Another example of how Bush is making the world less safe.

[john5746]

I say we put nuclear weapons into South Korea, big time. It worked with the Soviet Union, I think it will work with North Korea, maybe even Iran, Pakistan and India. If anyone uses a weapon, their country is toast.

 

I know one thing, the US cannot keep rebuilding nations. We already have nukes, just move them.

 

Of course we can continue to talk and try to trade with them, etc.

[Hellbender]

Are you saying there shouldn't be a worldwide effort to help these people and that wars should only be fought for economic reasons? And i don't understand the reference to Vietnam.QUOTE]

 

no' date=' not at all, I mean justifying military action by saying we need to liberate them is wrong when you are going in for economic reasons. There [b']should[/b] be an effort to help people all over the world, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that the Bush agenda doesn't give a rat's a$$ about the people of Iraq, he is just using the "invade to liberate" idea to justify another war for oil. I don't know what vietnam was fought for, no one ever told me the answer to that, but I doubt it was to "liberate" a socialist country.

[-Demosthenes-]

How does he get oil from the US invading Iraq?

 

there are many other countries in which the government pretty much makes life miserable for it's citizens. I don't see any worldwide effort to help them.

That's a commom arguement that everyone uses and doesn't even think about it. "why should we help them if we don't help anyone else" We are helping everyone else, the US sends humanitarian aid all around the world, the US has peace keeping troops all around the world. The argument hold no water, makes no sense, and its repeated way to ofton.

And you argument is based on the fact that they do need help. Well if they do, then why not help, becuase we can't do it at the same time everywhere?

[john5746]

How does he get oil from the US invading Iraq?

 

It is somewhat valid in that the only reason we are interested in the Middle East at all is because of Oil. If the Middle East had no oil, it would be like Africa - oh, too bad, such a shame, send some food and medicine... And, if all goes well, we will be able to get oil and be involved with them much more. The war in Iraq was obviously over security in the Middle East, just like Desert Shield.

 

Countries usually fight wars in their own interests. The well-being of the citizenry is secondary. I see no problem with that.

[Aardvark]

I don't know what vietnam was fought for' date=' no one ever told me the answer to that, but I doubt it was to "liberate" a socialist country.[/quote']

 

Not wanting to get too far off topic, but i can't think of any economic interests in Vietnam worth fighting for. It looking like the war was genuinely fought to try and stop communist aggression, not for economic reasons.

 

Anyway, this thread isn't about Vietnam or Iraq, but North Korea. What do you think should be done about the nuclearisation of North Korea?

[budullewraagh]

If they have developed nuclear weapons because of evil aggressive G W Bush, why is it that North Korea was so vigourously developing nuclear weapons when Clinton was President?

 

It is transparent that their reasoning that they only have the weapons due to G W Bushs foriegn policy is a lie. I can not see you defending their lies?

no you see, they said "hey, we're currently in the position where we can make nukes now. we won't if you tell us you won't attack us, but write it on paper just to make it formal and all." yes, they had wanted nukes beforehand. they decided that they didn't need them however and so they offered to stop under that one condition.

[john5746]

post #26.

 

But, this thread can include other threats,

 

Venezuela

 

Hey, it could happen!

[Aardvark]

no you see, they said "hey, we're currently in the position where we can make nukes now. we won't if you tell us you won't attack us, but write it on paper just to make it formal and all." yes, they had wanted nukes beforehand. they decided that they didn't need them however and so they offered to stop under that one condition.

 

In 1996 President Clinton offered the full assurance that nuclear weapons would never be used against North Korea provided that North Korea ended the nuclear weapons programme.

 

 

 

The terms they set for not nuclearising constantly changed. Sometimes it was in exchange for help with civilian nuclear power as they didn't ever intend to build nuclear weapons at all. Sometimes it was in exchange for economic aid and when large quantities of fuel oil, food and various assistance was handed over they just carried on and asked for more.

 

North Korea repeated broke all agreements entered into, actually infiltrated commandoes into South Korea in 1996 and showed bad faith in every regard.

 

On this issue i think you are allowing your distaste for your government to blind you to the reality of North Koreas duplicity, dishonesty and aggression.

[budullewraagh]

all that you are saying does not support bush's pompous actions. really, think of what you are defending and what you are arguing.

 

if the us were to have complied and north korea were to have started making nukes, china and russia would apply pressure and we'd have them caught

[Aardvark]

all that you are saying does not support bush's pompous actions. really' date=' think of what you are defending and what you are arguing.

 

if the us were to have complied and north korea were to have started making nukes, china and russia would apply pressure and we'd have them caught[/quote']

 

 

This isn't just about Bush, it's bigger than that. You should consider what you are defending.

 

The USA did comply with every agreement made. North Korea consistently broke every agreement. They were caught out, Russia and China have applied pressure.

 

And North Korea carries on, after all what kind of pressure is going to stop a regime that doesn't care when millions, yes millions, of its people die of hunger because its economy has collasped?

[ramin]

In politics fragile situations tend to explode in your face when you do not handle with care.

 

The Bush administrations foreign policies and use of the media to intimidate the rest of the world is working... But they are too stupid to realize the consequences of their actions.

 

N. Korea has nukes' date=' and will not disarm them because they are intimidated by the U.S. foreign policies[/url']

 

 

 

Can anyone honestly say they feel safer since the Bush administration began "making the world safer"?

 

 

The sad thing about all this is the bush-basher bashers. It's not a matter of just "blaming." Obviously this president has problems with honesty and method. The only justification for Bush-supporters, in terms of foreign policy, seems to be that "bush-bashers" are "blaming Bush."

 

Perhaps the low level of sophistication of this argument is not apparent?

[ramin]

What's the confirmed body count in Iraq now, 100,000?

[Aardvark]

What's the confirmed body count in Iraq now, 100,000?

 

No.

 

Quotes vary from around 26,000 upwards, but there is no confirmed figure.

 

This should probably be discussed in the Iraq thread, not the Korea thread.

[budullewraagh]

actually, i have heard valid reports of 100,000

 

 

The USA did comply with every agreement made. North Korea consistently broke every agreement. They were caught out, Russia and China have applied pressure.

 

And North Korea carries on, after all what kind of pressure is going to stop a regime that doesn't care when millions, yes millions, of its people die of hunger because its economy has collasped?

again, you are evading the issue. try again man. plus, countries don't apply pressure with the intent to coax a leader to step down... that just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. and really, what are we going to do? perhaps we should shut down nike's sweatshops if we want to go for humanitarian aid. that way we won't spend money frivolously and amass an even greater debt while sending our own people to death for little to no reason at all. wait, there's no money in that! ah, figures

[Aardvark]

again' date=' you are evading the issue. try again man. plus, countries don't apply pressure with the intent to coax a leader to step down... that just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. and really, what are we going to do? perhaps we should shut down nike's sweatshops if we want to go for humanitarian aid. that way we won't spend money frivolously and amass an even greater debt while sending our own people to death for little to no reason at all. wait, there's no money in that! ah, figures[/quote']

 

You say i am evading the issue then start a strange diatribe about Nike sweatshops.

 

As Nike doesn't have any sweatshops in North Korea i can't see any connection. You are the one who raised the matter of China and Russia applying pressure on North Korea, why you mention trying to make the leader stand down i don't know. This isn't about that, its about a nuclear weapons programme. I'm afraid your post isn't making much sense.

 

As to what we should do.

 

Issue a proclomation that any use of a nuclear weapon at all by North Korea will be answered by the complete nuclear destruction of the entirety of North Korea.

 

End all trade, aid, diplomatic cooperation, economic links, including the large sale remmittances from North Koreans in Japan until North Korea demonstratively ends its nuclear weapons programme completely.

 

Hint to China that a nuclear North Korea might imply a nuclear Taiwan.

 

 

Then sit back and let China sweat about the problem. People seem to assume that China supports North Korea. In fact North Korea is a major headache for China.

[john5746]

 

Hint to China that a nuclear North Korea might imply a nuclear Taiwan.

 

 

Then sit back and let China sweat about the problem. People seem to assume that China supports North Korea. In fact North Korea is a major headache for China.

 

I like that. China must deal with Asia. Saudi Arabia must deal with the Middle East. The US cannot go alone.

[TimeTraveler]

I like that. China must deal with Asia. Saudi Arabia must deal with the Middle East. The US cannot go alone.

 

The world needs to deal with the world together. If every country put together a document of the 50 top problems of the world that their country thinks needs to be addressed, I am willing to bet that 90% or more would list the US's new preemptive policy and percieved hostility.

 

I don't think threats and show of power is a way to gain the confidence of the world. It is no question that America has the strongest military. I don't claim to know an answer. But with so many politicians in America who debate trivial issues (in comparison) day in and day out you would think that somebody could devise a peaceful solution to the worlds problems.

[Aardvark]

But with so many politicians in America who debate trivial issues (in comparison) day in and day out you would think that somebody could devise a peaceful solution to the worlds problems.

 

What suggestions do you have for dealing with North Korea?

[TimeTraveler]

What suggestions do you have for dealing with North Korea?

 

Well as I said in the sentence before the one you quoted I implied I don't claim to know an answer but since you ask I will give it a go.

 

It seems to me that the countries who 'threaten' other countries to dismantle WMDs are countries who themselves have WMDs.

 

I think the biggest problem in the world today is no one trusts each other, I can't blame them.

 

Maybe a conference should be held where all the leaders (leaders won't happen though, but would be good for trust) get together and write a global mission for peace, something that gives all countries a goal to strive for. In the contents, plans for removing all WMDs from the face of the Earth, ending poverty and world hunger, putting a stop to corporate exploitations, plans to conquer challenges in space together, ideas and efforts to eliminate terrorism, setting regulations that everyone can agree on in terms of the more trivial issues and so on...

[Sayonara]

And North Korea carries on, after all what kind of pressure is going to stop a regime that doesn't care when millions, yes millions, of its people die of hunger because its economy has collasped?

If memory serves, in another NK thread you argued that there was no independent evidence for that. Or maybe it was ATM.

 

Anyway... general question: why in god's name would the USA want to nuke North Korea in the first place?

 

As usual this thread is taking the bizarre direction of "removing reasons why they shouldn't".

[Aardvark]

Maybe a conference should be held where all the leaders (leaders won't happen though, but would be good for trust) get together and write a global mission for peace, something that gives all countries a goal to strive for. In the contents, plans for removing all WMDs from the face of the Earth, ending poverty and world hunger, putting a stop to corporate exploitations, plans to conquer challenges in space together, ideas and efforts to eliminate terrorism, setting regulations that everyone can agree on in terms of the more trivial issues and so on...

 

That sounds very good in itself but i can't help feeling that a commitment to end world hunger and corporate exploitation isn't going to do much to help with North Koreas regime. These people are not humanitarians.

 

Do you think that there is a chance you are a bit over-idealistic?

[Aardvark]

If memory serves' date=' in another NK thread you argued that there was no independent evidence for that. Or maybe it was ATM.

 

Anyway... general question: why in god's name would the USA want to nuke North Korea in the first place?

 

As usual this thread is taking the bizarre direction of "removing reasons why they shouldn't".[/quote']

 

I think memory may be doing you a disservice there. I've argued before that the famine in NK is sufficently documented to be accepted as fact.

 

I can't think of any reason why the USA should want to nuke NK. I would be a disasterous move, the whole problem with NK is to avoid the use of nuclear weapons.

 

I'd hope that this thread is exploring ways of dealing with the problem, not 'removing reasons why they shouldn't' use nuclear weapons. Pointing out the dangerous nature of the NK regime isn't the same as wanting to nuke the place.

[TimeTraveler]

Do you think that there is a chance you are a bit over-idealistic?

 

Yes. about 100% chance.

[Sayonara]

I think memory may be doing you a disservice there. I've argued before that the famine in NK is sufficently documented to be accepted as fact.

A quick search reveals that - as I suspected - it was atm's argument and not yours:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6332

 

 

I'd hope that this thread is exploring ways of dealing with the problem, not 'removing reasons why they shouldn't' use nuclear weapons. Pointing out the dangerous nature of the NK regime isn't the same as wanting to nuke the place.

The post that made me say that appears to have been deleted. Damned communists.

[TimeTraveler]

It seems that N. Korea wants to have direct talks with the US.

 

N. Korea demands direct talks with US

 

North Korea has demanded bilateral talks with the United States to defuse the tension created by its announcement that it is a nuclear power.

 

"If the United States moves to have direct dialogue with us' date=' we can take that as a signal that the United States is changing its hostile policy toward us."

 

North Korea sees its nuclear programs as a way of ensuring the survival of leader Kim Jong Il's regime. In return for giving up its nuclear ambitions, it seeks massive aid, diplomatic recognition, an end to economic sanctions, and a nonaggression treaty with the United States.[/quote']

 

And the U.S. response.

 

U.S. refuses one on one talks with N. Korea

 

The Bush administration said Friday that it wasn't interested in one-on-one talks with North Korea about its nuclear programs outside the six-party negotiations involving the communist nation's neighbors.

 

"It's not an issue between North Korea and the United States. It's a regional issue' date='" White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

 

U.S. officials believe North Korea, which is seeking bilateral talks with the United States, may have from four to two dozen nuclear devices, depending on the assumptions used about the bombs' designs.[/quote']