North Korea Won't Rule Out Preemptive Attack

[Cons Himself]

meh you all swallowed bush's bullshit propganda that led to the invasion and systematic destruction of a nation and it's people ...and you're a "free" country ..so dont judge

no, i saw it on a BBC documentary with my own eyes.

 

[CptStern]

no, i saw it on a BBC documentary with my own eyes.

and is that any reason to invade? to take over their country? come on!

amnesty international released their Human rights report today ..in it they claim that the US is leading the charge in human rights abuses ...according to your logic this alone gives us justification for invasion

 

[smwScott]

and is that any reason to invade? to take over their country? come on!

amnesty international released their Human rights report today ..in it they claim that the US is leading the charge in human rights abuses ...according to your logic this alone gives us justification for invasion

Red Rover, Red Rover, Send Canada Over!

Haha, sorry I just pictured the Canadian invasion of the US in my head. But I would say that NK has its own agenda independent of Bush's foreign policy. Bush invaded Iraq partially because he thought it would be a quick and easy victory, he had political interests in the region, and he needed the approval boost. He underestimated what it would take, but he would be a fool to make the same mistake with NK.

And that's just stupid, the US is not nearly one of the worst countries for human rights (neither in scale or severity). It's just that everything we do is under a magnifiying glass.

 

[Cons Himself]

and is that any reason to invade? to take over their country? come on!

amnesty international released their Human rights report today ..in it they claim that the US is leading the charge in human rights abuses ...according to your logic this alone gives us justification for invasion

huh? i wasnt commenting at all on invasion or anything like that...was just talking about the lack of freedom in north korea in general, how its the most closed society in the world, and probably the people there are so isolated, they dont know any different way of life, which is sad, dont you think?

as for invasion, i dunno, obviously diplomacy is the best way to solve things since people dont die.

 

[CptStern]

k my mistake

 

[seinfeldrules]

and is that any reason to invade? to take over their country? come on!

amnesty international released their Human rights report today ..in it they claim that the US is leading the charge in human rights abuses ...according to your logic this alone gives us justification for invasion

Are they allowed in NK? Probably not. The reason to invade will happen if they do launch this preemptive attack against SK. Would you support invasion then? What would it take in your eyes?

 

[CptStern]

Are they allowed in NK? Probably not. The reason to invade will happen if they do launch this preemptive attack against SK. Would you support invasion then? What would it take in your eyes?

you didnt read the article did you? I didnt say the US has the MOST abuse cases ...just that they're setting an example for others to follow ...read the article

 

[Fishlore]

I think we should do what the one and only Democratic president in the last quarter century did. We should give NK all the concessions they want. Give them food, fuel and oil. Give them everything they want because that will stop their nuke program for good, just like it did in the 90's.

 

[The Mullinator]

I think we should do what the one and only Democratic president in the last quarter century did. We should give NK all the concessions they want. Give them food, fuel and oil. Give them everything they want because that will stop their nuke program for good, just like it did in the 90's.

So basically that would mean any country out there that wanted free US resources would just have to threaten to develop an nuclear program as well as pre-emptive strikes against other countries?

You can't just give everyone what they want and expect a happy world.

 

[Fishlore]

So basically that would mean any country out there that wanted free US resources would just have to threaten to develop an nuclear program as well as pre-emptive strikes against other countries?

You can't just give everyone what they want and expect a happy world.

You missed the sarcasm I guess. What you describe is exactly what happens when democrats are allowed to make decisions. Clinton gave North Korea exactly what they wanted in exchange for scrapping their nuclear program. North Korea continued their nuclear development behind the backs of the international community while receiving fuel and oil shipments from the US.

So I completely agree with your post. You can't make concessions with people like Kim Jong Il and expect them to keep their promise.

 

[The Mullinator]

You missed the sarcasm I guess. What you describe is exactly what happens when democrats are allowed to make decisions. Clinton gave North Korea exactly what they wanted in exchange for scrapping their nuclear program. North Korea continued their nuclear development behind the backs of the international community while receiving fuel and oil shipments from the US.

So I completely agree with your post. You can't make concessions with people like Kim Jong Il and expect them to keep their promise.

heh heh, the internet is a terrible medium for recognizing sarcasm.

 

[Fishlore]

heh heh, the internet is a terrible medium for recognizing sarcasm.

Tell me about it. One of the many, many reasons I hate discussions on the internet.

 

[seinfeldrules]

What would it take in your eyes? (to invade/engage in warfare)

you didnt read the article did you? I didnt say the US has the MOST abuse cases ...just that they're setting an example for others to follow ...read the article

Mind answering the last part of my question?

 

[CptStern]

What would it take in your eyes? (to invade/engage in warfare)

first of all what is your criteria for invasion? nukes? you have nukes should everyone invade? At this point I really dont see anything that could possibly justify bringing about nuclear armageddon based on the word of a handful of pathological liars

you didnt read the article did you? I didnt say the US has the MOST abuse cases ...just that they're setting an example for others to follow ...read the article

Mind answering the last part of my question?


Mind answering the last part of my question?

where? that was my quote

 

[Cons Himself]

its Mutually Assured Destruction if both sides have nukes.

Thing is, if North Korea get a bit nervous and jumpy, and start making moves to invade the South, the US will probably try and take out their nukes before they have a chance to launch them with air strikes/covert ops, and then pummel their army's border positions with tactical nukes.

 

[seinfeldrules]

first of all what is your criteria for invasion? nukes? you have nukes should everyone invade? At this point I really dont see anything that could possibly justify bringing about nuclear armageddon based on the word of a handful of pathological liars

What if NK invades SK? What if NK tests their nuke and destoys SE Asia's economy? At what point do you draw the line?

 

[CptStern]

What if NK invades SK? What if NK tests their nuke and destoys SE Asia's economy? At what point do you draw the line?

destroys the economy? ...so money is worth more than human lives? how is it any of your responsibility to stop them from taking SK? HELLO MR CALVARY THOUSANDS OF SUDANESE BEING BUTCHERED ON A DAILY BASIS!!!! why dont you go where you're actually needed?

 

[Cons Himself]

America would destroy North Korea if they invaded south korea because their next target would be Japan, the world's second largest economy.

 

[CptStern]

pure speculation

 

[seinfeldrules]

destroys the economy? ...so money is worth more than human lives? how is it any of your responsibility to stop them from taking SK? HELLO MR CALVARY THOUSANDS OF SUDANESE BEING BUTCHERED ON A DAILY BASIS!!!! why dont you go where you're actually needed?

Answer the question. At what point do we invade stern? Where is the line drawn? I bet you wouldnt want the US to help even if SK was invaded, just as you did when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Why doesnt CANADA and the UN go help out the "THOUSANDS OF SUDANESE BEING BUTCHERED ON A DAILY BASIS!!!!" You like to talk the talk, but heaven forbid you walk the walk. Eh? It seems quite clear that the US is focused on other events at this point in time, so why cant somebody else step up to the plate? Are we the only country capable of taking any action? Damned if we do, damned if we dont.

 

[CptStern]

Answer the question. At what point do we invade stern? Where is the line drawn?

right about here

I bet you wouldnt want the US to help even if SK was invaded, just as you did when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

you're right ...I'd rather it was an international effort

Why doesnt CANADA and the UN go help out the "THOUSANDS OF SUDANESE BEING BUTCHERED ON A DAILY BASIS!!!!"

I agree, nowhere near enough but it's something

You like to talk the talk, but heaven forbid you walk the walk. Eh?

see above

It seems quite clear that the US is focused on other events at this point in time,

ya, lining it's own pockets

so why cant somebody else step up to the plate? Are we the only country capable of taking any action?

well you seem to think so

Damned if we do, damned if we dont.

what a cop out...you MADE the war on terror ..YOU created iraq, you created afghanistan, you created the Duvaliers, the Brancos, the Sese Sekos, the Banzers, the Pinochets, the Samozas, the D’Aubuissons, the Noriegas, the Husseins of this world. So dont play the victem here

 

[seinfeldrules]

right about here

Still no answer. Stop sidestepping and face up. I'm sure somewhere down the line you will be able to post your own opinion rather than finding a website to hide behind.

you're right ...I'd rather it was an international effort

At what point stern.

I agree, nowhere near enough but it's something

Exactly. The world needs the US to be its police force, without us it is clear inaction is the only thing produced. The UN is clearly incompetent.

well you seem to think so

I dont think so, I know so. Why else arent people helping (not this token gesture shit) in these countries?

what a cop out...you MADE the war on terror ..YOU created iraq, you created afghanistan, you created the Duvaliers, the Brancos, the Sese Sekos, the Banzers, the Pinochets, the Samozas, the D’Aubuissons, the Noriegas, the Husseins of this world. So dont play the victem here

Again, is anything being done without the US leading the way? You bitch constantly about us interfering with other countries when it suits your purpose, then pull the exact opposite argument when it doesnt.

 

[CptStern]

Still no answer. Stop sidestepping and face up. I'm sure somewhere down the line you will be able to post your own opinion rather than finding a website to hide behind.

that's the answer

At what point stern.

at the point an international body comes to the consensus that military intervention is warrented ..that's why you helped found the UN is it not?

Exactly. The world needs the US to be its police force

"needs" or has "no choice?"

without us it is clear inaction is the only thing produced. The UN is clearly incompetent.

some would say inaction is a byproduct of US intervention

I dont think so, I know so. Why else arent people helping (not this token gesture shit) in these countries?

I just pointed out that the UN commited 10,000 troops to sudan ...do you mean Iraq? that's your mess

Again, is anything being done without the US leading the way?

leading the way? I just gave you a half dozens instances where US interference brought about the crisis in the first place

You bitch constantly about us interfering with other countries when it suits your purpose, then pull the exact opposite argument when it doesnt.

there's a huge difference between training death squads and delivering medicine and humanitarian aid ..all too often you seem to choose the former rather than the latter

 

[seinfeldrules]

at the point an international body comes to the consensus that military intervention is warrented

So we will basically bitch about it for weeks while SK is being overrun?

"needs" or has "no choice?"

Yeah, I'm sure the US would invade Canada for providing military support in Sudan.

I just pointed out that the UN commited 10,000 troops to sudan ...do you mean Iraq? that's your mess

After what? 21 years of civil war?

leading the way? I just gave you a half dozens instances where US interference brought about the crisis in the first place

The USSR invaded Afghanistan, not vice versa. Furthermore, many of those were Cold War fights. Different time, different philosophy.

some would say inaction is a byproduct of US intervention

Again, remove yourself from your liberal talking points and make an actual statement yourself. Nobody cares what Joe Hippy in Berkley thinks. You're allowing other people to think for you.

 

[bliink]

The USSR invaded Afghanistan, not vice versa.

actually, Zbigniew Brzezinski, president Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser said in 1998 (in light of recent post cold-war declassification) that

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

To be fair, he also says that

We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Whats really interesting is this question & answer:

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Keep in mind this was conducted before 9/11.

I'm looking for the original interview because the interview was a very good read; These are the only snippets I had on hand...

 

[seinfeldrules]

The point remains that the USSR was clearly the major perpetrator. There was much internal debate over the decision to finally invade and in the end the hardliners won. I believe the Soviets had a hand in overthrowing Daoud and implemented their puppet Taraki. So at that point our money would have been fighting a Soviet puppet, although not the USSR itself.

 

[bliink]

I believe the Soviets had a hand in overthrowing Daoud and implemented their puppet Taraki.

hah.. it is a matter of public record that that is the case!

However, this was just one instance of where the "containment" policy had the USSR and USA duke it out indirectly in the third world (see angola, south america, the middle east (israel etc) cuba etc etc)

They're both as guilty as each other.

 

[CptStern]

So we will basically bitch about it for weeks while SK is being overrun?

better than rushing in half-cocked only later to find out it was all for nothing ..not that you care that it's always civilians whopay the ultimate price

Yeah, I'm sure the US would invade Canada for providing military support in Sudan.

"needs"? or has "no choice"?

After what? 21 years of civil war?

it's more than US has done ...and didnt I say it was "nowhere near enough"?

The USSR invaded Afghanistan, not vice versa.

bliink handed that back to you on a silver platter ...thanks bliink :thumbs:

Furthermore, many of those were Cold War fights. Different time, different philosophy.

so that justifies training death squads overthrowing democratically elected government and supporting murderers and tyrants? you have an extremely slanted view of justice ...funny how that wouldnt apply if the USSR had done the same thing

Again, remove yourself from your liberal talking points and make an actual statement yourself. Nobody cares what Joe Hippy in Berkley thinks. You're allowing other people to think for you.

what are you talking about? my opinions are quite clear, reading comprehension is your friend

 

[Cons Himself]

look just realise that the cold war was a different time.

an extreme analogy would be not judging the ancient Romans by our standards of morality.

anyway. not saying it didnt have negative consequences for democracy - just the fact that America was gunning for left wing democracy outside of Europe because it was afraid of the spread of communism - how many of you here lived through the cold war? experienced the fear of the threat of a Nuclear War? Went to Civil Defence Training?

I digress. The world has now changed - the Euro-Zone is emerging as a power bloc in its own right with a population of around 450 million. China is also emerging from isolation slowly slowly. America however sees neither of these as a threat on the level of the Russians - probably because China and Europe are for all intents and purposes, Capitalist.

America therefore neither has the ideological drive or need to go around toppling left wing governments anymore. The more pressing problem in America's eyes is Islamic Fundamentalism and Nuclear Proliferation. Theyre absolutely terrified of a nuclear fallout in a major urban area on the mainland USA.

Thus they are going around invading and threatening Islamic states. From an International Relations point of view, we've never had a period in History without a Hegemon, and that Hegemon has never acted for any reason aside from self-interest of one form or another.

Why the Western World in particular seems more peaceful is down to the EU and Integration. I think we Europeans finally got tired of the destruction and death every 50 years or so, and so now we work together for common goals in a supranationalist way - of course the major problem here is the Democratic Deficit, but I assure you, that's being worked on.

The other factor has been the break down of colonial control leading to age-old tribal rivalries being re-discovered in a lot of the Developing Word, especially Africa.

South America is pretty much fully within the American sphere of influence, and while politically it is getting more stable, recent financial crises have let to increased economic instabiloty. This has led to the IMF re-assessing its rules and regulations on currency and banking crises. The same could be said for East Asia (excluding China) which is for the most part an oligarchic system of government, especially exemplified by the Suharto regime in Indonesia.
India is another growing country and cause for optimism as the world's largest democracy - finally us Brits left behind something that wasn't 100% rotten. Europe is stable, and adjusting to enlargement. Transition in Eastern and Central Europe will take time, but dont think of this as the third world - the Soviets if they did anything well, was educate their people to an extremely high level. Thus the problem in Eastern Europe is not one of a lack of Human Capital, but a lack of modern infrastructure. The EU is trying to remedy this through its structural and cohesion funds. Eastern Europe is in for a boom period soon. I just came back from Czech Republic and theyre making great progress there, with German help.

Russia - stagnant and reverting back to dictatorship? Who knows - Russia has always been to big and unstable for its own good. Hopefully Putin can actually guide the economy in the right direction even if he is centralising power.

That's enough analysing and wisdom for one day - back to the revision!

 

[CptStern]

look just realise that the cold war was a different time.

a different time? niceragua wasnt all that long ago, panama wasnt all that long ago, el salvador wasnt all that long ago ...I remember

an extreme analogy would be not judging the ancient Romans by our standards of morality.

it doesnt work in this case because the players are still alive, the reprecussions of american intervention is still very much in the forefront ...look to Haiti, the congo, Iraq ...really you dont have to look too hard

anyway. not saying it didnt have negative consequences for democracy - just the fact that America was gunning for left wing democracy outside of Europe because it was afraid of the spread of communism - how many of you here lived through the cold war? experienced the fear of the threat of a Nuclear War? Went to Civil Defence Training?

/me raises hand

 

[Cons Himself]

Thats why I said it was an extreme analogy, anyway Im just applying my not inconsiderable knowledge of International Relations and Political Economy to the thread - no opinions, just facts.

 

[seinfeldrules]

a different time? niceragua wasnt all that long ago, panama wasnt all that long ago, el salvador wasnt all that long ago ...I remember

Early to mid 80s. Thats getting to be 20 years ago.

better than rushing in half-cocked only later to find out it was all for nothing ..not that you care that it's always civilians whopay the ultimate price

I'm sure its easy to mistake a 5 million man invasion as half-cocked. Only in Stern's world. Besides, the international community condemned Saddam during the first Gulf War, and provided plenty of support, all while you were protesting.

"needs"? or has "no choice"?

Again, the the US wasnt going to invade Canada for helping out the Sudan. Dont blame your lack of action for 21 years on us.

it's more than US has done

I would love to see how much the US has contributed to charity besides the amount of Canada.

bliink handed that back to you on a silver platter ...thanks bliink

She said the US was in before the Soviet invasion (apparently technically true), not before the Soviets instituted a puppet dictator however.

my opinions are quite clear,

This is the first time in a while your response hasnt looked like this:

I believe that the US is evil .


All links, no substance.

so that justifies training death squads overthrowing democratically elected government and supporting murderers and tyrants?

We were fighting the same war as the USSR. I take it you would rather have the USSR as the sole remaining superpower (yes/no)?

 

[iyfyoufhl]

"Some stirred-up Moslems"
haha, came back and bit you on the ass, dumb americans

(sorry, had to say it, you are not all that dumb)
should've left Mother Russia, to her self

 

[T.H.C.138]

while bitching for weeks in UN "talks", more of the population dies..or maybe something more globally threatening happens...

soldiers go in rambo style and get the job done,bad guys dead,world saved...

either way has good and bad points...

if you wait and think,it might be too late to help..if you jump the gun,it might have been nothing to worry about...

remember,hindsight is 20/20...thats to all of you!

 

[jonbob]

I would love to see how much the US has contributed to charity besides the amount of Canada.

Do you mean the absolute values or the proportion of their GDP?

We were fighting the same war as the USSR. I take it you would rather have the USSR as the sole remaining superpower (yes/no)?

The US isn't the sole remaining superpower. But I'm confident that if the former USSR was in the same position the US is in now they would have their fingers in the many former Soviet repulics as they have now but would not have them anywhere else. I'd certainly be happier; I'm getting quite concerned about the amount of influence I see here in the UK. Anti-terrorism legislation, for example, a great number of our civil liberties are being curtailed and no-one seems to think it relevant that we haven't really be subject to any sort of attacks besides those in which the IRA have been suspected or implicated. If terrorist bogeymen hate democracy so much, as the rhetoric goes these days, why are countries such as Sweden, Germany, Australia, Canada etc. pretty much left alone by all?

In my humble and fairly uninformed opinion, I would say that the US should keep its grubby mitts out of other countries' business and leave toppling of sovereign powers to the UN - it's there for a reason, you know. Let other countries look after their own affairs; if they want help let them damn well ask for it.

 

[Cons Himself]

as the head of SIS once said, Britain has a seat on the Security Council, therefore it has responsibilities far greater than its questionable economic power would suggest.

thats why we have a large foreign intelligence service relative to those countries.

 

[CptStern]

Early to mid 80s. Thats getting to be 20 years ago.

recent memory in global terms ...dont worry, my generation hasnt forgotten

I'm sure its easy to mistake a 5 million man invasion as half-cocked. Only in Stern's world.

really? so you found the WMD? I guess the news will be made public real soon ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... any day now

Besides, the international community condemned Saddam during the first Gulf War, and provided plenty of support, all while you were protesting.

much to their chagrin ..we also didnt know about the iraqi water assessments, the 500,000 dead iraqi children and all the other horrors visited upon the people of iraq

Again, the the US wasnt going to invade Canada for helping out the Sudan. Dont blame your lack of action for 21 years on us.

"needs" or has "no choice"?

I would love to see how much the US has contributed to charity besides the amount of Canada.

means nothing, you have a lot more skeletons to atone for

She said the US was in before the Soviet invasion (apparently technically true), not before the Soviets instituted a puppet dictator however.

who cares, she made my point for me

This is the first time in a while your response hasnt looked like this:

I believe that the US is evil .


All links, no substance.

who needs substance when you have undeniable facts? ...something you lack in spades

We were fighting the same war as the USSR. I take it you would rather have the USSR as the sole remaining superpower (yes/no)?

probably do a heck a of a lot better than you ...seriously there is no BIGGER threat to world stability than the US ...thankyouverymuch

 

[CptStern]

while bitching for weeks in UN "talks", more of the population dies..or maybe something more globally threatening happens...

soldiers go in rambo style and get the job done,bad guys dead,world saved...

either way has good and bad points...

if you wait and think,it might be too late to help..if you jump the gun,it might have been nothing to worry about...

remember,hindsight is 20/20...thats to all of you!

dont give me that ****ing shit ...the US killed more iraqis than saddam ever did! before this war even began .. yet you all turn a blind eye to it as if it could never happen, as if the US is some demigod that can do no wrong, when in fact the complete opposite is true

 

[Dag]

How many people died under Saddams hand?
And how many died by the US? Not during US occupation, but by US soldiers.

 

[CptStern]

200,000 -300,00 iraqis during saddams reign ..another 800,000 iranian soldiers died during the war


during the sanctions alone over 1 million iraqis died as a direct result of US intervention


this is why:


http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html