Is North Korea getting out of hand?

by JH 80 Replies latest jw friends

  • gsx1138
    should we start selling guns to prison inmates? how about the severely mentally ill? known murderers?

    This question is loaded and doesn't even address the issue at hand. You are comparing N. Korea to prison inmates, the severely mentally ill and known murderers. All of these could be applied to the U.S. I think Xander is making a good point. We are the ones deciding who is a murderer or severely mentally ill and it just happens to be everyone who disagrees with our point of view. This join us or die attitude will end up hurting us in the long run.

    Let's not forget that it is us who are refusing to sign a non-agression pact. Why? Because we are busy waving our cocks at the rest of the world. We can go around and around all day about N. Korea breaking their treaty but in the end they want oil. Hmmm, who else wants oil? Oh yeah, the U.S. and we're willing to go to war for it that sounds strangely familiar.

  • dubla


    so now youre contending that the only use for guns is killing people? i think we both know thats not true.


  • Elsewhere
    Well, good to see you haven't lost your unbounded arrogance from being a JW.

    Oh xander, I'm hurt. Resorting to personal attacks?

  • dubla

    . We are the ones deciding who is a murderer or severely mentally ill and it just happens to be everyone who disagrees with our point of view.

    actually thats not your eyes and pick up a newspaper sometime.....most of the world agrees (not disagrees as you said) with "our" point of view. even the countries that arent fully ready to support war agree with "our" view of saddam hussein as a person (whether or not hes a murderer, etc). lets get real here.


  • rem


    Just because something is illegal doesn't mean people can not obtain it on the black market. Sure, if the US gave up all it's nukes, the rogue nations would just get them illegally and we would be defenseless against it. It is good and responsible to not allow irresponsible people or regimes to have such powerful weapons. There is a reason why Police officers are allowed to have guns in public and citizens aren't (unless they have a special permit). North Korea and other rogue nations have proven to be irresponsible, so they don't qualify for the 'permit'. Whether you like it or not, the US is an enforcement agency of the United Nations. We are the 'police', as it were. It's the responsibility that comes with great power.


  • Realist


    what qualifies a nation as a rogue nation? and in what respect do such nations differ from the US?

  • ThiChi

    The Issue

    "States like these [Iran, Iraq, and North Korea], and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States."

    President George W. Bush
    State of the Union Address
    January 29, 2002
    President Bush surprised many people both at home and abroad with his bold identification of "three rogue nations" as a threat to world peace. However, since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush White House has been worried that terrorists might get their hands on nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. So President Bush used his speech to warn these three nations not to help terrorists. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice backed Bush by saying that the U.S. would "use every tool at our disposal" to dismantle the threat.

    The "Rogue Nation" List

    Each April, the State Department publishes a list of nations that sponsor terrorism. These nations are called "rogue nations" by the U.S. because they have are believed to support terrorism with money, weapons, and training. Currently on the list are Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. The United States pressures these nations to stop supporting terrorists by cutting them off from money and supplies. Of those on the list, Libya has been mentioned as a candidate for removal. It has not sponsored an act of international terrorism for more than ten years, and it turned over two suspects in the Pan Am 103 bombing in 1988.

    The "Axis of Evil"

    President Bush chose his words carefully when he called Iran, Iraq, and North Korea the "Axis of Evil," conjuring up associations with the Axis Powers that the United States fought in World War II. However, unlike the axis of Germany, Italy, and Japan, the rogue nations of 2002 are not formally allied with one another. The one area in which the three countries do cooperate is in missiles. North Korea is one of the worlds largest producers of missiles, and U.S. administration officials claim that Iran has financed North Koreas program in exchange for the finished product. There is evidence that Iraq, too, has bought missile equipment from North Korea. But what is the connection between missile production and purchases and terrorism? There, the evidence is not quite as clear.

    • Iraq - U.S. suspicions of Iraq center around Saddam Hussein and his attempt to hide large parts of the country's chemical and biological weapons from United Nations inspectors. It is the only country to use chemical weapons in recent history, killing thousands of Iranians and its Kurdish citizens. U.S. officials believe that Iraq was close to building a primitive nuclear weapon before the Gulf War, and they fear that it may be close to having nuclear capability now. Saddam Hussein has given sanctuary to several terrorist groups and is suspected of sponsoring some terrorist attacks.
    • Iran - Iran is considered to be an active sponsor of terrorists, perhaps helping senior Taliban and al-Qaeda members escape from Afghanistan. Iran's religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, is believed to have sent a boatload of weapons to Palestinian leader Yassar Arafat that aided attacks on Israel. Iran is thought to be less than a decade away from building nuclear weapons.
    • North Korea - This rogue nation is accused of harboring old terrorists, but many experts believe that North Korea is no longer actively involved in terrorist movements. North Korea is considered dangerous primarily because of their active production of chemical and biological weapons and missiles. The country has sold missile technology to Iran and Pakistan.

    What Will the U.S. Do?

    The State of the Union Address was clearly intended to warn the rogue nations, but even top advisers to President Bush apparently do not agree on what the United States might do next. Unless Iran or North Korea take some unexpected action, the U.S. probably won't take further action, but many speculate that Iraq may be a different story. The Pentagon is still developing its options. To invade, the U.S. would need months to organize regional support, including finding a staging area in a neighboring country. For now, Congress has restored funding to the opposition Iraqi National Congress and is looking for other Iraqi dissenters to support.

  • Xander

    rogue nations would just get them illegally and we would be defenseless against it.

    Really? I didn't know having nukes ourselves served as a DEFENSE against other nukes?

    Oh, wait, it doesn't.

    All it does is serve as a DETERRENT to a nation that has something to lose by attacking us. Like, you know, Russia, China or France.

    Having nukes ourselves does NOTHING to deter so-called 'rogue nations' from attacking us with nukes, and does even LESS to deter terrorists from using them against us (gods forbid that day every comes).

    Note that there is no 'black market' that would supply the nukes to rogue states if all nations destroyed theirs. You can't just MAKE nuclear weapons grown from the ground like drugs - it takes a LOT of time, a LOT of resources, and a LOT of technical expertise.

    If every nuclear power on the planet destroyed all their nukes tomorrow, there would be no problem. That won't happen, because no other nation will do it while the US has them (strange they don't trust us - wonder why?), and the US won't do it...well, just because. Apparently, we're simply better than them or something and they don't realize it yet.

  • JH
    Having nukes ourselves does NOTHING to deter so-called 'rogue nations' from attacking us with nukes, and does even LESS to deter terrorists from using them against us (gods forbid that day every comes).

    No civilized country wants to use nukes, but like you say, terrorists don't mind. They can hide after and we can't find them.

    But now, the US is making mini nukes, that will or could be used in a conflict. Unlike big nuclear bombs, these mini nukes are just strong enough for pin point destruction of the enemy without causing much harm elsewhere.

    I think these mini nukes will come in handy against terrorists hiding in caves. A new weapon for a new enemy.

  • Pathofthorns

    I think North Korea, as well as Iraq have played relatively weak hands brilliantly. North Korea has used Bush's own rhetoric against Iraq back at him, exposing the hypocrisy in American foreign policy. The precendent American actions are setting on the world scene are very disturbing.

    North Korea has proven that simply possessing nuclear weapons will ensure better treatment and command more respect than a country not possessing them. This appears to be driving the world towards a new arms race where the world is kept in check by fear instead of focussing on the mutual advantages of trust.

    No one is saying NK and Iraq are without fault or do not pose threats, but in dealing with these problems in the manner it seems to prefer, America has become a greater threat to itself and world stability imo.


Share this