TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- What to do about North Korea?
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Philby invade them. oh wait, they don't have oil.

Thats why USA didnt bother invading them in the first place. There's nothing to gain in NK, but in Iraq/Afghanistan, there's strategic pipelines and/or gas, oil ...

It was only 5 years ago when I read that North Kora is the most dangerous regime in the world, close to developing nuclear weapons.

What's all the big fuss about, a 'hard-drinking playboy' is setting off nukes...

hmmm...could be a problem when i think about it

Re: What to do about North Korea?

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange Yet one more reason to toss out the republicans from power.

This is hardly just a republican problem

Hit the full page view of the world will yea?

more fuel to the fire?

quote:

SEOUL, South Korea (CNN) -- North Korea will consider any increased pressure from the United States as "a declaration of a war," a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said Wednesday, according to South Korea's official news agency. The United States is leading the charge for limited U.N. sanctions against the reclusive communist country after it said it carried out a nuclear test Monday. The U.N. Security Council is considering the draft resolution. North Korea's second in command, Kim Yong Nam, told Japan's Kyodo News Agency that sanctions would prevent Pyongyang from rejoining multilateral negotiations on its nuclear weapons program, which stalled last year. "We cannot attend the six-party talks while financial sanctions and various sanctions are imposed on us," said Kim, according to a translation from The Associated Press. The Bush administration has insisted any negotiations between the United States and North Korea occur within the framework of six-party talks that also involve China, Russia, South Korea and Japan.

link here

also in the news, Japan reports 6.0 quake. another NK nuke test perhaps?
News @ BBC Click Me

Re: What to do about North Korea?

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange Unilateral dialogue? Sanctions? Military action?

hide?

Dont visit: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, West Coast of N. America

quote:

Originally posted by InterMilan31 Dont visit: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, West Coast of N. America

You almost made me spit out my food you bastid lol

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer can you explain how Iran is a threat to the world?did test any nukes?any evidence of them making any?

well, first...

The holocaust was a myth...

Israel should be wiped off the map.

They believe it's their right to have nuclear weapons.

quote:

originally posted by shaolin_Z You've got it the other way around, this Administration is teaching a bitter lesson to the rest of the world, particularly countries it's interested in for economic/strategic purposes to maintain American hegemony and it's quest for Empire; you'd better have a deterrent to war, or we'll invade you. Iraq is a perfect example of this. The greatest threat to world peace is the Bush Administration and it's policies.

His foreign policies do SUCK, but I don't think we are the threat to the world. I mean, look at who we invaded. Iraq and Afghanistan. Honestly, it's a mistake on the administrations part for taking such a policy. September 11 just made everyone clamor for revenge as soon as possible.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: well, first... The holocaust was a myth... Israel should be wiped off the map. They believe it's their right to have nuclear weapons. His foreign policies do SUCK, but I don't think we are the threat to the world. I mean, look at who we invaded. Iraq and Afghanistan. Honestly, it's a mistake on the administrations part for taking such a policy. September 11 just made everyone clamor for revenge as soon as possible.

I disagree with you there mate.

Clearly from the Clinton Administration his foreign policy was weak, anyone call tell you that. For example, Clinto aided NK with millions of dollars in which that money will be "invested" in social prog for the NK people, where did it go? To the military and to their Nuke prog in the upcoming years, yeah you can say we helped them get where they are now But NK imo they want attention and want to get into talks and try to attempt the same thing is was achieved with Clinton, negotiate and be more flexible with them

I at some of the things that people say about Bush invading Iraq for the oil People please jus wait 10 yrs so History can be written in whats taking place right now. Its like when Clinton got out of office everyone consider him of the greatest we ever had and now that shyt is coming up we see the contrary

So, Iran is not a threat because Clinton gave them aid. nice.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover I disagree with you there mate. Clearly from the Clinton Administration his foreign policy was weak, anyone call tell you that. For example, Clinto aided NK with millions of dollars in which that money will be "invested" in social prog for the NK people, where did it go? To the military and to their Nuke prog in the upcoming years, yeah you can say we helped them get where they are now But NK imo they want attention and want to get into talks and try to attempt the same thing is was achieved with Clinton, negotiate and be more flexible with them I at some of the things that people say about Bush invading Iraq for the oil People please jus wait 10 yrs so History can be written in whats taking place right now. Its like when Clinton got out of office everyone consider him of the greatest we ever had and now that shyt is coming up we see the contrary

I'll refrain from harsh criticism and trashing on some of the really bad points you had, so I'll just say that at least under Clinton NK was at peace with the region, they weren't developing nukes. They had same internal problems, but thats a different story. Since Bush came around, everything changed. After Bush took over Afghanistan and Iraq, I wasnt surprised NK was working hard to make sure it wasn't next.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail So, Iran is not a threat because Clinton gave them aid. nice.

Hmmmm... I hope you are not refering to my statement but I said that CLinton aided NK with millions of dollars, which were diverted to boost the NK military. In reagrds of Iran, you might not believe it but the Nuclearn tech that they are initiating are because of us From the Shah regime, it was halted when the Shah was overthrown and later on resumed that is were we are currently standing

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Hmmmm... I hope you are not refering to my statement but I said that CLinton aided NK with millions of dollars, which were diverted to boost the NK military. In reagrds of Iran, you might not believe it but the Nuclearn tech that they are initiating are because of us From the Shah regime, it was halted when the Shah was overthrown and later on resumed that is were we are currently standing

So what were you disagreeing about with his post?

they will nuke uss all soon..


iran are the next to make such experiments.. watch out

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail So what were you disagreeing about with his post?

Well in regards of Bush's foreign policy, If I recall right he does not agree with the invasion of Afgahnistan and Iraq. I will land my personal belief in regards of the war. In Afgahnistan, come on? The Taliban supported Al Qaeda, by providing them with right to operate within the country, I think we all know that the invasion was justifiable, I cannot imagine the US sitting down with the Taliban and talking about it

In regards of Iraq I do approve, that I did not explain to you in my last post because its long shyt lol. But what Bush has to deal with is to stop terrorism, and say to the Arab people that this type of militant Islam is not what Islam is all about. There are many factors that the US is hated in the ME for, like 1. The support for Israel... From my understanding all the terrorist group in the region reject the existence of Israel, that is a common ground that they all share. IMO and what this admin is trying to do is first try to have a peace treaty with Palestine-Israel, at least bring the political atmosphere for talks. Something that was very difficult after the peace treaty fell apart in the Clinton admin, Araft refused too. Now we all know that Arafat was a close ally of Hussein, they supported each other. Hussein was going to make these negotiations difficult, so from what I see the Bush admin said to themselves" hey we dont only want to capture UBL but also stop these people and bring back a stable ME" and the first step to bring a stable ME is to have peace between Palestine and Israel, that is the first step in my opinion. Even Bill Clinton came out in a interview and said it himself. This war is fram from over, but I dont see why some people claim that the US is there for the oil Yeah even when Iraq got invaded it wasnt the US but other countries urging the US to give them access to the oil to make up from the debt that Iraq owed to them, one of those countries was Russia The list of countries goes on...

I a sure that Hullibruton got some good oil contracts by the way Hullibruton is not even 100% in charge of the reconstruction of Iraq, due to that the Senate was investigating them and forced them to handout the reconstruction process to other companies. But the main point is that if you say that the US is there for oil, show proofs and not your personal especulations

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer can you explain how Iran is a threat to the world?did test any nukes?any evidence of them making any?

I think US is a threat to this world with its WMDs and lunatic Bush at top place in that country. He is no less weird/sad/dangerous guy that Kim Jong. Both are same.. its only media and where one lives, that makes them look different.

quote:

Originally posted by Purple I think US is a threat to this world with its WMDs and lunatic Bush at top place in that country. He is no less weird/sad/dangerous guy that Kim Jong. Both are same.. its only media and where one lives, that makes them look different.

+1

Bush should leave NK well alone. NK has weapons to stop itself being invaded. Odd that the US won't invade a country WITH nukes but will flatten one without. And can someone please tell me why the US is the only country amongst its 'enemies' to be allowed nukes?

quote:

Originally posted by Purple I think US is a threat to this world with its WMDs and lunatic Bush at top place in that country. He is no less weird/sad/dangerous guy that Kim Jong. Both are same.. its only media and where one lives, that makes them look different.

I'd be much more worried about a smaller dictatorship with NO track record of having nuclear weapons than one that has had them for over 50 years...

quote:

Originally posted by Purple I think US is a threat to this world with its WMDs and lunatic Bush at top place in that country. He is no less weird/sad/dangerous guy that Kim Jong. Both are same.. its only media and where one lives, that makes them look different.

Bush doesn't starve his own people in Nazi-like concentration camps... I wouldn't trust any government thats willing to kill its own people by the millions to have nukes...

quote:

It is not exactly news that the communist regime of Kim Jong Il has sent millions of North Koreans to early graves. Estimates back in 1998 were that as many as 800,000 people were dying in North Korea each year from starvation and malnutrition caused by Kim's ruthless and irrational policies. World Vision, a Christian relief organization, calculated that 1 million to 2 million North Koreans had been killed by "a full-scale famine" largely of Pyongyang's creation. Nor is it breaking news that North Korea operates a vicious prison gulag -- "not unlike the worst labor camps built by Mao and Stalin in the last century," as NBC News reported more than a year ago. Some 200,000 men, women, and children are held in these slave-labor camps; hundreds of thousands of others have perished in them over the years. Some of the camps are so hellish that 20 percent or more of their prisoners die from torture and abuse each year. The dead can be of any age: North Korea's longstanding policy is to imprison not only those accused of such "crimes" as practicing Christianity or complaining about North Korean life, but their entire families, including grandparents and grandchildren. And, of course, it is widely known that Kim is openly pursuing nuclear weapons, has fired missiles capable of reaching Japan, and controls one of the largest military forces on earth.

------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by Ocean Drive Bush should leave NK well alone. NK has weapons to stop itself being invaded. Odd that the US won't invade a country WITH nukes but will flatten one without. And can someone please tell me why the US is the only country amongst its 'enemies' to be allowed nukes?

The USA were the ones to develop nukes...World War II? Japs won't surrender? You know? The US has repeatedly shown responsibility with it's nuclear arsenal by signing multiple arms reduction treaties, and abides by international standards for nuclear countries. NK has repeatedly shown it can't be trusted, by breaking treaties, killing its own people, and even counterfeiting foreign currency.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: NK has repeatedly shown it can't be trusted, by breaking treaties, killing its own people, and even counterfeiting foreign currency.

Lets not forget siphoning foreign aid directly towards their war effort...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Lets not forget siphoning foreign aid directly towards their war effort...

say again?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN stick to command & conquer you noob

well i'm sort of serious...
i thought usa invaded iraq because it was a threat to the world, there was an evil dictator, the regime was hurting the people and they may have had nuclear weapons or "wmd". as far as i can tell north korea beats iraq on all of these terms, so why didn't they attack them? because they thought they might not win?

quote:

Originally posted by Philby well i'm sort of serious... i thought usa invaded iraq because it was a threat to the world, there was an evil dictator, the regime was hurting the people and they may have had nuclear weapons or "wmd". as far as i can tell north korea beats iraq on all of these terms, so why didn't they attack them? because they thought they might not win?

they'de need a draft , and they know americans wouldn't go for it. iraq was the doable option.

quote:

Originally posted by Philby because they thought they might not win?

wow, what happened to history?

we fought them before. 52,219 American soldiers killed in action. 103,000 American wounded. 8142 Americans missing in action.

there was never a peace treaty signed.

THE most heavily defended border on the planet, against a 1 million man army backed by China.

lets get some perspective here ok? before we go comparing apples to oranges.

i'm amazed Bush is actually standing up to this. no other American president has or prolly ever will.

north korea doesnt have the money to fight a sustained war. they can barely keep their citizens fed each year.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.