Is North Korea getting out of hand?

by JH 80 Replies latest jw friends

  • Xander

    "starwars II" system since it is 'Defensive'

    A good idea on paper, but with a number of fairly significant flaws. Still, I think it's worth continuing research in with one major caveat: once we've created it, make the research and technology available to ANYONE WHO WANTS IT (even if they do have to pay for it).

    After all, if its only purpose is to prevent a nation from being the victim of an ICBM attack, surely we would not have a problem with everyone having such protection?

    Unless, of course, this is another one of those "US and friends" club things....

    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

    Oh, I agree, surely many more lives would have been lost in an invasion.

    We COULD, of course, have just accepted the cease-fire agreement we were offered instead of requiring unconditional surrender. Then, no nukes and no invasion.

    The best defense is a strong offense

    Surely you realize that is taken out of context. In context, it makes sense and is true. In a war, the best 'defensive posture' is generally not to maintain a defensive posture, but to attack.

    The best defense of a nation's *sovereignty* in PEACETIME is certainly not, under any conditions, to run around invading other nations (IE., 'offense').

  • rem

    Why do all nations have to have the same access to all weapons? Is this some type of fairness rule of battle? If we develop laser guided missiles, why should we have to share that technology with anybody? It's in our nation's (and the world's, actually) for only a select few 'responsible' nations to have such weaponry.

    I can see the argument about the US being disingenuous in it's claims, but really, think of the alternative. Do you think that if any other nation could have the amount of power that the US has they would be any more sincere? How about China or Cold War era USSR? History shows that this is not the case. In fact the US is the least imperialistic country on this planet when you take into consideration the amount of power it wields.

    Thank god (hehe) Democracy (er at least government with representation) and the ideals of liberty were invented! There are many countries who want to take these freedoms that we take for granted away from everybody (see how N Korea and Iraq are governed). The fight for freedom and liberty is not just a passive struggle - lives will be lost because there are people in the world who do not hold these ideals dear. Lives will also be lost serving the interests of the US. I don't find it hypocritical at all because (almost?) every country does it (most any country that says we are hypocritical is the pot calling the kettle black). I'm damn proud that those lives lost are not in vain and we actually have the freedom to discuss this stuff (and disagree). This is something many people in the world are not allowed to do.

    I never was patriotic as a JW. I don't know that I'm patriotic in the sense that I love the US (it's got its ugly skeletons in the closet)... but I do love the principles and ideals that it strives to stand for - liberty and freedom for all men. Unfortunately no government can please everybody, so we just have to do what we think is right.


  • Realist


    i agree with you partially. i too prefer to live in a free society.

    Fortunately democratic countries allow other countries to do their own thing

    however, our countries do NOT help or allow others to gain these same freedoms. especially the US is not supporting demoracy...the US gov. supports whoever is helping them...they don't care how crazy or brutal the regime is (from pol pot over hussein and many many others...just look what they did to south and central america). it is a shameless lie that they want this war to help the iraqis.


    the japanese wanted to surrender already. their only request was that the emperor (which they viewed as a semi god) would not be persecuted. even that request was denied.

    it was totally unnecessary to drop the bombs. at least the second one was a warcrime just like the gas chambers in germany. and the first one could have been dropped on an island to demonstrate it....300.000 civilians died for nothing but to demonstrate US power to stalin and to test the effect of the weapons on people.

  • rem


    Agreed. I think it's probably a tough thing to decide when to go in and help 'liberate' a country. Would people begin to think the US was imperialistic if it forced democracy on everyone by forcibly overthrowing dictators? It's probably not helpful that the US takes advantage of such countries when it's in its best interest... I wish the US would stay out of association with such countries. But we live in a world where every country tries to gain an advantage, even from unfriendly nations. France and Russia are involved in Iraq, just as we are. I just wish we wouldn't give those countries weapons Chrissake! I doubt the US will learn its lesson there.

    I also agree that the whole liberating Iraq claim is definitely not the reason, but hey, if they do get liberated that's a bonus, right? I think the issue is really about Saddam failing to meet his obligations. After 12 years, his time is up. Hopefully N Korea won't be as stupid as Iraq and will continue to keep bluffing. If not, it could get ugly.

    I might be in the minority here, but I definitely feel there is a time and a place for war. I don't buy into the thinking that all situations can be solved with diplomacy. It would be nice if it could, but unfortunately in this world we live in war is a necessary reality at times.


  • TheOldHippie

    It's like the question of the ozone layer, temperature rising, green house effect - if 1,000,000 Chinese get rich enough to buy refrigerators, deep freezers and cars, the whole world's environment, nature, will go down the drain. We, however, have all these things. So who are we to stand there and tell the Chinese what to do and what not to do, what to have and what not to have, what to buy and what not to buy? Who is the USA and their cowboy Bush to tell the North Koreans and Afghani and Iraqis and Libyans and Al-Khaida what they can have and what they cannot?

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

    Actually United States Policy is generally to turn a blind eye unless that country directly opposes the USA. Do you know how many dictators we have set up? How many DEMOCRATICALLY elected officials we have offed because they didn't jive with a United states world are a couple incase you are unfamilar.

    1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator.

    1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed.

    1963: U.S. backs assination of South Vietnamese President Diem

    September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered.

    1982 : U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

    1983 : White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis.

    1989 : CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties

    1990 : Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from the U.S.

    1991 : U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.

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

    Since when does pacificm equate doing nothing? I am anti-war, not pro-Hussien. The guy is an idiot. An idiot who is now doubt buiding himself an aresenal. Does he pose a direct threat to the United States? Nope. Not yet. Will he ever? Nope, not a direct threat. Iraq does not have missle capablity to hit the United States or Europe. (Please Check Weapons Inspector Data) If he gives said weapons to terrorist groups--tho ties have not yet been firmly established--he is unlikely to do this by the way since he has never gotten along with Al Queda (please check your history) and he would be stringing himself up. I think Hussien just wants to survive. He knows better than to do this. Do I want this dictator disarmed. Sure I do. We should take back the weapons we gave him in the 80's. They are ours after all.

    And YES the world is asking us to be the Cop.

    Have you asked the world? How many World Newspapers do you read? Just curious.

    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.

    Actually you do remember that the United States wanted nothing to do with WWII right? The war was going on for a long time and being faught by a lot of countries before the United States decided to finaly throw in their two cents on the matter. It was only after Pearl Harbor that the United States took an interest. By that point several hundreds of thousands of jews had died in concentration camps.

    but hey why should we care lets just sit under our little rock and pout because its none of our business.......

    Actually the media and the United States governement are notrious for only making it our bussiness when there is something to be gained by direct American involvement.

    So Xander, what happens if we let Saddam or Kim II get some nukes??

    Again, please keep up with weapons inspectors reports because it is VERY unlikely anyone would give weapons grade plutonium to Iraq. And even if they did, the facillities do not exisit. These roving labs that Powell was talking about would not be able to build nuclear weapons. You need a big ass plant to build those bad boys. Other weapons sure, but not nuclear.

    And Kim Jong Il already has nukes. The first half this thread said as much.

    They could invade whatever country they wanted 2 without fear because we wouldnt do a damn thing about it.

    North Korea has said plenty of times they don't want to invade. Iraq has also made no such claims of "invasion". North Korea is a nation of walking skeletons. They have no natural resources and nothing to trade. People are starving and trying to escape from their own country so they can get food. Who would they invade? They are not talking about invasion. So far they just feel threatened and want to protect themselves from the American government that has labeled them an "axis of evil". If I hear through the grapevine that a big bully said I was the spawn of satan and they were going to kick my ass, I might consider getting a gun. Am I right in doing this? Not really. I know little about guns and would probably just hurt myself. Does this mean I am going to go to my Neighbors house and take it over because I now have a gun? Nope. My beef is with the bully who I heard thinks I am the spawn of satan.

    I am not agreeing with Xander. I disagree on quite a few points with him. I just felt the holes in your post Crazy151 needed addressing. I'm not trying to pick on you, it's just sentiments I have read over and over again from several people and I felt like they needed addressing.

    Back to the topic of this thread. If we are talking Weapons of Mass Destruction, and being fearful as to who has what...North Korea has already said "Look we have weapons, we're not afraid to use them" they are also a desperate nation in need of raw materials and money. Not to mention they have an egotistical dicator who believes he is a "son of god" (yes his dad was god) and that means he is not afraid to deal his nuclear weapons to terrorists in order to get more money. The ties to terrorisim are much more obvious with North Korea. They have already lent out weapons. Now they have just fired up the old plutonium plants.

    North Korea is by far the bigger threat. But sadly they don't have oil. Since the united states will need to pull in more oil in order to run efficently as the years progress it is in their best interest to take over an oil rich region like Iraq. And that's why it has troops stationed in Iraq, and it is willing to negotiate with North Korea (because it really doesn't want North Korea to give out nukes either, but it also don't want to occupy a worthless dried out land with no visible wealth).

  • Realist


    with a few exceptions i pretty much agree with everything you said.

    if they do get liberated that's a bonus, right?

    yes hopefully. unfortunately the US usually supports democracy only as long as the elected people do what is in the interest of the US. otherwise they are accused of being communists or whatever and the respective gov. is overthrown with US (CIA) support.

    i doubt the situation will greatly improve for the iraqis after the war is over. ....but at least the sanctions will be lifted.

    the weapons inspectors were in iraq for 8 years before they left. in these 8 years almost all the WMD were destroyed. it would be very well possible to resume the inspections and let them continue indefinitely if necessary. there is bsolutely no reason to rush this war.

    hussein is not suicidal thats for he is not doing anything that would provoke an US attack.

  • TheOldHippie

    joannadandy; just beautiful! Thanks!

  • ThiChi


    All you provide is a false choice. All this proves is that we are dealing with a bunch of very bad people.

    Can you name another alternative? Every place the US has left (like Iran), the rulers are worse than the people we were dealing with.

Share this