SO the North Koreans admitted publicly, yeah, we have nukes. (And in the article, their guy is quoted as using the term ‘nukes’.) And, naturally, they have no desire to continue the six-way talks about them curbing their nuclear program. Again, what a shock, hey.
Let. Them. Starve.
No more fuel shipments, no more food shipments. If the civillians arent going to rise up and overthrow this nutjob then they deserve to slowly starve in the cold, Stalinist world theyve created.
Even their fellow travellers, the Chinese, don’t like them. And theres sure as hell no love lost between them and the Japanese. I suppose if we werent worried about them rolling into South Korea we’d just let them starve….
=====
I will not call about the HK…I will not call about the HK…I will not call about the HK…
It’ll be kinda hard to patrol their border with China.
Also watch for young fools in South Korea to call for capitulation.
You mean like we do with the nutjobs we get leading our country? It doesn’t even matter which side of the aisle they originate.
Why shouldn’t they have nukes? We don’t get rid of ours. It’s not all about US. What the world actually needs to do, since we can never put the genie back in the bottle, is to decide, as inhabitants of a world with inevitable nuclear proliferation, how we are going to manage that world. Telling someone he are “bad” or “evil” for wanting to have the capacity to defend his nation is not constructive and shows a really poor grasp of today’s reality: nations have nukes. The technology is out there.
There is a big difference between a totalitarian dictatorship and a (nominal) democracy having nuclear weapons. A democracy is reluctant to go to war, and especially reluctant to use total force. A single madman in Pyongyang, with a failed economy, nation and foreign policy, is far more likely to decide to use a doomsday weapon than a country like the US.
Heck, we can’t even allow our soldiers to win wars with the non-nuclear weapons they have!
For the record, no war can ever be won without totally destroying the enemy’s economy, and obliterating the will and ability to fight. Our “invasion” of Iraq was a farce, where the primary effort seemed to be to not break too many things. American soldiers die every day yielding to poll-driven sensibilities back home.
You also forget that North Korea signed agreements to not pursue nuclear weapons with Clinton. They conned us, “managing” them should involve total war.
Disagree. Strongly.
There are two reasons why North Korea shouldn’t have nukes.
One, they cannot feed their own people. I’d be more impressed if they spent that money feeding their population instead of spending the dough on nukes and then soliciting charity for food. Imagine the next panhandler you see holding a sign that says “Spent all my money on a gun. Need money for food.”
Second, North Korea having nukes is not a good thing for the US. If it’s okay for them to want the best for their country, it must also be acceptable for us to do the same. They have made official statements that indicate that their nuclear weapons are a threat to the US.
As for being “bad” or “evil”….perhaps if the Korean People’s Army guards had beaten your commanding officer to death with an axe, you might have a different view.
They feel it’s all about them. Why can’t we feel the same? Why are we led by “nutjobs” when our leaders want the best for our country, just as theirs do?
The technology is out there. It’s best for us to suppress it whereever possible…especially in the hands of the bad guys. And North Korea, under their current leadership, are the bad guys.
There is a big difference between a totalitarian dictatorship and a (nominal) democracy having nuclear weapons.
Yep, it’s called CHOICE. If a people doesn’t want to be led by someone, it usually isn’t. That’s why the Founding Fathers were so adamant about keeping the people armed.
A democracy is reluctant to go to war, and especially reluctant to use total force.
You mean like the US has been these past few years? Ha ha. Whatever. What about the years and years of “Third-World Chess” we’ve played? Not all war is militant.
A single madman in Pyongyang, with a failed economy, nation and foreign policy, is far more likely to decide to use a doomsday weapon than a country like the US.
You mean just like Israel? It’s our “ally” but it’s policy to is to destroy everybody if they come under attack and are losing. Nice. Why shouldn’t N. Korea get the same treatment?
Heck, we can’t even allow our soldiers to win wars with the non-nuclear weapons they have!
Yeah, we let them use their robots to do their dirty work. We just need the soldiers for torturing people. I mean “interrogating”.
For the record, no war can ever be won without totally destroying the enemy’s economy, and obliterating the will and ability to fight.
True. Why do you think the Twin Towers were the target. This was the economic stronghold and the workers that helped fund the complex that oppressed the Third World. By attacking the economic symbol, it was a show of strength and a good strategic manouver.
Our “invasion” of Iraq was a farce, where the primary effort seemed to be to not break too many things. American soldiers die every day yielding to poll-driven sensibilities back home.
They die because they signed on a dotted line to be used as the militant arm of the administration foreign policy (regardless of which Administration is in office). If they didn’t want to die this way, they shouldn’t have signed up to be soldiers.
You also forget that North Korea signed agreements to not pursue nuclear weapons with Clinton. They conned us, “managing” them should involve total war.
First, what right does any country have to tell another country what to do? We don’t like it when the World disagrees with US, but we can dictate what another country’s domestic agenda should be? I don’t think so. Bush pulled out of treaties that our nation signed, so why shouldn’t N. Korea? Because we might get a taste of our own medicine?
As for “total war,” from where would you propose to pull troops? Especially, since Bush’s buddies are making noises about Iran and its nuclear development, I don’t think that’s the way to win anyone over. I just see US making some of the same mistakes that made many fallen empires of yesteryear.
Disagree. Strongly.
Absolutely your right to do so.
One, they cannot feed their own people.
So, because the US has more than 20 million poor and starving people, we shouldn’t have nukes? What nation has NO hunger among its population? NONE So everyone has to give up his nukes!
I’d be more impressed if they spent that money feeding their population instead of spending the dough on nukes and then soliciting charity for food.
“The people should support the government but the government should not support the people.” ~One of the Founding Fathers. Are you Socialist/Communist? Even when the system is socialist or Communist, only the elite truly benefit.
Imagine the next panhandler you see holding a sign that says “Spent all my money on a gun. Need money for food.”
I wouldn’t give him money. I’d give him food. I’d think he wasn’t very promethean or a wise steward in his affairs. I store guns and food and ways to grow and store food.
Second, North Korea having nukes is not a good thing for the US.
Why is it okay that the US has nukes, then? You do realize that our lovely allies, Franck and the UK regularly patrol our coasts with nuclear subs capable of launching nukes at our home turf, right? So, if our friends do this, why can’t our “enemies”? After all, it’s our nation that talking all tough and bellicose toward N. Korea. They have every reason not to trust US.
If it’s okay for them to want the best for their country, it must also be acceptable for us to do the same. They have made official statements that indicate that their nuclear weapons are a threat to the US.
They used the term “deterrent” against the aggressive tendencies of the US. I think our bang-up job in Afghanistan (where we reintroduced the worst band of raping and murdering thugs the last century had seen as leaders) and in Iraq (which admittedly would have had a US-caused or reinforced power vacuum once Saddam did kick the bucket) shoudl convince any nation, sane or otherwise, that nukes are the only way to keep the US from invading your nation. The biggest strategic mistake Saddam made in invading Kuwait was NOT having finished developing nukes first. If he had, the history would have been very different.
As for being “bad” or “evil”….perhaps if the Korean People’s Army guards had beaten your commanding officer to death with an axe, you might have a different view.
No one sees himself as “bad” or “evil”. One sees oneself as “right”. As for being beaten or killed, I’m Jewish and lost family in the last worldwide conflict. There’s a reason I’m so pro-2nd Amendment as a personal and civil liberty and right. No one else is there when they come for you but YOU.
The technology is out there. It’s best for us to suppress it whereever possible…especially in the hands of the bad guys. And North Korea, under their current leadership, are the bad guys.
What goves us the right to dictate? There’s nothing that says we have that right. To use the might we have to do so is just another form of imperialism and dictatorship and suppressing the “wogs” of our generation.
Gosh, you’re really good at this. Providing your own paraphrasing of my words and then arguing with them is truly special. And imputing me to be a Communist: I’m wiping tears of laughter as I write this!
Who are we to dictate? “Good. Bad. I’m the guy with the gun.” We’re the guys that have the nukes. We could have used them to STOP North Korea from having nukes. If we were the bad guys you seem to believe we are, we probably should have done that.
Would you approve of a madman showing up on your doorstep with a gun? No. Would you approve of a friend showing up on your doorstep with a gun? You’re pro-2A, so I assume that would be okay. That should deal with your submarine issue.
That’s why it’s okay for us to have nukes and not for the North Koreans to have nukes. They’re nuts. We’re not. You seem to disagree with that: at least, in every case where the US has a role, it’s your presumption that the US is the bad guy. And that is YOUR privilege. I don’t find it persuasive.
As for the nukes as deterrents to keep the US from invading…well, it’s their right to believe that. They may not be correct.
If you want to argue further, email me direct and we’ll leave Commander Zero’s comment section in peace.
Would you approve of a madman showing up on your doorstep with a gun? No. Would you approve of a friend showing up on your doorstep with a gun? You’re pro-2A, so I assume that would be okay. That should deal with your submarine issue.
No issues with either since I live in a pro-2nd Amendment state. Let a fool show up at our door intending harm. We have no issues with friends carrying in our home. My hubby carried when we stayed with friends in FL, another upholder of personal protection. However, neither our friends nor we cased the host out to attack or defend against the host. So your analogy lacks the power to convince.
North Korea has done nothing to us. You’re right that they may be wrong in believing the nukes will deter us, but I’d put my money on the US not invading now. I’m not usually a betting woman, but hey, I’ll take the free money.
It’s going to be hard to have a rational discussion with you when you use such hackneyed generalizations. Also, because simple answers are not available, this has to be a two-parter.
You mean like the US has been these past few years? Ha ha. Whatever. What about the years and years of “Third-World Chess” we’ve played? Not all war is militant.
You completely ignored my point about TOTAL war. The US has not used a nuclear weapon since 1945. Have not won a war since then either, coincidence? But if you want to bring it up, then the cold war, no matter how quaint, non-threatening or subtle, was still hot in places. The people of the USA (and, incidentally, most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand etc.) supported US actions during the latter 20th century. Everyone fought in Korea, there were Australians and New Zealanders in Vietnam and Malaysia (alongside the British) because it was recognized that the Communists actually did want to take over the world.
You mean just like Israel? It’s our “ally” but it’s policy to is to destroy everybody if they come under attack and are losing. Nice. Why shouldn’t N. Korea get the same treatment?
Israel has had the bomb for at least 30 years. How many times have they set one off? They have yet to actually start a war, and if by “destroy everybody” you mean “wipe out the Arab countries that attacked Israel” then, yes. Of course that would be the same policy the US, Russia, Great Britain and France have.
Another point, the Israelis only recently admitted they had nuclear devices. Perhaps one of the most widely known secrets ever, but successive Israeli governments were quite happy to modestly downplay the rumors. It is better to keep your enemies guessing, unlike the North Koreans who seem to believe open confrontation (remember the Navy surveillance plane incident?) is the way to make friends and influence people.
Yeah, we let them use their robots to do their dirty work.
That explains the 1,060 US combat deaths. They were actually robot repair technicians having “industrial accidents”.
We just need the soldiers for torturing people. I mean “interrogating”.
Wow. Considering that Spec. Graner just was sentenced to 10 years in military prison by the US military (not the International Criminal Court or the UN) would you like to retract that?
By attacking the economic symbol, it was a show of strength and a good strategic manouver.
I guess that means you at least acknowledge we are at war?
They die because they signed on a dotted line to be used as the militant arm of the administration foreign policy (regardless of which Administration is in office). If they didn’t want to die this way, they shouldn’t have signed up to be soldiers.
That’s a pretty cynical and heartless thing to write. Didn’t you just admit we were at war? Should the Islamist fascists be fought not appeased? (Like the North Koreans- that went so well, didn’t it?)
First, what right does any country have to tell another country what to do?
Plenty. The Koreans came to the US. Their failed economic policies pushed them to the brink of collapse. The Clinton administration had no choice- bail them out, or… but Kim Jong Il hinted that if it happened he would take South Korea with them.
We gave the North Koreans food, oil and offered to build light-water nuclear power stations. The only “payment” asked for all the goodies was a simple request- don’t make nuclear weapons. Now you tell me, was that not a fair offer? It was an agreement, the Koreans got everything they wanted (and then some, apparently). When you make a deal, should you not keep your end of the bargain?
Bush pulled out of treaties that our nation signed, so why shouldn’t N. Korea?
I presume you are referring to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty? That’s “treaty” not “treaties”. (Name another treaty Bush pulled out of- and don’t say Kyoto- he didn’t. Look it up.)
The ABM Treaty was between the USA and the USSR- a country which ceased to exist in 1991. Nobody “pulled out” of the treaty per-se, one party was consigned to the ash-heap of history.
As for “total war,” from where would you propose to pull troops?
Well for starters, we do not need to be in Iraq. We tell the Iraqis- Here, you have a chance to keep a free country. Don’t screw it up, or we’ll be back, only next time we turn your country into a glass-coated parking lot.
If we have a legitimate beef with a country that intends to attack us or an ally (ie a mutual defense treaty is in place) and war is the only answer, then war should be fought with every tool, without mercy and to win. We should not be fighting civil wars in Bosnia, mosque to mosque in Fallujah, or micromanaging “humanitarian” missions in Somalia from Washington. An army is a club that only crushes and breaks things. Too many politicians and one-worlders believe the US military is a fine, rapier-like sword that can cut a little here, swipe a little there. Trying to use it that way dulls its effectiveness.
American don’t want or believe in “empire”. I don’t approve of having US servicemen in 100 countries either. However, with the exception of Afghanistan and Iraq, we are there by invitation.
You just refuted your own argument. If the British and French nuclear subs “regularly patrol our coasts” (I’d like to see a reference for that) as friends then, as you point out, it’s like carrying CCW in your friend’s home.
The North Koreans with nuclear weapons is not unlike “a fool show up at our door intending harm”.
BTW, the US has no intention of invading North Korea. Never has. The only actual verified and proven “invading” that has gone on there is the Communists invading the South, attacking fishing boats, kidnapping Japanese citizens and regularly violating other countries’ territorial waters with their submarines.
You just refuted your own argument. If the British and French nuclear subs “regularly patrol our coasts” (I’d like to see a reference for that) as friends then, as you point out, it’s like carrying CCW in your friend’s home.
Nope, the friend carries in your home. The French and English do what they do right outside our territorial waters. As for evidence, well, my British father-in-law worked for a military contractor in many countries including the US, France, the UK, and Israel. My British husband presently works for a military contractor here in the US. I’m not sure there’s a online link to the work they did or things to which they were exposed.
BTW, the US has no intention of invading North Korea. Never has. The only actual verified and proven “invading” that has gone on there is the Communists invading the South, attacking fishing boats, kidnapping Japanese citizens and regularly violating other countries’ territorial waters with their submarines.
They had no plans to invade Iraq, either, until they amassed troops and beefed up their rhetoric. Let S. Korea and Japan defend themselves if they are under attack. I do not feel threatened by the N. Koreans.
Call about the HK. Call about the HK.
That’s a heck of a deal for a real HK 91. You could flip it for almost twice that if needed.
Ran across this – thought you might be interested.
http://www.logicsouth.com/~lcoble/dir9/hugelist.txt
What part of “email me direct and we’ll leave Commander Zero’s comment section in peace” did you have trouble with?
Because it was a “direct order”. I’m not in the military, and it’s a free country. did not ask me to desist, and obviously has some interest in the topic or would not have posted about it.
Had I been asked politely or even approached via my own journal or e-mail, I would have considered it. Had the OP not desired a discussion on the matter, I would have respected that, as well.
You were looking for offense and found it. Congratulations, though that isn’t much of a feat. What you saw as an order, I wrote as an invitation.
What I was suggesting was that this conversation would be better handled on my bandwidth, trying to be a good guest in someone else’s comment area. That doesn’t seem to interest you.
Naturally, the invitation, having been spurned and misconstrued, is retracted. Just as well: your social interactions are as poorly thought out as your political opinions.
You, of course, have the right to be wrong. I haven’t seen anything that refutes the statements I’ve made, nor anything that indicates that I have either been improper or impolite nor that my opposing discussion unwelcome by the “host” as you put it. If you were truly as interested and as polite as you maintain, you could easily have contact me via my journal. You did not.
Yawn.
Take the last word please, as you don’t interest me.
north korea
may have nukes or not. ever try bluffing at poker? meanwhile what about the nukes of south korea, or even those of china and japan? maybe mr. bush should have kept his saber rattling at iraq, but hey after what happen there, everybody wants real nukes to keep american pests at bay! have a nice day, Wildflower.