North Korea admits it has nuclear weapons!
 

BREAKING NEWS

North Korea says it will not participate in six-party nuclear talks and claims for first time it has nuclear weapons. Details soon.

www.cnn.com

Wonder how Bush is going to handle this one?

:1orglaugh

I dont think he gives a shit, there's nowhere near as much oil in North Korea as there is in the middle east :)

it won't get handled, he wants the oil

He will forget about it and move to another oil-country, and forget yet another bitchslap from Kimmy lol...

How will any of the other five nations that were commited to a nuclear-free North Korea handle it?

How will China handle it? Surrounded by nuclear powers; Russia to the North, India and Pakistan to the west and North Korea - if they can be trusted, to the east.

More nuclear weapons = more diplomacy.

If you outlaw weapons of mass destruction only outlaws will have weapons of mass destruction.

ahaha

Funny. I'm asking these questions to see where you are coming from ...

So do you disagree with the United Nations, the world community and the IAEA? Do you think the United Nations/IAEA should attempt to enforce its agreements? Why do you ask what Bush will do when it is agreements with the international community that are being violated? Do you think the international community is powerless and lacks the will to enforce them? Do you think it would be better to disband those organizations as ineffective?

I can't see it happening either. His sights are set on Iran.

Oh man, what a long shot, who could have known North Korea had nukes?? :1orglaugh

Why can't countries withdraw from international agreements? Why is it okay for the USA to have weapons of mass destruction for the purposes of defence but not other nations?

I see these nuclear non-proliferation agreements as one sided agreements that only serve the interests of the west. I don't blame them from withdrawing. The USA has shown itself to be a bloodthirsty aggressor and I understand their defesive posturing. Nations are sovereign entities. Why shouldn't they be entitled to utilize nuclear power or develop nuclear weapons as a deterrant to being attacked?

I've never seen you use such an argument to defend the US, only to criticize it. You could very well use such a belief to defend US policy. Why in all the years of reading your posts have I not seen such a thing? If the US is a sovereign nation does it have a right to torture its political prisoners held on its own soil? Do you have any problem whatsoever with its refusal to not ratify the Kyoto protocol?

You criticize US policy on damned near everything. With a few years as evidence I don't think you've ever said "The US is a sovereign country. It can do what it wants". Let's see. Drug laws and enforcement, education, law-making, politics? When have you used this argument to defend the US?

Where did I say that any sovereign nation can do what it wants? Please don't put words into my mouth.

I'm saying that I don't think that it's unreasonable for a country to develop nuclear power as an alternative power source or nuclear weapons as a deterrant to attack. Especially when countries like Israel and the USA are entitled to have them. And Iran and North Korea are certainly under threat from attack by the USA. I understand their position. They want some leverage and I hope they get it.

His American wife committed suicide because of him. He has deeply rooted pychological issues.

I think it is unreasonable, Joe. I am opposed to all nuclear weapons myself. I don't think the US should have them either. I don't see where the strategy of letting all nations have them in the supposed interest of "self-defense" is a step in the right direction. It's a MAD world. I think "mutual assured destruction" will only lead to "mutual assured destruction".

?????????

In theory, I agree with you. I think the world would be a better place without nuclear weapons too but I don't think it's ever going to happen.

The cat's been out of the bag a little too long now, don't you think?

Wankstains answer this

If bush went to iraq for the massive supply of oil, why has the price of oil gone up? and why is the USA having to seriously consider using its own oil.....

doesnt make sense to me?
Evn

I have nuclear weapons too.

http://cotac.com/serge/

Glad to see Stalin's spirit is still living on hey Joe? You must be pretty proud of your communist friends in North Korea.

Why in hell would he steal oil for the profit of his country if he can just jack the price up and control oil deposits for decades to come?

Some people just dont get it

we all knew that they had them, they just wouldn't admit it . If they are going to use them, they will.. We can not stop them.

so so true

I think this is true... Why not....

You don't just go there and "get oil"

Oil doesn't just fall out of the ground

N Korea can't reach the US with nukes. The US will use diplomacy to economically subjugate N Korea long before they CAN reach the US.
If the world doesn't go along with it, it really won't matter. Korea is a time bomb that will blow before they can reach the US with a warhead. If the other 5 countries can't defuse the bomb, so be it, they'll learn a good lesson.

oh, and its amusing to see how the uneducated among us thing that war for oil is a bad thing.
try living without if for a month. you'll be dead, geek. :1orglaugh

you mean he would attack someone who can fight back..? :warning

there are many other forms of energy

I think the US soldiers in Iraq have expererienced very well that even the poorly equipped resistance can fight back hard.

you know what i ment.

Because Iraq's oil has been taken off the market. Attacking the country had something to do with that.

Absolutely true. The only problem I have is Bush's arguement that Iraq was a "grave and growin threat" when it wasn't and that the DPRK is.

Prince Charles to marry Camilla Parker Bowles ?

I think that NC is now the first real enemy of the USA.. Bush is wetting his pants because he is scared to death

Fun is starting!

Yes they can reach the US with nukes, the missile they fired over Japan a couple of years ago could hit Alaska and Hawaii with a nuke and it's widely considered among security experts that they have developed a missile that can strike the US west coast.

shh, just let 12dicks talk tough and remain ignorant. He wouldn't be funny if he knew anything.

sure there are kid, just nothing that can run the whole country.

oh look, the idiot came out to play. :1orglaugh

:1orglaugh

wrong. what did Bush name as the axis of evil? Iraq, Iran, N. Korea was it?
looks like he actually knew something, eh?

Iraq was a threat and our military was already there. easy choice.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...ub=CTVNewsAt11
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3531956.stm
http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=10053

I see "if" "could" "might" but if the world had a backbone, they could be starved into submission in months.
It's all about the world having no backbone.
Best thing that could happen is for them to fire an untested missile at us and it miss.
kentucky fried korea :winkwink:

Good lord you really need to stop watching television. Seriously, 2 weeks without it and your mind will start functioning properly.

haha, proved yourself wrong with a quick google search, rough. Nice backpedal though. You should really be a politician in a redneck state with a very, very stupid population. Not an insult, you'd win.

You missed my point. But anyway out of the 3 in Bush's "Axis of Evil" (muhahaha) which one do you thing deserved attention first? Out of the 3 Iraq was the weakest. Is that why they were attacked? Iraq - at the height of their power - couldn't defeat Iran in the 70s and 80s with the active support of the United States. So what makes them this "grave and growing" danger which Bush referred to? Could you clarify why Iraq posed a danger more tangible than the one the DPRK represents?

You're giving 12clicks waaaay too much credit. I don't even think he knows who the original WWII axis was.

This is so scary, I hope we or our children never see this.

don't take this the wrong way but you're confused.

no I didn't. you chose not to like my answer.
No, they were attacked because we were still at a state of war with them, they weren't living up to their surrender agreement and the people you are currently at war with are ALWAYS far more dangerous then the people you're not at war with.
look up the word active. they sold arms to iraq.
I just did. but to expand on it so that even the idiots like Bich can understand, Our military, allies, and oil supply were all in danger for an iraq who, although having surrendered, was not disarming or abiding by the surrender agreement.

you gotta love the argument the rabble brings to the table to refute what I say :1orglaugh

I often wonder how boring (but more intelligent) this board would be if the idiots had any self awareness.
:1orglaugh