If they nuke To-kyo-, Seoul or Seattle, are we going to have a commission to find out why we didn't nuke them first? I wonder what Dick Clarke will say.
Of course, if they nuke San Francisco I won't care anymore (unless it's a small bomb and I'm outside the blast/radiation radius. You think 50 miles is safe?)
Pix
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: If they nuke To-kyo-, Seoul or Seattle, are we going to have a commission to find out why we didn't nuke them first?
Yeah, I've been kinda wondering why we didn't have "commission" looking into administration and intelligence deficits to prevent the OKC bombing in 1995; the world trade center bombing of 1993 (Clinton administration) or any other of similar incidents.
....something stinks.
Farmgirl
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Nuclear war is stupid.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
North Korea is the scariest country in the world, right now.
They are so much more threatening than Iraq, they aren't even in the same ballpark.
Which is why I've always felt that taking out Iraq to make American's feel safer is the equivilent of my cat beating up on one of it's toys when it gets mad at us.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
There is nothing surprising about these sorts of statements from North Korea.
When you institute a policy of preemptive strikes, and then proceed to call a country "evil", of course they are going to do whatever they can to protect themselves against a strike from you - even if it means contemplating a preemptive attack of their own.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Yes, Everything is America's fault.
And when a scantily clad woman get's raped, that's her fault too.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Pix, I had exactly the same thought about the commissions resembling blaming the rape victim.
And if Seattle gets nuked, I'll be waiting for the rest of you in heaven. I hope you don't spend a lot of the rest of your lives arguing over who was to blame for my death.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Tresopax, you are wrong.
North Korea is run by madmen. It is the scariest rogue nation on earth.
I agree with a lot of your anti-war stands, but North Korea is in a whole other universe from the rest of us.
Even China is scared silly of what the nutbags in NK might do.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I'm sorry, Pixiest. You're right, America is always right, and nothing that ever happens to us was the result of something we did (knowingly or not).
Here's hoping this is just more propoganda/rhetoric from NK.
-Bok
Posted by Gottmorder (Member # 5039) on :
I always thought that North Korea was just talking about the game of Starcraft they have going on against the South.
Seriously though, nutjob or not, North Korea isn't going to try and nuke the US, or Japan, or South Korea, etc.
Why? Let's look at N. Korea's immediate neighbors.
South Korea: Nuke South Korea, get US counter attack.
Japan: Nuke Japan, get US counter attack
China: Nuke China and get a Chinese counter attack, which would make a US counter attack look like a picnic.
North Korea wouldn't try anything unless they want to be turned into the worlds first self lit parking lot. Crazy or not, their leader knows the consequences if he tries to use his nukes. Even Stalin wasn't so stupid as to start a nuclear war.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
If NK nukes anything in cali, I wouldn't care if it was some areas where Vons were more prevailent (since the OP likes to point out US targets they wouldn't care about getting nuked).
If NK nuked Seattle, I'd hope that we would turn NK into the biggest parking lot several times over.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
*has a Vons card*
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
It's ok, you're not a Vons employee, so I can still respect you.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Aren't you employed by the same company?
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
Everybody is talking about "If they nuke us." Why not start asking "Why would they nuke us?"
They don't want to. If people would stop looking at power politics in the Western way and look at things they way North Korea sees it (interesting thought, yes?) you'll see the world in a very different light. Why would North Korea announce that they may possibly have a nuclear program? To threaten the largest power in human history? They aren't stupid. They said it to get attention, and say that "Look, we want to talk." If nobody is remembering, North Korea is redeveloping ties with South Korea, they're starting a free economic zone. North Korea doesn't want war, what good would that do for them? Nothing. They're trying to get the United States to talk to them on EQUAL TERMS, but the current administration tends to talk down to other countries and is too hardheaded, and thinks because they're attacking other people, that everybody else is out to get them, too.
Korea always has, is, and always will be a very independent country, there's a reason it was known as the Hermit Kingdom, they take their "Ju Che" self reliance policy very seriously, they don't want people to talk down to them, they want to be left alone to govern themselves and allow their economy to grow the way they want it. They did not want a Macarthian puppet government in the Sout after World War II, and many thought, and still think, if it wasn't for the damned meddling Americans, their nation would be whole, even if it was completely Communist, at least it'd be whole. Satyagraha
[ April 09, 2004, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: BYuCnslr ]
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
I'll agree with slash on this one. NK is run by some seriously disturbed people.
If they think nuking anything is the way to solve any problems there stupider than i believe was possible. The entire world would fall on them if they did that. This would be true even if it was America that got nuked.
That using a nuke is a bad thing is something that wouldn't have any petty arguing about nor would the fact that such a country should continue to be as it is.
Posted by BYuCnslr (Member # 1857) on :
North Korea is being run by some really crazy people, but there is very little chance that they'll be out attacking any other country, what good would it do them? They'd be outsted and they know it. No, they're only going after their own people. Plus, Mutually Assured Distruction is a damn good deterent against launching a nuclear war. I don't understand why everybody thinks every other nation with nukes wants to use them, just because our administration is willing to attack other people and develop low yield nuclear weapons for in-theater use, doesn't mean everybody else wants to. Satyagraha
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
If America were hit by a nuclear bomb, do you think we would retaliate with a nuclear bomb? Would we honestly risk the health and safety of the world like that? Eesh. I hope not.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I agree with Satyagraha that North Korea is trying to be taken seriously and rise in the world hierarchy. They want respect not war.
To Slash,
North Korea has many problems and poses many threats. They are the worst human rights violators in the world. Their dictator has killed more innocents than Stalin. But they are not more threatening than Iraq was. Iraq had a public policy of funding terrorists. The family of any Palestinian suicide bomber was welcome to a check from the Iraqi government. They openly called the United States the devil and pleaded for our removal by any means necessary. Currently, we have nothing to fear from North Korea because of mutually assured destruction. The tactics involved in terrorism are a completely different threat. There is no body that the US can attack. Thus the US needs to strike down on terrorism wherever it can. This certainly includes regimes that openly encourage and finance terrorism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Seeing the world the way North Korean leadership sees it would be unconscionable
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:North Korea is the scariest country in the world, right now. They are so much more threatening than Iraq, they aren't even in the same ballpark. Which is why I've always felt that taking out Iraq to make American's feel safer is the equivilent of my cat beating up on one of it's toys when it gets mad at us.
You know what I always found funny? Back before the war in Iraq, when all the discussions were going on about Iraq's possible ownership of WMD, the world dialogue went something like this:
US - Iraq has WMD.
Iraq - No we don't.
US - They do. They're dangerous.
North Korea - Um, excuse me? We have 'em. Look, WMD over here.
Iraq - We don't. So there.
US & UK & Australia & others - Iraq is the threat.
North Korea - HELLO! WMD! We've told you we have them!
US & UK & Australia - Yeah, yeah, whatever, Now, back to Iraq...
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Just so long as I get to live in a vault.
Posted by keedokes (Member # 6301) on :
War is stupid.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:Thus the US needs to strike down on terrorism wherever it can. This certainly includes regimes that openly encourage and finance terrorism.
Why is the Saudi government still standing? (the worst human rights in the MidEast, virtually all of Al-Q's bankroll and spiritual support) Why aren't we intervening in Sudan? (definite terror threats against our embassy and allies, 500k refugees) One decade from the worst genocide in a generation, do we feel any guilt over the Rwanda terrorists yet?
I think Canada should invade the US. We have the most WMD in the world, we've been involved in the most covert international-law violations in the last 50 years, we've sponsored the most terrorist regimes, we execute children with impunity, and we make no apologies for it.
Not really. I love this country. But please, FFS, some perspective.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
PSI: My company owns Vons (Safeway bought Vons several years ago). Even though we own them, each division is still run it's own way (despite the many attempts by people to standardize the way things are run here).
My main beef with Vons is the constant laziness and incompetance that is expressed by their employees everyday. I also have a huge beef with their union, but that's a personal issue for me (I don't think that they're getting a fair market-wage - I think they're grossly overpaid).
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
"Why is the Saudi government still standing? (the worst human rights in the MidEast, virtually all of Al-Q's bankroll and spiritual support)?
Saudi Arabia is a different sort of problem. While the people of the country are very pro-terrorism, their GOVERNMENT does not bankroll Al Qaeda. Still, the government does not stomp down on Al Qaeda and tolerates far more than it should. These breaches do show a lack of respect for the United States. Yet, they are our ally and the government is officially "anti-terrorist". If their government begins to publicly advocate terrorism, then it WILL be time to bring them down. As it is, we accept what support they are willing to offer us.
"Why aren't we intervening in Sudan? (definite terror threats against our embassy and allies, 500k refugees) One decade from the worst genocide in a generation, do we feel any guilt over the Rwanda terrorists yet?""
Just give it some time... Sudan's regime definately supports terrorism and I wouldn't doubt if its time was near.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Mommy, I want a lollypop.
No.
If I don't get a lollypop I will scream.
quote: War is stupid.
Unfortunately it is also human nature. Not arguing you on the stupidity of it.
Posted by Gottmorder (Member # 5039) on :
quote:War is stupid.
So tell me, how was Western civilization saved and preserved? Battle of Salamis. Battle of Platea. Battle of Thermopylae, where the Greeks(mainly the Spartans) held back the might of Asia.
Battle of Tours: The army of Charles drive back the Islamic invaders, saving Europe from Islamic conquest.
Battle of Waterloo: The British army defeats Napolean, preventing a second wave of the Napoleanic Wars.
Battle of Britain: The RAF fends off the Luftwaffe, saving Britain(and Europe) from German conquest.
Throughout history, Western civilization has been preserved through battle and war. It isn't pretty, and it is certainly horrid, but war is an essential for survival. Peaceful protest only works if your opponent is peaceful as well. Had Ghandi tried the same thing in Soviet Russia, he would have woken in Siberia with a headache courtesy of a 9mm.
To quote Mr. Robert Heinlein...
quote:But on the last day he seems to be trying to find out what we had learned. One girl told him bluntly: "My mother says that violence never settled anything."
"So?" Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. "I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn't your mother tell them so? Or why don't you?"
They had tangled before - since you couldn't flunk the course, it wasn't necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly. "You're making fun of me! Everyone knows that Carthage was destroyed!"
"You seemed to be unaware of it," he said grimly. "Since you do know it, wouldn't you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue - and thoroughly immoral -doctrine that 'violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked forces, has settled more issues in history than any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
Yes, some wars are worthless and could be resolved in other ways, but war is what has saved the Western World in the past.
[ April 10, 2004, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: Gottmorder ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
OOO Starship Troopers. The book even, not that sham of a movie.
Western Civilization will only last as long as there are those who will fight for it. Of course, as I've heard argued over and over, some people just don't want freedom and it's ill advised of us to force it on them. I'm sure those who stand in the way of our defense will be happy praying to allah 6 times a day and wearing burkas. I personally plan to be dead by that time and I hope it's from old age.
Pix
[ April 10, 2004, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Actually, I'm rather confident that Westernization will succeed globally. Give it another century or two. It's a rather easy argument that more subcultures have flourished under Pan-American hegemony than in recorded history beforehand.
That doesn't spell the end for terrorism, of course. Unfortunately for the media and assorted sensationalists, it's not as easy to stereotype Timothy McVeighs as it is with those damned sand niggers.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
As it stands right now, if "westernization" succeeds in taking over the world in the next 100 years, then our children have a bleak future to look forward to. The sheer, unadulterated arrogance and ignorance of the believe that only western culture will bring about peace and security to the eastern heathens is one of the reasons we are hated across the eastern world right now. We blunder into a situation, shaking our fists and waving our guns, imposing our ideals of right and wrong on a culture that has little in common with us, refusing to see beyond our arrogant colonialistic shields, and are amazed when we meet with resistance. We spout the ideals of democracy from our comfortable, distinctly republic chairs, having very little idea what the hell we're talking about, and expect these blanket statements of our personal truth to smother injustice. WE ARE injustice, as much as any evil dictator imposing his will on a people ever was.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
foundling,
westernization? adoption of our what?
fallow
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
fallow
"westernization? adoption of our what?"
Did you have a question?
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
yes.
what dId you mean by Westernization?
did you know?
fallow
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
Food aid to the NKs is getting short again, the NK govt knows that the upcoming growing season isn't going to come close to meeting its populace's needs, and so they up the rhetoric when a high-level US contingent is going to be in the area to make sure the world will pay attention to the plight.
The last 6-party talks weren't any different from any previous 6-party talks, and the NK govt continually vacillates on what would encourage them to trade their current nuke program for regionally-made light-water reactors.
NK is perfectly willing to play the diplomat game, they just insist on doing it on their own terms. They are "nutbags" (great term, btw) but they know how to work the international system and know that they haven't nearly come to the end of that rope yet.
They do something like this each time the world pays a little too much attention to some other part of the world, and particularly the Mid-East. Since Iran's nuke program and Libya's WMD programs have been in the news lately, it just makes that much more sense that NK wants its share of the newsprint.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Why not attack N. Korea? Because the the world does not want to give the N. Koreans any excuse to use their weapons and say they were justified. An attack might cause this.
Using this argument brings up another problem and or theory. If the US doesn't like to attack mad people with big weapons, which is what they made Iraq out to be, they must have believed that although Iraq was dangerous, it wasn't dangerous or mad enough to annihilate anyone, such as troops and/or sympathetic neighbouring countries.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Fallow
What I meant by westernization is "conversion to or adoption of western traditions or techniques"
I define western as "of, relating to, or characteristic of a region conventionally designated West: as a : steeped in or stemming from the Greco-Roman traditions b : of or relating to the noncommunist countries of Europe and America"
On a broader scale, I think most Americans view "westernization" in much the same light as most British did for many centuries (or Romans, for that matter), that of spreading light and civilization through the darkness of the uncivilized world.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Tresopax, you are wrong.
North Korea is run by madmen. It is the scariest rogue nation on earth.
Perhaps, but so what? How does that contradict what I said?
Is it or is it not true that they are responding exactly as you'd expect a country to respond to statements that America wants to invade them without provocation?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Perhaps, but so what? How does that contradict what I said?
Is it or is it not true that they are responding exactly as you'd expect a country to respond to statements that America wants to invade them without provocation?
Yes, they are responded as could be expected. Then again, they've been making similar threats-overtly or not-for decades, so you're "they're not madmen, they're just feeling threatened" stance is pretty absurd.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
"just" feeling threatened isn't really it. They feel the respect they get, whether through fear or wariness, is in danger (regularly). Or more specifically, the respect he gets. Kim Jong-Il governs through a cult of personality that requires he be viewed as important, nationally and internationally, by his people. Ultimately, NK is a small nation in a location that makes it both worth watching and highly vulnerable. If it didn't keep making noise the notice of the international populace would quickly pass over it, and it would lose a lot of the name recognition it enjoys due to its bluster.
Jong-Il is walking a delicate line with respect to his nuclear weaponry. He was undoubtedly pursuing it for two reasons -- weaponry and a bargaining chit. One can hardly look at the US's arms control agreements and not realize that nuclear arms are a very powerful bargaining chit.
However, having nuclear weaponry as a bargaining chit requires something that also makes it more dangerous to have -- public knowledge of it. Once the public knows, the US or other nations may be goaded to act against NK. So he needed a time to make it public when it would be viewed as least threatening.
He actually picked a pretty good time, considering the circumstances. First, the US had just pulled out of the ballistic missile treaty, so the international community was less likely to view a country backing out of a treaty with the US (particularly one they were forced into) unfavorably. Second, the public statement was that NK could make and was working to make nuclear weaponry, not that NK had nuclear weaponry. This immediately suggests something, true or not: that NK was willing to bargain so it did not construct said weaponry. Third, the US was in a position where without considerable capital expenditures it could not fulfill the terms of our treaty with NK in building LWR nuclear reactors for them.
Especially considering that NK's announcement closely mirrored the US's own announcement of its withdrawal from the ballistic missile treaty, I think it should have been viewed as a clear desire for talks. Talks and accords are clearly something Jong-Il considers good for maintaining his reputation, and while he generally breaks them eventually, he also almost always follows through on the first stage or two, when the eye of the international community is still on him from the talk and the accord.
He's a spoiled child, and will behave when given a new toy, not because he likes the toy, but because it means he was noticed. After a while he breaks the toy so he's noticed again, then whines until given a new one.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Then again, they've been making similar threats-overtly or not-for decades, so you're "they're not madmen, they're just feeling threatened" stance is pretty absurd.
I never said they're not madmen. As I told Slash above, they may very well be.
But the point remains that right now they are doing what it makes sense for them to do.
[ April 10, 2004, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Sorry, westernization is a terrible term. How about secular democracy?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Long live American Homogeny! Just kidding... sortof.
But as the saying goes: "Those without swords can still die upon them." War is sometimes needed to save yourself.
Posted by Admiral Ender (Member # 6414) on :
Quote You know what I always found funny? Back before the war in Iraq, when all the discussions were going on about Iraq's possible ownership of WMD, the world dialogue went something like this:
US - Iraq has WMD.
Iraq - No we don't.
US - They do. They're dangerous.
North Korea - Um, excuse me? We have 'em. Look, WMD over here.
Iraq - We don't. So there.
US & UK & Australia & others - Iraq is the threat.
North Korea - HELLO! WMD! We've told you we have them!
US & UK & Australia - Yeah, yeah, whatever, Now, back to Iraq...
america wasnt openly going for north korea because north karea wasnt gassing their own people and assassinating those who looked at them wrong.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, yeah, NK did that.
Probably more recently than Saddam, actually.
In fact, Saddam is really an amateur compared to Jong-Il.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Foundling,
quote: WE ARE injustice, as much as any evil dictator imposing his will on a people ever was.
That is a pretty bold blanket statement--as Arrogant as anything America has said through actions. But let's just point out one small fault.
If we were imposing our ideals as much as a dictator, we would crush the Iraqi civilization in fear, keep them in poverty, rape them of their resources (not just oil but taxing and keeping them in poverty), and have state institutionalized torture and rape chamber we make public to suppress and scare the population. We would perfect our methods of killing individuals who disagree with us in gas chambers or test chemical and biological weapons on them.. I mean there is so much it is almost silly to debate.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
What gassing? You mean the gassing of the Kurds that Iraq blamed Iran for, that actually turned out to be Iraq? If there were gas chambers, where were they reported?
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I am showing general tactics dictators do, not necessarily tactics only Iraq used. Either way, it still shows my point, whether Saddam or Hitler or a country like North Korea, dictatorship methods are a world difference from American Foreign Policy.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Richard,
I'm sorry. I didnt mean to sound like I was jumping down your throat because of your choice of words. Your idea of westernization and mine are probably very different.
Alexa,
It wasnt a blanket statement. It was a statement of fact. What the Bush Administration has done to Iraq is UNJUST. Therefore, we represent injustice in their minds, and rightly so. The tyranny of capitalism is more covert than the blatant violations of human rights that Sadam subjected his people to, but we are still an invading force that is killing their children and sweeping away their way of life.
"If we were imposing our ideals as much as a dictator, we would crush the Iraqi civilization in fear," Have you been watching the news????? Do you know how many cities are terrorized by constant combat? "keep them in poverty, rape them of their resources (not just oil but taxing and keeping them in poverty)," So, we can rape them of their oil, the single most important aspect of their economy, but at least we cant tax them. "and have state institutionalized torture and rape chamber we make public to suppress and scare the population." Granted, we havent done this and hopefully never will "We would perfect our methods of killing individuals who disagree with us in gas chambers or test chemical and biological weapons on them.." Instead of perfecting our methods, we rely on old fashioned, proven blasting them with intense fire power. "I mean there is so much it is almost silly to debate" So much what? Contrast between U.S. occupation and the previous rulers? It should not be a matter of comparing how bad each one was. It is a matter of right and wrong, not degrees of wrong.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Just kidding... sortof.