North Korea's at it again.....

Mort · Post by **Mort** » February 10, 2005, 12:15 pm

This is not good.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003 ... usat_x.htm

Ebumar · Post by **Ebumar** » February 10, 2005, 2:40 pm

There goes the neighborhood...

miir · Post by **miir** » February 10, 2005, 2:46 pm

North Korea's at it again.....

They never stopped being 'at it'

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 10, 2005, 4:57 pm

Interesting reading. Wonder what they'd say if Kerry was elected!

Following is the full text of a statement by North Korea's foreign ministry, as released in English by the North Korean news agency KCNA:

PYONGYANG, North Korea, Feb. 10 -- The DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement Thursday to clarify its stand to cope with the grave situation created by the U.S. hostile policy towards the DPRK.

The statement says:

The second-term Bush administration's intention to antagonize the DPRK and isolate and stifle it at any cost has become quite clear.

As we have clarified more than once, we justly urged the U.S. to renounce its hostile policy towards the DPRK whose aim was to seek the latter's "regime change" and switch its policy to that of peaceful coexistence between the two countries. We have closely followed with patience what policy the second-term Bush regime would shape after clarifying the stand that in that case it would be possible to solve the nuclear issue, too.

However, the administration turned down our just request and adopted it as its policy not to coexist with the DPRK through the president's inaugural address and the State of the Union address and the speech made by the secretary of state at the Congress hearing to get its approval, etc.

The remarks made by senior officials of the administration clarifying the official political stance of the U.S. contained no word showing any willingness to coexist with the DPRK or make a switchover in its policy towards it.

On the contrary, they have declared it as their final goal to terminate the tyranny, defined the DPRK, too, as an "outpost of tyranny" and blustered that they would not rule out the use of force when necessary.

And they pledged to build a world based on the U.S. view on value through the "spread of American style liberty and democracy."

The true intention of the second-term Bush administration is not only to further its policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK pursued by the first-term office but to escalate it.

As seen above, the U.S. has declared a new ideological stand-off aimed at a "regime change" in the DPRK while talking much about "peaceful and diplomatic solution" to the nuclear issue and the "resumption of the six-party talks" in a bid to mislead the world public opinion.

This is nothing but a far-fetched logic of gangsters as it is a good example fully revealing the wicked nature and brazen-faced double-dealing tactics of the U.S. as a master hand at plot-breeding and deception.

The DPRK has clarified its stand that it would not pursue anti-Americanism and treat the U.S. as a friendly nation if it neither slanders the political system in the DPRK nor interferes in its internal affairs. It has since made every possible effort to settle the nuclear issue and improve the bilateral relations.

However, the U.S. interpreted this as a sign of weakness, defiled the dignified political system in the DPRK chosen by its people and wantonly interfered in its internal affairs.

The U.S., turning down the DPRK's request to roll back its anti-DPRK hostile policy, a major stumbling block in the way of settling the nuclear issue, treated it as an enemy and, not content with this, totally rejected it, terming it "tyranny." This deprived the DPRK of any justification to negotiate with the U.S. and participate in the six-party talks.

Is it not self-contradictory and unreasonable for the U.S. to urge the DPRK to come out to the talks while negating its dialogue partner? This is the height of impudence.

The U.S. now foolishly claims to stand by the people in the DPRK while negating the government chosen by the people themselves. We advise the U.S. to negotiate with dealers in peasant markets it claims they are to its liking or with representatives of "the organization of North Korean defectors" on its payroll if it wishes to hold talks.

Japan is now persistently pursuing its hostile policy towards the DPRK, toeing the U.S. line.

Moreover, it fabricated the issue of false remains over the "abduction issue" that had already been settled in a bid to nullify the DPRK-Japan Pyongyang Declaration and stop any process to normalize diplomatic relations with the DPRK. How can we sit at the negotiating table with such a party?

It is the trend of the new century and wish of humankind to go in for peace, coexistence and prosperity irrespective of differing ideology, system and religious belief.

It is by no means fortuitous that the world people raise their voices cursing and censuring the Bush administration as a group pursuing tyranny prompted by its extreme misanthropy, swimming against such trend of the world.

We have shown utmost magnanimity and patience for the past four years since the first Bush administration swore in.

We can not spend another four years as we did in the past four years and there is no need for us to repeat what we did in those years.

The DPRK Foreign Ministry clarifies as following to cope with the grave situation created by the U.S. hostile policy towards the DPRK:

First. We have wanted the six-party talks but we are compelled to suspend our participation in the talks for an indefinite period till we have recognized that there is justification for us to attend the talks and there are ample conditions and atmosphere to expect positive results from the talks.

The present deadlock of the six-party talks is attributable to the U.S. hostile policy towards the DPRK.

There is no justification for us to participate in the six-party talks again given that the Bush administration termed the DPRK, a dialogue partner, an "outpost of tyranny." putting into the shade the hostile policy, and totally negated it.

Second. The U.S. disclosed its attempt to topple the political system in the DPRK at any cost, threatening it with a nuclear stick. This compels us to take a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system, freedom and democracy chosen by its people.

It is the spirit of the Korean people true to the Songun [military-first] politics to respond to good faith and the use of force in kind.

We had already taken the resolute action of pulling out of the NPT [nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] and have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK.

Its nuclear weapons will remain nuclear deterrent for self-defense under any circumstances.

The present reality proves that only powerful strength can protect justice and truth.

The U.S. evermore reckless moves and attempt to attack the DPRK only reinforce its pride of having already consolidated the single-minded unity of the army and people and increased the capability for self-defense under the uplifted banner of Songun.

The DPRK's principled stand to solve the issue through dialogue and negotiations and its ultimate goal to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula remain unchanged.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 10, 2005, 5:15 pm

very interesting... i wonder if them having nukes is actually going to deter us. if it is going to deter us, we should probably stop calling them names.

i can see bush concentrating elsewhere and avoiding them until his time runs out, and then someone else coming in and reconciling. but maybe that just makes too much sense.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » February 10, 2005, 5:17 pm

Better get your hair cut to N. Korean party standards before you read that. If not you will have a hard time following it since your brain isn't getting enough oxygen.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 10, 2005, 6:02 pm

I didn't have a problem following it...

Summary: Bush is evil. It's because of him we are building our nuclear arsenal.

Ebumar · Post by **Ebumar** » February 10, 2005, 6:08 pm

Wow - they really are asking for a third world war aren't they? We all know President Bush is trigger happy, they're goading him into attacking.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » February 10, 2005, 6:28 pm

Aslanna wrote:I didn't have a problem following it...

Summary: Bush is evil. It's because of him we are building our nuclear arsenal.

It was meant to be a joke.

Anyway...

I think N. Korea's leader would have more to worry about if President Bush wasn't insisting on having those other countries being involved in the talks.

If I were in his shoes I would be concerned if all I got from Washington was silence, but that isn't the case, now is it?

I think it's all a mass of rhetoric...

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 10, 2005, 6:30 pm

Typically, NK does things like this as a negotiation tool.

The thing to really worry about though is that they have been known to sell weapons to just about anyone...

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 10, 2005, 8:20 pm

North Korea has recognized that,

1. We don't like them;
2. Sometimes we invade countries we don't like;
3. We've never invaded a country with nukes.

Why wouldn't they do this?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 11, 2005, 12:07 pm

Ok, too busy to search for more info...

I just caught pieces of a news story that were talking about North Korea backing out of the 6 party talks due to the US, but they wanted 1:1 discussions with the US...

First, that makes little sense to me unless they felt that the other countries were making things harder for them by siding with the US. Even if that were the way it was, why wouldn't they want the 1:1 talks with someone else?

I am guessing that I may have missed an important part of the story.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 11, 2005, 12:10 pm

They have always wanted 1:1 talks. We refuse to speak to them unless it's a multi-party talk. That pisses them off more than anything, that they cannot even have a discussion with us without 4 other countries listening in.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 12, 2005, 9:14 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/inter ... korea.html

EIJING, Feb. 12 - State-controlled media and censored Internet chat rooms in China have become uncommonly critical of North Korea in the two days since it declared that it had nuclear weapons, even as the Foreign Ministry here has said fairly little

"A kitchen knife is used to cut food, but it can't be held by children and crazy people," one posting said. "This is why North Korea can't be allowed to hold nuclear weapons."

That idea drew support in Japan on Saturday from Robyn Lim, a Nanzan University professor influential in defense policy circles, who wrote in an essay: "The crisis will be resolved either by war or by regime change. Let's try for regime change."

sounds like a little bit of good news. can't remember where i heard it but word is the US is going to meat with NK one on one to move tword 6 party talks.

and, wouldn't a regime change mean war?

Thess · Post by **Thess** » February 13, 2005, 12:44 am

I think if Bush had not said in a speech that n. korea was an 'axis of evil' and also if he hadn't called n. korea's leader a pygmy - he would have better luck when it came to talks over nuclear weapons.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 13, 2005, 3:39 am

Kim Jong-il is a loon. (if he's even in power still)

North Korea is dying. They should have lost the Korean war. Who's faring better now? South or North Korea?

North Korea is going to implode and it's not the fault of the United States. They have no hope of developing any sort of economic model to make N. Korea competitive with the rest of the world as it stands now. That's their own fucking fault. Now you people want to negotiate with them because they're trying to bail themselves out by threatening the use of nuclear weapons? That's just great. You'll have countries lining up to make nukes if we give in to the North Koreans.

We need to deal with the nuclear threat as best we can and wait for the government to crumble. The only way the U.S. would negotiate some sort of agreement where N. Korea destroys it's nukes for food is if they change their goverment and hold real elections. (not ones where Kim Jong-il wins 100 percent of the vote and then shoots 18 holes-in-one on a par 72 course and then swims a thousand miles before dinner. North Korea is a joke. You people are a joke that are dying to sympathize with anytone that is at odds with the United States. North Korea deserves no pity from us and we have no reason to give in to nuclear blackmail by a failed regime.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » February 13, 2005, 4:14 am

I dont understand why they are all up in arms. Didnt they know Bush told us us invading Iraq and taking their nuclear weapons,made the world peaceful and safe?Why dont they listen to him? What a crazy guy that Kim is, playing around and stuff.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » February 14, 2005, 1:28 am

democratic peoples republic, sounds like a ripoff of congos peoples democratic republic...if a country has 3 names before its actual name, chances are you dont want to live there

Rivera Bladestrike · February 14, 2005, 2:09 am

I think Winnow hit the nail on the head.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 14, 2005, 2:23 am

I just wish ya'll would get moving w/ the laser sniper satelite (anyone else remember "Real Genius"?)

Thess · Post by **Thess** » February 14, 2005, 2:26 am

Zaelath wrote:I just wish ya'll would get moving w/ the laser sniper satelite (anyone else remember "Real Genius"?)

Star wars!

Rivera Bladestrike · February 14, 2005, 2:27 am

What a class 80s movie... I always watch Real Genius when its on.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » February 14, 2005, 2:46 am

speaking of the 80's...does anyone remember these?

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 14, 2005, 3:26 am

I'd just like to point out something that many of you seem to have forgotten. Clinton offered N. Korea all kinds of aid to stop their nuclear program- they agreed and were cheating on the agreement before the ink was even dry. That's right, before Bush invaded Iraq, before Bush said "axis of evil," before Bush was even a candidate. Those of you seriously buying into N. Korea's propoganda need to get a fucking clue.

Edit: And don't forget we've offered them security assurances if they're willing to scrap their nuke program. You'd think they'd take us up on the offer if the purpose of their nukes was to deter a US invasion.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 14, 2005, 4:21 am

Brotha wrote:And don't forget we've offered them security assurances if they're willing to scrap their nuke program. You'd think they'd take us up on the offer if the purpose of their nukes was to deter a US invasion.

Brotha the US has 0 credability these days. The world has just witnessed your government lie and invade another country for no reason.

If you were in charge of national security for either Iran or North Korea what would you do? Actually try to look at it from their perspective, pretend the US is the USSR if that helps your brainwashed mind cope. If either of these countries does not try to arm itself then it'll be a case of gross negligence.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 14, 2005, 4:24 am

Yes... Russia will protect you from the Chinese if you give them all your nukes; sound like the deal of the century to you?

I doubt anyone here is in favour of a lunatic like Kim having nukes, which only puts him a few votes behind Bush.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 14, 2005, 4:30 am

Forthe wrote:If you were in charge of national security for either Iran or North Korea what would you do? Actually try to look at it from their perspective, pretend the US is the USSR if that helps your brainwashed mind cope. If either of these countries does not try to arm itself then it'll be a case of gross negligence.

Did you read all of what I just wrote? N. Korea was cheating on the nuke deal and had every intention of acquiring and keeping nukes *gasp* before we invaded Iraq. Are you going to try to dispute any of that or just keep blindly blaming the US for everything? I think N. Korea has a bit more of a "credibility" problem than we do at this point.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 14, 2005, 5:02 am

Brotha wrote:
Forthe wrote:If you were in charge of national security for either Iran or North Korea what would you do? Actually try to look at it from their perspective, pretend the US is the USSR if that helps your brainwashed mind cope. If either of these countries does not try to arm itself then it'll be a case of gross negligence.
Did you read all of what I just wrote? N. Korea was cheating on the nuke deal and had every intention of acquiring and keeping nukes *gasp* before we invaded Iraq. Are you going to try to dispute any of that or just keep blindly blaming the US for everything? I think N. Korea has a bit more of a "credibility" problem than we do at this point.

Yes I read that part and if we were discussing this in the mid 90s I would be mostly agreeing with you. That was then and this is now, and just looking at this from a national security perspective then both Iran and NK would be fools not to arm themselves.

Consider Bush's talking points about not resting the security of the US on any foreign government or organization and all the unilateral stuff he stutters off that accompanies it. I'm sure all the right wingers agree 100% with that stance. However, now you expect other countries to rest their own national security on the one country that is a clear and imminent
threat to them? A country that has used nukes and has a history of invading other nations. Would you have agreed with your government not developing nukes if the USSR had given you security assurances?

North Korea doesn't have a "credibility" problem. They seem to be more than happy to stop playing, take their nukes and go home. The US is the country that wants something here.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 14, 2005, 5:25 am

You just don't seem to get the point I'm making. N. Korea has been deadset on having nukes since before our policy of pre-emption was even developed. Whether or not Bush had even been elected, N. Korea would still want to have nukes. Therefore, trying to say they wouldn't want nukes if it wasn't for Bush's policy of pre-emption doesn't make very much sense. I'm not sure how I can make it anymore clearer than that.

Personally, I think the only danger of us militarily striking Iran or N. Korea would be because of them developing nukes, so it would be kind of counter-productive if deterrence against us was their reason for developing them.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 14, 2005, 6:01 am

Brotha wrote:You just don't seem to get the point I'm making. N. Korea has been deadset on having nukes since before our policy of pre-emption was even developed. Whether or not Bush had even been elected, N. Korea would still want to have nukes. Therefore, trying to say they wouldn't want nukes if it wasn't for Bush's policy of pre-emption doesn't make very much sense. I'm not sure how I can make it anymore clearer than that.

I'm not arguing that they never wanted them before. I'm saying based on a national security argument they need them now. I would not have agreed with such an argument before Iraq.

Brotha wrote:Personally, I think the only danger of us militarily striking Iran or N. Korea would be because of them developing nukes, so it would be kind of counter-productive if deterrence against us was their reason for developing them.

There is always the danger that your government will make up some story to justify an invasion. Or maybe they'll just keep using the current line of spreading democracy and freedom.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » February 14, 2005, 10:04 am

have to love all these armchair quarterback comments from someone who lives in a country that has about zero influence on anything politically.

The US has zero credibility?

Danger of the United States making up some story to justify an invasion?

Forthe wrote: North Korea doesn't have a "credibility" problem.

Tell me again who is the one who is brainwashed?

Having spent time in South Korea on the DMZ, I can tell you without a doubt that North Korea is a very real threat to South Korea. This was before they admitted to having recently aquired nuclear weapons.

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » February 14, 2005, 10:20 am

"And what wourd your retter say Mr. Brix?"

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » February 14, 2005, 10:56 am

I believe the whole reason for "multiparty" talks is because N. Korea effects those countries a lot more than the U.S. is effected by them.

I mean, South korea, China, Japan, and Russia will be just as much affected by what NK does, as the U.S....even if NK attacked the US directly (I can never see this happening)...but the fallout from the war that ensues would greatly affect those countries.

I agree with the stance that they are foot stomping to get us to back down, and just let sleeping dogs lie...but we have commitments to South Korea that we cannot just shut off....hence why the US is forcing the issue of multiparty talks.

Besides, does anyone think China won't just mow them down if they were to attack someone with nuclear weapon? I for one think China would not want them as a neighbor if they angered the world with a nuclear strike.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » February 14, 2005, 11:02 am

Yes Forthe, the world just listened to us lie and illegally invade another country to further one man's goals. Because of this, the UN has put sanctions on us, the EU refuses to negotiate anything but an immediate cease and desist from all activities in Iraq, Canada is drowning from a swarm of anti-war US refugees, a movement is underway to depose the president of the US and put him in jail, and right this very moment, the armed forces of 25 different countries are mobalizing to push us out of Iraq and back home to our greedy, hateful, lieing, untrustworthy shores.

oh wai--

If anyone is lacking in credability, it's the UN. It's the countries that 'opposed' the war but let it happen. It's the countries that did nothing to even try to stop us other than wave paper and empty threats at us.

As per NK having 'less' credability than the US, that's just a bad joke.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 14, 2005, 11:11 am

Are you saying other countries should of used force against the US to prevent the war? Are you joking? Are you this delusional? I'm sorry, but not going to war to help the US with their little revenge thing is the only way other countries can protest.

Usually one person doesn't notice his/her own flaws so no, the US doesn't have much credIbility right now, but I wouldnt say less than North Korea though, that's just silly.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 14, 2005, 12:38 pm

The USA is the agressor.

It is still not your job to go about 'liberating' everyone, no one buys it. Wrong.

FOR LIEBENSRAUM!

The US has FUCK ALL REAL credibility in foreign affairs, certainly not in Britain (your main ally haha), why? Not because my country has little political influence (although being a part of the UK I'd say that remark is questionable when it is usually brandished towards me), not because I don't fucking wank over the star spangled banner and not because George Bush looks like the devil but because you morons think it's ok to shove your Western flawed morally bankrupt agenda down everyone elses throats without taking the time to consider the implications of what your lack of respect for humanity actually means.

Ignore the realities of the situation in the climate you create or you pay the price through 9/11 style attacks, haven't you fucking cretins realised this?

Man with opinions like those above from the deluded just go to show why Bin Laden attacked in the first place/why N Korea wants nukes/why the world laughs and cries when they hear you.

You are an insult to evolution.

Evil stupid scumbags.

Now watch as useless pro freedom (read opression) hysteria gets all hot and bothered and invades anyone who doesn't get down and bow the to the might of the good ol U'S'A!

Akaran in particular seems to have completely lost his fucking mind, do you realise what absolute shit you are spewing? I don't think I have heard a more spun opinion in my all days here. get a fucking clue.

WAA WA ITS THE U.N'S FAULT THEY DIDNT STOP US INVADING AND KILLING WE ARENT GUILTY..

Only you and your brand of particularly empty brained self righteous egomaniacs could come up with something so utterly devoid of truth.

Disclaimer: This had few constructive points save some highlighting of home truths, but at least it was less destructive than Akaran and co, which is more a sign of the stupid age we have now entered. I feel for us all. This is actually really tragic and angering that people assume it is 'normal' to think this way.

Ever heard of peace and diplomacy? Just because the US is bored of it doesn't mean you have the right to turn into bloodthirsty fucking psychos, no one buys the fake smile plastered on to cover up the sharpened teeth.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 14, 2005, 12:47 pm

we are not an aggressor to the peoples of the world... we are a liberator.

we are aggressors to the rulers of tyranny.

we have much respect for humanity, otherwise we would probably let everyone else kill themselves while we kept all of our money in the country.

you are a bitter and foul anti-american zealot... sad..

we have not been attacked since 9/11 and bin ladens network has been so marginalized they can't even produce video tapes anymore.

human freedom is not a 'western flawed morally bankrupt agenda'... it's the simple principle this country was founded upon.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 14, 2005, 1:04 pm

we are only interested in spreading freedom where it is politically expedient for us to do so.

We will continue to support the corrupt totalitarian monarchy in Saudi Arabia because we have a stable and critical oil supply with them.

We support Musharef in Pakistan who has elections that aren't a whole lot more democratic than Saddam's were.

We are only at odds with the former Iraqi government and the current Iranian government because they stopped cooperating as puppet regimes installed by the CIA (revolution in the case of Iran that overthrew the corrupt Shah).

I think that Iraq's new government will be much better than the old one for the majority of the people there. Hopefully, it will be much better for our interests.

Remember our Marines installing gold bath fixtures back in the palaces of the Kuwaiti ruling elites?

Our agenda in the region only includes spreading freedom as a byproduct of installing military security to oil supply as well as stifling the spread of anti-Western ideology.

If we can accomplish those goals without "spreading freedom" in a particular country, then we will take that route.

Has anyone heard any talks of economic sanctions with the non-Democratic states of: Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, etc?

No, some of them are even getting the military bases and the resultant cash flow that were in Saudi Arabia. I'm not even saying that doing business with those countries is "wrong". I'm simply trying to point out an example, that in my mind demonstrates that the "spreading freedom" slogan is primarily just that, a political slogan at best. Propaganda at worst.

Good for the people who get democracy. Bad for those who die in the process. Bad for those who continue to live in a suppressed state because militarily our goals are achieved with the status quo.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 14, 2005, 2:32 pm

Why make things complicated?

Non U.S. citizens seem to think the United States can feed the world and has the capability of forcing democracies in every nation of the world.

The truth is we only want a steady, safe, reliable, reasonably priced flow of oil from the middle east. We want to control the proliferation of nuclear arms to limit the damage caused by terror attacks. We contribute the most money toward world relief from both government and civilian sources yet foreigners only want more and expect us to do it all it seems. We focus on countries that will help our security and econimic stability first (well no shit. it's not going to help much if while feeding starving babies in overpopulated africa, our economy collapses due to negligence in containing radicals interested in cutting off our oil supplies). We still do send aid to countries that don't impact our national security though.

I'm wise enough to know that the U.S. is primarily out for it's on interests in security and economic stability. I can also see that we do our part to help in world affairs when it comes to disaster relief. I can understand the frustration of countries that are on the sidelines trying to quarterback the game yet can only hold a clipboard.

The United States has zero chance of making everyone happy.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » February 14, 2005, 3:23 pm

Are you saying other countries should of used force against the US to prevent the war? Are you joking? Are you this delusional? I'm sorry, but not going to war to help the US with their little revenge thing is the only way other countries can protest.

Bullshit. If we're the evil, tyrannical monster that the posters on this board make us out to be, we're almost as bad as the next Reich. What happened to the defense treaties, the security council, the organizations that decide that if one third world country is invading another that it's not something that will be stood for you stop it? Where are the sanctions?

Akaran in particular seems to have completely lost his fucking mind,

Lost it years ago Teeny.

WE ARENT GUILTY

Did I ever say we weren't? I believed the WMD speech. I don't believe it now. Am I sad that we invaded the country? No - it needed to be done and done right ages ago. Unfortunately, we can only act when we have economic advantages of doing so... but then again, economics has been one of the largest reasons of war since the dawn of time.

What you fail to realize is that non action = compliance. Your leaders didn't do anything to stop us aside from not helping us. Ok. That's like having a guy ask you to help comit murder and you refuse - but you don't try to stop it. If your government didn't honestly believe that on some level the world would be a better place without Saddam, they would install sanctions and begin legal proceedings through the UN if they didn't simply come to the aid of the dictator to begin with.

The UN does it all the time. They stop genocides. They intervene in wars. If what we did was a truly bad thing, why the hell didn’t someone try to stop us?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 14, 2005, 3:29 pm

Because we're like the one of the most powerful countries in the world, and the economic dificulties of sanctioning us would be devastating to them as well?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 14, 2005, 3:43 pm

Akaran_D wrote:If what we did was a truly bad thing, why the hell didn’t someone try to stop us?

We tried, the entire world told you what you did was wrong but you chose to stick your fingers in your ears and bomb the shit out of them.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » February 14, 2005, 3:51 pm

You missed th epoint, Lynks. After you realized that our leaders were going to ignore your words... where was the next step?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 14, 2005, 4:05 pm

Attack you and get our ass whooped?
Tell your parents?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 14, 2005, 4:06 pm

what exactly are you suggesting France, China, or Russia do?

go to war with the US over Iraq? obvioulsy that is completely unrealistic.

Block trade and cripple their own industries?

China is already fucking us so hard by artificially deflating their currency.

Also, iraq simply isnt *that* important to the interests of these other countries where some sort of drastic action like that would make sense to them.

But they have done real things that have had real effects on our policy. They have not contributed to the peacekeeping efforts or rebuilding efforts in ways that would substantially defray costs to the US taxpayer.

miir · Post by **miir** » February 14, 2005, 4:30 pm

Yup, basically the US is footing the proverbial bill (in monetary and personel losses).

Not to mention the substantial strain that the Bush administration has placed on international relations. In hindsight, waiting a few months for the inspectors to finish their jobs would have been prudent...

The US is now scrambling to repair relations with their 'traditional' European and Internaitonal allies... it will take years to mend those fences. The expenditure of tens of billions of dollars and tens of thousand human lives is getting increasingly more difficult to justify.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » February 14, 2005, 5:20 pm

Forthe wrote:I'm not arguing that they never wanted them before. I'm saying based on a national security argument they need them now.

Are you out of your mind? Why on earth would anyone invade N Korea? Even the Chinese don't like them. Spreading "freedom" (or at least stability) only extends to places where the cost benefit works out in someone's favor.

No one cares about N Korea, they have nothing to worry about from other nations, as they have nothing that anyone wants or needs. Containment of the insanity that goes for a govt there is about the extent of it. Other than a (potential) nuclear threat, they aren't worth considering. They already had the worlds largest standing army or close to it from all reports, they still weren't a concern.

The US going into 1:1 talks with N Korea would be about as smart as being alone in the copier room with the unattractive lady who accuses everyone with sexual harrasment. He's trying to get the US in 1:1 talks to try and extort something out of us, with no one else watching. That way when he reneges on it 6 months later he can cry foul, again.

*Edit-

Lynks wrote:We tried, the entire world told you what you did was wrong but you chose to stick your fingers in your ears and bomb the shit out of them.

No, the part of the world that was owed money by Sadaam's regime complained. The rest was fairly quiet and\or irrelevant to the discussion.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 14, 2005, 5:41 pm

Here's the clip you know you all wanted. Send the VVs my way...

http://kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID= ... vies&NSFW=

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » February 14, 2005, 5:43 pm

documentary of the year imo

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 14, 2005, 5:48 pm

Aabidano wrote:No, the part of the world that was owed money by Sadaam's regime complained. The rest was fairly quiet and\or irrelevant to the discussion.

Thats the problem right there. Those who complained you brushed off as insignificant or the enemy.