N. Korea Says It Is Making Nuclear Bombs

[Chemical Ollie]

If America cared at all about WMD and terrorist support, Pakistan would be toast. It isn't.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
If America cared at all about WMD and terrorist support, Pakistan would be toast. It isn't.

Perhaps we are only concerned with those who have expressed destroying us as a goal and are trying to acquire WMD.

[Berzerker]

and how exactely would you solve this mess ?

Ignore them. End all subsidies. I can't understand why the Dems and Repubs think propping up brutal regimes is in our interest, much less moral.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by PLATO


Perhaps we are only concerned with those who have expressed destroying us as a goal and are trying to acquire WMD.

I fail to remember any quote by Saddam where he verbally threatened the mainland of USA. As far as I can recall, he just said that if you invade, you would be swimming in your own blood. If bull**** was a cause for death penalty, G. W. Bush would be a smoking skeleton by now.

[GePap]

Bush invades a country that kept claiming (it seems now accurately) that it had no WMD's. Becuase of that we can;t invade a country specifically stating they will make WMD's....

There is little the US can do. A war is out of the question, and the NOrth will have nukes long before any economic sanctions made a significant effect, and once they have nukes, well.....what's the point of sanctions?

The nuclear balance created in 1969 is unraveling: it began in 1998, nothing really has been done by anyone to stop it's slide, and now NK, and Iran at some point will join th other 3 non-NPT approved nuclear states. How long the overall structure could last after that..who knows.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


you know as well as I that things escalated because of America's current "no deal" policies.


Jesus people, all NK wants is a non-aggression treaty. Give it to them, and they'll give up their WoMDs. Problem solved, everyone happy. Why is Bush&Co being so stubborn about it? The sollution is right there in front of us.

You got it in one. Except for the part about them giving up their WMD's.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
if they break the terms of the non-aggression treaty they asked for, then they pretty much declare war against the US. they aren't that stupid

They won't *break* it... they'll just ignore it, and demand something else in return for not developing nukes. They've done it before, they'll do it again.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by monkspider
This is yet another example of how Bush's war-mongering threatens to spiral the entire world into madness. It's time the people of this nation take the hint, and throw him out.

You're trolls keep getting worse and worse. Sadly, this is actually an improvement on previous ones *shudder*

[GePap]

on the whole "don;t trust them cause they don;t keep their deals": i am sorry, but to a point, peoiple's honesty matters less to me than their capabilities. Lets say the N Koreans ahd kept working only on their hidden uranium program..then in several years maybe they have scorunged enough enrich uranium for a couple more bombs, or their first two bombs...instead we let the framework fall apart, which meant NK brought out of storage enough nuclear material so they could in just months have half a dozen new bombs if not more, and reactivate facilities that give them the capacity to make two or more new ones a year.

So how did this work out better? BY deciding that the uranium breach was enough to let the whole thing laspe, we only hastened the day the N koreans get more than 1 or 2 bombs, asusming that is that the uranium deal tiself could have been frozen in some new agreement.

So again, how is this better? Fine, it's nice and "honest", but didn;t make the US one iota safer..if anything it did the opposite.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
on the whole "don;t trust them cause they don;t keep their deals": i am sorry, but to a point, peoiple's honesty matters less to me than their capabilities. Lets say the N Koreans ahd kept working only on their hidden uranium program..then in several years maybe they have scorunged enough enrich uranium for a couple more bombs, or their first two bombs...instead we let the framework fall apart, which meant NK brought out of storage enough nuclear material so they could in just months have half a dozen new bombs if not more, and reactivate facilities that give them the capacity to make two or more new ones a year.

So how did this work out better? BY deciding that the uranium breach was enough to let the whole thing laspe, we only hastened the day the N koreans get more than 1 or 2 bombs, asusming that is that the uranium deal tiself could have been frozen in some new agreement.

So again, how is this better? Fine, it's nice and "honest", but didn;t make the US one iota safer..if anything it did the opposite.

GePap, This is appeasement and you know it.

[GePap]

you say like that I should care?

Appeasement is a verb: it is meaningless. It is amoral. It is a strategy. same as war. Anyone who attached a moral meaning to what is a completely amoraL thing, a procedure, a way of, is asking for trouble. There are times when appeasement is what is called for.

I believe that policy should be based on goals: identify your goal, identify the strategies that would best serve your goal, use them. Will mistakles be made? Yes, becuase information is not infinate.

Becuase we did not "appease" as you say, we are less safe and further from a acceptable resolution to the problem. War is not an option. It never was. Fine, you denounce "appeasement": so what strategy should be used? rain dancing?

[Berzerker]

Ignoooooore them! They are mere warts on China's behind...

[PLATO]

History has shown us that when you appease aggressors that they will continually demand more. Eventually a line must be drawn. Appeasement is trading today's peace for tommorow's war. Invariably tommorow's war is much worse. Am I advocating war with North Korea? No, but not because the cost is to high. I am not advocating it because the world has yet to stand together to take any kind of concrete action. When confronting this problem the world should speak as one. It is imperitive that DPRK not get the mixed world signals that are becoming more prevalent. Did you read the quote I posted above? Reunification with the South under a communist form of government is in their constitution. Do we just ignore that as they start to acquire nuclear weapons? Do we ignore that as they continue to develop missle technology? Do we simply wait until they are ready to fulfill their national goal? Or do we just sit and watch while a free ROK falls?

You may say that this is not their goal, but when you look at their official line then that argument falls apart. The only reason they haven't struck is because they do not yet feel confident enough in victory.

The statement that we are "less safe" does not stand up to scruitiny eithier. Just because a danger has been exposed does not make it less a danger. So what do you really think DPRK would have done if they had told us they were making uranium bombs (which they did) and we continued to send oil? Think they would have said "Oh that canges everything. Let's stop these operations right away!" BULLCRAP. Don't be naive...we are talking North Korea here and they have a pretty well established history on just this type of situation.

[Berzerker]

History has shown us that when you appease aggressors that they will continually demand more. Eventually a line must be drawn.

Would that be the 38 parallel? How is N Korea an aggressor? Ignooooore them! China will stomp there butts if they mess with S Korea. The Chinese PM said N Korea was like their wife and S Korea is like their mistress. And we know the role of the wife in asian culture...That puts it in perspective...

[Ted Striker]

Bascially what Berzerker is saying is that China would leave the wife so it can slap that ass