PDA

View Full Version : Follow Iraq, North Korea trying to mess the World.



Pages : [1] 2

KingoftheWorld
01-10-2003, 10:56 PM
Do you guys think that North Korea tactically jump in to play World political game at the same time with Iraq to mess up the
Whole World?
To me, North Korea is big liar to Nuclear program Pact agreement.
and North Korea is trying to create new tension in order to draw attention and the issue of massive destruction away over Iraq.
North Korea has been waiting tactically to mess up the World in right time.I hope US and the UN don't care about this country at this moment and let focus on peaceful resolving the problem over Iraq first. What do you think?

KingoftheWorld

face_master
01-10-2003, 10:59 PM
Its the perfect time for the North Koreans. Its harder to fight 2 countries at once.

Aran
01-10-2003, 11:20 PM
oh no, Korea has nukes,i'm shaking in my boots.

anyone heard of SDI?

pah.

Commander
01-11-2003, 12:25 AM
is it just me or NK is the only country that actually figured out that BD was just a bluff?

spoon_
01-11-2003, 12:31 AM
Yep, you guys are right. North Korea has had perfect timing. However, we ARE going to war with Iraq, like it or not. It might just be the United States and Britain, but we are going to oust Saddam (use your own definition of oust, I prefer 'kill').

North Korea, if they continue this henious activity, will be dealt with on a global level. This will be World War III, and North Korea will be the target.

If North Korea gets crazy, and the U.N. does not approve a strike, then the world is going to be really messed up.


spoon_

GO FALCONS! (I hate Eagles fans, idiots)


btw, if we strike North Korea, I bet that nuclear reactor they are in the process of activating will be the first target. 10 bucks says so.

adrianxw
01-11-2003, 02:45 AM
I'm kind of expecting an "accident" nudge-nudge wink-wink to happen at their reactor.

Scourfish
01-11-2003, 02:58 AM
Well, given that North Korea just had a diplomat host a surprise meeting to discuss the matter, I think not.

Kim Jong-ill is not a stupid person, and I highly doubt he would ruthlessly try to nuke the United States; plus, the taepo dong missile system could not get farther than Japan anyway. On top of that, it would take them over a year to harvest enough military grade plutoniom from nuclear waste to make one bomb.

North Korea is a starving Nation and they are looking for one major thing: kickbacks.

I'm not too worried about North Korea; I'd just like to see the 20 suitcase bombs accounted for.

adrianxw
01-11-2003, 03:31 AM
>>> it would take them over a year to harvest enough military grade plutoniom

In this article, the CIA suggest they already have harvested enough to make two bombs...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2572525.stm

...on the other hand...

>>> North Korea is a starving Nation and they are looking for one major thing: kickbacks.

... that is certainly true.

vasanth
01-11-2003, 07:25 AM
Well all this would not have happened if the US had not stoped the oil supply to north korea.....

minesweeper
01-11-2003, 07:59 AM
>>anyone heard of SDI?<<

Yeah, Space Defence Initiative, but as far as I knew it never got built. Politics between the US and Russia meant it got put on the shelf.

>>This will be World War III<<

I really hope not, wasn't it Einstein who said:

"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones"? Sounds eerily true to me.

Zeeshan
01-11-2003, 10:17 AM
I really don't get all this tension stuff at all. Only the US is responsible for all that's happening.

1. America has no right what-so-ever to stop other countries of the world for making nukes or missiles. It can't even blame anyone for doing such a thing. The GREATEST threat to the world is america's nuclear program, not anyone elses'. Remember that uptill now only America has ruthlessly used two atom bombs (on Japan) and killed millions of people. The credit for starting a multi-national Nuclear and ballistic missiles race also goes to the US, coz they started it all.

2. Iraq is complying with the UN and letting the inspectors visit every place of their interest. It even agreed to let CIA into the country and do all the investigation they want to do. Yet, America has not stopped spreading it's war syndrome. It PROVES that America has some other intentions in doing so, cause now there's no sense in attacking IRAQ, when it has nothing to hide.

3. America threatens IRAQ, saying, "WE WILL NUKE YOU". Isn't this bare aggression and terrorism? Does it make any sense in attacking IRAQ with the logic that they "might" attack America, when there is no such indication?

4. If America does attack IRAQ (which is not at all doubtfull), what will be the consequences? Other countries will also start nuclear programs, to defend themselves for any future American aggression. IMO, America's the only one responsible for starting nuclear arms race among China, Pakistan, India, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Israel and so on.

minesweeper
01-11-2003, 10:35 AM
Here we go again

Shiro
01-11-2003, 10:38 AM
First, I don't like the current US politics, I don't like war at all. The citizens of Iraq have suffered so much under the regime of Saddam Hussein, under the wars (Iran, Gulf War), and under the sanctions of the UN. And now they should go into another war?

> It PROVES that America has some other intentions in doing so

Ofcourse it is not only the weapons. Saddam and his regime must be removed. The problem is that if you only kill Saddam, probably one of his followers will take Saddam's place and then still the people of Iraq are not freed from the regime.

> If America does attack IRAQ (which is not at all doubtfull), what
> will be the consequences?

A lot of people from Iraq will fly to other countries to find a safe place where they will not be bombed. They will fly to the countries around them and farther. In Europe there currently are a lot of people who fled from wars, hunger and other things.

Another consequence will probably be that the people in Arab countries will attack people from western world. I've read that western soldiers in Afghanistan will not be safe when Iraq will be attacked. I also read that if Iraq will be attacked, terrorists in the western world will get active.

There are probably a lot more things, world politics is very complex.

I wonder if attacking Iraq will really help eliminating terrorism. In my opinion it will spread terrorism around the world more than ever.


"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
- Mahatma Gandhi

Zeeshan
01-11-2003, 11:18 AM
>> Ofcourse it is not only the weapons. Saddam and his regime must be removed.

America has no right to do that, atleast not without the UN's approval.

adrianxw
01-11-2003, 11:25 AM
Zeeshan:

Do you believe that Adolf Hitler and his regime, should have been left to get on with his religious genocidal attrocities? If so, why? If not, also, why?

To everyone:

If we can discuss this rationally, then fine. If the thread gets nasty or goes off into lala land, I'll delete it.

alex6852
01-11-2003, 11:45 AM
> It PROVES that America has some other intentions in doing so

Think of all the oil in Iraq. If USA will put "their people" in Iraq goverment they'll have a huge economy boost.

And about Korea... do you realy think that they'll start a war? Thay can't build stable economy over there! I mean, Korea is not very segnificant for other countries even to notice, so what they hope for???

Zeeshan
01-11-2003, 11:51 AM
>> Do you believe that Adolf Hitler and his regime, should have been left to get on with his religious genocidal attrocities? If so, why? If not, also, why?

Ofcourse not. But, there is quite some difference b/w the two cases. Infact, I don't know who's methodology is closer to that of Hitler's, Saddam Hussain's or America's.

Hitler wanted to take over the "world". He and his followers believed themselves to be superior human beings. So, they deduced that they must be the rulers of the "world". Saddam has not done any such thing. Infact, it was America who gave rise to Saddam. Saddam is just another dictator, like many others in the world. They want to remain in power, by hook or by crook. Many dictators have been even accepted by America (those who agree with every american policy blindly) e.g. Musharraf of Pakistan

America thinks that the Americans are some superior humans, that their lives are more important than those of anyone else's. The number of innocent lives taken by American bombings in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Libya etc. is many times greater than the WTC case. I was reading an article in a magazine where there was a list of 50+ countries that America has attacked from time to time, in the last 50 years. In most cases, these attacks have been unjustifiable. for eg. America attacked a Siryan Pharmaceuticals Factory accussing it to be a Chemical arms plant. However, it was later proven that it was a pharmaceuticals factory (one of the very very few that an under-developed country like Sirya has) and even accepted by America, who didn't even appologise.

It is America who wants to rule over the world today, the idea that Hitler followed.

Why do you keep forgetting Vietnam and Japan (Heroshima and Nagasaki) ? Who is today's Hitler? Is it America or is it Saddam? Who needs to be stopped first ?

spoon_
01-11-2003, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Zeeshan
I really don't get all this tension stuff at all. Only the US is responsible for all that's happening.

Sure man, whatever you say. Even though Iraq has ignored U.N. sanctions and resolutions for ELEVEN YEARS, it's our fault that this is all happening. Get a clue, you don't belong in this discussion anymore. You just proved how clueless you really are.



Originally posted by Zeeshan

1. America has no right what-so-ever to stop other countries of the world for making nukes or missiles. It can't even blame anyone for doing such a thing. The GREATEST threat to the world is america's nuclear program, not anyone elses'. Remember that uptill now only America has ruthlessly used two atom bombs (on Japan) and killed millions of people. The credit for starting a multi-national Nuclear and ballistic missiles race also goes to the US, coz they started it all.


ROFL. You make me laugh bud. America is not stopping other countries from having weapons of mass destruction, the U.N. is. America is the only country thats trying to get this implemented.


Originally posted by Zeeshan

2. Iraq is complying with the UN and letting the inspectors visit every place of their interest. It even agreed to let CIA into the country and do all the investigation they want to do. Yet, America has not stopped spreading it's war syndrome. It PROVES that America has some other intentions in doing so, cause now there's no sense in attacking IRAQ, when it has nothing to hide.


They didn't agree to let the entire CIA into the country. You have listening comprehension problems. They agreed to let one CIA agent with intelligence to enter Iraq.

Oh yeah, America has intentions. People like you think violating 11 years of U.N. resolutions is nothing. 'Ohhh, just give them some more time, it can be resolved peacefully.' Bullsh1t.



Originally posted by Zeeshan
3. America threatens IRAQ, saying, "WE WILL NUKE YOU". Isn't this bare aggression and terrorism? Does it make any sense in attacking IRAQ with the logic that they "might" attack America, when there is no such indication?


Again. BARE AGGRESSION? Iraq is not innocent here. Please read the newspaper or do some research. ELEVEN YEARS of U.N. violation. You just don't understand, you violate the U.N., you violate the countries that have signed this treaty.

You're 4th statement is just stupid. Running out of ideas, are we?


Originally posted by Zeeshan
Ofcourse not. But, there is quite some difference b/w the two cases. Infact, I don't know who's methodology is closer to that of Hitler's, Saddam Hussain's or America's.

Wow, comparing the American president to Hitler.

Man, you've probably ticked off a lot of people with your statements, however mindless they may be. But I'm going to be the first to come out and say you need to recheck what is happening right now and why. If you are an American citizen, you should be ashamed.


spoon_

adrianxw
01-11-2003, 12:11 PM
Zeesham:

The reason I likened Saddam Hussein to Hitler is based on his actions within his own country. I don't believe there can be any doubt that he and his regime were behind the use of chemical weapons to massacre the ethnic Kurds, and the persecution of the marsh arabs.

I am not asking you about how he came to be in power, there are some red faces about in that regard, but it is the past. I am also not asking you about any other countries.

I ask you directly, do you believe he should be allowed to continue with his current genocidal policies unopposed? If so, why?

I am trying to get to your own beliefs about him, his regime and their actions in their own country, and whether they have the right to do this unopposed.

As an aside, I do not doubt that Saddam feels he and his party are superior, (it is in the nature of dictators to be so), and would very much like to expand their boarders, he did, after all, invade Kuwait.

spoon:

I don't think you'll find he is a US citizen.

minesweeper
01-11-2003, 12:33 PM
Just a thought. If we (the UN) bombed and invaded Iraq, turned the entire country upside down and didn't find a smidgen of anything that could even be remotely considered a weapon of mass destruction. Do you think we would apologise profusely, pay a stack of compensation for the trouble we caused and then leave them alone?

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular regardless of who's post it comes after.

spoon_
01-11-2003, 12:37 PM
If we find something, great! But do you really think, in all honesty, that Iraq is not hiding anything?

Given Iraq's notorious record, you can just guess what my answer would be.


spoon_

minesweeper
01-11-2003, 12:44 PM
>> But do you really think, in all honesty, that Iraq is not hiding anything?<<

That isn't my point.

What I mean is that we, in the west have a bad reputation in the east when it comes to throwing our weight around and never being willing to clear up our own mess or be held accountable when we make mistakes. I was just wondering if the above situation were to occur whether we would do a proper job in making ammends for our mistake or whether we would take the attitude of

"Oh well, it's only Iraq, who cares about them anyway"

and leave another war-torn country to fend for itself.

spoon_
01-11-2003, 12:50 PM
Ok, heres what I really think.

Iraq has violated the U.N. for many years. They should have never sent the inspectors back in after they were kicked out the first time. The U.N. should have talked to its many members and planned an attack at that moment. We have waited too long to deal with Iraq.


But in regards to your question:

We don't have to apologize. We wouldn't. Iraq should be apologizing right now. Iraq is a threat to all European & Middle Eastern countries right now.

spoon_

damonbrinkley
01-11-2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Zeeshan
>> Do you believe that Adolf Hitler and his regime, should have been left to get on with his religious genocidal attrocities? If so, why? If not, also, why?

Ofcourse not. But, there is quite some difference b/w the two cases. Infact, I don't know who's methodology is closer to that of Hitler's, Saddam Hussain's or America's.

Hitler wanted to take over the "world". He and his followers believed themselves to be superior human beings. So, they deduced that they must be the rulers of the "world". Saddam has not done any such thing. Infact, it was America who gave rise to Saddam. Saddam is just another dictator, like many others in the world. They want to remain in power, by hook or by crook. Many dictators have been even accepted by America (those who agree with every american policy blindly) e.g. Musharraf of Pakistan

America thinks that the Americans are some superior humans, that their lives are more important than those of anyone else's. The number of innocent lives taken by American bombings in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Libya etc. is many times greater than the WTC case. I was reading an article in a magazine where there was a list of 50+ countries that America has attacked from time to time, in the last 50 years. In most cases, these attacks have been unjustifiable. for eg. America attacked a Siryan Pharmaceuticals Factory accussing it to be a Chemical arms plant. However, it was later proven that it was a pharmaceuticals factory (one of the very very few that an under-developed country like Sirya has) and even accepted by America, who didn't even appologise.

It is America who wants to rule over the world today, the idea that Hitler followed.

Why do you keep forgetting Vietnam and Japan (Heroshima and Nagasaki) ? Who is today's Hitler? Is it America or is it Saddam? Who needs to be stopped first ?

Has America occupied any countries and put certain races into concentration camps and murder millions for no reason? That's what Hitler did.

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and that pulled America into a World War that it tried to stay out of and we unfortunately had to put an end to the war with Japan through atomic weapons.

The simple fact is that Sadam does nothing but oppress his own people and it is because of his actions that they have restrictions on trade in his country. Iraq has had 11 years to do what they want in that country without the UN's supervision. There's no telling what types of weapons they have and where they have them hidden.

adrianxw
01-11-2003, 03:29 PM
>>> Has America occupied any countries

You need to be very careful when making brash statements like that, one could very easily say Grenada, 1983, and your whole position falls down.

I point this out simply to illustrate the problem with the argument, not as a comment on operation "Urgent Fury" as the US dubbed the action.

damonbrinkley
01-11-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by adrianxw
>>> Has America occupied any countries

You need to be very careful when making brash statements like that, one could very easily say Grenada, 1983, and your whole position falls down.



I was only 6 years old then and know almost nothing about what happened in Grenada. Time to do a little research......

My point is that the US isn't trying to occupy any countries and take over the world like Hitler did.

OneStiffRod
01-11-2003, 06:05 PM
We invaded Grenada b/c CUBA under CASTRO tried to start a revolution there and HIS army took over the AIRPORT and we went in and kicked his ass out. PPL wonder why we HATE CASTRO is b/c EVERY SINGLE "REVOLUTION" started in the south americas was his doing - he was bent on regional domination through conflict and the US SQUASHED HIS ASS.


Originally posted by vasanth
Well all this would not have happened if the US had not stoped the oil supply to north korea.....

I love when IDIOTS make comments like this... Why should we provide North Korea with millions of gallons of fuel for their ARMY when their ppl are starving and WE get nothing for it- that FUEL agreement was signed on the NK's agreement to STOP ALL nuclear proliferation and submit to inspections. THEY admitted that they never even lived up to the agreement and have been developing their nuclear program all along so WHY should we let them extort us???

I feel that the IRAQ war has been the victim of bad press, it's really a fight over SADDAM and not IRAQ as a whole. SADDAM is done, one way or the other, the US said it will remove him by force for non-compliance or even if the UN won't allow the US to act against IRAQ the US has pledged to FUND, SUPPLY, and CREATE a RESISTANCE inside IRAQ to DEFEAT SADDAM. Choose your poison - either a swift 1-month action or a LONG 5 year struggle to remove saddam. We are "meddling" whether you ***** or not.

------------------------------------------------------------------
North Korea has been building up and planning to attack for 50yrs - this is their mandate and also stems from the belief that they are under IMMENENT threat of attack by the US. THEY EVEN beleive that it was the US who started the Korean War by attacking them first when it's KNOWN fact that they attacked first.

No wonder COMMUNISM was able to spread so far when u have idiots who beleive words and not the truth in front of their eyes - ppl on this board are taking the side of NORTH KOREA based on their propoganda and not looking at how EVIL this country really is and how the US after 9/11 will dedicate itself to removing these OLD and TIRED threats from the FACE OF THE EARTH.

And LASTLY, without the US the UN would have no backbone and would be a worthless organization.

foniks munkee
01-11-2003, 07:35 PM
The GREATEST threat to the world is america's nuclear program, not anyone elses'.

I'd be more worried about Russia's nuclear program. Their system is old and failing and the level of maintenance is questionable. While the treaty between Russia and the US says that they are not to aim nuclear devices at each other, it appears as though all of the cold war devices are still pointing at the US - because they can't re-aim them.

KingoftheWorld
01-11-2003, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Zeeshan
>> Do you believe that Adolf Hitler and his regime, should have been left to get on with his religious genocidal attrocities? If so, why? If not, also, why?

Ofcourse not. But, there is quite some difference b/w the two cases. Infact, I don't know who's methodology is closer to that of Hitler's, Saddam Hussain's or America's.

Hitler wanted to take over the "world". He and his followers believed themselves to be superior human beings. So, they deduced that they must be the rulers of the "world". Saddam has not done any such thing. Infact, it was America who gave rise to Saddam. Saddam is just another dictator, like many others in the world. They want to remain in power, by hook or by crook. Many dictators have been even accepted by America (those who agree with every american policy blindly) e.g. Musharraf of Pakistan

America thinks that the Americans are some superior humans, that their lives are more important than those of anyone else's. The number of innocent lives taken by American bombings in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Libya etc. is many times greater than the WTC case. I was reading an article in a magazine where there was a list of 50+ countries that America has attacked from time to time, in the last 50 years. In most cases, these attacks have been unjustifiable. for eg. America attacked a Siryan Pharmaceuticals Factory accussing it to be a Chemical arms plant. However, it was later proven that it was a pharmaceuticals factory (one of the very very few that an under-developed country like Sirya has) and even accepted by America, who didn't even appologise.

It is America who wants to rule over the world today, the idea that Hitler followed.

Why do you keep forgetting Vietnam and Japan (Heroshima and Nagasaki) ? Who is today's Hitler? Is it America or is it Saddam? Who needs to be stopped first ?
I welcome your view but I totally disargree with you with few some irrational judgements as follow:
America thinks that the Americans are some superior humans, that their lives are more important than those of anyone else's.
That's not true. I think most American are nice and peace loving.
What country on the earth do you think giving most aids to poor or undeveloped countries. Several American churches and nonprofit organizations devote their energy, time, money to help or adopt infortunated people around the world or try to bring them to the U.S, a new land for better life and great democracy with freedom to talk and discuss like us here, unlike countries rulled by dictators where your mouth always keep shut begin the gun point. You never have a chance to raise your voice to express your opposition ideas in those dictatorship countries.
If Saddam is a peace lover and don't let the hatred and religion
control his mind, then he should take advantage over the announcement from president Bush "give peace a chance" to show the world his willingness and honesty regarding to massive
destruction issue. If Saddam prove that his country dont have any massive destruction weapons by willing to welcome any countries with evidences or invite them to his countries and let them go freely anywhere in his country to clarify the doubt on the massive destruction weapons. If one is true innocent, he or she will never scare any slander from the truth.
I believe that if the topic of massive destruction weapons does not origionate over Iraq, then the No WAR on Iraq could happen. Like other countries without massive destruction weapons, they love to make the World peaceful, then of course with no one bring War to those peace lover-countries because under the sun, each individual has his/her own quality and right to live peaceful and trying to bring the people around world to a small united house regarless any race, religion.....
KingoftheWorld

fry
01-11-2003, 08:34 PM
My point is that the US isn't trying to occupy any countries and take over the world like Hitler did.

No, they are not trying to do it like Hitler did. But IMHO, they are still trying to do it through more "peaceful" means. They still want to make sure they know everything that is going on in the world. They dont want anyone to look like they could have more power than themselves.

Yes, they do provide a lot of aid to other countries, and often this can be in good will. But i am sure that somewhere, hidden away, they have a motive that they can now have power over this country "after all they have done for it".

It doesnt involve any killing, as such. But Americas every action is still strategically made to get others on their side, while they maintain control the "side".

damonbrinkley
01-11-2003, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by fry

Yes, they do provide a lot of aid to other countries, and often this can be in good will. But i am sure that somewhere, hidden away, they have a motive that they can now have power over this country "after all they have done for it".

It doesnt involve any killing, as such. But Americas every action is still strategically made to get others on their side, while they maintain control the "side".

That's the problem with this world. If you help someone out then they feel like there are alterior motives that you provide that help. The US or any other top-tier country just can't win in my opinion. Maybe we should just quit helping out and let them deal with their disasters by themselves..... Heck, I never hear about other countries coming to our aid when we have a major disaster (9/11, San Fran earthquake, etc) occurs. We have to deal with it ourselves as far as I know.

Aran
01-11-2003, 09:18 PM
Perhaps foreigners should not take the US for granted?

zahid
01-11-2003, 11:19 PM
Being a Nuclear power is the only solution not ultimate from being attacked by other country. This is the recent truth in this beautiful world.

Here having five super power with Nuclear arms is the only condition of world peace. This makes the first statement more reasonable. Countries like Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran (May be) already got the point, other will realize soon.


Actually might is right and that is as simple as old.

fry
01-11-2003, 11:57 PM
That's the problem with this world. If you help someone out then they feel like there are alterior motives that you provide that help.

I dunno what it is, but the US seem to give off that impression more than anyone else. Generally you just see the US trying to involve itself in things that have nothing to do with itself. Yes, this can be a good thing (depending on the circumstances), but sometimes its best to leave it be until it actually looks like it will become a problem for the rest of the world. (This is not aimed at current events with Iraq and Korea, but more specifically its historical past).

I still feel that the US, once they "fix" a situation, try and maintain direct control over it, rather than giving a country back to its people who are capable of looking after themselves from that point.


I never hear about other countries coming to our aid when we have a major disaster

Almost every country in the world contributed in some way to 9/11. Whether by actual aid or other forms of assistance. In general though, i get the idea that they dont want to recieve aid from other countries. Then they might show weakness and dependance.

OneStiffRod
01-12-2003, 02:04 AM
I'd like to add this...

We Americans find this really funny, this JEALOUSY the rest of the world has for us - the contempt they have for us is based on jealousy.

U ppl seem to not understand that everywhere we are in the world, we have been invited. Saudi Arabia, Germany, Turkey, South Korea the list continues. All of these countries seem to graciously except our OFFERS of assistance and it's not our fault that we are the only country offering it. We have not FORCED ourselves upon anyone except those who have ATTACKED us.

North Korea considers the US as its mortal enemy and vice versa but they except our AID such as FOOD, FUEL, NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, MONEY. It's no sweat off Americas back if North Korea goes down due to famine and just COMMUNISM's effects. How about China - the 'companies' there are 80% american and if we passed a law stating that american companies can no longer do biz in China, china would be in the same sorry state as North Korea.

This is a comedy of MISERY and MISERY's company that we americans see. If it wasn't for the US bailing out these countries or confronting these EVIL regimes what do u think the world would look like. It's very EASY for the US to decide to withdraw and once again become ISOLATIONIST - there are growing numbers of ppl who are advocating just that and your lack of support for ANYTHING the US tries just makes their case stronger.

We are the IMF and the World Bank and see very little return for our investments. We must laugh at this to cover the saddness.

We LAUGH at how u dont understand that ending SADDAM's regime will end misery in IRAQ.
We LAUGH that w/o the US in KOREA the entire ASIAN theatre will be brisseling with NUCLEAR weapons.

We DO have a right to limit who has a NUCLEAR weapons, as the more that exist - the more likely they will be used.

I'll end here, I FIND IT incredibly funny that AMERICA is on a ROLL - we're winning arguments, wars, and NEW alliances - I understand you're hatred for US - you're jealous of our UNSTOPPABLE success - I understand that its ENVY - thnx for the :D LAUGHS.:p

Shiro
01-12-2003, 03:49 AM
We don't have to apologize. We wouldn't. Iraq should be apologizing right now. Iraq is a threat to all European & Middle Eastern countries right now.


I partly agree, you are talking about Iraq, better is to talk about Saddam and his regime. They have to apologize to the citizens of Iraq.



We LAUGH at how u dont understand that ending SADDAM's regime will end misery in IRAQ.


That depends on how Saddam's regime will be ended. If Saddam's regime will be ended by a large military attack, then I wonder if this will end the misery. A large military attack will result in a lot of people flying, in a bombed country which as to be restored, in a country without a government, in large growing anti-western feelings in North-Africa and big parts of Asia, in growing anti-US feelings in Europe. Think about the large impact it will have on world's economy.

I even wonder if the US and Brittain will win the war. They have a far superior army, but from WWII we have learned that this is not a guarantee to win a war. Just think about the things happened to the superior German army in Russia those days.

Zeeshan
01-12-2003, 06:13 AM
>> I think most American are nice and peace loving.


Ok, maybe most americans ARE nice and peace loving, but the american govt. doesn't seem to agree to the notion.



>> We LAUGH at how u dont understand that ending SADDAM's regime will end misery in IRAQ.

Who the hell is America to do that ? Is America's hands all clean? The misery to IRAQ is not b/c entirely of Saddam, most of it is credited to American Sanctions. IRAQ used to export oil worth 20 bn$ / annum .... now they have to exchange it for food (depriving them of oil worth 2 trillion $/ year? Their misery is not b/c of Saddam. Saddam is just another dictator. The misery is due to America.



>> U ppl seem to not understand that everywhere we are in the world, we have been invited. Saudi Arabia, Germany, Turkey, South Korea the list continues. All of these countries seem to graciously except our OFFERS of assistance and it's not our fault that we are the only country offering it. We have not FORCED ourselves upon anyone except those who have ATTACKED us.


How many times has IRAQ attacked or invited you ? Why are you going there ? Have a look at the recent history. America has bombed atleast 50 countries in the last 50 years.



>> My point is that the US isn't trying to occupy any countries and take over the world like Hitler did.

But the US IS trying to enforce it's influence in all the world. US wants to control the oil, the global economy, the military/strategic balance....It wants to remain the super-power by hook-or-by-crook.



>> We DO have a right to limit who has a NUCLEAR weapons, as the more that exist - the more likely they will be used.

Who gave you that right ? You are the biggest NUCLEAR POWER yourself. Until, you have that power, Russia and China, the second biggest powers in the world, will continue to have them and increase them..... Until Russia and China has that power, Pakistan, India, Iran,N.Korea..... will continue that race. Hence, America is at the root of all evils. Everyone is afraid that america might again use their nuclear ability against them, like they did in Japan. America just issued a statement "AMERICA WILL NOT HESITATE TO USE NUCLEAR ARMS WHENEVEN IT DEEMS THEM TO BE NECESSARY." Bush just threatened IRAQ with "WE WILL NUKE YOU". The only atom bombs used untill now, were used by America in Japan.

adrianxw
01-12-2003, 06:38 AM
Now they are all spouting their own sides propaganda again. This is not constructive. I thought just possibly we might be able to have a reasoned intelligent debate, but how can you when both sides are so indoctrinated to believe "their" position and denounce the other's.

A lot of what is wrong in the world today is simply that people will not rationally discuss their differences. We should be celebrating the fact that we are not all the same, and reveling in the new opportunities there are to be had. Instead we wave our flags and say "you guys are wrong" - what a world.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Sang-drax
01-12-2003, 06:39 AM
Perhaps I'd be good ig every nation in the world had nuclear weapons. Then no nation would dare attack another because of the risk of starting a nuclear war with mutual destruction.
The only problem is that terrorists then would have easier to access nukes.

Maybe it was nukes that prevented WWIII between USA and USSR?

adrianxw
01-12-2003, 06:42 AM
>>> Maybe it was nukes that prevented WWIII between USA and USSR?

The concept was M.A.D. (Mutually Assurred Destruction), and it probably did prevent some conflicts in the latter part of the 20th Century.

You cannot un-invent nukes, so you must try to ensure that they are not used. The cost to the planet of even a small nuclear exchange is simply to high.

face_master
01-12-2003, 06:49 AM
I wanna know what Korea is up to. What do they think they're doin creating enough nuclear material to contruct 2 nuclear bombs? They're not gonna make them just to say "ha, we have some nuclear stuff. We 0wnz j00! Korea iz da 1337" Obviously they have an intention of using it in some way.

They took all monitoring devices away. Thats fairly incrimidating (sp?).

vasanth
01-12-2003, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by OneStiffRod
I'd like to add this...

We Americans find this really funny, this JEALOUSY the rest of the world has for us - the contempt they have for us is based on jealousy.

U ppl seem to not understand that everywhere we are in the world, we have been invited. Saudi Arabia, Germany, Turkey, South Korea the list continues. All of these countries seem to graciously except our OFFERS of assistance and it's not our fault that we are the only country offering it. We have not FORCED ourselves upon anyone except those who have ATTACKED us.

North Korea considers the US as its mortal enemy and vice versa but they except our AID such as FOOD, FUEL, NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, MONEY. It's no sweat off Americas back if North Korea goes down due to famine and just COMMUNISM's effects. How about China - the 'companies' there are 80% american and if we passed a law stating that american companies can no longer do biz in China, china would be in the same sorry state as North Korea.

This is a comedy of MISERY and MISERY's company that we americans see. If it wasn't for the US bailing out these countries or confronting these EVIL regimes what do u think the world would look like. It's very EASY for the US to decide to withdraw and once again become ISOLATIONIST - there are growing numbers of ppl who are advocating just that and your lack of support for ANYTHING the US tries just makes their case stronger.

We are the IMF and the World Bank and see very little return for our investments. We must laugh at this to cover the saddness.

We LAUGH at how u dont understand that ending SADDAM's regime will end misery in IRAQ.
We LAUGH that w/o the US in KOREA the entire ASIAN theatre will be brisseling with NUCLEAR weapons.

We DO have a right to limit who has a NUCLEAR weapons, as the more that exist - the more likely they will be used.

I'll end here, I FIND IT incredibly funny that AMERICA is on a ROLL - we're winning arguments, wars, and NEW alliances - I understand you're hatred for US - you're jealous of our UNSTOPPABLE success - I understand that its ENVY - thnx for the :D LAUGHS.:p



Stupid as you..... If China passes a rule that all American companies have to get out.. All American corporate heads will be burning Bushs as* to negotiate with China..

China provides US companies with cheap labour and set up cost.. Without which many US campanies cannot compete in the world market....



And dont worry your world bank gives u a very good return.. For example the World bank loan ruined Argentina repaying it.. You will have many countries under your controll by giving them your loan.......

vasanth
01-12-2003, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by OneStiffRod
We invaded Grenada b/c CUBA under CASTRO tried to start a revolution there and HIS army took over the AIRPORT and we went in and kicked his ass out. PPL wonder why we HATE CASTRO is b/c EVERY SINGLE "REVOLUTION" started in the south americas was his doing - he was bent on regional domination through conflict and the US SQUASHED HIS ASS.



I love when IDIOTS make comments like this... Why should we provide North Korea with millions of gallons of fuel for their ARMY when their ppl are starving and WE get nothing for it- that FUEL agreement was signed on the NK's agreement to STOP ALL nuclear proliferation and submit to inspections. THEY admitted that they never even lived up to the agreement and have been developing their nuclear program all along so WHY should we let them extort us???

I feel that the IRAQ war has been the victim of bad press, it's really a fight over SADDAM and not IRAQ as a whole. SADDAM is done, one way or the other, the US said it will remove him by force for non-compliance or even if the UN won't allow the US to act against IRAQ the US has pledged to FUND, SUPPLY, and CREATE a RESISTANCE inside IRAQ to DEFEAT SADDAM. Choose your poison - either a swift 1-month action or a LONG 5 year struggle to remove saddam. We are "meddling" whether you ***** or not.

------------------------------------------------------------------
North Korea has been building up and planning to attack for 50yrs - this is their mandate and also stems from the belief that they are under IMMENENT threat of attack by the US. THEY EVEN beleive that it was the US who started the Korean War by attacking them first when it's KNOWN fact that they attacked first.

No wonder COMMUNISM was able to spread so far when u have idiots who beleive words and not the truth in front of their eyes - ppl on this board are taking the side of NORTH KOREA based on their propoganda and not looking at how EVIL this country really is and how the US after 9/11 will dedicate itself to removing these OLD and TIRED threats from the FACE OF THE EARTH.

And LASTLY, without the US the UN would have no backbone and would be a worthless organization.

I too love when as* hol** like you talk as if you had never done anytin wrong.. Why the hell did US first agree to provide Korea with Oil then back off... Late then US wanted to stop N.korea from developing Nuclear Technology... Once its gloas was finished just forgets... Same with Afganistan and other countries...


If it was your wish to back off then it was Koreas wish to back off from the treaty too...


Persoanlly i am no fan of Korea... I hate Korea.. But in this issue i feel korea has every right to develop a nuke.. And once a country develops nukes America or any other country would not bother to invade it... . And India has learned it well..

minesweeper
01-12-2003, 07:56 AM
OneStiffRod,

Who were you referring to in your outburst earlier about other countries being jealous? Most people here are either from America, Canada, Australia or Europe and I can assure you that we aren't jealous of the states. We have no need to be.

Clyde
01-12-2003, 07:57 AM
"I thought just possibly we might be able to have a reasoned intelligent debate"

Ah yes that would be nice wouldn't it. Whitness the power of indocrination.

What scares me is that the indocrinated views demonstrated here are the kind governing how a large proportion of the world is run, it's not the rational thinkers, but the mindless masses who vote governments into power.

*ClownPimp*
01-12-2003, 08:27 AM
Im really undecided on the issues about iraq and north korea, but I do have a few comments and questions.

Regarding using the fact that Iraq has ignored UN resolutions for the past X years as a reason for war:
UN resolutions are not binding to any country. The UN was/is not meant to be a police force for the world. A country has to agree to be under the jurisdiction of the UN and can pull-out at any time (with a few short-term consequences, like losing the ability to vote). The US itself once pulled out of the jurisdiction of the UN when they passed a resolution that they didnt like (I forget the circumstances of the resolution). So Iraq has every right to ignore UN resolutions they dont agree with, esp. since they arent even a part of the UN.

Regarding using Iraq the fact that Saddam is a dictator and he massacres innocent civilians, etc:
Okay... but if thats enough of a reason, why didnt the US intervene in the massacres in Rwanda? Because Rwanda has no strategic interest to the US. Why did the US intervene in Kosovo? Because a destabilizing of parts of Europe could impact the world economy and hence the US economy.

It is well-known that presidents put a moral spin on wars to rally support for them, when in many cases they are just hiding their true motives which by themselves might not garner as much support. Im just wondering what the ulterior motive for this war is.

Also, by that criteria the list of next-in-line-for-oustings would be quite long. I doubt the US plans on taking on all of those countries in the near future, which again leads me to believe there is an ulterior motive for singling out Iraq.

Preventing the proliferation of chemical/bio/nuclear weapons:
Okay... but what gives the US the authority to oust leaders who build these weapons?

adrianxw
01-12-2003, 08:34 AM
>>> Whitness the power of indocrination.

Indeed. I was trying to get one of the members to actually stop and think for himself, but then along came OSR sounding off, and voila, it was not neccsary to think about anything, he could just trot out the indoctrinated propoganda again as he had been doing earlier.

It's such a shame, these people are obviously intelligent, but refuse to use their intellect. They don't question things.

Shiro
01-12-2003, 09:45 AM
>The only atom bombs used untill now, were used by America in
>Japan.

I've read this several times now, in my opinion it is not a valid argument. Yes, the Americans have used it, but they were under attack. Now the situation is different, North Korea may attack America or other countries, like Japan, with it.

>Why did the US intervene in Kosovo? Because a destabilizing of
>parts of Europe could impact the world economy and hence the
>US economy.

It is true that in a lot of cases the US where has intervened economy was a strong motivation. I haven't also seen them yet operating in Northern-Ireland to give just another example or seen them helping the Tibetans who live in a bad situation under the Chinese regime.

Anyway, I've read a lot about weapons, power and money in this thread, but I've not read very much about people. Not only in this thread, but also in the newspapers and other media, I don't read about the people.

It is estimated that about a million people will fly from Iraq when a large military attack will happen. Who will take care about them? They need to be helped, they will need food, medicines etc. And what about the people from Kurdistan in the northern parts in Iraq, what will Iraq do with them? What about Israel? Will Iraq and maybe other Arab countries attack Israel? The war will take many lives.

I'm afraid that a lot of people, Iraqi, Americans and others, will die and Saddam will survive.

minesweeper
01-12-2003, 09:51 AM
>>Regarding using Iraq the fact that Saddam is a dictator and he massacres innocent civilians, etc:
Okay... but if thats enough of a reason, why didnt the US intervene in the massacres in Rwanda? Because Rwanda has no strategic interest to the US. Why did the US intervene in Kosovo? Because a destabilizing of parts of Europe could impact the world economy and hence the US economy.<<

This is a very good point, and there are others too. The Chinese government has one of the worst, if not THE worst human rights record in the world regarding it's treatment of it's people, yet we ignore it. Russia has used barbaric methods to suppress the Chechens, yet we ignore it. Robert Mugabe's thugs maim and kill white people all over Zimbabwe in a bid to ensure black supremacy yet we ignore it. It seems to me that we only kick up a fuss when we:

A. Are positive we can quickly and easily remove the problem (win a war if necessary)
B. Are likely to obtain some economic gain out of doing so
C. Don't annoy any of our 'friends'.

Grossly hypocritical in my opinion.

The issue of nuclear weapons:

I don't really know what to make of this, as much as I don't want nasty people to have them, I also don't agree with telling others what they can and can't do, especially when you do the same thing yourself. I think if America and Russia had been in the slightest bit responsible with nuclear weapons then we might have a leg to stand on. But building up enough to destroy civilisation 10 times over and then having them permanently pointing at one another is in my view grossly irresponsible.It gives other countries more than enough ammunition to say "Well you did it, why can't I?"

minesweeper
01-12-2003, 09:58 AM
>>I'm afraid that a lot of people, Iraqi, Americans and others, will die and Saddam will survive.<<

Very true, I think it was someone on here that said something like:

"The problem with war is that it never affects the idiots that start it"

On a side note about the Northern-Ireland troubles. It is pretty much sorted now (in England anyway, gangs and rackets are still rife in NI itself) but it has just been released that one of our old PMs, Edward Heath, draw up a plan to change the border, shifting hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes to the other side of the new border and vice versa. Some poeple in power have some ridiculous ideas :rolleyes: