Are the troops in the wrong place or...
 

Are the troops in the wrong place or is Kim just making the most of a good opportunity?

Does anyone see a parralel between this and events 60 years ago in the Pacific, oil embargo, military build up, American confidence, etc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2774003.stm

North Korea is doing everything they can to get some military attention from USA, but its just not working. They need better PR.

It is nearly identical to what we did to Japan pre Pearl Harbor.

btw, I heard on the news that North Korea now has a missle capable of carrying a nuclear warhead that can reach Los Angeles. This is new info apparently(before they had said they can reach Hawaii)

Anyone else heard this?

so they would kill all the silicone women & hippys?

we must stop them!!!!!!

yup and the CIA confirmed it last week, but I just cant see GFY getting nuked

I read that recently. Bush would probably secretly love them to nuke Los Angeles. He gets no love from California or New York - the two most powerful states. :)

It makes you really think what Bush's intentions are...I mean I already know what they are, but why the majority of the country is still behind this man is beyond me.

I Just hope Kim is not as crazy as he seems

and what do you suggest oh wise one. The north korea situation can be delt with diplomatically. Or do you want them to drop a nuke on seul and kill a few million people?

oh, that sounds like such a rhetorical question...How about Bush actually do something more than he has done...which is NOTHING.

What exactly has Bush done regarding North Korea? By the way, having Rice condeming North Korea on meet the press is not a good answer.

If North Korea had some oil, we would have already nuked Seoul

The Economist magazine had him on the cover with his hand up waving and the caption said "Hello Earthlings"

They do not currently have that capability.

LoL

They have a new untested long range missle that could reach the western united states.

They have never tested a missile with that range, period. Having a techonolgy with that kind of potential is one thing. Having a working technology is another.

War is ugly. Don't you agree? I think war is ugly. Sometimes unfortunately it is required. Iraq has had a good decade to comply with UN resolutions.

Ok let me explain here:

decade = 10 years
( when I say good decade I mean more then ten years.)

Iraq can't seem as a goverament to explain how, when, where the weapons have been destroyed. Wouldnt you expect a goverment to keep the status of their weapons? Enough to kill millions.

Millions = More then my entire family plus yours and my bitch.
A million equals alot!!!

A goverment who keeps arms of weapons of mass destruction needs to atleast keep record of them. And if they dont then that goverment should be removed for that reason alone. You can't say "hey I lost all my weapons of mass destruction!, Damn guys my bad!".
The issue in North korea needs a chance to be confronted diplomaticly. If the diplomatic approach fails then military force might be issued. Maybe in ten years after North Korea ignores the international community, people can protest yet another war. While they dont understand the big picture in the first place.

Today's letter is A as in apple

You know what bro? I agree 100%. Based on this argument, we should invade Iraq. Then, we should Invade Israel.

Yep, did you know Isael has never officially acknowledged that they have nuclear weapons? Nope, only country in the world that has nuclear weapons, but it has never been documented

When do you propose we invade Israel by the way Kenny? Who knows bro, since they aint keeping record, some might juust disapear and fall into enemy hands. I am thinking we should invade Iraq first, then Israel, but it's totaly up to you bro

GIMME A BIG FUCKIN' BREAK.....

YOUR ARGUMENT IS HOLLOW...........Israel has nukes to defend itself after being attacked numerous times by Arab countries who want nothing but their destruction, and pushing them into the ocean. They have nukes as deterent, as they should. Who the hell knows what kind of terrorist Iraq's WMDs will find it's way into...

If Israel proves hosyile towards other bording countries other then defense of their nation, then I agree! Israel isnt on the stand Iraq is. While it is easy to point fingers, try to keep on the subject on the issue at hand.
:winkwink:

I don't believe it. I think they'll have to prove it by using it. In which case, all of North Korea's cities would be turned into a glowing crater within hours.

my argument was based on Kenny's argument. Do you really think I am of the opinion to invade Israel? LoL

Please reread thread and try again. Thank you.

Whatever it was based on it is still hollow and weak

But Kenny, I was keeping on the subject...your subject
you stated that any country that does not disclose if it has nuclear weapons or not should be invaded and it's goverment removed. Look up a couple of posts, I even quoted you bro. Now, would you like to revise your 'policy' ?

btw, who really killed kenny? :Graucho

wait, my argument was based on your argument, which means if my argument was hollow(which I know it was) then your argument was hollow as well. I was simply trying to prove you wrong by making a hollow argument to show you how hollow your argument was. I will assume it worked

By United Nations law, the international community majority vote. The world has agreed that Iraq should disarm, <b>Iraq</b> not me not Israel. ABC and 123 it is that fucking easy!

Oh Kenny, why don't you just admit you made a mistake and spare yourself the dignity. Look, i'll even make this easier for you. look above, thats your quote....

your argument is(and I will quote) "a goverment who keeps arms of weapons of mass destruction needs to atleast keep record of them. And if they dont then that goverment should be removed for that reason alone."

Israel fits your definition 100%. When are we invading Israel? Or do you want to say something else(something like MetaformX, your right, my argument is flawed)

Also, if you are going to bring the internation community into this whole thing, that will make the argument AGAINST war that much stronger.

Turn on CNN bro, 70%+ of the world is against this war.
The world has agreed IRAQ should disarm. The world has agreed IRAQ should not be invaded. I would have assumed you knew this?

My statement isn't flawed. If Israel can't keep the staus and records of their weapons then in my opinion ( If I ruled the world ). Then they should be ordered to do so.
However this isnt the situation at hand. Iraq is on stand. Lets focus on that. Should we give Iraq another 10 years? Should we say fuck the UN resolutions, we do that for fun?

that 70% of the world is against the war is again a hollow argument........WWI....WWII.......most of the world lobbied for appeasment.....was popular opinion right? No!

If you look at who does support the U.S aside from U.K., it's Spain, Italy, Czech, Albania, Hungary, etc.....all countries who lived under authoritarian dictators fairly recently. They see Saddam for what he is: an oppressive dictator....

The international community is agaisnt this war not for Iraq's good track record, but they are agaisnt american super power. I dont speak for all of the nations, but alot. France comes to mind

wait, Spain and Italy have lived under "authoritarian dictators fairly recently"?? Comon, by that definition, every country would qualify...Your going back quite a bit in years to back up that statement...Now, Germany is opposed to this war. I am sure they would fit into your category. Russia is opposed. China is opposed. They all fit the same definition. How do you explain this?

Seoul is in South Korea, where 37 000 american troops are.

South Korea = Our friends.

You want to drop the bomb on Pyongyang.

But you don't want to do that either. Unless you want them to retaliate with hundreds of scuds missiles filled with conventionnal, chemical and biological agents at Japan and South Korea.

so the only reason the world leaders are opposed to this war is because they are against american super power?

So can you tell me why they were for the war in afghanastan? by your argument, they should have been against that war as well. Afterall, you don't want to the super power to have it's way, do you?

yeah, Kenny said Seoul, so I just went along with it. My bad :)

Lets not forget the topic at hand. Fuck a diplomatic approach towards North Korea. All they are trying to do is soak US money. Fuck giving then a dozen years like we have given Iraq. Fuck the diplomatic horse shit. Lets level them both. I could make this statement just as simple. But I am a man of peace and think North Korea can be handled in a diplomatic fashion. I dont think the same for Iraq.

More or less Kenny you are right.....but it's not the "international community"......governmentally it's the axis of appeasement: france, germany, russia, etc.....all who incidentally have MAJOR business dealings in IRAQ........They do a shitload of biz w/Iraq....and, yes, the U.S. still does, but not to the same extent....


More interesting fodder from the World Socialist Website....read about the European dilemma......it's not about pacifism or morality....it's about what in their mind is the pragmatic choice:


The European dilemma

Europe is divided on the issue of war. The much-touted ?common foreign policy? is in tatters. The British, the Spanish and the Italian governments, as well as several eastern European states, have thrown in their lot with Bush. No small factor in this decision is a desire to strengthen their position vis-à-vis Germany. France and Germany, on the other hand, are trying to curb the U.S. by diplomatic means.

This stance has nothing in common with a principled opposition to war. Neither the German nor the French government is questioning the right of the great powers to move against Iraq. Both have agreed to UN Resolution 1441, which poses an ultimatum to Iraq, threatening it with ?serious consequences.?




The international community is agaisnt this war not for Iraq's good track record, but they are against american super power. I dont speak for all of the nations, but alot. France comes to mind [/QUOTE]They merely fear that too strong an American dominance will inhibit their own interests in the region.

If the U.S. won?t be stopped, they are prepared to agree to a second UN resolution that sanctions war, so as not to miss out on the division of the booty. Both French President Chirac and German Foreign Minister Fischer have made remarks to that effect.

Germany and France are old imperialist powers that pursue their own global aims?as demonstrated by the recent French military intervention in the Ivory Coast. The aggressiveness of the U.S. has thrown them into a dilemma. If they bow to the dictates of the U.S., they renounce any independent role in international politics for a long time to come. If, however, they put up some resistance, they run the risk of grave conflicts with incalculable economic and military consequences.

The other side of the criticism they voice about U.S. war plans is the intensification of their own rearmament. In order to stand up to Washington, Europe has to be capable of military action on its own accord. The disagreements on the fate of Iraq are merely the harbinger of a direct and open conflict between the imperialist powers themselves.

This is why it is wrong to place hopes in the German or French government, as some sections of the peace movement do. Their call to ?give moral support? to Schröder, Fischer or Chirac against the US is futile. You cannot fight imperialism by supporting one imperialist power against the other.

It is equally wrong to leave the decision on war or peace to the UN. Whether or not the U.S. has the official sanction of the United Nations when it attacks Iraq will not alter the imperialist nature of this war. Far from representing the ?world community," the UN constitutes?like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other international institutions?a tool of the imperialist powers. It is employed by them to force their will upon the world?s people."


[QUOTE]Originally posted by kenny

fair enough. I just hope you guys realize that what Bush is doing will change War fare forever

No longer does a country have to be first attacked before it wages war on another country. You can now attack and wage war on ANY country, simply for what it might do in the future.

So get ready folks, the U.S. will set a precedent that will most likely be followed by others

China doesnt like taiwan, so what the hell, they will invade taiwan. U.S.A did it. what the fuck is U.S. gonna say?

North Korea doesnt like south Korea? What the hell, they will nuke south Korea.

Afghanistan was a country powered by a smack export and spawned terrorist training on top of that. Please dont switch the topic at hand towards another world affair. Lets focus on the issue at hand. Lets compare the united states approach towards Iraq with Noth Korea. Alot of people seem not to understand the difference between them. They seem to forget the previous effort and time invested in Iraq. Some actually think we should drop all the effort reguarding Iraq and strike North Korea without any diplomatic approach. Lets focus on that issue.

Look, I am focusing on the issues. You just keep changing your stance. You say the world is against this war because they wanna take a stance against the worlds superpower. So I say, if this is the case, why werent they against the war with afghanastan? I mean I am just countering your points.

There is no international law or american law preventing the US from striking Iraq tommorrow. The US is trying to gain world support to do so. The US is trying to build the case in front of the UN. I suppose if any of the situations you stated did the same it would be just.

and you know what the answer to my question is?
the answer is that afghanastan was a just war
Iraq is a unjust war
and someday you guys will learn that. Just not now I am afraid

the u.n. is very good at being worthless.........we should work with the international community (which we are doing), but don't give too much credence to the U.N. Does anyone really think they can do anything that's more than symbolic....

also...funny parody...unfortunately it's too true.....

N. Korea Wondering What It Has To Do To Attract U.S. Military Attention

PYONGYANG, NORTH KOREA?As the U.S. continues to inch toward war with Iraq, a jealous and frustrated North Korea is wondering what it has to do to attract American military attention.

"What does it take to get a few F-16s or naval warships deployed to the Yellow Sea?" North Korean president Kim Jong Il asked Monday. "In the past month and a half, we've expelled U.N. nuclear inspectors, withdrawn from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, restarted a mothballed nuclear complex capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium, and threatened to resume missile tests. You'd think that would be enough to get a measly Marine division or two on standby in the Pacific, but apparently not."

Kim said his nation is "way more deserving" of B-52 deployment than Iraq.

"Bush says his number one priority is eliminating weapons of mass destruction, but he sure doesn't act that way," Kim said. "Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction and may be developing more. The DPRK, on the other hand, does have weapons of mass destruction and isn't about to stop making them any time soon."

"Can I be any more clear?" Kim continued. "We have nuclear bombs and delivery methods. Kablooey! There goes Anchorage! But does Bush care? Nope?he just goes on about how we're 'a diplomatic issue, not a military one.' If he even mentions us at all, that is."

"It's like I don't even exist," Kim added.

In the nine years since coming to power, Kim has earned a reputation as a megalomaniac and tyrant, interring dissenters in camps, living in opulence while his citizens starve, and calling members of the North Korean navy "human bombs." In spite of such actions, he has failed to provoke the ire of the U.S.

After years spent trying to antagonize the U.S., relations between North Korea and America finally showed signs of deterioration in 2002, when, during his State of the Union address, President Bush accused the Asian nation of being part of an international "Axis of Evil." The provocative words, Kim said, sent his hopes of a military standoff with the U.S. skyrocketing.

"When Bush named us as part of his Axis of Evil, I was so happy," Kim said. "I thought to myself, 'This is it. We are finally going to have a military conflict with this two-faced hyena.' He'd been ignoring me so long, I really didn't think he cared."

Still, Kim's hopes for a U.S.-North Korea crisis quickly faded as Bush began to focus all of his energies on Axis of Evil member Iraq. In October 2002, Kim made yet another attempt to anger the U.S., admitting to enriching uranium in violation of a 1994 accord. The admission, however, did not produce the desired escalation in hostility.

Kim said he has not given up on attracting U.S. military attention, vowing to invade South Korea if necessary.

"I am by no means ready to quit, but this is very frustrating," Kim said. "I guess if your name's not Saddam, you're not worthy of America's hatred."

"Everyone in my country refers to me as 'Dear Leader.' Is that not disturbingly cultish?"Kim continued. "I do not understand why President Bush is so much more interested in Saddam than me. I'm a strange, despotic, unpredictable madman, too, you know."

I think there is another reason Jeremy; MONEY.
Eastern-European nations are rather poor, US financial "support" will most likely change their point of view and it did in this case.

This whole deal is going to cost the US billions of dollars they can't really afford to spend at the moment, not sure if that is a good development.

You are wrong.

Preemptive Strikes and International law - A preemptive strike would violate Articles 2 & 51 of the United Nations Charter.

"The Bush administration?s apparent resolve to wage war against Iraq, tempered for the moment by conservative critics...disregards the prohibitions on the use of force that are set forth in the UN Charter and
accepted as binding rules of international law." Or so says Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law and Policy at Princeton University


Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.


Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.


This is going to create a horrible mess between countries where they could be tempted to act like the United States. And trust me, there are a lot.

see my citation...

the U.N. is essentially useless.....

when is the last time they actually prevented a genocide.............Kosovo, Rwanda, ?????

I may be corrected. I swear I heard former president Clinton make that statement. However I agree, Countries that break international law or ignore it should be corrected.

That is your subjective opinion about the UN. And I was not arguing against that.

Your quote :

"There is no international law or american law preventing the US from striking Iraq tommorrow"

I rectified this incorrect statement. There is an international law preventing the US to attack Iraq tomorrow. And it's called the UN charter. You can't attack a country just because you think they are wrong. You need a consensus at the U.N. before doing any military action.

I was not asking you wether or not you think that the U.N. is effective.

But I respect your "subjective" opinion.

That wasnt his statement, it was mine. But hell even if the US did strike Iraq would it matter to the UN? They dont seem care if the rules are broken for is far as I can see.:1orglaugh

I am out for the night, later people. Good debate.