Is North Korea getting out of hand? (page 4)

dubla

jh-

yes, pinpoint nuclear attacks could work, but......unless we let the terrorists also build nukes, then it just isnt fair!!!

aa

Edited by - dubla on 6 February 2003 14:10:21

The United Nations decides who is and is not a 'rogue nation'. But the United Nations is just an empty beurocracy without some nations willing to enforce the International laws they set up. The United States has the power and the responsibility to do this.

Xander,

Yes, and cops having guns isn't always a deterent from criminals shooting at them. So what? Should we just allow irresponsible people to stockpile weapons and carry them around at will just because the cops have them too?

Yes, I understand it is difficult for rogue nations to obtain nuclear weapons, but the fact is that it's not impossible. The fact is that they are trying their damndest to get them. Do you really feel safe in a world where religious fundamentalists and dictatorships without checks and balances built into their governments are legally allowed to brandish such weapons? I don't.

rem

Crazy151drinker

Xandar,

So what should we do about countries that murder their civilians and starve them to death??

According to you, we should do nothing but sit on our ass because it is none of our business.

Isolationist crap. Pacifist Crap. You somehow believe that the leaders of N. Korea and Iraq are moral individuals. If that was the case then sure...they can have these weapons...but THEY ARE NOT.

And YES the world is asking us to be the Cop. What about Bosnia??? Did the EU do a Damn thing about a problem in their OWN back yard?? NO! We had to do it! They ASKED us to do it.

Xander,

The REASONS we HAVE NUKES is because we needed a WEAPON to END WWII that started because a bunch of PACIFIST ISOLATIONALISTS let Hitler Storm his ass around EUROPE. WAKE UP!! PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE THE REASON WE HAVE NUKES IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And YES NUKES are DEFENSIVE. Has anyone attacked with a NUKE?? NO. MAD is a great policy and prevented Russia from Invading EUROPE and killing Millions but hey why should we care lets just sit under our little rock and pout because its none of our business.......

So Xander, what happens if we let Saddam or Kim II get some nukes?? They could invade whatever country they wanted 2 without fear because we wouldnt do a damn thing about it.

Realist

crazy,

So what should we do about countries that murder their civilians and starve them to death?? ...nothing...?

that is exactly what the US does usually as long as there are no economical reasons to intervene. do you really think the US will start this war or any conflict with north korea to help the respective population??? bush gives a shit about the people of these nations.

The REASONS we HAVE NUKES is because we needed a WEAPON to END WWII that started because a bunch of PACIFIST ISOLATIONALISTS let Hitler Storm his ass around EUROPE. WAKE UP!! PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE THE REASON WE HAVE NUKES IN THE FIRST PLACE.

the US developed nuclear weapons because they realized the potential of these weapons. there was no need to whipe out 2 cities at the end of WWII. this was a war crime nothing else.

hitler did not pose a threat to the west. he wanted the areas back that were lost after WWI. this is understandable at least from a historic standpoint.

Xander

let Hitler Storm his ass around EUROPE

You're attacking another symptom of the problem as if it were the cause.

Tell me, what kind of support would Hitler have been able to gather if WWI had ended just like every other war in Europe ended for the past few millenia? You know, the wars the US *didn't* get involved in to hand one side a decisive victory?

what happens if we let Saddam or Kim II get some nukes?? They could invade whatever country they wanted 2 without fear because we wouldnt do a damn thing about it.

Indeed, because our non-nuclear forces are so lame and crippled that without nukes to back them up, they couldn't even wake up in the morning. After all, that's why we've had to use nukes in every single conflict we've ever been in....

Oh, wait, that's not true. Our 'conventional' forces are MORE than capable of defending US interests.

YES NUKES are DEFENSIVE

Do you understand the definition of the word 'defensive'?

A Phalanx gun on a carrier is 'defensive'. A Patriot missile is 'defensive'. The SM-1 is 'defensive'.

True, at points in the past, the US *has* deployed defensive nuclear weapons. Those have all been withdrawn now, however (their usefulness was always in question).

ICBMs are *NOT* defensive. They can be used for offense or as a deterrent. Not as a defense.

EDIT:

hitler did not pose a threat to the west

I think even I would argue this point. Hitler WOULD have been a threat to the west, after a while. He was more than a little crazy in the head. The issue at hand, of course, is what caused his rise to power.

Edited by - Xander on 6 February 2003 15:11:52

Elsewhere

that is exactly what the US does usually as long as there are no economical reasons to intervene

Every nation out there is acting to support its own interests... This is what international politics are all about.

It is in the US 's best interest for NK to not have nukes... and it is in the best interest of NK to have nukes. This is why the two countries don't like each other... there interests are in conflict.

Edited by - Elsewhere on 6 February 2003 15:13:4

Realist

Elsewhere,

exactly!!!!

rem

Realist,

I don't think anyone has ever disputed that all countries act for their own self interest. The difference is that countries define their self interests differently. I think it would be naive to think that if North Korea or Iraq were in charge they would define their self interests to include us keeping our freedoms. Fortunately democratic countries allow other countries to do their own thing, but when rogue nations threaten the peace of others someone has to step in at some point. I, for one, never want to live in a world where a totalitarian regime can decide that I have to be muslim or that women have to wear burkas or that all men are required to do military service.

rem

Crazy151drinker

Xander,

Do you support our "starwars II" system since it is 'Defensive'???

Havnt you ever heard the phrase, "The best defense is a strong offense"

Your ideas would be great if we lived in a world where everybody got along but we dont and we NEVER have so that regulates your ideas to the realm of Dreams.....

Realist,

Please look at the # of Japanese who died during the Island hoping. If you think less people would have died in an conventional attack on the Mainland compared to the 200,000 who died with the A-bombs then I truely worry about you................. And once again they started it and they were butchering the Chinese and using WMD.

crownboy

Elsewhere said:

Every nation out there is acting to support its own interests... This is what international politics are all about.

Indeed that is true, I agree 100%. The beef I have with the US is that we always seem to have paint ourselves as working for the "greater good" of everybody, when the government knows damn well they'd kill anyone that stood in our way of domination. Like with this current (potential) Iraqi war, the US is talking about freeing the people of Iraq from Saddam. What a bunch of garbage. When they could have done something about it in the last Gulf War, they knowinly left a guy in there who had already amassed a terrible human rights record (with some US help, nontheless). When they allowed some Saddam oppossers to be slaughtered by him by not backing them up in a resistance after giving them their word that they would back in 1991, that was a move made solely to protect US interest. So basically, if the US would cut out the disingenious feigned interest they show for other nations, and simply be honest with their intentions, to me that would be alot better.

I doubt Bush would risk going into N.Korea before getting re-elected. Unlike Iraq, N.Korea actually does have nuclear weapons and a real military, and US lives would be lost in that war, possibly many. As has already been pointed out, war casualties are never good to a person's political profile. However, if Saddam really is developing WMD that would be reason to invade, because afterall, he did agree to not develop any WMD after the Gulf War. But before taking a drastic measure that would doubtlessly kill thousands of innocent Iraqis (not to mention potential military losses, and maybe terrorist attacks, though I doubt the Iraq/ al-Queida link), we should explore other options, including maybe arranging for the covert assasination of Saddam. If the US does go through with an Iraqi war, hopefully this time the government will live up to its supposed lofty ideals and really help develop Iraq and rebuild it. Otherwise, we'll just have another religious Jihadist government in the middle east, and quite frankly Saddam is a better option than that.

Is North Korea getting out of hand?

Share this