Why Bush is a coward

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 4, 2003, 5:22 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:the korean war was a joint deal between the US, UK, Canada and Australia. The commonwealth was mostly there in support roles and some combat however, because they weren't as paranoid about communism.

Does not seem like just some combat to me

Facts on Canada's Involvement in the Korean War

North Korea's invasion of South Korea marked the first open act of aggression since the establishment of the United Nations.

Over 26,000 Canadians served in the Korean War.

The Royal Canadian Navy was the first branch of Canada's forces to provide aid to the UN Forces in Korea.

Over 516 Canadians lost their lives during the Korean War, 378 of whom are buried at the United Nations Memorial Cemetery at Tanggok, a suburb of Pusan.

Canada made a larger contribution in proportion to its population than most of the nations which provided troops for the international force.

I guess what im trying to find out is, Was the Nuke Treaty a Treaty between the USA and NK or a treaty between the UN and NK.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 4, 2003, 5:26 pm

Look at that 3 0f 2

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 4, 2003, 5:28 pm

do you mean the nuclear non-proliferation act? because that is pretty much international.

and yeah canada is in it, obviously.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 4, 2003, 5:29 pm

The NPA was an agreement between a LOT of countries and the UN.

The Agreed Framework is an agreement between the US, South Korea, Japan and the NK. This is the one you hear about all the time.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 4, 2003, 5:32 pm

When the dipshits hit the floor I stand alone? Is that a compliment or a flame?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 4, 2003, 5:37 pm

Zamtuk wrote:When the dipshits hit the floor I stand alone? Is that a compliment or a flame?

STFU your alone

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 4, 2003, 5:39 pm

Fallanthas wrote:The NPA was an agreement between a LOT of countries and the UN.

The Agreed Framework is an agreement between the US, South Korea, Japan and the NK. This is the one you hear about all the time.

So if everyone was involved was it or was it not everyones responsability to make sure the treaty was upheld to its intent.

Ok case solved lock the thread, Elvis has left the board

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 4, 2003, 5:43 pm

Ok case solved lock the thread

Scooby Doo & Shaggy < Cartalas

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 4, 2003, 5:43 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Ok case solved lock the thread
Scooby Doo + Shaggy = Cartalas

Scooby Dooby DOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 4, 2003, 5:45 pm

You posted before my edit. The way I had it originally, you would be some freak offspring of a mating between Scooby and Shaggy...

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 4, 2003, 5:50 pm

Cart,

The DPRK has been in violation of the NPA since at least 1992. Head over to the IAEA website and check it out.

They are pissed now because the US refused to sign off this year that they were in compliance when they haven't been for almost a decade.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » March 4, 2003, 6:01 pm

While President Bush is preparing to attack Iraq for it's noncompliance with the U.N. resolutions, he also is giving Israel billions of our tax dollars to continue occupying Palestinian lands in violation of U.N. resolutions.

Israel refuses to allow international observers to enter the occupied territories. Daily, the Israeli army commits crimes against humanity in Palestine and our "free" press does not dare to report the whole story.

Bush has given Israeli leader Ariel Sharon the green light to finish the Palestinians. The public-relations firms the Jewish lobby has hired have been very successful in dehumanizing the Palestinians and justifying their killing, confiscating their lands and pulling up their 500-year-old olive trees.

One wonders how could this happen? It is simple. Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams and other top White House advisers are all American Zionists, and they plan our policy in the Middle East, including the war on Iraq, to benefit Israel at the expense of our national security.

The Arabs love the American people but they hate our government's biased policies and double standards.

Nabil Wahbeh

Richmond

Can anyone confirm or deny this (This being the U.S. is supporting Isreal who is in violation of U.N. resolutions by remaining in certain occupied lands) with proof? Found it in an free public response section of a newspaper.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 4, 2003, 6:05 pm

I'd say it's true, Acies.

The United States stance on Israel is not a logical one, it's based on emotion and the fact that there just isn't a better option at the moment.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 4, 2003, 6:07 pm

Damnit this Thread was suppose to be Locked.

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » March 4, 2003, 6:13 pm

Acies, where did you get your article? The term "American Zionists" scream White Power groups to me. They are the only people I ever see pushing the Zionists as a conspiratorial group that runs policy, movie industry, banking, etc.

Please tell me you are not taking that seriously.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » March 4, 2003, 6:23 pm

Got it here bro:
Letter

like I said, this is someone's opinion.
As for the word Zionist, I really do not pay much heed to it.
As to belief, nope, do not believe everything I read, but neither do I dismiss it.
It would be foolish to think our government is not capable of it, hell that is minor is comparison to some of the shit I can rightly tag on the government, but still, just looking for confirmation one way or the other on the Israel in violation of U.N. reso's themselves.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 4, 2003, 6:30 pm

Just remember that situation goes both ways, Acies.

The palestinians are not the guys in the white hats or the pitiful victims that piece would like to paint them as.

From teh zionist comment and the tone of the piece I would say it's a palestinian immigrant writing.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 4, 2003, 6:38 pm

what do you mean zionist comment?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 4, 2003, 6:41 pm

Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defense secretary, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams and other top White House advisers are all American Zionists

[/b]

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 4, 2003, 6:41 pm

what is wrong with calling someone a zionist?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 4, 2003, 6:45 pm

It's generally used as a term of derision.

It's usually seen from white supremacy groups and those who see Israel and Jews as the enemy.

You haven't run across this before, Kyou?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 4, 2003, 6:49 pm

there is nothing wrong with calling someone a zionist. just because a hate group blames everyone on zionism doesnt mean zionism is derogatory.

it is a perfectly valid dogma. there is even a zionist political party in israel.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 4, 2003, 6:58 pm

Well, in the States it isn't used, except in a deragatory manner.

/shrug

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 4, 2003, 7:06 pm

Sure it is. There is a zionist lobby group in Washington.

I'm curious; do you know anything?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 4, 2003, 7:13 pm

Hrmm, looking around a bit it seems there are a lot of zionist organizations down here.

As for me not knowing anything, I knew enough not to fuck up and blame the US for not financing those reactors.

**edit** Zionist is also used all the time by white supremacy groups. The Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG) is one of their favorite straw dogs.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » March 4, 2003, 7:17 pm

You know, I was hangin with an old friend of mine of Sunday (Old school may remember him best as Garbad) and the topic came up about sex in Vegas.
Well, coversation shifted from hookers, to quality hookers and finally to the best women you ever had, and the notorious 10's.
So I asked him if he ever made love to a 10.
He stated "Nope, but once when I got really hammered I had five 2's. That count?"

/derail

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » March 4, 2003, 7:20 pm

Look at that quote again. It names several people within the Adminstration and claims they are Zionists. I think if you look up the bios on these people, it is not going to claim they are that. The way the term was used was meant to be derogatory. The author of letter that was quoted clearly has an agenda he is pushing. By labeling them Zionists, he moved to strengthen his claim.

Yes I know there are Zionist political action committees. However, look through any of the scads of Hate Propaganda put out by white supremacists groups and you will see the term "zionist" thrown around OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS. For the white supremacists, it has the same connotation as "nigger" or "wetback" or "homo".

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 4, 2003, 7:52 pm

/Wave I started page 3

Masekle · Post by **Masekle** » March 4, 2003, 8:46 pm

Zamtuk wrote:When the dipshits hit the floor I stand alone? Is that a compliment or a flame?

Bah! Dont worry your little head over it, just fall in line

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 4, 2003, 8:50 pm

Adelrune Argenti wrote:Look at that quote again. It names several people within the Adminstration and claims they are Zionists. I think if you look up the bios on these people, it is not going to claim they are that. The way the term was used was meant to be derogatory. The author of letter that was quoted clearly has an agenda he is pushing. By labeling them Zionists, he moved to strengthen his claim.

Yes I know there are Zionist political action committees. However, look through any of the scads of Hate Propaganda put out by white supremacists groups and you will see the term "zionist" thrown around OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS. For the white supremacists, it has the same connotation as "nigger" or "wetback" or "homo".

maybe so, but saying that an author of something is racist based solely upon him using the term 'zionism' is an incorrect assumption.

you can ask me who the first jewish settlers were in palestine post WW1 and I can tell you that it was zionists without appearing to be an anti-semite.

zionism is merely an ideology. the fact people use it as a slur is no different than when americans blame "the muslims" for terrorist attacks.

most people who use zionism as a slur, except for in the middle east, probably don't even know what a zionist is.

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » March 4, 2003, 8:54 pm

No argument on them not knowing what it means, Kyou. I am only pointing out that it is used OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS in rhetoric of white supremists. The letter it was taken from raised red flags to me in that regard.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » March 4, 2003, 8:56 pm

Interesting Kyo,

You mention that NK started up their nuclear program again in response to failed delivery on the allie's (USA, SK, Japan etc.) part.

If this was so, why did they hide their nuclear program?

I mean if you're firing up some action in protest, isn't the first thing you do is be public about what your protesting?

They had no intention of stopping their nuclear development, and if along the way they could lie to Jimmy Carter and the Clintonians to get some free food and oil, then what the hey why not sign some silly little agreement and milk the enemy for free stuff for as long as you can?

Hey if I was a moral-unbound dictatorship that's what I'd do.

wadana · Post by **wadana** » March 4, 2003, 8:59 pm

haha gotta love this

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 4, 2003, 9:05 pm

They were hiding it because they were in violation of the non-proliferation act.

Nobody is saying DPRK is totally innocent. All I am saying is that there are two sides to every story. Merely thinking that DPRK signed an agreement with the pacific rim and then completely ignored it because they are evil malcontents who are screwing the other participants in the Agreed Framework is false.

And the US has never given food or money to NK. Europe and Asia has. The united states and DPRK are still technically at war you know.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » March 4, 2003, 9:34 pm

For the first time I agree with Kyou, so that can only mean I do not have all of the facts.

j/k heh.

Badabidi · Post by **Badabidi** » March 5, 2003, 12:05 am

Bush and Saddam are cool with each other now

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 5, 2003, 7:41 am

Since Miir is going pro-Iraq, I'm going pro-France.

As far as history goes, Israel has ignored and violated several resolutions.

Resolution 487:

History can teach us, but what really matters is the present and the future. If the UN votes against war or even if a security council nation vetoes a war and the US invades anyway, what will be the outcome? Will the U.N. become another League of Nations and an eventual world war erupt?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 5, 2003, 9:13 am

I was thinking about that today. I heard Ari Fleischer (that fucking glib little worm) on the radio today saying that Bush is ready to walk away from the security council if he doesn't get his way.

If he invades a foreign country without consent of the security council, isn't the UN obligated to defend that country?

It also amused me to hear that Bush is going to take his ball and go home if he doesn't get what he wants. It's kind of sad to see the president of the united states do the political equivalent of throwing an international tantrum. I guess that is what happens when you are the son of a billionaire who's had everything he's ever gotten handed to him on a silver plate.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 5, 2003, 9:28 am

It makes the US a pariah state. I think we should learn from history and stop trying to appease this aggressor.

Anyway WTF happened to the "walk softly" part? All I see big-stick-waving.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 5, 2003, 10:55 am

Xyun wrote:Since Miir is going pro-Iraq, I'm going pro-France.

As far as history goes, Israel has ignored and violated several resolutions.

Resolution 487:

History can teach us, but what really matters is the present and the future. If the UN votes against war or even if a security council nation vetoes a war and the US invades anyway, what will be the outcome? Will the U.N. become another League of Nations and an eventual world war erupt?

Cool Xyun is French, now is the time to Debate with him, He will surrender

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 5, 2003, 10:56 am

I can see the Debate now:

Cartalas: Xyun!!!! The French Suck!!!!

Xyun: Ok I surrender

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 5, 2003, 11:14 am

And the US has never given food or money to NK. Europe and Asia has. The united states and DPRK are still technically at war you know

Nope. All we give em is around a billion dollars worth of heavy oil a year.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 5, 2003, 11:15 am

France decided to ban fireworks at Euro-disney over the weekend. Apparently, one of the displays caused a nearby French army unit to surrender.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 5, 2003, 11:27 am

Here's a non American view:

Pyongyang, December 28 (KCNA) -- The DPRK decided to lift the
temporary freeze of its nuclear facilities to cope with the United States'
decision to stop the supply of heavy oil to the DPRK from Dec. which had
been under way under the DPRK-U.S. Agreed Framework (AF).
And it twice urged the International Atomic Energy Agency to remove monitoring cameras
and seals from its nuclear facilities. Instead of accusing the U.S. of its
unilateral and extreme acts of ditching the AF by stopping the supply of
heavy oil to the DPRK, the IAEA has gone the length of clamoring about the
DPRK's "serious violation" to please the United States and threatening to
bring it to the un security council.

As the IAEA paid no heed to the DPRK's warning, it was compelled to
remove the seals and monitoring cameras from its nuclear facilities by
itself to make up for the loss of electricity and make preparations for
electricity production.

This is the DPRK's inviolable sovereign right.
Nevertheless, the United States and its followers are busy with
issuing what they called "statements" and expressing "concern" with a hue
and cry over "serious threat" and "violation of international commitment".

This row compels the DPRK to clarify once again who is chiefly to
blame for breaching the international agreement.

The DPRK's freeze of its nuclear facilities and the U.S. supply of
heavy oil to it were simultaneous actions taken under the AF.

The U.S. supply of heavy oil was neither aid nor humanitarian aid to
the DPRK. This was done in return for the DPRK's freeze of its nuclear
facilities that had produced electricity.

It is the height of folly for the United States to think that the DPRK
would maintain the freeze of the nuclear facilities even after the former
groundlessly halted its supply of heavy oil to the latter under the
pretext of its "nuclear development".

The Korean people remain undeterred by the racket kicked up by the
U.S. and its followers. The DPRK carries out what it decided to do once
and never says empty words: This is its principle.
The DPRK's measure of lifting the freeze of its nuclear facilities has
nothing to do with the nuclear development and is totally aimed to produce
electricity.

The DPRK's immediate removal of the monitoring cameras and seals from
its nuclear facilities for electricity production was entirely
attributable to the U.S. gross violation of the AF.

The United States is well advised to think over its responsibility
before misinterpreting the DPRK warning as "brinkmanship tactics" and
insisting that DPRK should scrap its "nuclear program" before dialogue.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 5, 2003, 11:29 am

In the past, the US has labeled nations that openly ignore the UN Security counsel as rogue nations. If we attack Iraq without that same consent, we will be by our own deffinition, a threat. The US as a rogue nation. Thanks George.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 5, 2003, 11:34 am

de nada

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 5, 2003, 12:04 pm

In the past, the US has labeled nations that openly ignore the UN Security counsel as rogue nations. If we attack Iraq without that same consent, we will be by our own deffinition, a threat. The US as a rogue nation. Thanks George.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » March 5, 2003, 12:05 pm

don't tell me a 35 minute delay double post

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 5, 2003, 12:07 pm

Ha, I just refreshed an sure enough, 35 minute double post. I'll leave it there for fun.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 5, 2003, 1:15 pm

I have a question. Why did we quit sending NK oil?