the nukes to sell. That is about to change, apparently.
So, once again, please answer the original question.
If they DO start making nukes and sell them to the highest bidder... say Al Qaeda... you have no problem with that?
If you do, what action would you suggest? [/B]
If there is clear evidence of that im with you if it's goin to war.
Again, I admit it is a hypothetical. But I'm interested in knowing if you've thought about this in depth. [/B]
Just to make you happy. I don't claim to have a solution to all problems of this world. Happy now? :D
Also, you never addressed this question:
I'm sure you know the IAEA has referred the matter to the Security Council? What do you think the SC should do? Knowing that the NK's are about 5-6 months away from having ~ 5-10 nukes?
What do you think the UN/SC role is in this "NK building nukes" situation?
Thanks again! [/B]
Definately not goin to threaten NK with a pre-emtive strike. What will NK do? Conquor the whole world?
Why Pakistan, unstable as could be, isn't a big threat to us?
Un/SC can't do nothin violent at the moment. Every nation has the right to developp weapons for their self defense.
Ask yourself Toad, which country got the most WMDs in the world and how is their politics?
They act often only to their needs and spit on the international community sometimes:Kyoto protocoll, landmines, internatinal court D-Haag.
What will little countries think of that???
Be big (get WMDs) and ya can do what ya want.
Maybe we in the west should look in our backyard sometimes and change ourselves before we ask others to change themselves.
Regards Blitz
btw
Toad, you agree with me that after 30 years have gone by and wounds on both sides healed a bit it would be honorable to have an apologize from America to Vietnam?
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Originally posted by blitz
Threat them with a strike if THEY attack and try to get over with them by time like ya did with russia.
You mean like Japan threatened to do? Maybe they missed the missle that PRNK shot into the ocean last week.
Just as Iraq is now aware that UN threats dont mean anything, SK is testing the waters (no pun intended) and is discovering the same thing.
Keep putting flowers in your hair, but please promise not to breed.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
You mean like Japan threatened to do? Maybe they missed the missle that PRNK shot into the ocean last week.
Just as Iraq is now aware that UN threats dont mean anything, SK is testing the waters (no pun intended) and is discovering the same thing.
Keep putting flowers in your hair, but please promise not to breed.
Waitin for Toad to answer but nevertheless i want to give ya an answer saurdaukar.
I'm no pacifist, wasn't and doubt i won't be but i'm slow, very slow when it goes to war.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
1. OK, so if NK attacks SK, you would support military action by the UN.
2. We have been one of the largest food donors to NK since at least 1997, perhaps before. It's a step we took a LONG time ago. It's no "new" step.
NK hasn't been "chased into a corner". They ran headfirst into it and are still banging their heads against the wall. They built the world's 4th largest land army while allowing their agriculture to fail and the people to starve. Only they can take the blame for that.
They are in no way threatened by the "coming war in Iraq". Fer pity's sake, they're half a world away. As far as US/SK "war games", they've been going on every year for about the last 50 years. One would think they'd realize that is no threat either.
3. So, if there is evidence that they are selling nukes to known terrorists, you'll be in favor of war against them. Thaks.
4. You still failed to answer concerning what you think the Security Council should do about the NK violation of their nuclear non-proliferation obligations as reported to the Security Council by the IAEA. Mr El Baradei has reported these violations to the SC. It is not a US dilemma, it is a Security Council problem
So what should be done? NK is perhaps a few months away from production of nuclear weapons. What is your opinion?
Or did you just say your opinion is that NK should be allowed to develop nukes for it's own defense? Which would be in conflict, of course with the IAEA opinion and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
So, if you are for that, are you for the total abandonment of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that the IAEA works to enforce?
Why would America apologize to Vietnam? The government of South Vietnam requested US assistance and SEATO sanctioned the U.S. military effort in Vietnam. Many of the SEATO countries also sent troops. We should apologize for honoring the government of South Vietnam's request?
Let me ask you a Vietnam question: Should Vietnam apologize to Cambodia for invading and conducting a war against Cambodia? Should Vietnam apologize to Laos for occupying that country and maintaning 60,000 troops there?
-
Originally posted by Toad
1. OK, so if NK attacks SK, you would support military action by the UN.
2. We have been one of the largest food donors to NK since at least 1997, perhaps before. It's a step we took a LONG time ago. It's no "new" step.
Never said so but it's the right way
NK hasn't been "chased into a corner". They ran headfirst into it and are still banging their heads against the wall. They built the world's 4th largest land army while allowing their agriculture to fail and the people to starve. Only they can take the blame for that.
They are in no way threatened by the "coming war in Iraq". Fer pity's sake, they're half a world away. As far as US/SK "war games", they've been going on every year for about the last 50 years. One would think they'd realize that is no threat either.
[/B]
They ARE chased into a corner by USA politics and threatened with war. With Bushs 60 countries list of evil nations that should be dealt with , one bye one.
3. So, if there is evidence that they are selling nukes to known terrorists, you'll be in favor of war against them. Thaks.
4. You still failed to answer concerning what you think the Security Council should do about the NK violation of their nuclear non-proliferation obligations as reported to the Security Council by the IAEA. Mr El Baradei has reported these violations to the SC. It is not a US dilemma, it is a Security Council problem
So what should be done? NK is perhaps a few months away from production of nuclear weapons. What is your opinion?
Or did you just say your opinion is that NK should be allowed to develop nukes for it's own defense? Which would be in conflict, of course with the IAEA opinion and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.[/B]
We should try to hinder them developp nuclear weapons but definately not with a war.
So, if you are for that, are you for the total abandonment of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that the IAEA works to enforce?
[/B]
No, we should stay with that and countries like yours , armed to the teeth should not allways developp new WMDs.
Why would America apologize to Vietnam? The government of South Vietnam requested US assistance and SEATO sanctioned the U.S. military effort in Vietnam. Many of the SEATO countries also sent troops. We should apologize for honoring the government of South Vietnam's request? [/B]
Sometime you'll learn that double language don't fit for a country which wants to be known in the world as the one with the highest moral standards.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain
-
Originally posted by blitz
They ARE chased into a corner by USA politics and threatened with war. With Bushs 60 countries list of evil nations that should be dealt with , one bye one.
[/b]
Get real Blitz. Let's see some examples here.
The US has not pressured NK into anything. We haven't changed the number of troops serving on the DMZ under the UN banner except to continually reduce them over the last 50 years.
WE were the ones that got an "Agreed Framework" with them where they agreed to stop develpoing nukes in return for multiple nations building them light water reactors and giving them fuel oil. THEY admit they violated that agreement by almost immediately starting an enriched uranium program.
The US is and HAS BEEN one of their largest food donors.
Yeah, Bush called Kim Jong Il "evil". What do YOU call a guy that has impoverished his own citizens, killed them by the hundreds of thousands in prison camps, starved them and built the world's 4th largest land army? Any sane person can see that there's not a single thing in NK that any other nation would covet....... nothing...... so how are they "threatened"?
Examples please.
Originally posted by blitz
We should try to hinder them developp nuclear weapons but definately not with a war.
[/b]
That's a lovely, lovely, meaningless sentiment.
MOHAMED ELBARADEI, head of the IAEA was on PBS and said (in part):
Well, Ray, what we are asking North Korea to do today is come into full compliance with their nonproliferation obligations, and specifically allow us to go back to North Korea, allow our inspectors to be back to oversee the nuclear facilities in North Korea, allow us to clarify the undeclared enrichment program, allow us to verify that we have seen all the plutonium they have produced; so, in sum, come clean insofar as their nonproliferation obligation, make us confident that they have declared all the nuclear materials they have and they are using it for peaceful purposes.
The message is clear to them: if they do that, Ray, the international community is ready to cooperate with them. If they continue this policy of defiance, then there is no deal, then nobody is willing to negotiate with them under duress or under nuclear brinksmanship.
RAY SUAREZ: Well, what happens if they either ignore you or outright refuse, does the IAEA have any enforcement power?
MOHAMED ELBARADEI:
Well, Ray, what we are asking North Korea to do today is come into full compliance with their nonproliferation obligations, and specifically allow us to go back to North Korea, allow our inspectors to be back to oversee the nuclear facilities in North Korea, allow us to clarify the undeclared enrichment program, allow us to verify that we have seen all the plutonium they have produced; so, in sum, come clean insofar as their nonproliferation obligation, make us confident that they have declared all the nuclear materials they have and they are using it for peaceful purposes.
The message is clear to them: if they do that, Ray, the international community is ready to cooperate with them. If they continue this policy of defiance, then there is no deal, then nobody is willing to negotiate with them under duress or under nuclear brinksmanship...
Well, the enforcement power lies with the Security Council. I think under our charter if North Korea or any other country were to be judged in noncompliance with its nonproliferation obligation, then we are bound to report to the Security Council and then the whole question goes to the Security Council, and it is then up to the Security Council to decide what would be the next step.
So, Blitz, just HOW do you want the Security Council to achieve that without use of force? Because NK has already said the will consider the use of ANY sanctions against them as an act of war.
So, how do you "hinder" them? I'd like an example, because I can't think of one.
Originally posted by blitz
No, we should stay with that and countries like yours , armed to the teeth should not allways developp new WMDs.
[/b]
Can you show me a link to any evidence that we are developing new WMD's? AFAIK, we're reducing the number of WMD that we have. Got rid of all the artillery fired tactical nukes, for example. And that's just one example. So it sounds to me like you are just parroting some line you heard here, without anything to back it up.
Originally posted by blitz
Sometime you'll learn that double language don't fit for a country which wants to be known in the world as the one with the highest moral standards.
[/b]
Double language?
Tell me again why you think we should apologize. Give me a reason.
And you didn't answer my question about those fine freedom fighting Vietnamese invading Cambodia and occupying Laos. What about an apology there?
-
And you didn't answer my question about those fine freedom fighting Vietnamese invading Cambodia
You never heard of POL POT ????????????????
-
Did Pol Pot invade Vietnam?
That's a serious question, because I don't know if he did or not.
Cobra
-
No POL POT didn't invade Vietnam :)
It was just to show to Toad that when the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia they were really "freedom fighter"
At least for the Cambodgian people ...
POL POT has the best "kill ratio" of any mass murderer of the past century ...
Even if he didn't murdered as many people as Hitler or Stalin if you look at the population of Cambodia before and after his reign ... it's terrible :( :(
-
Pol Pot, who become responsible for the deaths of over two million of his own people, was born Saloth Sar in a small Cambodian village about 140 kilometers north of Phnom Penh. His date of birth is uncertain although French records give it as May 25, 1928. At age six he went to live with his brother at the Royal household in Phnom Penh. Here he learned Buddhist precepts and discipline. At age eight he went to a Catholic primary school, where he remained for six years. It was here that he picked up the basics of Western culture, as well as the French language.
In 1949, Pol Pot went to study in Paris on a government scholarship. It was here that he got his introduction to Communism, joining the French Communist Party. After four years of exposure to Stalinist Communism he returned to Cambodia in 1953. Within a month he had joined the Communist resistance, becoming a member of the Indochina Communist Party (IHC) which was dominated by the Viet Minh.
The 1954 Cambodian elections saw the Communists throw in support with the Democrats. The Democrats were soundly defeated, however, by the incumbent Government of Prince Sihanouk who now held absolute power. Pol Pot now took up a post as a teacher in a private college. He also spent his time recruiting the educated classes to the Communist cause. The Government, however, began a Communist crackdown and Pol Pot was forced to flee to the Jungles near the Vietnam border to avoid arrest. For the next seven years he would spend his time in the Cambodian jungle hiding from the police.
Over the ensuing years the communists bided their time as they built up their strength for a take-over attempt. They were bolstered by the North Vietnamese who were waging warfare against the Cambodian Government. A major Vietnamese victory in 1971 allowed the Communists to take control of certain areas of the country. In 1973 the communists launched a major attack on the Government but this was halted by American bombing. A final Communist assault began on January 1, 1975. This time they were victorious. On April 17, Communist forces entered Phnom Penh. Within 24 hours they had ordered the entire city evacuated. This process was repeated in other cities resulting in more than 2 million Cambodians being forced out of their homes. Many of them starved to death.
Pol Pot was now Prime Minister of Cambodia, which he promptly renamed Kampuchea. In August, 1976 he unveiled his Four Year Plan, which detailed the collectivisation of agriculture, the nationalization of industry and the financing of the economy through increased agricultural exports. This plan caused untold misery to the nation with many thousands dying in the paddy fields. Crops needed to feed the population were marked for export. Malnutrition was rampant, made worse by the Communist insistence on traditional Cambodian medicine. Pol Pot also started the infamous S-21 interrogation center where more than 20,000 men, women and children were tortured to death.
So, where would an unbiased review place the responsibility for Pol Pot's rise to power? What "enabled" him to be in a position where he could slaughter his fellow countrymen?
Something else for the Vietnamese to apologize for?
-
And still waiting for Blitz to enlighten me with respect to his position on North Korea and the IAEA/UN Security Council. And how the US is forcing NK into a war.
Thanks.
-
I was thinking of the 1979 intervention.
Not at the origin of PP reign.
-
Can there be one without the other?
-
in fact no :)
But I was a bit blinded and focalised on only this part of the story :)
-
Straffo. It's not often one sees that on this board. I appreciate the post.
-
Pol-Pot......isn't that the stuff that smells good.
........ahh, maybe not;)
........na, thats Potpourri, silly me.
-
Th US hands are a bit tied military.
If they were to bomb the reactor, NK would prolly invade SK.
Eventually through massive US intervention, they'd be driven back.
At the cost of thousands of US soldiers.
Bush knows this.
-
punt for Blitz
-
Originally posted by Toad
And still waiting for Blitz to enlighten me with respect to his position on North Korea and the IAEA/UN Security Council. And how the US is forcing NK into a war.
Thanks.
-
-
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Toad
And still waiting for Blitz to enlighten me with respect to his position on North Korea and the IAEA/UN Security Council. And how the US is forcing NK into a war.
Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________
Toad
How can i enlighten you Toad, with all ya mighty friends you sure now much more than me :D
Buuut, i'm still scary that with Bush & his boys every dangerous situation can get outa hand real quick.
I didn't say your government is responsible for Kim Il Sung being bad and dangerous.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by Toad
And still waiting for Blitz to enlighten me with respect to his position on North Korea and the IAEA/UN Security Council. And how the US is forcing NK into a war.
Thanks.
I'd like YOUR position Blitz, if that wasn't clear. Do you have one?
-
Originally posted by Toad
So, where would an unbiased review place the responsibility for Pol Pot's rise to power? What "enabled" him to be in a position where he could slaughter his fellow countrymen?
Something else for the Vietnamese to apologize for?
Hey Toad,
i asked you politely if it wasn't time to apologize for America to the little country of Vietnam as what was done there in the name of freedom and democrazy needs to be forgiven by their people who have suffered so hard from your nation.
The whole case was a political crime altogether committed in cold war times by the USA and i can see no difference to Russia invasion of Afganistan or the bloody surpression of the Freedom revolt of Ungaria in 1965 by Russia.
The line you draw to Pol Pot has noting to do with it or if it has your country is directly resonsible for 125000 iran soldiers killed by Saddam Hussein with chemical WMDs and all the bad he did to his own people.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain
-
Hey, Blitz.......
I told you I see nothing to apologize for, PARTICULARLY after what the North did to the population of the South after reunification and particularly after what a "reunited" Vietnam did to other sovereign nations in the region. If there was ever a vindication that the North needed to be stopped, those were it.
The reference to Pol Pot was in response to Straffo's laughable assertion that VietNam invaded Cambodia as "freedom fighters". VietNam is directly responsible for having put Pol Pot in power. They just had a problem with him after their puppet broke his strings.
But, hey......... nice try on changing the subject.
Now, please give me your position on the current NK "nuclear weapons" dilemma that has been sent to the SC by the IAEA. What do YOU think the SC should do? They've got about 5 months before the NK's start making nukes. Just exactly how is the US forcing the NK's into war?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hey, Blitz.......
I told you I see nothing to apologize for, PARTICULARLY after what the North did to the population of the South after reunification and particularly after what a "reunited" Vietnam did to other sovereign nations in the region. If there was ever a vindication that the North needed to be stopped, those were it.
The reference to Pol Pot was in response to Straffo's laughable assertion that VietNam invaded Cambodia as "freedom fighters". VietNam is directly responsible for having put Pol Pot in power. They just had a problem with him after their puppet broke his strings.
But, hey......... nice try on changing the subject.
Now, please give me your position on the current NK "nuclear weapons" dilemma that has been sent to the SC by the IAEA. What do YOU think the SC should do? They've got about 5 months before the NK's start making nukes. Just exactly how is the US forcing the NK's into war?
Later, my DDR commie girl is commin soon, have to ask her first what the Politbüro found out to be the right answer on this :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain
-
Good idea.
You wouldn't want to start thinking for yourself and risk a brain aneurysm at this late date.
I look forward to hearing from her through you.
-
In the real world, if your neighbor is brandishing a rifle at you with glee and later pointing it at you from out his window, you will call the police. He's not done anything to harm you yet, but common sense dictates this to be not a good thing. We will all agree on this. But in the political arena between nations, there is no entity overseeing everyone who you can call to for help. In my view, North Korea is basically pointing its rifle at a few neighbors on this planet right now with glee.
To jump into this North Korea topic, as always, war is a method only of last resort. Yes, even war-monger Puke feels this way about North Korea and I believe that we need to have some heavy negotiations. I'm hesitant in thinking bombs are the solution right now. The troubling thing about this is that North Korea can sure make a lot of nasty weapons while negotiations are ongoing.
But before anyone takes what I just said and makes this same leap to Iraq, you must remember that we've had 12-years of negotiations with Iraq. In fact, after the unsuccessful aggression against another neighbor in 1991, Iraq signed a cease-fire which stipulated that Iraq catalog all of its weapons of mass destruction for the UN, halt any construction of weapons of mass destruction, allow for ongoing monitoring in Iraq and provide proof that those weapons as catalogued were destroyed. Well, we know the UN inspectors were booted out for a time in 1998 and he's been playing games with them all along anyway.
Iraq never provided proof that many of those weapons as catalogued had been destroyed.. FACT! (Thus, the agreement of peace is broken and technically we are at war again...that's how contracts work, you know.)
There are Al Quaida training camps in northern Iraq...FACT!
Most recently, Abu Musab Zarqawi was arrested in the UK plotting to poison England's or the USA's water supply after exiting Iraq...FACT!
We've had 12-years of negotians with Iraq and it is readily evident that negotiations will not work. Couple this with how evil Saddam's regime is and I can't see why anyone isn't for the removal of Saddam from power.
Blitz, shuddup about Vietnam. I hate hearing this brainless rhetoric that you have heard from brainless-wonders and now regurgitate too. There is no apology the USA needs to make, it was a noble cause. How can you place our involvement in the Vietnam War next to the Russian/Afghanistan War and the Hungarian uprising? (By the way, my grandmother was born in Hungary.) If you learn nothing else about the Vietnam War, just learn this... the USA defended South Vietnam against an invasion by North Vietnam. US troops never crossed the border into NVN but instead spent their time inefficiently fighting geurilla units in South Vietnam. We tried to DEFEND a country, not invade a country. I fail to see the comparisons you make. Actually, I'll apologize that we didn't fight the war more brutally from the beginning. In the long run, maybe more people would be alive.
{edit} I found this in another post and amends my thoughts about our contract for peace being broken:
(6) Attacking Iraq would be unprovoked aggression. No, it wouldn't. Andrew Sullivan has pointed out a significant fact: There was no peace treaty, only the truce, so the state of war resumes when the conditions are violated. By attacking now, the United States would be ending the war, not starting it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Good idea.
You wouldn't want to start thinking for yourself and risk a brain aneurysm at this late date.
I look forward to hearing from her through you.
Just up, evil commie girl hit me with Karl Marx ' Das Kapital' on the head all night instead of sex :D
Ok, here we go.
1.Sure Bush chased NK into the corner when he made up his triangle of 'evil' : Iran, Iraq, NK last year.
2.Every nation has the right to arm themselfes for selfdefense even NK.
3.Every nation has the right to sign contractes and terminate them.
4.The 'Atomwaffensperrvertrag' has to be proven to be unjust.
The owners of Nuclear weapons have promissed to disarm them in this contract. Did they ? NO.
Did they developp new forms of nuclear weapons since 1985? yes
5. What's about ya allies Pakistan/Israel, did their big friend forced them to join the contract and/or get rid of their nuclear weapons ? Looks to me like the typical double standard.
6. Do i like NK government? No
7. Do i thing we have a dangerous situation there? yes
Regards Blitz
btw. NK wants a 'Nichtangriffspakt' with the USA to come back to 'Atomwaffensperrvertrag', seems reasonable for me.
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain
-
Originally posted by blitz
btw. NK wants a 'Nichtangriffspakt' with the USA to come back to 'Atomwaffensperrvertrag', seems reasonable for me.
Sounds like Blackmail to me.
-
Originally posted by blitz
1.Sure Bush chased NK into the corner when he made up his triangle of 'evil' : Iran, Iraq, NK last year.
[/b]
He did put them in the "axis of evil" in a speech. US policy towards NK has absolutely not changed one bit, nor has any action been taken against NK as a result of that phrase. In fact, I believe we may have increased food aid since the Clinton administration.
So as far as "chasing them in a corner", that's just horse droppings. He said they were "evil"; yeah? Well they are; tough when somebody tells the truth about you isn't it? If your girlfriend iss ugly, she's ugly. If somebody says so, that's just the truth. You can always change girlfriends. And NK could change as well.
Originally posted by blitz
2.Every nation has the right to arm themselfes for selfdefense even NK.
[/b]
True. But not, however, with Nukes or other WMD.
From the UN site itself. I know you revere the wise UN.
Non Proliferation Treaty (http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/)
The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. A total of 187 parties have joined the Treaty
North Korea is a signatory to that treaty.
Originally posted by blitz
3.Every nation has the right to sign contractes and terminate them.
[/b]
Article X
1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.
Failure to abide by the terms of a contract as Puke noted above.
Yes, they can withdraw. However, they should realize that a starving nation dependent upon handouts from other countries may find it in its best interest not to do so. You see, every nation has the right to sign contracts and terminate them. Like food supply contracts and stuff. Right?
Originally posted by blitz
4.The 'Atomwaffensperrvertrag' has to be proven to be unjust.
The owners of Nuclear weapons have promissed to disarm them in this contract. Did they ? NO. Did they developp new forms of nuclear weapons since 1985? yes
The "nuclear powers" did not promise to disarm, nor was there a ban on developing "new" weapons. Where do you see that in the NPT? Which Article?
Originally posted by blitz
5. What's about ya allies Pakistan/Israel, did their big friend forced them to join the contract and/or get rid of their nuclear weapons ? Looks to me like the typical double standard.
Might as well get it right.
Proliferation and Use of Nuclear Weapons (http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a4_1.html)
...
The United Nations (U.N.) has 190 member countries, but only eight are known or widely considered to have nuclear weapons. In order of their acquisition of nuclear weapons, these countries are as follows:
United States (first test, 1945)
Russia (first test, 1949)
Great Britain (first test, 1952)
France (first test, 1960)
China (first test, 1964)
India (first test, 1974)
Pakistan (first test, 1998)
...Most countries believe Israel possesses nuclear weapons, but it has never acknowledged possession and is not known to have conducted a nuclear test....
....Today, many countries are concerned that Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Iraq may be pursuing clandestine nuclear weapon programs.
No, we haven't "forced" anyone. We've worked with all of them trying to get them to eliminate their nukes in accordance with the NPT.
You'll note we have not "forced" NK as yet either. I think merely terminating all aid to them will resolve the problem in one way or another. I don't think we'll have to use force.
Originally posted by blitz
6. Do i like NK government? No
7. Do i thing we have a dangerous situation there? yes
btw. NK wants a 'Nichtangriffspakt' with the USA to come back to 'Atomwaffensperrvertrag', seems reasonable for me.
6. Well, join the club.
7. I'm sorry but America and South Korea are threatened by North Korea in no way, it's just plain ridiculous.
I believe the UN IAEA is the correct institution for that, if they truly wish to discuss it.
The way I see it, we have nothing whatsoever to discuss with them. According to Rumsfeld, we'll be pulling our troops off the Korean DMZ before too long and hopefully out of Korea entirely.
North Korean proliferation needs to be and should be addressed in the UN; that's where the treaty they signed originated. The US is not the "enforcement" arm for the NPT; there is no "enforcement". They could have pulled out legally with 3 months notice but they pulled out without notice.
In short, it's not our problem. We'll probably be out of Korea before they have very many nukes.
So, North Korea is threatened by the United Staes in no way, it's just plain ridiculous.
It's not our problem. You see, we don't want to be the world's policeman.
-
Originally posted by Toad
He did put them in the "axis of evil" in a speech. US policy towards NK has absolutely not changed one bit, nor has any action been taken against NK as a result of that phrase. In fact, I believe we may have increased food aid since the Clinton administration.
So as far as "chasing them in a corner", that's just horse droppings. He said they were "evil"; yeah? Well they are; tough when somebody tells the truth about you isn't it? If your girlfriend iss ugly, she's ugly. If somebody says so, that's just the truth. You can always change girlfriends. And NK could change as well.
[/B]
Ja, Ja, propaganda all over.
The context was 9/11 had happened and Bush defined his targets. If Bush wasn't such a dweeb he had keept his mouth closed and used diplomatic channels to find a way to deal with NK.
Nobody said your girl was ugly but heh it's up to you to change if ya don't feel comfortable anymore...
True. But not, however, with Nukes or other WMD.
From the UN site itself. I know you revere the wise UN.
Non Proliferation Treaty (http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/)
[/B]
Non-Proliferation-Treaty is a good thing. But it was meant that countries without nukes before 1967 should not try to get em and US,Russia, France, GB, China should get rid of them and NEVER attack a country with nukes which has none.
What we see in Iraq is exactly the other way round. Tony already threatened Iraq with the use of NW.
[/B][/QUOTE]
North Korea is a signatory to that treaty.
[/B]
WAS, which is bad but i'm sure they will be back .
They usin it to blackmail the USA what isn't right but don't be dumb and go to war with them, China won't like that.
Failure to abide by the terms of a contract as Puke noted above.
Yes, they can withdraw. However, they should realize that a starving nation dependent upon handouts from other countries may find it in its best interest not to do so. You see, every nation has the right to sign contracts and terminate them. Like food supply contracts and stuff. Right?
[/B]
Sure it is.
And it is well known that all big countries blackmail little countries to get what they want, that's every day politcs.
Nobody is an angel.
The "nuclear powers" did not promise to disarm, nor was there a ban on developing "new" weapons. Where do you see that in the NPT? Which Article?
[/B]
Couldn't find it but several news artikels refers to it.
http://www.n-tv.de/3092683.html
We not talkin about developpin new weapons here, we talkin about developpin new WMDs.
Again, this is double standart at its best.
Might as well get it right.
Proliferation and Use of Nuclear Weapons (http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a4_1.html)
...
The United Nations (U.N.) has 190 member countries, but only eight are known or widely considered to have nuclear weapons. In order of their acquisition of nuclear weapons, these countries are as follows:
United States (first test, 1945)
Russia (first test, 1949)
Great Britain (first test, 1952)
France (first test, 1960)
China (first test, 1964)
India (first test, 1974)
Pakistan (first test, 1998)
...Most countries believe Israel possesses nuclear weapons, but it has never acknowledged possession and is not known to have conducted a nuclear test....
[/B]
What do you want to say with your answer, heh?
Your friends Pakistan and Israel doesn't have signed the NPT.
So why didn't ya government forced them to get rid of it by sanctions or whatever?
As i said: Typical double standart
No, we haven't "forced" anyone. We've worked with all of them trying to get them to eliminate their nukes in accordance with the NPT.
You'll note we have not "forced" NK as yet either. I think merely terminating all aid to them will resolve the problem in one way or another. I don't think we'll have to use force.
[/B]
Heh, heh, nobody force their 'friends' as evil they might be -> same as with Saddam Hussein before 1990.
6. Well, join the club.
7. I'm sorry but America and South Korea are threatened by North Korea in no way, it's just plain ridiculous.
I believe the UN IAEA is the correct institution for that, if they truly wish to discuss it.
The way I see it, we have nothing whatsoever to discuss with them. According to Rumsfeld, we'll be pulling our troops off the Korean DMZ before too long and hopefully out of Korea entirely.
North Korean proliferation needs to be and should be addressed in the UN; that's where the treaty they signed originated. The US is not the "enforcement" arm for the NPT; there is no "enforcement". They could have pulled out legally with 3 months notice but they pulled out without notice.
In short, it's not our problem. We'll probably be out of Korea before they have very many nukes.
So, North Korea is threatened by the United Staes in no way, it's just plain ridiculous.
It's not our problem. You see, we don't want to be the world's policeman. [/B]
Propaganda lies don't help here, Toad.
Bush and his warmongers have decided to be the worlds cop or to say it more clearly to be the ONLY cop. Sad but true.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain
-
Again, as in the other thread, you apparently can't distinguish between regimes that imprison, torture, murder and starve their own populace and those that would like to stop them from doing so.
NK is one of the worst and you can find evidence of that at any of the independent human rights websites.
Also, you obviously need to actually read the NPT. It's short, don't worry. It doesn't say the nuclear countries must get rid of their nukes. You are, again, simply wrong here.
We're not going to war with NK. :D I know that's going to prevent you from enjoying another "no war for kimchee" parade but sacrifices must be made. Even by you. :D
The Bush administration is handling this perfectly. It is a "regional issue", not ours. We're still supplying the food we said we would supply. Rumsfeld has already said we'll be pulling back from the DMZ and probably out of Korea entirely before long.
Perfect, simply perfect. If the two Koreas reunite peacefully, what could possibly be better? If the NK's reunite through war, well... that would be the UN SC's problem wouldn't it? After all, the blue flag flies at the DMZ. I'm sure Germany will take a leadership role there, as they are doing now. Do you think you'll send troops? :D
Nobody is an angel, I agree. But there are some that, despite their obvious failings and missteps aspire to sainthood and some others that are the very incarnation of evil. Too bad you are unable to tell the difference. :D
Know why you couldn't find it? It's not in there. Go ahead, read the actual NPT; it's quite short. But what you say is there, simply is not there. You are wrong. Again.
The only countries that have not become parties of the NPT are Cuba, India, Israel, and Pakistan. We haven't forced anyone to get rid of their nukes. We have no enforcement power over the NPT; it is purely a UN/IAEA function.
How do you suggest the UN "force" the non-signatory nations to follow the NPT? I'd love to hear your ideas on that.
Would you (and Germany, France, Russia) support a unilateral invasion of Pakistan, Israel, and India authorised by the UN SC? Would you?
Propaganda lies don't help here, Toad.
I know but you seem to go on and on with them just the same. Probably easier than doing research and thinking for yourself, I guess. So, I'm sure you will continue.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nobody is an angel, I agree.
OK, now we got at least 1 step in the right direction.
Nobody claims USA to be evil.
Everybody, including me, says NK + Iraq have horrible regimes .
This said : NO country is allowed to devide the world into 'good and bad' and goin to war with them as they like.
Bush crew broke a lot of glass after 9/11 but i'm sure America will find it's way back to wisdom on long terms.
That's all about.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
If you've been reading my posts over the long term, you'll find that I've said that many, many times and with respect to the US as well as others.
It's not news....... except maybe to you.
I think it's quite easy to divide the world into "good and bad" and do a d*mn good job of that. The abuses of humanity around the world are pretty well documented and it's easy to sort the nations that commit genocide against their own citizens from those who merely serve old lunchmeat on stale bread to their prisoners.
It's the actual "doing something" about the truly evil regimes that is difficult.
As we are seeing in the UN SC right now.
There are some nations that can clearly distinguish Iraq as an evil regime and an regime in non-compliance with UN SC resolutions on disarmament. There IS no discussion about whether they are in compliance; ALL SC members agree they are not.
The disagreement is over whether or not 12 years is enough time to give them.
Is it time to take action against "evil" or sit around another 12 years?
THAT'S the only discussion going on.. not whether or not they are in compliance.
The US is far from being the only nation in favor of going to war to bring them into compliance, as you know.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I think it's quite easy to divide the world into "good and bad" and do a d*mn good job of that. The abuses of humanity around the world are pretty well documented and it's easy to sort the nations that commit genocide against their own citizens from those who merely serve old lunchmeat on stale bread to their prisoners.
It's the actual "doing something" about the truly evil regimes that is difficult.
As we are seeing in the UN SC right now.
There are some nations that can clearly distinguish Iraq as an evil regime and an regime in non-compliance with UN SC resolutions on disarmament. There IS no discussion about whether they are in compliance; ALL SC members agree they are not.
The disagreement is over whether or not 12 years is enough time to give them.
Is it time to take action against "evil" or sit around another 12 years?
THAT'S the only discussion going on.. not whether or not they are in compliance.
The US is far from being the only nation in favor of going to war to bring them into compliance, as you know.
It's definately not easy , was never easy and won't be, as sad it might be.
Your president tries to simplify politics to just an incredible level of dumbness:
'Who's not with us is against us'
His childish behaviour does not fit for the No1 of a democratic superpower.
The true discussion is about Bushs and his holy crusade as anounced by Bush and his warmongers, thats the problem.
'We go to war with Iraq with the UN or without them'
That was such a BS.
Would have been much more convincin if Bush had started his holy crusade with his friends in Pakistan, SaudiArabia, Agypt and elsewhere and without weapons.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
.
-
Originally posted by blitz
It's definately not easy , was never easy and won't be, as sad it might be.
Obviously it's not easy for you. Try opening your eyes. Reread that list from the BBC.
Many of us are quite familiar with the attitude of some Euros that there is no "good" or "bad", only shades of gray. It's understandable that a person with a strong moral compass makes folks like that squirm.
Again, it's great to see you focus on Bush and not on Hussein.
It shows you for what you are. The ability to totally ignore genocide, torture, abuse of children and outright murder by the Iraqi state so that you can focus on the "evil" of those that would stop such atrocities is an amazing thing to see in another person.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Obviously it's not easy for you. Try opening your eyes. Reread that list from the BBC.
Many of us are quite familiar with the attitude of some Euros that there is no "good" or "bad", only shades of gray. It's understandable that a person with a strong moral compass makes folks like that squirm.
Again, it's great to see you focus on Bush and not on Hussein.
It shows you for what you are. The ability to totally ignore genocide, torture, abuse of children and outright murder by the Iraqi state so that you can focus on the "evil" of those that would stop such atrocities is an amazing thing to see in another person.
There is no truth in the world, thats laughable.
Depends on your life, your provenance, your education, your believe, your will and many other things.
Go try find the truth when ya mess with your baby and you'll see even between people who love each other how hard it is to tell what's the truth :D
btw Toad: Is is it really important what we both think?
Un insectors are against Bushs war, Pope is, National Council of Churches is, the bischop of the United Methodist Church ( Bush and Cheney join them) is, half of the world is.
And you come here and tell me that all about a war in Iraq is cristal clear.?????
That's what i call ignorant :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Well that may be what you call ignorant.
Totally turning a blind eye to and completely ignoring Iraqi torture, murder and genocide of children would be what then?
What would YOU call that Blitz?
Not to mention their invasion of neighbors, disregard for the terms of the UN truce after the first Gulf War and failure to comply with UN SC resolutions.
Because your inability to see the greater evil here makes you look much worse than what you just called me.
:D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well that may be what you call ignorant.
Totally turning a blind eye to and completely ignoring Iraqi torture, murder and genocide of children would be what then?
Good laugh Toad, tell me how many poor souls have been tortured from allies of US in Egypt, Chile, Nicaragua, El salvador, Vietnam to name a few?
And are tortured right now.
What would YOU call that Blitz?
[/B]
Evil, as every torture is, no matter it is commited by a dictatorship or in the name of freedom and democrazy.
Because your inability to see the greater evil here makes you look much worse than what you just called me.
:D [/B]
..... and this people.
Un insectors are against Bushs war, Pope is, National Council of Churches is, the bischop of the United Methodist Church ( Bush and Cheney join them) is, half of the world is.
And you come here and tell me that all about a war in Iraq is cristal clear.?????
I like to be with them on your list. :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Be where you want to be Blitz. I think that's a good place for you, because it's no where near me. :D
We've already seen what happens when this type of guy goes unchecked, haven't we?
Your comparison's? How many have had genocide on the scale of Hussein's operation Anfal? Except maybe the North Vietnamese after they took over.......
And Anfal is only part of the story.. it gets worse.
And you find the effort to stop this offensive.
But you find that allowing it to continue, indeed, demonstrating to help it continue is some how "honorable".
There is no way we could be on the same side. Boy, am I glad of that!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Be where you want to be Blitz. I think that's a good place for you, because it's no where near me. :D
We've already seen what happens when this type of guy goes unchecked, haven't we?
Your comparison's? How many have had genocide on the scale of Hussein's operation Anfal? Except maybe the North Vietnamese after they took over.......
And Anfal is only part of the story.. it gets worse.
And you find the effort to stop this offensive.
But you find that allowing it to continue, indeed, demonstrating to help it continue is some how "honorable".
There is no way we could be on the same side. Boy, am I glad of that!
There definately is a way we could be on the same side.
Just think it all over and get rid of that propaganda trash from Bush & the boys. It's never to late.
Regards Blitz
btw At least you got a letter-friend now, out there in the world :D and please don't forget to apologize to the tough people of Vietnam if ya ever go there, some honorable people already did.
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Look, we agree more than you think.
1. There can be no doubt that Iraq is not complying with the UN sanctions. Even France, Germany and Russia agree on that in the SC.
2. There can be no doubt that Hussein has defied the UN SC for twelve years on disarmament. France, Germany and Russia agree on that in the SC too.
3. There can be no doubt that Hussein is one of the absolute worst dictators currently tyrannizing his own people in the world. "Genocidal maniac" is a highly accurate term when applied to Hussein.
4. There can be no doubt that the world AND the Iraqi people would be better off with him out of power.
5. There can be no doubt that it is ONLY the presence of a massive Allied military organization on his doorstep that is responsible for the minor disarmament that he does agree to do.
6. We BOTH agree that military force should not be used without UN SC sanction.
****
Where we disagree is quite simple and clearly draws a line between us.
I think it IS time for the SC to authorize force. The military organization is in place and ready and MORE than competent to do this with an absolute minimum of civilian casualties. Indeed, the recent spate of surrendering Iraqi soliders indicates that it may be a "non event".
Clearly, THIS is the time to remove him from power and give the Iraqi people a chance at a "normal" existence. One without genocide, without the torture of children in front of their parents.
I can't believe that France, Germany and Russia are willing to allow this situation to continue when they could so easily change it. Here, right here before them, is a chance to REDUCE some of the evil in the world. And they are blind to that chance.
You on the other hand are quite willing to ignore all the foregoing agreement and willing to allow the Iraqi people to continue to suffer for....... some unknown, incomprehensible reason.
Seems to me that you do agree with the aforementioned items; you have in various posts.
What puzzles me is why you aren't ENCOURAGING your government to get this dictator out of there.
Seems the best you can come up with is "Well, there are other dictators too." And "We don't like Bush".
Damn fine reasons for wasting this opportunity to do the "right thing".
NOT
*********
As for Vietnam, if I owe them an apology at all, it's for my govenment abandoning the fight and allowing the North to condemn the entire country to the living death of no freedom that is Communism. And of course, an apology is due to the Cambodians, since the reunified Vietnam installed Pol Pot as their puppet and he proceeded with a genocide that rivals that of... well, you know who.
Your support of them speaks volumes. Murder and genocide is fine by you as long as they commit it. Your stance is the same on Iraq. You can excuse anything they do and justify standing idly by as people are slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands.
-
Clearly, THIS is the time to remove him from power and give the Iraqi people a chance at a "normal" existence. Once without genocide, without the torture of children in front of their parents.
I can't believe that France, Germany and Russia are willing to allow this situation to continue when they could so easily change it.
I can believe it as far as the latter two countries who are used to and allow this sort of thing with 20-million here and 20-million there. It's really clear this is the case when they think we need to apologize to Southeast Asia for trying to defend a region from invasion which later turned out to be a mass killing-field once we pulled out. Turn a blind eye is par for their course.