# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  north Korea

## firmechicano831

OK guys what do you think that we should do to North Korea. I'm pretty  :Icon Pissedoff:  that it's always testing it's missles over Japan or other countries like china to show off. It doesn't listen to what the U.S has said and the United Nations. Someone I wish we could just bomb the shit out of them to say  : 1106:  something u know? But then it wouldn't be ethical to kill alot of civilian lives that are not at fault. What do you guys think we should do. Read the following link to see what they did two days ago:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070400649.html

----------


## USfighterFC

> OK guys what do you think that we should do to North Korea. I'm pretty  that it's always testing it's missles over Japan or other countries like china to show off. It doesn't listen to what the U.S has said and the United Nations. Someone I wish we could just bomb the shit out of them to say  something u know? But then it wouldn't be ethical to kill alot of civilian lives that are not at fault. What do you guys think we should do. Read the following link to see what they did two days ago:
> http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/north_korea



It aint smart to bomb a country that has nukes. The second that country obtained nuclear weapons it became impossible to invade. The civilians are brainwashed in that country to believe the "Dear Leader" is a living God. A defector said If the U.S. invaded you will never see a smiling waving crowd like in Iraq. They will fight to the last man.

----------


## stunner5000pt

> It aint smart to bomb a country that has nukes. The second that country obtained nuclear weapons it became impossible to invade. The civilians are brainwashed in that country to believe the "Dear Leader" is a living God. A defector said If the U.S. invaded you will never see a smiling waving crowd like in Iraq. They will fight to the last man.


isnt iraq kinda doing the same thing... at least ... sections of the population

----------


## firmechicano831

What can we do? If they really develop nukes that can reach us they will try to nuke us one day. They can make them now but they can't reach far out to us.

----------


## USfighterFC

> isnt iraq kinda doing the same thing... at least ... sections of the population



The sunni insurgency isnt that huge of an insurrection. They have many die hard fighters but the Sunnis are the minority in that country. Saddam was a Sunni muslim. The Shiites are the majority and dont really provide a problem for the most part. The Sunnis are killing the Shiites more than anyone else. If the Sunni insurrection is put down then Iraq will be a lot better off. There are foreign fighters in Iraq but its not a dramatic amount of them. But no matter what we do we will always look like the Western Christian occupiers of a holy land. In North Korea these people are unbelievably brainwashed. There is absolutely no source of outside information in that country. Whatever the leader says in that country goes without question. He exterminates people at an astronomical rate and everyone still cheers for him. His father was the "Great Leader" before him and when he died it was an unreal event. Millions upon millions were crying hysterically throwing themselves to the ground thinking the world was going to end. If I could find a video of it you'd be shocked at how many people were doing it. Imagine Times Square on New Years Eve with everyone crying hysterically pulling their hair out. The North korean people will fight harder for Kim Jong Il than the Muslims for Allah.

----------


## firmechicano831

I think you are right USfighter. No information comes into North Korea besides what he wants them to know. It would be one of the toughest fights the U.S would ever be in.

----------


## firmechicano831

this is a really good one too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070400649.html

----------


## firmechicano831

I think everyone is trying to control him or else their afraid that a WWIII will begin. The Japanese president said that if North Korea doesn't stop they would nuke them.

----------


## PeteyK

we just need to develope a weapon defense program and also sit down and talk to kim jong eel and tell him that there is no need to develope nuclear weapons.

----------


## USfighterFC

> I think everyone is trying to control him or else their afraid that a WWIII will begin. The Japanese president said that if North Korea doesn't stop they would nuke them.



Japan doesnt possess nuclear weapons. They possess nuclear technology tho such as light water reactors.

----------


## firmechicano831

What do u think Japan will do if he continues to launch nukes over japan?

----------


## USfighterFC

> What do u think Japan will do if he continues to launch nukes over japan?



Nothing. The most the japanese can do is put economic sanctions on North Korea. Japan basically has no standing army, to wage war with north Korea would be a huge mistake for them. It is already well known that with the food Aid we give to North korea it is given to the soldiers and the rest is sold on the black market in North korea. There are well documented cases of cannabalism because food is so scarce. In 1996 almost 2 million North Koreans died of a famine that struck the country. That is about 1 in 10 people. They are backed into a corner with no place to go. They only thing they can do is move forward. When you trap an animal in a corner or in a cage, that is when they become the most desperate and the most dangerous.

----------


## bigpapabuff

> we just need to develope a weapon defense program and also sit down and talk to kim jong eel and tell him that there is no need to develope nuclear weapons.


With policies like that you should run for president... I'd vote for you.

They have been telling him this for years and continue to tell him that. The UN security council has been meeting all day, and it sounds like they are serious, and everyone wants to do something about it, not just the US. I doubt it leads to war, at least not in the near future. Diplomacy is the goal now, and hopefully N. Korea will comply seeing what they are facing. The only country that is a little scary and that we aren't sure how they will act is China. What they say in the next few days will be very important.

----------


## J-Dogg

Just send over Rambo.

He is taunting the world, somthing will eventually have to be done.

----------


## USfighterFC

> With policies like that you should run for president... I'd vote for you.
> 
> They have been telling him this for years and continue to tell him that. The UN security council has been meeting all day, and it sounds like they are serious, and everyone wants to do something about it, not just the US. I doubt it leads to war, at least not in the near future. Diplomacy is the goal now, and hopefully N. Korea will comply seeing what they are facing. The only country that is a little scary and that we aren't sure how they will act is China. What they say in the next few days will be very important.



China has already decided against economic sanctions along with Russia. Why? That is beyond me. Perhaps because they all shared the same history of being rogue, stalinist, closed off nations. North Korea can offer them nothing and yet they still side with them. With China it is more understandable for a variety of reasons; i.e. a war on the Korean Peninsula would spill over into China causing instability as well as the fact as why not have them be a thorn in the side of the opposition. As long as America is busy with North Korea they will not pay close attention to other things, such as the military machine China is becoming as well as the heavy industrial revolution it is going through.

----------


## firmechicano831

I think with Rambo, The terminator, and Superman they will quit what their doing.

----------


## stunner5000pt

maybe this isa repost, but here is a documentary on the place

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/view/

----------


## USfighterFC

You will never get them to quit. They want to build that delivery system more than anything in this world. With that long range missile in effect it's like the equivalent to pulling an ace out of your sleeve. If they make that work then it becomes a stalemate. The North Koreans can threaten us and then we HAVE to take them seriously because now we know they have a missile capable of hitting the U.S. mainland. They're obviously not afraid to go against the grain of the world and just brush off any criticism or threats of anything. With a working ICBM they can demand the U.S. leave South Korea and the DMZ and we actually may have to take it into consideration. Next thing you know, North Korea moves below the 38th parallel and World War III starts. There is a variety of ways a war can start very easily with this psychopath ruling that country.

----------


## firmechicano831

What do u think would happend if someone assasinated him. Like a undercover that no one found out who he was after he did his job. Kinda like vanished in the air.

----------


## stunner5000pt

> What do u think would happend if someone assasinated him. Like a undercover that no one found out who he was after he did his job. Kinda like vanished in the air.


they would find someone new and probably get more pissed off

----------


## firmechicano831

hey stunner! those were some great videos on the website that you posted.

----------


## USfighterFC

> What do u think would happend if someone assasinated him. Like a undercover that no one found out who he was after he did his job. Kinda like vanished in the air.



It would never happen. Nobody will ever make it that close to him. We have absolutely ZERO intel on North Korea. Not a single agent in the CIA has ever penetrated there. But if he was assassinated a general of the armed forces would most likely succeed him for the time being. And all their generals are the ones pushing him to be more hawkish and begin pressing the action.

----------


## stunner5000pt

soemone has to make anti missile equipment that is capable of taking out large nukes before they have a chance to hurt anyone.

----------


## goodcents

I think they will be like Japan after we whooped them ( I sorry, we assisted them :Smilie: ) and they will be just like dogs that get a new owner and will just love getting fed and becoming "capitalist dogs" like we are. :Smilie:

----------


## JDawg1536

> I think you are right USfighter. No information comes into North Korea besides what he wants them to know. It would be one of the toughest fights the U.S would ever be in.


Their "special forces" is 80,000 strong. Nobody in the world could invade north korea. They are hard core muther fvckers.

----------


## USfighterFC

> soemone has to make anti missile equipment that is capable of taking out large nukes before they have a chance to hurt anyone.



We have been developing an anti-missile defense with limited success for ICBM's. It's costing a lot of money and has faced strong opposition from the left side of the House. Funny it would actually protect Western Europe as well as japan, canada and other Allies but we are the only ones footing the bill to develop it.

----------


## Superhuman

north korea said that any sanctions put on them would be seen as a "declaration of war". That's f*cked up. Kim's got a Napoleon complex. Those bastards! we have to do something about this before it gets out-of-hand. If we let them continue, then other smaller nations will see the example that north korea has set and develop their own nuclear weapons. they must be stopped

----------


## stunner5000pt

> We have been developing an anti-missile defense with limited success for ICBM's. It's costing a lot of money and has faced strong opposition from the left side of the House. Funny it would actually protect Western Europe as well as japan, canada and other Allies but we are the only ones footing the bill to develop it.


i dunnoo....

----------


## ascendant

personally, i think the US is a bunch of damn hypocrites. not the people of course cause i'm one of them, but our government. our govt has nukes, yet they feel they can tell other countries they're not allowed to? that's f*cking ridiculous. who the hell is the US to say who can and who can't have nukes? 

with how power happy bush is, i can't blame them for wanting to be able to defend themselves. he attacked iraq unprovoked, so how do they know we won't do the same to them? i know it supposedly has nothing to do with anything like that, but just saying i can't blame them for wanting the offensive capabilities of the big boys.

anyway, until the US govt disarms, which of course they never will, they need to sit down and shut the f*ck up IMO.

----------


## USfighterFC

> personally, i think the US is a bunch of damn hypocrites. not the people of course cause i'm one of them, but our government. our govt has nukes, yet they feel they can tell other countries they're not allowed to? that's f*cking ridiculous. who the hell is the US to say who can and who can't have nukes? 
> 
> with how power happy bush is, i can't blame them for wanting to be able to defend themselves. he attacked iraq unprovoked, so how do they know we won't do the same to them? i know it supposedly has nothing to do with anything like that, but just saying i can't blame them for wanting the offensive capabilities of the big boys.
> 
> anyway, until the US govt disarms, which of course they never will, they need to sit down and shut the f*ck up IMO.



Do you really want a country like Iran or North Korea to have nukes? I really don't. Nuclear non-proliferation is a good thing. I think that if you give 180 nations the ability to use nuclear technology in weapons or civilians forms then you are asking for a disaster. in 1986 we had about 4 or 5 nations with full nuclear capabilities and disasters like Chernobyl still happened which killed thousands of people and left millions of acres of land irradiated and tens of thousands of new borns with birth defects as well as much of the population suffering from thyroid cancer due to the high levels of cesium.

This has nothing to do with Bush. North Korea has been developing nukes for over a decade now and in 1995 while Clinton was in office America faced a stand off with North korea after it admitted to developing nuclear weapons (which it claimed it had at thw time) and a long range missile program. Clinton admitted he thought that was the closest time he ever thought we were going to war.

----------


## firmechicano831

Although the U.S does have nuclear weapons we don't start showing them off to other countries or try to fly them over them. I think Japan at one point will ask the U.S to stop North Korea or they will. An example would be if you live in a house and you're neighbor is always firing a gun over your house. There is going to be a point where you are going to pull out youre own and shoot him or shoot one over him to let him know that you mean bussiness as well.

----------


## USfighterFC

> His father was the "Great Leader" before him and when he died it was an unreal event. Millions upon millions were crying hysterically throwing themselves to the ground thinking the world was going to end. If I could find a video of it you'd be shocked at how many people were doing it. Imagine Times Square on New Years Eve with everyone crying hysterically pulling their hair out..



Here is the video of Kim II Sung's funeral. It's after the first minute or so. The man talking is a reporter on a newstation for the DPRK(North Korea)

----------


## firmechicano831

I think tensions are high between japan and North Korea.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82408,00.html

----------


## USfighterFC

> Although the U.S does have nuclear weapons we don't start showing them off to other countries or try to fly them over them. I think Japan at one point will ask the U.S to stop North Korea or they will. An example would be if you live in a house and you're neighbor is always firing a gun over your house. There is going to be a point where you are going to pull out youre own and shoot him or shoot one over him to let him know that you mean bussiness as well.



The only flaw in that analogy is that instead of you just directly killing your neighbor, the whole neighborhood is annhilated and so is everyone in it.

----------


## firmechicano831

Well let me ask you a question USfighter; lets pretend that you are the president of Japan and responsable for all your citizens. If North Korea starts shooting nuks over your country what would you do"
1. Tell the U.N when the north koreans won't sit or listen to them?
2. Sanctions them on the exports you send over?
3. Call the U.S president and begg him to help you?
4. All the above and start building you're own missles and weapons?
5. other?

----------


## Badgerman

> Although the U.S does have nuclear weapons we don't start showing them off to other countries or try to fly them over them. I think Japan at one point will ask the U.S to stop North Korea or they will. An example would be if you live in a house and you're neighbor is always firing a gun over your house. There is going to be a point where you are going to pull out youre own and shoot him or shoot one over him to let him know that you mean bussiness as well.


That is an insane statement------the US blatantly shows off its military all the time........we're the Goliath taunting the smaller and weaker

Plus we are the only country to ever use nukes......twice......plus on civilians
The whole cuban missle crises started because of US........we put nukes in turkey first.........

----------


## ascendant

i see many of your points guys, and usfighter, you gave me some info i didn't know about involving this whole situation. i'm just not really into politics so i never heard about any of this until the recent developments.

i definitely agree that these guys are not the kind of people we'd want to have nukes, and i agree as well that they're being careless with them. all i'm saying is if a country is going to tell another that they can't have nukes, they certainly shouldn't have any themselves. that's like me telling you i have a gun and might use it on you one day but you aren't allowed to have one.

i'm just curious now as to who it is that decides who gets to have nukes and who doesn't and the reasoning behind it all? to me, it's just looking like a power trip on all sides of this.

----------


## Badgerman

> i see many of your points guys, and usfighter, you gave me some info i didn't know about involving this whole situation. i'm just not really into politics so i never heard about any of this until the recent developments.
> 
> i definitely agree that these guys are not the kind of people we'd want to have nukes, and i agree as well that they're being careless with them. all i'm saying is if a country is going to tell another that they can't have nukes, they certainly shouldn't have any themselves. that's like me telling you i have a gun and might use it on you one day but you aren't allowed to have one.
> 
> i'm just curious now as to who it is that decides who gets to have nukes and who doesn't and the reasoning behind it all? to me, it's just looking like a power trip on all sides of this.


Kind of like the adultering parent telling the kid to save it for marriage........

----------


## firmechicano831

Well the U.S did have missles pointing at Cuba because it was communist like North Korea. They had missles that were 80 or so miles away from the U.S. We also did use nukes in Japan because they attacked us first on Pearl Harbor.

----------


## Badgerman

> Well the U.S did have missles pointing at Cuba because it was communist like North Korea. They had missles that were 80 or so miles away from the U.S. We also did use nukes in Japan because they attacked us first on Pearl Harbor.


That's no reason to bomb civilians

----------


## Warrior

They crashed the Nasdaq with this stunt!  : 1106:

----------


## firmechicano831

yeah no reason but the U.S knew that the Japanese would fight to the end. They were very loyal like the North Koreans and are stronger mentally then we are. The only way to stop them was to nuke them or else they would of won I think.

----------


## Badgerman

> yeah no reason but the U.S knew that the Japanese would fight to the end. They were very loyal like the North Koreans and are stronger mentally then we are. The only way to stop them was to nuke them or else they would of won I think.


There is no excuse to bomb civilians........especially with nukes.......especially twice.........

----------


## firmechicano831

I believe that is Japan would of had nukes at the time of WWII they would of nuked us first. We all learned from it and it's why we are trying to avoid it happening again.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> We have been developing an anti-missile defense with limited success for ICBM's. It's costing a lot of money and has faced strong opposition from the left side of the House. Funny it would actually protect Western Europe as well as japan, canada and other Allies but we are the only ones footing the bill to develop it.


I think many nations feel its a waste of cash because it will never be anything but a very limited defense against maby a few icmb's. It would not be able to prevent a full scale launch. I guess european countries feels having nukes is enough of a deterant and the defense would be redundant.

I think however japan is co developing it with you guys? Or alteast are getting into it.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> yeah no reason but the U.S knew that the Japanese would fight to the end. They were very loyal like the North Koreans and are stronger mentally then we are. The only way to stop them was to nuke them or else they would of won I think.


No they could never have won. When the bombs where dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan was almost defeated. But the descision to bomb those citys was made to avoid a bloody invasion of japan.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Well let me ask you a question USfighter; lets pretend that you are the president of Japan and responsable for all your citizens. If North Korea starts shooting nuks over your country what would you do"
> 1. Tell the U.N when the north koreans won't sit or listen to them?
> 2. Sanctions them on the exports you send over?
> 3. Call the U.S president and begg him to help you?
> 4. All the above and start building you're own missles and weapons?
> 5. other?


They have already done 1 and 2, but I doubt they would ever build there own nukes. Since ww2 Japan has been very pacifistic.

----------


## Superhuman

> No they could never have won. When the bombs where dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan was almost defeated. But the descision to bomb those citys was made to avoid a bloody invasion of japan.


exactly! Japanese leaders actually came to the US and thanked our government for using the bomb because if we would have invaded, there would have been twice as many people killed on both sides.

----------


## Ufa

Use a small nuke. Wait until wind is blowing from the south.

----------


## The OutLord

What is the gole with NK:s Politic???

NK:s Leader Must have a fichbrain ore somthing!!
In my thought I belive the NK leader commit Human rigth crime when thay Put all of the mony in a war machine and other hand let the people of NK to starve.


It is unbelievable!
Just lock att all of this Marxsism Nation over the world.
Not even One stand fore the Kommunist Utopi!!
I wonder if thay even know what it stands for!!

Ha ha ha This leaders was born in the garbage tip..!!

----------


## USfighterFC

> Well the U.S did have missles pointing at Cuba because it was communist like North Korea. They had missles that were 80 or so miles away from the U.S. We also did use nukes in Japan because they attacked us first on Pearl Harbor.



That's actually somewhat off. We used the atomic bomb on Japan so we could hopefully end the war quicker which in fact it did. The use of the weapon was so that the U.S. did not have to invade the Japanese mainland where hundreds of thousands of casualties just on the U.S. side was expected. When the U.S. prepared to invade hokaido island off of southern japan, american intel suspected there were 5 divisions of Japanese forces guarding the coastline. It wasn't learned until later that there were a full 13 divisions ready to fight. That's 1 island and a small one at that. There are 5 islands that make up the japanese mainland. in retrospect as savage as WWII was the use of atomic weapons actually saved countless lives. For weeks straight we used incendiary weapons on Tokyo which were killing 10's of thousands per night. if the U.S. was forced to fight the Japanese on their mainland then you could easily expect the casualty rates to run into the millions.

On to Cuba. The U.S. only began threatening nules against the island because the Soviets were secretly shipping nukes and ballistic missiles to the island. The missiles were capable of reaching upwards of NYC and Boston.

----------


## USfighterFC

> There is no excuse to bomb civilians........especially with nukes.......especially twice.........



Actually it is a perfect excuse. I'm sorry to say that of course. Using 2 atomic bombs ended the war in two days. Before that, the Japanese had absolutely no intention of surrending and promised a fight on the Japanese mainland which in essence would have killed MILLIONS....very very easily. Two atomic weapons killed around 250,000 people but saved the Japanese people far a far worse consequence if they continued the fight.

----------


## USfighterFC

> i see many of your points guys, and usfighter, you gave me some info i didn't know about involving this whole situation. i'm just not really into politics so i never heard about any of this until the recent developments.
> 
> i definitely agree that these guys are not the kind of people we'd want to have nukes, and i agree as well that they're being careless with them. all i'm saying is if a country is going to tell another that they can't have nukes, they certainly shouldn't have any themselves. that's like me telling you i have a gun and might use it on you one day but you aren't allowed to have one.
> 
> i'm just curious now as to who it is that decides who gets to have nukes and who doesn't and the reasoning behind it all? to me, it's just looking like a power trip on all sides of this.


I think that is somewhat over simplification. To me it's much more than saying that you cannot possess a gun. This is a gun that is capable of annhilating an entire city of people. Even when the shit hit the fan we never threatened North Korea with a nuclear strike or invasion, however we did say "We reserve the right" meaning if North Korea crosses that border, then it's on.

Everyone knows the last thing we want to do is fight North Korea. We have 30,000 American soldiers at the DMZ. They have over 1 million. Seoul lies within artillery range of North Korea. It's estimated that over 10,000 shells an hour would fall on Seoul with the amount of artillery North Korea has in the mountains just above the 38th parallel. It would be an absolute disaster.

----------


## USfighterFC

> I think many nations feel its a waste of cash because it will never be anything but a very limited defense against maby a few icmb's. It would not be able to prevent a full scale launch. I guess european countries feels having nukes is enough of a deterant and the defense would be redundant.
> 
> I think however japan is co developing it with you guys? Or alteast are getting into it.



You're correct to a point I think. In the sense it would provide limited protection against a handful of ICBM's you're totally correct. However I think of it as this. When the gun was first developed it was a long musket that fired a single shot and took a lifetime to reload. Now weapons can fire thousands of rounds non-stop without reloading (Gattling gun). It all takes time to develop the science to it. It's impossible to just dive in and figure it all out right away which is what everyone wants. If we take the time to perfect the science than it is very feasible that instead of shooting down a handful of missiles we can shoot down hundreds if we had to.

----------


## Phreak101

> China has already decided against economic sanctions along with Russia. Why? That is beyond me. Perhaps because they all shared the same history of being rogue, stalinist, closed off nations. North Korea can offer them nothing and yet they still side with them. With China it is more understandable for a variety of reasons; i.e. a war on the Korean Peninsula would spill over into China causing instability as well as the fact as why not have them be a thorn in the side of the opposition. As long as America is busy with North Korea they will not pay close attention to other things, such as the military machine China is becoming as well as the heavy industrial revolution it is going through.


China is against imposing sanctions because there would be 20 million North Korean refugees spilling into an already impoverished and overcrowded China. They don't want them there. Russia is doing it because..well...Russia still has a bruised ego from being an equal superpower to the U.S., and is now practially nothing. They have oil reserves up the ass in Siberia that they are hoarding, and they now have the same poltical agenda as China, the most populous nation on earth (ie greatest number of soldiers). 

China's army + Russia's technology + NK's insanity = Big problems for the U.S. in the near future....

----------


## spywizard

i still say stop sending over the 1,000,000 tons of grain we send over there.. let them eat.. whatever it is they eat..

Korean Cabbage Kimchi 
3 tablespoons plus 1 teaspoon pickling salt 6 cups water
2 lbs. Chinese (Napa) cabbage, cut into 2-inch squares
6 scallions, cut into 2-inch lengths, then slivered
1 1/2 tablespoons minced fresh ginger
2 tablespoons Korean ground dried hot pepper (or other mildly hot ground red pepper)
1 teaspoon sugar

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> You're correct to a point I think. In the sense it would provide limited protection against a handful of ICBM's you're totally correct. However I think of it as this. When the gun was first developed it was a long musket that fired a single shot and took a lifetime to reload. Now weapons can fire thousands of rounds non-stop without reloading (Gattling gun). It all takes time to develop the science to it. It's impossible to just dive in and figure it all out right away which is what everyone wants. If we take the time to perfect the science than it is very feasible that instead of shooting down a handful of missiles we can shoot down hundreds if we had to.



I have to say I am doubtfull that the money put into the missile defense will ever be put to good use. Because it is easier to build a better missile than it is to uppgrade the whole system. So no matter how good the system get russia for instance will have missiles that can penetrate it. 

Im not sure its worth the money put into it. But then again it aint my tax money  :Smilie:  and against a smal threat like N.Korea it might be effective.

I would not support any swedish participation in such a project though and I guess that is how most europeans feel. Untill we face a threat of a rouge nation.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

Putting harder economic sanctions against north korea seems like it would only further hurt the people whitout effect on the ruling elite??

It seems like the leaders of north korea doesnt care one bit about the suffering of the people...

----------


## Phreak101

> Putting harder economic sanctions against north korea seems like it would only further hurt the people whitout effect on the ruling elite??
> 
> It seems like the leaders of north korea doesnt care one bit about the suffering of the people...


This is exactly correct. Kim Jong Il leads a more capitalistic lifestyle than anyone of us can imagine. He drinks Scotch, smokes Cubans, dines on French cuisine, drives fast cars, etc., yet his people starve. He is pretty much just like every other megolomaniacal sociopath leader that preaches against the west yet lives like Donald Trump. (Sadamm anyone?)

It's a good tactic really. It feeds on the envy, jealousy, and anger of the impoverished, making it sound like the U.S. is a bunch of fat hogs plundering the world of it's resources, and that keeps his people chanting against the West, while keeping him in power. The West then sends these nations food and supplies to shut them up, they squander it and sell it off for money, the ruling elite live like kings, the people continue to starve none the wiser, and then it happens again in 6 months.  : 1106:   :Bs:  

All in all, Kim Jong Il needs a good  :Nutkick:

----------


## USfighterFC

> This is exactly correct. Kim Jong Il leads a more capitalistic lifestyle than anyone of us can imagine. He drinks Scotch, smokes Cubans, dines on French cuisine, drives fast cars, etc., yet his people starve. He is pretty much just like every other megolomaniacal sociopath leader that preaches against the west yet lives like Donald Trump. (Sadamm anyone?)
> 
> It's a good tactic really. It feeds on the envy, jealousy, and anger of the impoverished, making it sound like the U.S. is a bunch of fat hogs plundering the world of it's resources, and that keeps his people chanting against the West, while keeping him in power. The West then sends these nations food and supplies to shut them up, they squander it and sell it off for money, the ruling elite live like kings, the people continue to starve none the wiser, and then it happens again in 6 months.   
> 
> All in all, Kim Jong Il needs a good



Couldnt have put it better myself.

----------


## spywizard

> No they could never have won. When the bombs where dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan was almost defeated. But the descision to bomb those citys was made to avoid a bloody invasion of japan.


werd

----------


## bigpapabuff

> That's no reason to bomb civilians


I agree that we should never have to bomb civilians, but I am not against the bombing of Japan. Think of how many tens of thousands of american lives, and Japanese lives, it would cost to take Japan by force with a ground assault. Think of D-Day, I know this is one of the first things I think of when thinking about WWII because of how terrible it was. That's what daily battle would have been against Japan. Know matter where we attack we would have been storming the beach.

To avoid that the US decided to drop the bomb, which I'm sure was a terrible and tough decision. That was when it fell into the hands of Japan, the reason for that bomb was to force surrender, hence save tens of thousands of American lives, but what did Japan do? They didn't surrender forcing a second bomb. I know that dropping the bomb was terrible but more than the US's decision it was Japans decision, at least their emperors.

I know it's terrible to kill civilians, but at what point is a Japanese civilian's life worth more than an American soldier's life.

----------


## Logan13

> i see many of your points guys, and usfighter, you gave me some info i didn't know about involving this whole situation. i'm just not really into politics so i never heard about any of this until the recent developments.
> 
> i definitely agree that these guys are not the kind of people we'd want to have nukes, and i agree as well that they're being careless with them. all i'm saying is if a country is going to tell another that they can't have nukes, they certainly shouldn't have any themselves. that's like me telling you i have a gun and might use it on you one day but you aren't allowed to have one.
> 
> i'm just curious now as to who it is that decides who gets to have nukes and who doesn't and the reasoning behind it all? to me, it's just looking like a power trip on all sides of this.


What if, from your example above, the person who wanted the gun was Charles Manson. "Better give Chuck a gun, we must be fair." I do not call that being fair, I call it being naive and stupid. BTW, The US has never threatened nuclear weapons on n korea, actually the reverse is true. 
So is it your assertion that only the US is wanting n korea do get rid of it's nukes? The world is in on this one, not just the US. I suppose you would have been supportive of Hitler having a nuke as well.....Let's throw some common sense into this and get the politics and uninformed opinions out of the mix. Your sense of fair play was absent in regards to the hundreds of thousands of n korean civilians killed by the n korean gov't or the 300,000 bodies found stacked in mass graves in Iraq. Do you not have any outrage over how these human beings are being mistreated(unfairly), Where is your sense of fair play on this? Or do you just arm-chair quarterback the US only. If the US is such a bad place, perhaps you should pursue a better life in Iraq or n. korea......
Guys, this is the real world. This theoretical thought process that you have may be good for the creative arts, but it is an impractical and silly process in regards to Geo politics. 
-Logan13

----------


## kis55

> What if, from your example above, the person who wanted the gun was Charles Manson. "Better give Chuck a gun, we must be fair." I do not call that being fair, I call it being naive and stupid. BTW, The US has never threatened nuclear weapons on n korea, actually the reverse is true. 
> So is it your assertion that only the US is wanting n korea do get rid of it's nukes? The world is in on this one, not just the US. I suppose you would have been supportive of Hitler having a nuke as well.....Let's throw some common sense into this and get the politics and uninformed opinions out of the mix. Your sense of fair play was absent in regards to the hundreds of thousands of n korean civilians killed by the n korean gov't or the 300,000 bodies found stacked in mass graves in Iraq. Do you not have any outrage over how these human beings are being mistreated(unfairly), Where is your sense of fair play on this? Or do you just arm-chair quarterback the US only. If the US is such a bad place, perhaps you should pursue a better life in Iraq or n. korea......
> Guys, this is the real world. This theoretical thought process that you have may be good for the creative arts, but it is an impractical and silly process in regards to Geo politics. 
> -Logan13


A big fat amen to that. Cutting through BS is certainly your forte!

----------


## zodiac666

> What if, from your example above, the person who wanted the gun was Charles Manson. "Better give Chuck a gun, we must be fair." I do not call that being fair, I call it being naive and stupid. BTW, The US has never threatened nuclear weapons on n korea, actually the reverse is true. 
> So is it your assertion that only the US is wanting n korea do get rid of it's nukes? The world is in on this one, not just the US. I suppose you would have been supportive of Hitler having a nuke as well.....Let's throw some common sense into this and get the politics and uninformed opinions out of the mix. Your sense of fair play was absent in regards to the hundreds of thousands of n korean civilians killed by the n korean gov't or the 300,000 bodies found stacked in mass graves in Iraq. Do you not have any outrage over how these human beings are being mistreated(unfairly), Where is your sense of fair play on this? Or do you just arm-chair quarterback the US only. If the US is such a bad place, perhaps you should pursue a better life in Iraq or n. korea......
> Guys, this is the real world. This theoretical thought process that you have may be good for the creative arts, but it is an impractical and silly process in regards to Geo politics. 
> -Logan13


very well put

----------


## ascendant

> What if, from your example above, the person who wanted the gun was Charles Manson. "Better give Chuck a gun, we must be fair." I do not call that being fair, I call it being naive and stupid.


i never once indicated allowing north korea to have nuclear weapons was ever a good idea. all i stated is that it's not our business to tell another country what they can and can't do, especially when we're telling them they can't possess something that we do because we don't see eye to eye with them. of course the US isn't going to want them to have nukes for that reason, but that doesn't mean we're right.

if it weren't for us arguing with them about being able to have nukes, we'd have no issues with them to even be concerned about at this point. what's causing the concern for them using them is all the other countries making a fuss about it and harassing them. if we'd just leave them alone, they wouldn't have a reason to use the nukes. again, not saying i think they should possess nukes, but what we're doing right now is aggravating the situation.




> BTW, The US has never threatened nuclear weapons on n korea, actually the reverse is true. 
> So is it your assertion that only the US is wanting n korea do get rid of it's nukes? The world is in on this one, not just the US.


what is the point in having nukes if you would never use them? time and time again, n korea's threats have proven to be hollow. however, the US has continuously intervened in other countries affairs when they had no business to. that's the reason Bin Laden hates the US and why 9/11 happened. 

also, i see this situation as a similar relation to the old saying "it's the silent ones you have to worry about". we don't talk about using our nukes, but you know very well if that's what it would take to win a war, the US govt would not hesitate to use them in a heartbeat rather than lose. the only reason they don't is because they're more powerful. that's not more civilized, that's simply being more powerful. if n korea was in a place of higher power, they'd have no need to threaten with nukes either. it's a matter of desperation.

i'm also well aware that the UN is concerned as well and not just the US. however, the UN also wanted the US to not go to war with Iraq, finding it's justification and insubstantial evidence for any legitimate reasoning unfounded, yet our govt disregarded the UN. the UN's intents are to keep more countries from possessing nukes and the intent is clearly understandable, but it's just hypocritical.




> I suppose you would have been supportive of Hitler having a nuke as well.....


that's just ridiculous and i can't believe you'd make a relation to this situation such as that.




> Let's throw some common sense into this and get the politics and uninformed opinions out of the mix. Your sense of fair play was absent in regards to the hundreds of thousands of n korean civilians killed by the n korean gov't or the 300,000 bodies found stacked in mass graves in Iraq. Do you not have any outrage over how these human beings are being mistreated(unfairly), Where is your sense of fair play on this? Or do you just arm-chair quarterback the US only. If the US is such a bad place, perhaps you should pursue a better life in Iraq or n. korea......
> Guys, this is the real world. This theoretical thought process that you have may be good for the creative arts, but it is an impractical and silly process in regards to Geo politics. 
> -Logan13


i know how twisted n korea is. however, our history books grossly twist the history of the US to cover our bloody past as well. fighting england for our "freedom", who were the ones who provided us with the means to get to what we now know as the US. killing off the indians to spread across this nation. numerous wars to establish borders to our nation of how much we can "control. not saying n korea is better by any means, but our countries history is very questionable as well. after all, we slaughtered almost all the indians, leaving what was left on "reservations" where we "allowed" them to be. now imagine how many indians were slaughtered for what we now know as the US. all countries make mistakes. if you read history books in countries other than the US, you'd find quite a different picture painted than what you see here.

i'm personally against war in all aspects, save for a very very select few extreme circumstances where it's intent is to save innocents or something similar where it's intended outcome is truly benevolent and not just about conflicting beliefs of different countries/nations. war just creates more division and more hate. since the iraq war, there are more people in more countries now that hate the US than ever, including many in iraq.

as i've already stated, i don't think n korea having nukes is a good idea for concerns of the fact they might use them. my entire point is just that it's hypocritical to tell someone they can't possess what you do. though we see them as twisted, i'm sure they see us the same way.

----------


## Oki-Des

> It would never happen. Nobody will ever make it that close to him. We have absolutely ZERO intel on North Korea. Not a single agent in the CIA has ever penetrated there. But if he was assassinated a general of the armed forces would most likely succeed him for the time being. And all their generals are the ones pushing him to be more hawkish and begin pressing the action.


It is not that I do not beleive you, but how do you know this? This seems like something that the president himself may not even know but could be true, couldnt it? I mean after the liberals all made it nearly impossible to hire people of this nature, maybe it all went underground.

----------


## Teabagger

Your very long post was quite illumative of how the revisionist history taught in primary and secondary schools, along with colleges has been a prime cause of our own citizens hating their country. And don't respond by saying you don't hate your country...you do...its all too apparent in your other posts as well. I find it sad that several generations now have been poisioned by the public school systems that are run by left wing, socialist, America hating "scholors", (I use that term very loosesly here). 

I find it hard to understand how people like you, who are obviously on such a higher moral plane, continue to live and work in such a horribly despicable, war mongering, oppressive, hypocritical, and ignorant country. I would think each day for you must be terrible. My question is really, why don't you and those of your philosohy move to a country that shares your philosohy and exists in such a highly moral and fair state??

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Your very long post was quite illumative of how the revisionist history taught in primary and secondary schools, along with colleges has been a prime cause of our own citizens hating their country. And don't respond by saying you don't hate your country...you do...its all too apparent in your other posts as well. I find it sad that several generations now have been poisioned by the public school systems that are run by left wing, socialist, America hating "scholors", (I use that term very loosesly here). 
> 
> I find it hard to understand how people like you, who are obviously on such a higher moral plane, continue to live and work in such a horribly despicable, war mongering, oppressive, hypocritical, and ignorant country. I would think each day for you must be terrible. My question is really, why don't you and those of your philosohy move to a country that shares your philosohy and exists in such a highly moral and fair state??


I think you are overreacting to his posts. Its one thing to hate a country and a whole different thing to be against the actions of the goverment(both past and present).

There isnt a country in this world that doesnt have a dirty past. Its something everyone should be aware of so that we can prevent it from happening again.

Hating what the american goverment did to indians isnt hating america. It would be like saying a german that hates nazis hate germany, or that I hate sweden because I dislike some of the things former swedish kings have done.

----------


## Phreak101

BOLD




> i never once indicated allowing north korea to have nuclear weapons was ever a good idea. all i stated is that it's not our business to tell another country what they can and can't do, especially when we're telling them they can't possess something that we do because we don't see eye to eye with them. of course the US isn't going to want them to have nukes for that reason, but that doesn't mean we're right.
> 
> *The United States is an acknowledged world superpower. If we are going to have countries begging us for support and demanding that we act to intervene (Mogadishu, Rwanda, Bosnia, etc) then the rest of the world better put up or shut up when it comes time for us to make some demands. Plain and simple.*
> 
> if it weren't for us arguing with them about being able to have nukes, we'd have no issues with them to even be concerned about at this point. what's causing the concern for them using them is all the other countries making a fuss about it and harassing them. if we'd just leave them alone, they wouldn't have a reason to use the nukes. again, not saying i think they should possess nukes, but what we're doing right now is aggravating the situation.
> 
> *Kim Jong Il has constantly sent open threats against the United States for the sole reason of beign bought off by the U.S. We cannot go after North Korea and his lunacy because of China and Russia and he knows it. his country is flat broke because they have one of the biggest standing armies in the world, so the only way he can get some semblance of a GDP is to extort the U.S. with nonsense rhetoric and hollow threats, backed by the power of nukes. We are NOT aggravating the situation by any means, he is.*
> 
> what is the point in having nukes if you would never use them? time and time again, n korea's threats have proven to be hollow. however, the US has continuously intervened in other countries affairs when they had no business to. that's the reason Bin Laden hates the US and why 9/11 happened. 
> ...

----------


## Logan13

> BOLD


Thank you for taking the time and saving me the typing by posting your retorts. Well put.

-Logan13

----------


## Kärnfysikern

What options exist regarding N.Korea??

1. War.
Totaly unthikable. It would mean the instant death of 30 000 american soliders and uncountable deaths in south korea.

2. Sanctions.
This will only hurt the population of N.Korea more, it wont effect the leaders at all.

So what other options are there? What can the world do besides just poiting there fingers saying "dont do that"?? All actions seems to costly in terms of lifes lost.

----------


## RA

You gave the options:

Sanctions
War
Do nothing


You know I did hear that one of those missles might have been shot down.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

Aim not ascendant but Im gonna answere anyway...





> The United States is an acknowledged world superpower. If we are going to have countries begging us for support and demanding that we act to intervene (Mogadishu, Rwanda, Bosnia, etc) then the rest of the world better put up or shut up when it comes time for us to make some demands. Plain and simple.


Wrong. The world has no obligation to do anything that the US demands. None.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> You gave the options:
> 
> Sanctions
> War
> Do nothing
> 
> 
> You know I did hear that one of those missles might have been shot down.



That would certanly prove me wrong on my scepticism towards the missile defense. Lets se if there is any official word.

Which of those 3 options do you think is best?

----------


## Phreak101

> Aim not ascendant but Im gonna answere anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. The world has no obligation to do anything that the US demands. None.


I never said they did. I just said put up or shut up. I believe we have somewhat of a privledge to be catered to because of our contributions to this world no? Demands are one thing, polite suggestions are another.

----------


## RA

He pointed one of those ICBMS at Hawaii. Thats provocation.

Condemnation from the U.N. (which no one takes serious) then direct talks between the U.S. and North Korea. I would not open our pocket books but they need to know we are just as serious as they are. 

If they pull out-sanctions. If that doesnt work-war.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> I never said they did. I just said put up or shut up. I believe we have somewhat of a privledge to be catered to because of our contributions to this world no? Demands are one thing, polite suggestions are another.


Well it depends. To me aid for instance is given without any strings attached. Like a christmas gift.

America has done alot of good and alot of bad just like most other nations.

Demands regarding north korea and to some extent Iran though I back fully and I hope sweden officialy does aswell. But telling the world to shut up regarding the Iraq war for instance isnt right.

It all depends on the nature of the demands and the situation.

American can be seen as hypocrits because they more or less support india and israel to have nukes despite the Non-Proliferation while they oppose Iran and N.Korea. Offcourse IMO India and Israel can handle them while Iran and N.Korea cant. 
But to stay true to the treaty USA should be openly oposed to Israeli nukes aswell and not support Indian nuclear industry. Otherwise the whole thing is just a joke and the NPT is the best hope we have of keeping this world free of nuclear weapons. I have to say that the UK is just as hypocritical though because they helped israel develop there nukes.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> He pointed one of those ICBMS at Hawaii. Thats provocation.
> 
> Condemnation from the U.N. (which no one takes serious) then direct talks between the U.S. and North Korea. I would not open our pocket books but they need to know we are just as serious as they are. 
> 
> If they pull out-sanctions. If that doesnt work-war.


But the worst case scenarion in case of war is a nuke dropping on tokyo and Seoul beeing destroyed by conventional weapons. Millions of lifes could be lost. Is it worth it to keep N.Korea nuclear free?

----------


## RA

> But the worst case scenarion in case of war is a nuke dropping on tokyo and Seoul beeing destroyed by conventional weapons. Millions of lifes could be lost. Is it worth it to keep N.Korea nuclear free?


 
Its not about the nukes. N Korea does this every couple years to shake us down. If they actually thought we were serious they would stop. You dont deal with a bully by giving him what he wants time after time. 

Besides...we could carpet bomb the place with nukes. They know that.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Its not about the nukes. N Korea does this every couple years to shake us down. If they actually thought we were serious they would stop. You dont deal with a bully by giving him what he wants time after time. 
> 
> Besides...we could carpet bomb the place with nukes. They know that.


I agree with that. If the world suddenly gives N.Korea more aid now its stupid. That would also be telling Iran to go ahead do whatever you want.

The best thing would be to just dont do shit. If giving aid give it with demands that you can observe who it goes to ect.

----------


## Phreak101

> Well it depends. To me aid for instance is given without any strings attached. Like a christmas gift.
> 
> America has done alot of good and alot of bad just like most other nations.
> 
> Demands regarding north korea and to some extent Iran though I back fully and I hope sweden officialy does aswell. But telling the world to shut up regarding the Iraq war for instance isnt right.
> 
> It all depends on the nature of the demands and the situation.
> 
> American can be seen as hypocrits because they more or less support india and israel to have nukes despite the Non-Proliferation while they oppose Iran and N.Korea. Offcourse IMO India and Israel can handle them while Iran and N.Korea cant. 
> But to stay true to the treaty USA should be openly oposed to Israeli nukes aswell and not support Indian nuclear industry. Otherwise the whole thing is just a joke and the NPT is the best hope we have of keeping this world free of nuclear weapons. I have to say that the UK is just as hypocritical though because they helped israel develop there nukes.


I wholeheartedly agree. The US is by no means perfect, but nothing pisses me off more than my fellow countrymen bashing this country as a whole because of the political agenda of a few. It's real easy to spout out nonsense that you watch on CNN without knowing the whole truth.

----------


## USfighterFC

All this really comes down to is extortion. North Korea always rattles the cage to get what they want from us which is aid, 2 light water reactors and money. You cannot keep appeasing them. Remember Germany when they annexed the Rhineland...no country said a word about it and let Germany have their way. Next they annexed another territory without reprecussions. Because Europe sat around Germany decided to invade all of Eastern and Western Europe. You cannot keep giving ground because if you give a country like North korea and inch they will take a mile and they have shown this time and time again. Honestly I want the tightest sanctions possible on North Korea. I know that will hurt the civilian population but I'd rather see North koreans suffer than to have an all out nuclear war where millions will inevitably die.

----------


## ZIA1

> Well it depends. To me aid for instance is given without any strings attached. Like a christmas gift.
> 
> America has done alot of good and alot of bad just like most other nations.
> 
> Demands regarding north korea and to some extent Iran though I back fully and I hope sweden officialy does aswell. But telling the world to shut up regarding the Iraq war for instance isnt right.
> 
> It all depends on the nature of the demands and the situation.
> 
> American can be seen as hypocrits because they more or less support india and israel to have nukes despite the Non-Proliferation while they oppose Iran and N.Korea. Offcourse IMO India and Israel can handle them while Iran and N.Korea cant. 
> But to stay true to the treaty USA should be openly oposed to Israeli nukes aswell and not support Indian nuclear industry. Otherwise the whole thing is just a joke and the NPT is the best hope we have of keeping this world free of nuclear weapons. I have to say that the UK is just as hypocritical though because they helped israel develop there nukes.


Just to be clear: Israel has never admitted to having nukes. Secondly, if she does, it was not the UK that helped the Israelis develop them. France provided the reactor...from there, its anyone's guess. 

By the way, did you guys know that North Korea has sold some serioius hardware to the Iranians? The deals have already occurred.

----------


## USfighterFC

> Just to be clear: Israel has never admitted to having nukes. Secondly, if she does, it was not the UK that helped the Israelis develop them. France provided the reactor...from there, its anyone's guess. 
> 
> By the way, did you guys know that North Korea has sold some serioius hardware to the Iranians? The deals have already occurred.


Yes and they have sold long range missile technology to Pakistan as well. They are broke as Russia is. This is why Russia is buildng a reactor in Iran for 800 million dollars. The more nuclear technology spreads the more you will encounter nightmare scenarios. The only problem is the nightmare is real.

----------


## RA

> All this really comes down to is extortion. North Korea always rattles the cage to get what they want from us which is aid, 2 light water reactors and money. You cannot keep appeasing them. Remember Germany when they annexed the Rhineland...no country said a word about it and let Germany have their way. Next they annexed another territory without reprecussions. Because Europe sat around Germany decided to invade all of Eastern and Western Europe. You cannot keep giving ground because if you give a country like North korea and inch they will take a mile and they have shown this time and time again. Honestly I want the tightest sanctions possible on North Korea. I know that will hurt the civilian population but I'd rather see North koreans suffer than to have an all out nuclear war where millions will inevitably die.


 
Agreed. The thing that bothers me is that in two year we will most likely see a Democrat as president. If they are anything like Bill Clinton it will just strengthen N Korea's position.

----------


## USfighterFC

The French have shown how irresponsible they are with nuke technology as well building a reactor for Iraq in the 1980's. Because of that reactor it was estimated Saddam was within 6 months of developing a nuclear weapon before Israel bombed the shit out of it.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Just to be clear: Israel has never admitted to having nukes. Secondly, if she does, it was not the UK that helped the Israelis develop them. France provided the reactor...from there, its anyone's guess. 
> 
> By the way, did you guys know that North Korea has sold some serioius hardware to the Iranians? The deals have already occurred.


Well after Mordechain Vanunu any official word is not needed.

BBC got ahold of documents and reported that UK supplied Israel with lithum 6, lots of heavy water and samples of U-235 and Plutonium. 
http://www.newstatesman.com/200603130011

IAEA even investigaed it so its not like its lose acusations.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Yes and they have sold long range missile technology to Pakistan as well. They are broke as Russia is. This is why Russia is buildng a reactor in Iran for 800 million dollars. The more nuclear technology spreads the more you will encounter nightmare scenarios. The only problem is the nightmare is real.


Nuclear technology HAS to spread if this world is gonna stand a chanse to handle a switch from fossile fuels. Reactors can be designed such that no waste can be used in bomb making. So reactors in itself isnt realy a danger. 

Any nations has the right to develop peacefull nuclear technology according to the NPT. Thats something I feel ALL nations should fully support and western nations should even aid nuclear technology in developing countries as much as possible.

----------


## Logan13

> Its not about the nukes. N Korea does this every couple years to shake us down. If they actually thought we were serious they would stop. *You dont deal with a bully by giving him what he wants time after time.*  
> Besides...we could carpet bomb the place with nukes. They know that.


*Liberals believe in doing just this........obvious from the thread.*

----------


## Logan13

> Aim not ascendant but Im gonna answere anyway...
> Wrong. The world has no obligation to do anything that the US demands. None.


And the US has no obligation to send anyone foreign aid. ANYONE! We will not sit by and be blackmailed by the likes of kim jong...whatever his name is, or by anyone else. We will not have our hands tied by pacifist countries that do little to maintain peace throughout the world, but only complain about the steps taken by the one's who are actually doing something. I can guarantee you one thing, if n korea does fire a nuke at a country, it will be dealt with extremely harsh. I also guarantee you that your country, Sweden, will do absolutely nothing to help defeat such an evil leader. Your country will sit on its hands and only complain about any and all actions taken against n korea. You want a solution that does not contain sanctions or all-out-war: bomb every and all missle sights and manufacturing facilities from the air. There will be civilian casualties from such a carpet bombing, and I imagine that the LEFT will bitch about that, but at least his ace will be taken away.
-Logan13

----------


## Badgerman

> I agree that we should never have to bomb civilians, but I am not against the bombing of Japan. Think of how many tens of thousands of american lives, and Japanese lives, it would cost to take Japan by force with a ground assault. Think of D-Day, I know this is one of the first things I think of when thinking about WWII because of how terrible it was. That's what daily battle would have been against Japan. Know matter where we attack we would have been storming the beach.
> 
> To avoid that the US decided to drop the bomb, which I'm sure was a terrible and tough decision. That was when it fell into the hands of Japan, the reason for that bomb was to force surrender, hence save tens of thousands of American lives, but what did Japan do? They didn't surrender forcing a second bomb. I know that dropping the bomb was terrible but more than the US's decision it was Japans decision, at least their emperors.
> 
> I know it's terrible to kill civilians, but at what point is a Japanese civilian's life worth more than an American soldier's life.



The civilians don't have the option of surrendering.........
If you support the bombing of Japan civilians.........then you have no right to be outraged at Saddam gassing Kurds........since he applied the same value judgment.

And ANY civilian is more important than any soldier........

----------


## ascendant

> The United States is an acknowledged world superpower. If we are going to have countries begging us for support and demanding that we act to intervene (Mogadishu, Rwanda, Bosnia, etc) then the rest of the world better put up or shut up when it comes time for us to make some demands. Plain and simple.


I completely disagree. This is the power-happy mentality that causes war, and what pisses other countries off about the US, this superiority complex. Just because some people ask you for help in the gym doesn't mean you have the right to walk up to anyone and tell them what to do. It's the US's choice who to help, who not to help, what to intervene in, and what not to.




> Kim Jong Il has constantly sent open threats against the United States for the sole reason of beign bought off by the U.S. We cannot go after North Korea and his lunacy because of China and Russia and he knows it. his country is flat broke because they have one of the biggest standing armies in the world, so the only way he can get some semblance of a GDP is to extort the U.S. with nonsense rhetoric and hollow threats, backed by the power of nukes. *We are NOT aggravating the situation by any means*, he is.


Again, I must disagree with the boldfaced part of the above quote. We are aggravating it by humoring his bs threats. If we ignored it, he'd realize it won't accomplish anything. By humoring him, he knows this is a way to get what he wants. It's like at some point a child begins to realize the parents aren't going to respond to them every time they cry for attention. That's what I feel needs to be done here, either that or actual action rather than the US and the UN simply shaking their finger and saying no at him. Ignoring him would eventually get him to realize doing this isn't going to work.




> And 9/11 did NOT happen because the U.S. is intervening in the affairs of other countries. There are many theories but the one that holds the most water is the U.S. backed support of Israel. We are seen as Zionist supporting infidels to these people. We got bombed for supporting an ally. Same thing happened in WW2.


I'm not talking about theories, I'm talking about words that were said directly from Bin Laden. Direct quotes from him have stated he hates the US for pushing their beliefs on his people and for intervening in their affairs. Not going to get into all the details, but I'm sure there's plenty of info about it on the web. If you feel a need for it, I'll find some for you indicating this particular issue Bin Laden has with our country. I'm sure your above statements hold truth as well, but my statements were indeed a contributing factor as well.




> If you had Chinese soldiers rolling up into your yard threatening to torture your family and throw you in prison, would you be against the power of nuclear weaponry putting a stop to all of that? Of course not. How about if you had to choose between your son's life and the soldiers and civillians of a country you are at war with?


actually, yes i would be completely against nuclear weaponry to stop it, cause what would that stop besides the lives of innocent civilians in their country? the people i would want dead are the soldiers that would be in our country. we have plenty of weapons that can level a specific target without the need for civilian casualties. with a nuke, there's no way there wouldn't be civilian casualties.

you seem to have a strong identification with the actions of the country you live in. if the country goes to war with another country, in your eyes, it seems as if you would consider yourself at war with them as well. though i identify with US citizens, i do not identify with the actions of our govt to that extent.

there is simply no justification behind having nukes save for causing massive casualties toward another country that would innevitably cause innocents to be killed simply for where they live.




> Incorrect statement. As a whoel the UN majority backed the United States, it was the major Veto Powers that did not unanimously agree. Would you give a murderer 10 years unguarded to tell you where he his his bodies? No. So why was Sadamm allowed 10 years without weapons inspections? Attempting to keep the most destructive technology known to man out of the hands of people who have no intent but war is NOT hypocritical.


No matter how you look at it, the UN did not see reasonable cause to go after Saddam. If you believe that is untrue, I'd like to see some evidence backing your statement?

Also, I never stated what you mentioned above as being hypocritical. It was the matter of us telling countries that we don't want to have nukes they can't when we have them ourselves. Even if one country in a sense knows better than to misuse them and knows another country doesn't, use a basis of comparison of two people. You can tell your buddy that his girlfriend is trouble, but will he listen? Usually not until it's too late, and continually nagging him about his girl will not do anything but aggravate him with you. The best you can usually do in a situation like that is leave it alone and let him find out for himself. 

What are we hoping to accomplish with humoring n korea right now? The only thing that seems like it would stop him at this point is a war, which would obviously do far more harm than good. After all, he may never use a nuke, yet we go after him and he decides to because of the action we took against him all because of a concern that he might one day. We could inadvertently push him to do something he never intended to do.




> Brush up on your history man. Taxation without representation, plain and simple. The Indians? We tried to trade with them, there were even Indians who colloborated with US troops to bring down rival tribes! It's real easy to bash the big boy, but cmon examine the facts. Of course you're going to see a different history than the one the U.S. is portraying. History is written by those who win wars. It's all about who you're hearing it from. You wouldn't be sitting on your comp bashing this country today if it wasn't for the "bloody past" of the U.S.


In regards to the taxation issue, I know there was reasoning behind their actions as to why they fought them. However, all I'm saying is there's two sides to this. After all, the entire trip was paid for by them and so in a sense it's an investment, which nowadays people expect a profit from. They were hoping to make their money off their "investment", and the people of the US decided they'd rather not. Not saying either side is right, just saying it all depends on how you look at it.

As far as the indians and us trading with them, sure, we traded with them. We traded blankets that were infested with diseases we knew the indians had no cures for. Many of them welcomed us with open arms and we stabbed them in the back with infectious disease. Take a walk onto any reservation anywhere in the country and you'll find this to be fact. If you think we were so friendly with so many of them, why are there so few left in the country and why are they isolated to reservations? Your facts are not matching reality here. Though some indians were violent towards us, you don't know their true reasoning why, and those who were friends with us are in far fewer numbers now. Again, you seem to be missing the other side of this story.

As far as bashing this country, you seem to misunderstand my intents. I'm merely trying to point out that there isn't necessarily a "right" and "wrong" side of many of these situations. As you stated in your quote yourself, it all depends on who you're hearing it from.




> Alright, when they start a war with japan that we are sucked into, you let me know how hypocritical it was when millions are dying ebcause we let them have nukes.


we never "let them" have anything. they're doing it themselves, and it's their country. we really have no business to stop them and i don't see how it can even be done at this point. i don't have a solution to this issue and i'm not saying people shouldn't be making a fuss over what he's doing. the entire point of my original statements in here was simply that the US was being hypocrites. now it's escalated into assumptions that are simply not how i see things.

if we're going to intervene into any countries affairs, i personally think it should be south americas. after all, their countries economy is shot, their people are flooding into our country because of it, and it's negatively affecting our countries economy because of it. with how dramatically their issues are affecting our country and how badly people from their country want to move to america to make a far easier living for themselves, i personally think we should be foucusing on making them clean up their act so that their economical issues stop flooding into our countries before we become a 3rd world country which with the way things are going, we're well on our way to becoming.

----------


## ascendant

> Your very long post was quite illumative of how the revisionist history taught in primary and secondary schools, along with colleges has been a prime cause of our own citizens hating their country. And don't respond by saying you don't hate your country...you do...its all too apparent in your other posts as well. I find it sad that several generations now have been poisioned by the public school systems that are run by left wing, socialist, America hating "scholors", (I use that term very loosesly here). 
> 
> I find it hard to understand how people like you, who are obviously on such a higher moral plane, continue to live and work in such a horribly despicable, war mongering, oppressive, hypocritical, and ignorant country. I would think each day for you must be terrible. My question is really, why don't you and those of your philosohy move to a country that shares your philosohy and exists in such a highly moral and fair state??


so now i'm not allowed to say i don't hate the US cause you say so? johan stated it quite well here:




> I think you are overreacting to his posts. Its one thing to hate a country and a whole different thing to be against the actions of the goverment(both past and present).
> 
> There isnt a country in this world that doesnt have a dirty past. Its something everyone should be aware of so that we can prevent it from happening again.
> 
> Hating what the american goverment did to indians isnt hating america. It would be like saying a german that hates nazis hate germany, or that I hate sweden because I dislike some of the things former swedish kings have done.


by the way, thanks johan as you're one of the very few which seems to understand the point i'm trying to get across here.

as far as what public schools teach, it has nothing to do with that. it has to do with looking at both sides of a situation, which you seem to choose not to do in this situation as you seem to be determined to back up the US under any circumstance and justify it as "patriotic".

as far as your statements regarding this country and the words you put into my mouth as far as how i feel about it, i like the people of the US, i just don't particularly like our govt and was just pointing out the fact that the US isn't without some blemishes itself. i never said there was any other countries that was any better. pretty much all politicians from anywhere you go are corrupt as hell IMO. however, i do not deal with our govt directly on a daily basis, i deal with other US citizens, which i am perfectly content with.

----------


## ZIA1

> Well after Mordechain Vanunu any official word is not needed.
> 
> BBC got ahold of documents and reported that UK supplied Israel with lithum 6, lots of heavy water and samples of U-235 and Plutonium. 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/200603130011
> 
> IAEA even investigaed it so its not like its lose acusations.


I want to look into this before I respond. Vananu is not a credible source though I understand why you used him.

----------


## Badgerman

shhhhhh...........don't let anybody know Israel has nukes........

----------


## Badgerman

> so now i'm not allowed to say i don't hate the US cause you say so? johan stated it quite well here:
> 
> 
> 
> by the way, thanks johan as you're one of the very few which seems to understand the point i'm trying to get across here.
> 
> as far as what public schools teach, it has nothing to do with that. it has to do with looking at both sides of a situation, which you seem to choose not to do in this situation as you seem to be determined to back up the US under any circumstance and justify it as "patriotic".
> 
> as far as your statements regarding this country and the words you put into my mouth as far as how i feel about it, i like the people of the US, i just don't particularly like our govt and was just pointing out the fact that the US isn't without some blemishes itself. i never said there was any other countries that was any better. pretty much all politicians from anywhere you go are corrupt as hell IMO. however, i do not deal with our govt directly on a daily basis, i deal with other US citizens, which i am perfectly content with.


I understand........people always have a blind spot to hypocrisy in the name of patriotism..........the Boston Tea Party was definitely first class terrorism.......and what did they do.......dress up as Indians?.......

Half the guys here would be killing Indians if they owned the tea company.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> And the US has no obligation to send anyone foreign aid. ANYONE! We will not sit by and be blackmailed by the likes of kim jong...whatever his name is, or by anyone else. We will not have our hands tied by pacifist countries that do little to maintain peace throughout the world, but only complain about the steps taken by the one's who are actually doing something. I can guarantee you one thing, if n korea does fire a nuke at a country, it will be dealt with extremely harsh. I also guarantee you that your country, Sweden, will do absolutely nothing to help defeat such an evil leader. Your country will sit on its hands and only complain about any and all actions taken against n korea. You want a solution that does not contain sanctions or all-out-war: bomb every and all missle sights and manufacturing facilities from the air. There will be civilian casualties from such a carpet bombing, and I imagine that the LEFT will bitch about that, but at least his ace will be taken away.
> -Logan13


Well I agree that you have no obligation to send aid to anyone. Never claimed you have. 

The thing is that if america does that it is america that will lose almost 40 000 soliders and your allie south korea will suffer unimaginable causalities.

Are you willing to let them die because of the slim risk that kim would ever nuke anyone? Whos to say he will ever use it? The odds are probably not big. He probably just wants it to scare you and japan.

If your willing to give 40 000 american soliders a death sentance along with hundrads of thousands of south koreans and possibly alot of japanese aswell simply because you suspect someone might use a nuclear weapon then go ahead. Carpet bomb them. But it wont be a easy war like Iraq....

Funny that you think you are taking steps toward world peace while all of europe(even the world maby) thing Bush is the greatest threat to world peace... But I guess america is always right and the rest of the world doesnt have a clue...

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> I want to look into this before I respond. Vananu is not a credible source though I understand why you used him.


Let me know what you find

----------


## Badgerman

> Well I agree that you have no obligation to send aid to anyone. Never claimed you have. 
> 
> The thing is that if america does that it is america that will lose almost 40 000 soliders and your allie south korea will suffer unimaginable causalities.
> 
> Are you willing to let them die because of the slim risk that kim would ever nuke anyone? Whos to say he will ever use it? The odds are probably not big. He probably just wants it to scare you and japan.
> 
> If your willing to give 40 000 american soliders a death sentance along with hundrads of thousands of south koreans and possibly alot of japanese aswell simply because you suspect someone might use a nuclear weapon then go ahead. Carpet bomb them. But it wont be a easy war like Iraq....
> 
> Funny that you think you are taking steps toward world peace while all of europe(even the world maby) thing Bush is the greatest threat to world peace... But I guess america is always right and the rest of the world doesnt have a clue...



I think China would squash PRNK if they upset the trade with US.......
North Korea is just jumping up and down in their crib wanting some freebies.
I agree our foreign policy is scarey........eventually we're going to run out of money on the Iraq deal.......We definiety need to open direct talks with all nations.........and get religious leaders to meet on a regular basis..........they influence the masses..........communication works if it is not always confrontational. For example.......would the PRNK back off if we withdrew
from the border?..........I mean unless you're willing to level any obstinate country..........diplomacy is the only way........MAKE THINGS MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL.........there is always a way to achieve that

----------


## Logan13

> Well I agree that you have no obligation to send aid to anyone. Never claimed you have. 
> 
> The thing is that if america does that it is america that will lose almost 40 000 soliders and your allie south korea will suffer unimaginable causalities.
> 
> Are you willing to let them die because of the slim risk that kim would ever nuke anyone? Whos to say he will ever use it? The odds are probably not big. He probably just wants it to scare you and japan.
> 
> If your willing to give 40 000 american soliders a death sentance along with hundrads of thousands of south koreans and possibly alot of japanese aswell simply because you suspect someone might use a nuclear weapon then go ahead. Carpet bomb them. But it wont be a easy war like Iraq....
> 
> Funny that you think you are taking steps toward world peace while all of europe(even the world maby) thing Bush is the greatest threat to world peace... But I guess america is always right and the rest of the world doesnt have a clue...


Again, we will not be blackmailed into giving aid. You are correct, the rest of the Liberal world does not have a clue. How can they draw a rational and logical view of the World's issues from the nose bleed section? They are constantly sticking their head in the sand, only popping it out long enough to criticize the US for taking action while they do absolutely NOTHING. It is no suprise that your solution to the n korea problem is to "just give them what they want". If you are not part of the solution, you ARE part of the problem.

----------


## Logan13

> I think China would squash PRNK if they upset the trade with US.......
> North Korea is just jumping up and down in their crib wanting some freebies.
> I agree our foreign policy is scarey........eventually we're going to run out of money on the Iraq deal.......We definiety need to open direct talks with all nations.........and get religious leaders to meet on a regular basis..........they influence the masses..........communication works if it is not always confrontational. For example.......would the PRNK back off if we withdrew
> from the border?..........I mean unless you're willing to level any obstinate country..........diplomacy is the only way........MAKE THINGS MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL.........there is always a way to achieve that


I can't believe that I am saying this...good points. Did someone else sign in under Badgerman?

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Again, we will not be blackmailed into giving aid. You are correct, the rest of the Liberal world does not have a clue. How can they draw a rational and logical view of the World's issues from the nose bleed section? They are constantly sticking their head in the sand, only popping it out long enough to criticize the US for taking action while they do absolutely NOTHING. It is no suprise that your solution to the n korea problem is to "just give them what they want". If you are not part of the solution, you ARE part of the problem.


So what you are saying is that you are willing to let 40 000 american soliders die just to make sure N.Korea doesnt get a new toy in its arsenal? Because that is the inevitable result of bombing N.Korea. That is your solution?

Last time I checked I aint giving North Korea anything at all.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

I dont se where you get the idea that I even think you should give aid to N.Korea. Show me one post in this thread where I have said anyone should give aid to N.Korea.

Instead of beeing so busy boosting your pride about america and calling every country that disagress with you for pacifist pussies, maby you should acctualy listen to the objections of other countries. Most people value lifes a bit more than you and are not prepared to throw them away unless its absolutely neccesary.

I dont se why pacifism is a bad thing either. Mahatma Gandhi acomplished alot more without violence than he would have with violence.

Violence should always be the absolute last resort when absolutely nothing else have even the slightest possibility to work.




> I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war

----------


## Logan13

> I dont se where you get the idea that I even think you should give aid to N.Korea. Show me one post in this thread where I have said anyone should give aid to N.Korea.
> 
> Instead of beeing so busy boosting your pride about america and calling every country that disagress with you for pacifist pussies, maby you should acctualy listen to the objections of other countries. Most people value lifes a bit more than you and are not prepared to throw them away unless its absolutely neccesary.
> 
> I dont se why pacifism is a bad thing either. Mahatma Gandhi acomplished alot more without violence than he would have with violence.
> 
> Violence should always be the absolute last resort when absolutely nothing else have even the slightest possibility to work.


How can you expect the US to take anything that these pacifist countries has to say with anything more than a grain of salt? They are not involved in anything, and yet they feel that they have some great wisdom to shed on the world's events and that the US should "take heed" of this wisdom. We do listen to what our allies say who are actually in the front lines. If you want a say, get into the game, otherwise you are only a spectator.....
I am not talking about violence as the answer to everything, not at all. But you have to be willing to follow through with action once diplomacy has failed. Your country and many like it are not willing to take action, no matter what. If the free world just followed your lead in world politics, we would have 10 Kim Jong Ils instead of one. As far as valuing life more, perhaps Sweden should have done something during WW2 to save Jewish lives if they are so concerned with human life. Do not tell me how you "value life more". Your inaction has definately not saved any lives.......... Be as pacifist as you want, just stay out of our business while doing so.

----------


## Logan13

> So what you are saying is that you are willing to let 40 000 american soliders die just to make sure N.Korea doesnt get a new toy in its arsenal? Because that is the inevitable result of bombing N.Korea. That is your solution?
> 
> *Last time I checked I aint giving North Korea anything at all*.


Nor are you giving the rest of the world which wants to deal with this issue anything either. The only thing that pacifist countries give is opinion...........

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> How can you expect the US to take anything that these pacifist countries has to say with anything more than a grain of salt? They are not involved in anything, and yet they feel that they have some great wisdom to shed on the world's events and that the US should "take heed" of this wisdom. We do listen to what our allies say who are actually in the front lines. If you want a say, get into the game, otherwise you are only a spectator.....
> I am not talking about violence as the answer to everything, not at all. But you have to be willing to follow through with action once diplomacy has failed. Your country and many like it are not willing to take action, no matter what. If the free world just followed your lead in world politics, we would have 10 Kim Jong Ils instead of one. As far as valuing life more, perhaps Sweden should have done something during WW2 to save Jewish lives if they are so concerned with human life. Do not tell me how you "value life more". Your inaction has definately not saved any lives.......... Be as pacifist as you want, just stay out of our business while doing so.


Read a bit about Raoul Wallenberg and Folke Bernadotte. Sweden couldnt do shit without getting stomped to oblivion but we still had plenty of swedes that did alot. Not to mention ALOT of swedes went over to finland to help fight the russians. They where fully armed by the swedish armed forces.

About not beeing involved in anything. I have already shown in numerous threads that most european countries gives more aid per capita than america and sweden has plenty of UN peacekeeping forces. But your view of beeing involed just seems to involve bombings.. 
Building schools, treating diseases, preventing the spreading of aids. All those things arent important right, none of those things qualify as beeing involved in anything?? You seem to have a very limited view on what qualifies as beeing involved.

You still havent answered the question if you are willing to let 40 000 american soliders die just to prevent Kim from getting a new toy? Because ultimately that is what its all about.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Nor are you giving the rest of the world which wants to deal with this issue anything either. The only thing that pacifist countries give is opinion...........



we just choose to give other things than bullets and bombs. The avarage swedes gives more than the avarage american...

----------


## Kärnfysikern

now lets stop dancing around this issue

Answere this question. Because this is what its all about.

Are you preapred to sacrifice 40 000 fellow american citizens to prevent kim from playing with his new toys?

Im not.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

Logan we have debated countless of times and I always respect your oppinions, but this time I just cant not understand how you would be willing to use force against N.Korea. Not with the causalities involved in doing so.

----------


## Logan13

> Read a bit about Raoul Wallenberg and Folke Bernadotte. Sweden couldnt do shit without getting stomped to oblivion but we still had plenty of swedes that did alot. Not to mention ALOT of swedes went over to finland to help fight the russians. They where fully armed by the swedish armed forces.
> 
> About not beeing involved in anything. I have already shown in numerous threads that most european countries gives more aid per capita than america and sweden has plenty of UN peacekeeping forces. But your view of beeing involed just seems to involve bombings.. 
> Building schools, treating diseases, preventing the spreading of aids. All those things arent important right, none of those things qualify as beeing involved in anything?? You seem to have a very limited view on what qualifies as beeing involved.
> 
> You still havent answered the question if you are willing to let 40 000 american soliders die just to prevent Kim from getting a new toy? Because ultimately that is what its all about.


He's got the "toy" already, and as I said earlier. If the rest of the world followed your lead, we would have 10 Kim Jong Il's instead of the one. Your simplistic view about bombing n korea lacks full thought. All bases target at the same time, what will be left to shoot south? And why you are asking for answers to questions, why not address mine to you about "caring for lives more"? I do not want 40,000 soldiers to die, but how many people will die from a long range nuke in the hands of a mad man?

----------


## Logan13

> we just choose to give other things than bullets and bombs. The avarage swedes gives more than the avarage american...


During times of war, you give ZERO. Again, this goes back to my statement in regards to WW2. Our tax dollars were spend in defending freedom over the last 60 years. You should figure that into the sum total of what has been given by Americans. One day, it will be our tax dollars could be saving your country from a hostile take-over, it is a pity that that the reverse is not true. You are an easy target since you will not retaliate, these rogue nations will and have taken notice of this.

----------


## Logan13

> now lets stop dancing around this issue
> 
> Answere this question. Because this is what its all about.
> 
> Are you preapred to sacrifice 40 000 fellow american citizens to prevent kim from playing with his new toys?
> 
> Im not.


I have given you a solution, now let's hear yours....What do we do when diplomacy fails with n korea? BTW, "I don't know" and/or "nothing" are not answers.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> He's got the "toy" already, and as I said earlier. If the rest of the world followed your lead, we would have 10 Kim Jong Il's instead of the one. Your simplistic view about bombing n korea lacks full thought. All bases target at the same time, what will be left to shoot south? And why you are asking for answers to questions, why not address mine to you about "caring for lives more"? I do not want 40,000 soldiers to die, but how many people will die from a long range nuke in the hands of a mad man?



well I belive giving food, medicine and help in constructing hospitals and preventing the spread of dangerous disease is caring more for lifes than giving bombs and bullets. Il rather spend money in africa than send troops to iraq. Thats caring for lifes. Educating people and raising there standard of living is the key to getting rid of the reqruiting base fanatics have imo.

About ww2. Sweden entering would have been stupidity at its highest. We would have been overrun almost as quickly as denmark and norway. Germany probably had more soliders than sweden had population. 

What will be left to shot and invande the south is the close to 1 million army stationed closed to the DMZ not to mention the immense artillery north korea has aviable that can reach seoul....If you want to get rid of that you have to nuke the entire northern side of the DMZ.

Also dont forget that america has SUPORTED many dictators when it suits them. So if the rest of the world followed swedens lead those dictators wouldnt have been in power. 

What gives you the reason to belive Kim will ever launch a nuke at america. If he wanted to nuke someone he could have already nuked Tokyo. Sacrificing alot of lifes just because you suspect he might do something isnt reason enough.

----------


## ascendant

> Logan we have debated countless of times and I always respect your oppinions, but this time I just cant not understand how you would be willing to use force against N.Korea. Not with the causalities involved in doing so.


i'm with you on this johan, though it seems way too many others are too involved with being "patriotic" and backing our govt's actions to see any reason here. i just don't understand how so many americans are completely blind to how things really are rather than just listening to what our media tells us?

when we invaded iraq, we had no damn right to. if their people wanted change as bush claimed, they should've taken action themselves. if they can't, that should not be the responsibility of another country to do so for them. one country has no place to decide "what's best" for another. they don't live there, they don't see it everyday and live in it. they have no clue what's best for their people. but time and time again, the US govt intervenes with their conceited "we're right" attitude.

i have seen posts complaining about other countries not taking action. well IMO, the US takes too much action, and keeps putting their noses where it doesn't belong. by doing so, they continually piss of more and more of the other countries at us, which will only potentially lead to more and more attacks on the US, either terrorist or otherwise.

personally, i think n korea is doing something really stupid right now, but in all honesty, you really think they can't make nuclear weapons covertly? this whole thing is just for attention and should not be humored. it's impossible to watch over a whole country and oversee all their actions. at least with him ranting about it like he is, we at least know what he's doing and can keep an eye on it.

how would all you US citizens like it if the US started doing some kind of new weapons research and another country started telling us "no, you can't do that"? chances are, you'd think "f*ck you, it's our country and we can do whatever we want". however, when you see the US do it to another country, you expect them to think it's acceptable? eventually, the US is gonna push around the wrong country, and eventually one of those countries is gonna push back, and "big brother" is gonna be in for a big surprise when one day a country we finally push too far makes 9/11 look like a scratch on the knee.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> I have given you a solution, now let's hear yours....What do we do when diplomacy fails with n korea? BTW, "I don't know" and/or "nothing" are not answers.


Dont give them any aid, dont acnoweledge his threats. Let him have his rocket because he knows that if he ever uses them he is dead.
Doing nothing is a answere. Just ask mahatma ghandi.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> During times of war, you give ZERO. Again, this goes back to my statement in regards to WW2. Our tax dollars were spend in defending freedom over the last 60 years. You should figure that into the sum total of what has been given by Americans. One day, it will be our tax dollars could be saving your country from a hostile take-over, it is a pity that that the reverse is not true. You are an easy target since you will not retaliate, these rogue nations will and have taken notice of this.


We stayed out of WW2 simply because entering would have done nothing else but bring suffering to sweden. We wouldnt have stood a chanse. We would have been overrun within days. Not to mention The allies would have imietly bombed our rich mining areas to hell and back to prevent nazis from getting hold of them. We would have lost everything and gained nothing. We wouldnt have saved one single life and lost plenty. What would be the logic of that?

Your tax dollars has been spent on supporting dicators aswell. Dont try to think that everything the american goverment does is all good. That is certanly a simplistic view. So defending freedom is bullshit. Defending american interests is more like it and I dont have a problem with that aslong as it doesnt interfer with other countries buisness.

Lol it will be a cold day in hell before sweden is invaded. Last time I checked we are pretty damn far away from any country wishing to expand. Maby Finland wants to expand its bounderies or norway  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Kärnfysikern

What pisses me of is when people claim european countries are just pacifist countries that does "nothing". We choose not to take military action against other countries. That doesnt mean we doesnt help ALOT all over the world.

Maby just maby european countries has learned not to meddle after our age of imperialism.

----------


## Logan13

> We stayed out of WW2 simply because entering would have done nothing else but bring suffering to sweden. We wouldnt have stood a chanse. We would have been overrun within days. Not to mention The allies would have imietly bombed our rich mining areas to hell and back to prevent nazis from getting hold of them. We would have lost everything and gained nothing. We wouldnt have saved one single life and lost plenty. What would be the logic of that?
> 
> Your tax dollars has been spent on supporting dicators aswell. Dont try to think that everything the american goverment does is all good. That is certanly a simplistic view. So defending freedom is bullshit. Defending american interests is more like it and I dont have a problem with that aslong as it doesnt interfer with other countries buisness.
> 
> *Lol it will be a cold day in hell before sweden is invaded. Last time I checked we are pretty damn far away from any country wishing to expand.* Maby Finland wants to expand its bounderies or norway


You never know, maybe the US will want a northern getaway for it's citizens some day. Knowing that you guys will just cave, perhaps it could happen with no loss to life.......... :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Logan13

> i'm with you on this johan, though it seems way too many others are too involved with being "patriotic" and backing our govt's actions to see any reason here. i just don't understand how so many americans are completely blind to how things really are rather than just listening to what our media tells us?
> 
> when we invaded iraq, we had no damn right to. if their people wanted change as bush claimed, they should've taken action themselves. if they can't, that should not be the responsibility of another country to do so for them. one country has no place to decide "what's best" for another. they don't live there, they don't see it everyday and live in it. they have no clue what's best for their people. but time and time again, the US govt intervenes with their conceited "we're right" attitude.
> 
> i have seen posts complaining about other countries not taking action. well IMO, the US takes too much action, and keeps putting their noses where it doesn't belong. by doing so, they continually piss of more and more of the other countries at us, which will only potentially lead to more and more attacks on the US, either terrorist or otherwise.
> 
> personally, i think n korea is doing something really stupid right now, but in all honesty, you really think they can't make nuclear weapons covertly? this whole thing is just for attention and should not be humored. it's impossible to watch over a whole country and oversee all their actions. at least with him ranting about it like he is, we at least know what he's doing and can keep an eye on it.
> 
> how would all you US citizens like it if the US started doing some kind of new weapons research and another country started telling us "no, you can't do that"? chances are, you'd think "f*ck you, it's our country and we can do whatever we want". however, when you see the US do it to another country, you expect them to think it's acceptable? eventually, the US is gonna push around the wrong country, and eventually one of those countries is gonna push back, and "big brother" is gonna be in for a big surprise when one day a country we finally push too far makes 9/11 look like a scratch on the knee.


With great power comes great responsibility.

----------


## Logan13

> What pisses me of is when people claim european countries are just pacifist countries that does "nothing". We choose not to take military action against other countries. That doesnt mean we doesnt help ALOT all over the world.
> 
> Maby just maby european countries has learned not to meddle after our age of imperialism.


I do still respect you as a knowledgable member of this forum, Johan.
 :Welcome:

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> You never know, maybe the US will want a northern getaway for it's citizens some day. Knowing that you guys will just cave, perhaps it could happen with no loss to life..........


The only thing Im gonna reply with is that sweden was waring before anyone had a clue your beloved country even existed. We have seen far more war in our history than american can even dream of. 
Europe has learned its lessons. Maby america will in the next few hundred years.

Open up your eyes and realise the shortcomings of your own country and maby someday you will realise why the rest of the world is so critical....

----------


## Badgerman

> With great power comes great responsibility.


I agree

When it comes to North Korea........the proper military solution is to level it.......that is the only proper military solution........ I have come to that
conclusion........anything short of that is just fooling around and doesn't solve
anything.
That would have been the solution in Iraq......if the civilian population
doesn't have the will to control their leaders.......then they are willing participants.........we should have leveled both Afghanistan and Iraq.......
otherwise we should stay the hell out.

----------


## Badgerman

I also think every American should start arming themselves just in case

----------


## Kärnfysikern

Kind of ironic to try and use pacifist as a insult. Most of the world greatest minds has been firm pacifists. But then again what do they know  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 

There puny minds are nothing compared to the immense intellects of people like Bush.

----------


## Badgerman

> Kind of ironic to try and use pacifist as a insult. Most of the world greatest minds has been firm pacifists. But then again what do they know 
> 
> There puny minds are nothing compared to the immense intellects of people like Bush.


Here's the problem with being a pacifist........you either need non-pacifist people to defend your right to profess such a philosophy.......or you need to sell your soul to remain neutral in the face of an enemy........look at the moral
compromises made by the church and "neutral" countries such as Switzerland
who sold thier souls to the Nazis.
To be a true pacifist you have to be willing to die for your belief.........are you willing to do that???
Because without a balance of power against evil .....pacifism is impossible
Right now..... the US balances against what I would consider evil men.......
sometimes the boundaries are a little grey for my taste........but who do you want running the world........the Chinese mafia??

----------


## RA

> The only thing Im gonna reply with is that sweden was waring before anyone had a clue your beloved country even existed. We have seen far more war in our history than american can even dream of. 
> Europe has learned its lessons. Maby america will in the next few hundred years.
> 
> Open up your eyes and realise the shortcomings of your own country and maby someday you will realise why the rest of the world is so critical....


 
Your letting the argument cloud your judgement.

----------


## RA

oooo, johan. You know I love ya bro but I got to disagree on some things. If it wasnt for countries like the U.S., Sweden would be learning German as their primary laungage. Its not about being better or worse. Its just the way it is. 

As far as N. Korea..ol fat kim is a bully and who would deal with him if we left the scene? Japan is looking to us right now to deal with the problem. No, the U.S. government has the responsibility because they have the power to do something. I still advocate standing up to him. I truly believe that he would back down. He doesn't want a war with the U.S.A. 

I laughed tonight because my wife bought some Swedish vodka. I thought..hmm Im going to have to tell johan..apparently you guys make some good hooch.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Your letting the argument cloud your judgement.


Huh?? quite possible I was semi worked up last night. 




> oooo, johan. You know I love ya bro but I got to disagree on some things. If it wasnt for countries like the U.S., Sweden would be learning German as their primary laungage. Its not about being better or worse. Its just the way it is.


Not realy. I would be more afraid that we would be speaking russian though. Because the russians would have beaten germany.




> As far as N. Korea..ol fat kim is a bully and who would deal with him if we left the scene? Japan is looking to us right now to deal with the problem. No, the U.S. government has the responsibility because they have the power to do something. I still advocate standing up to him. I truly believe that he would back down. He doesn't want a war with the U.S.A.


All Im saying realy is that there is no way to deal with him. Putting sanctions on N.Korea kills the inocent people of N.Korea and going to war is to dangerous. The only (sane) thing that can be done is continue talks..The talks will probably get no where, but atleast it might prevent war.




> I laughed tonight because my wife bought some Swedish vodka. I thought..hmm Im going to have to tell johan..apparently you guys make some good hooch.


Was it a bottle of "absolut vodka"  :Smilie:  I prefer finish vodka myself  :Party Smiley TAP:

----------


## The OutLord

> It aint smart to bomb a country that has nukes. The second that country obtained nuclear weapons it became impossible to invade. The civilians are brainwashed in that country to believe the "Dear Leader" is a living God. A defector said If the U.S. invaded you will never see a smiling waving crowd like in Iraq. They will fight to the last man.


I agre 100%





> And to everybody remaining


Is this "jing jong ding dong" or what his name was is so stupid that He can blow up half of the people of china,NK and SK????
and his army in one hit and "Jing jong ding dong" die to and china will of course say.
-:If you never put you fingers in the game it never hade happend!!
And the ww3 have started.

----------


## IronFreakX

TBH here, this is a messed up situation.

This is how Im thinking:

-We and Israel among other countries have nukes why not N Korea? True!

-But nukes should only be obtained by sane responsible leaders!! True

-Who are we to decide who is sane and who is not? they view us as the enemy and we the same

My suggestion would be to not bother anyone untill they bother us, but if we wait until they obtain them and then bother us(ie launch just one) the casualties will be too great.

so what do we do? If we go in, I DO NOT SUPPORT SOMETHING LIKE IRAQ, a job half done, when theres a threat you eliminate it not weaken it or give it a reason to be angrier nor do I want to see more Americans die for no reason.

Even though a little voice in my head shouts equality! it is not always possible as this is not a utopian world we live in.

In the end we MUST look after OUR best interest and hopefully the ends will justify the means, if they do not stop then eliminate them.

A hard desicion to reach but it MUST be made.

----------


## PrimoPup

Do not be surprised if one of their missiles accidentally blow up in their own country, (_hint, hint_)

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Here's the problem with being a pacifist........you either need non-pacifist people to defend your right to profess such a philosophy.......or you need to sell your soul to remain neutral in the face of an enemy........look at the moral
> compromises made by the church and "neutral" countries such as Switzerland
> who sold thier souls to the Nazis.
> To be a true pacifist you have to be willing to die for your belief.........are you willing to do that???
> Because without a balance of power against evil .....pacifism is impossible
> Right now..... the US balances against what I would consider evil men.......
> sometimes the boundaries are a little grey for my taste........but who do you want running the world........the Chinese mafia??


Im not realy a true pacifist. I someone attacks first then everything is allowed. I am totaly against beeing the one to throw the first punch though unless under VERY special circumstances.

imo violence is 9 times out of 10 just the way stupid people handle things. Educated people usualy refrain from fighting and so should educated countries.

----------


## Logan13

> Here's the problem with being a pacifist........you either need non-pacifist people to defend your right to profess such a philosophy.......or you need to sell your soul to remain neutral in the face of an enemy........look at the moral
> compromises made by the church and "neutral" countries such as Switzerland
> who sold thier souls to the Nazis.
> To be a true pacifist you have to be willing to die for your belief.........are you willing to do that???
> Because without a balance of power against evil .....pacifism is impossible
> Right now..... the US balances against what I would consider evil men.......
> sometimes the boundaries are a little grey for my taste........but who do you want running the world........the Chinese mafia??


Good points, none of which were answered by the person it was addressed to.

----------


## Logan13

> I agree
> 
> When it comes to North Korea........the proper military solution is to level it.......that is the only proper military solution........ I have come to that
> conclusion........anything short of that is just fooling around and doesn't solve
> anything.
> That would have been the solution in Iraq......if the civilian population
> doesn't have the will to control their leaders.......then they are willing participants.........we should have leveled both Afghanistan and Iraq.......
> otherwise we should stay the hell out.


I totally agree with your proper military solution. As you know, I am a Bush supporter, but the war in Iraq has not gone down the way it should have IMO. We are letting politics interfere with what nees to be done, at the cost of soldiers lives I might add. If we are gonna go to war, we had better do what needs to be done from the beginning to the end to win it. This half ass fighting is driving me nuts. I know Johan thinks that diplomacy can work with everyone, but the fact of the matter is that it can not.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Good points, none of which were answered by the person it was addressed to.



Did mahatma Ghandi sell his soul? has Dalai Lama sold his soul? Do those 2 people show that pacifism acomplish nothing? Are they hiding behind people willing to use force?

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> I totally agree with your proper military solution. As you know, I am a Bush supporter, but the war in Iraq has not gone down the way it should have IMO. We are letting politics interfere with what nees to be done, at the cost of soldiers lives I might add. If we are gonna go to war, we had better do what needs to be done from the beginning to the end to win it. This half ass fighting is driving me nuts. I know Johan thinks that diplomacy can work with everyone, but the fact of the matter is that it can not.


No not realy, I dont think you can be diplomatic with a person like for instance Hitler. I belive force is neccesary sometimes. 
But only under the most pressing circumstances where no other option is possible and not using force will harm more people than using force.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

If a person breaks into my home and threatens to hurt someone in my family I would break there neck in a instance if i had the chanse. 

I would not however go out on the streets and break the neck of someone that looks like a robber just because he might break into my home.

----------


## Logan13

> The only thing Im gonna reply with is that sweden was waring before anyone had a clue your beloved country even existed. We have seen far more war in our history than american can even dream of. 
> Europe has learned its lessons. Maby america will in the next few hundred years.
> 
> Open up your eyes and realise the shortcomings of your own country and maby someday you will realise why the rest of the world is so critical....


That's great Johan, but I am not concerned with your countries actions or inactions from hundreds of years ago. BTW, what wars has Sweden fought in, does this go back to the days of wooden boats and swords? I realise the shortcomings of my country, which are heavily outweighed by the positive. I just do not appreciate some pacifist country throwing their opinions around as though we are beholden to listen to them. And as for the previous unanswered question regarding "valuing lives more", I feel that it is fair to say that the lives you value so dearly are your own. I'm sorry, Perhaps it is just American to perceive pacifism as cowardice.

----------


## Logan13

> If a person breaks into my home and threatens to hurt someone in my family I would break there neck in a instance if i had the chanse. 
> 
> I would not however go out on the streets and break the neck of someone that looks like a robber just because he might break into my home.


Better scenario: How about when the person _threatens_ to hurt your family, rape your wife and kill your children. Do you wait until after he has done it or is in the process of doing it to do something about it? This scenario better represents the current situation. Perhaps you will not do something about but would prefer that your big neighbor deal with the situation, and then point the finger at him afterwards in crticism for his actions......

----------


## kdawg21

So what ever happened to the Politics, and religion forum, I swear you go on vcation for a week and everything changes

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Better scenario: How about when the person _threatens_ to hurt your family, rape your wife and kill your children. Do you wait until after he has done it or is in the process of doing it to do something about it? This scenario better represents the current situation. Perhaps you will not do something about but would prefer that your big neighbor deal with the situation, and then point the finger at him afterwards in crticism for his actions......


Depends on who makes the threat. If its someone small and insignificant compared to me I wouldnt waste a minute of my time(that represents this situation best). 
If its someone that seem serious(russia, china) I would be carefull and watch over my family. I would not slit his throath because he has a big mouth.

Also N.Korea has only threaten to respond to any violence against them. They havent threatened to do anything against america.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> That's great Johan, but I am not concerned with your countries actions or inactions from hundreds of years ago. BTW, what wars has Sweden fought in, does this go back to the days of wooden boats and swords? I realise the shortcomings of my country, which are heavily outweighed by the positive. I just do not appreciate some pacifist country throwing their opinions around as though we are beholden to listen to them. And as for the previous unanswered question regarding "valuing lives more", I feel that it is fair to say that the lives you value so dearly are your own. I'm sorry, Perhaps it is just American to perceive pacifism as cowardice.


Sweden has fought in just about ever big war before ww1. But I guess you dont think history is important? Maby because your country has no history to speak of? I dont se why it matters that those boats where of wood. 
Its like saying all wars america has been in that didnt involve jet fighters are unimportant.

Well you should listen to the world when you deal with the world. What you and your goverment do within your country is your buisness. What you do in the world is the worlds buisness.

I gave you the reason why sweden wasnt involved in ww2. Not entering the war wasnt cowardice it was intelligence. It would be like you walking up to a gang of hells angels members alone and unarmed and calling them pussies. Like I said sweden entering ww2 would NOT have saved one single life and WOULD have cost alot of lifes. We where to small to make a difference either way. So not entering saved more lifes than entering. How is that not valuing life?

Sweden supported the war in afghanistan btw, but not the one in iraq. We support what is right.

If you dont want any oppinion on americas actions in the world maby you should preach for america to isolate itself? Because aslong as you meddle in other countries buisnesses my country and all others will say what they think and are entitled to do so.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> So what ever happened to the Politics, and religion forum, I swear you go on vcation for a week and everything changes


read this thread it explains it
http://forums.steroid.com/showthread.php?t=250575

----------


## Kärnfysikern

Im very curious about your oppinion on Dalai Lama, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther king and offcourse Einstein. Where they just pacifist disconnected from reality that acomplished nothing?

----------


## kdawg21

N. Korea is like a child throwing a tantrum for attention, Kim has used this same technique multiple times and has been successful. I am sure you have heard the old saying, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. I think there is more to the story than what we are being told. I would be less worried about N. Korea and more worried about how China and Russia refuse to go along with imposing sanctions against N. Korea. Is it just me or does it seem like the old Soviet Russia may be rearing its ugly head again? Like a hydra, cut off the head and another grows back.

----------


## kdawg21

Damn man that sucks.............

----------


## kdawg21

Damn man that sucks.............

----------


## Logan13

> Depends on who makes the threat. If its someone small and insignificant compared to me I wouldnt waste a minute of my time(that represents this situation best). *You know, my grandma can shoot a gun just like a would-be assassin can. It's not the person to fear, it is there means available to accomplish their goal to be concerned about. Wouldn't waste a minute of your time? Anyone who threatens my family will be dealt with at the time of the threat.* If its someone that seem serious(russia, china) I would be carefull and watch over my family. I would not slit his throath because he has a big mouth.
> 
> Also N.Korea has only threaten to respond to any violence against them. They havent threatened to do anything against america.


Actually they have threatened to use their weapons if sanctions are imposed on them.....

Do you have a Swedish word for "wishy-washy"?

----------


## Logan13

> Im very curious about your oppinion on Dalai Lama, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther king and offcourse Einstein. Where they just pacifist disconnected from reality that acomplished nothing?


Einstein's science helped to create the Atom bomb.....
As for the others, I guess I do not know why you brought them into this discussion. They were pacifists, but they were also men of action who set out to accomplish a goal and succeeded. To liken yourself to these men you would have to be able to say that you or your country stepped into a situation like Iraq ot n korea and worked through diplomacy that resulted in a calming of the tensions and avoided war. You guys do not even do this, Johan. You stay out of it completely, just throwing your opinions around but not solving anything. Men of action Sweden has not.........

----------


## Logan13

Hey Johan.

You like apples?
 :Haha: 

Regardless, you are still my favorite Swede besides ABBA.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Actually they have threatened to use their weapons if sanctions are imposed on them.....
> 
> Do you have a Swedish word for "wishy-washy"?


I didnt know they had threatened if sanctions are imposed. Only that they had said the would retaliate with nuclear weapons to any attack on them...




> Einstein's science helped to create the Atom bomb.....
> As for the others, I guess I do not know why you brought them into this discussion. They were pacifists, but they were also men of action who set out to accomplish a goal and succeeded. To liken yourself to these men you would have to be able to say that you or your country stepped into a situation like Iraq ot n korea and worked through diplomacy that resulted in a calming of the tensions and avoided war. You guys do not even do this, Johan. You stay out of it completely, just throwing your opinions around but not solving anything. Men of action Sweden has not.........


Well not realy. The only part Einstein had in the atom bomb was the letter to the president. But he helped create the atom bomb as much as farday helped create the computer...

Like I have said earlier sweden has peacekeeping forces everywhere UN is, we are involved in diplomatic talks almost everywhere. Hell folke bernadotte(a member of swedish royal family) was even assasinated by israeli terrorist when negotiating betwen israel and palestine. I suspect you dont even know anything sweden does and just assume we do nothing. But with a population about equal to the population of New York its not like we can put any presure on any nation. Not financial, not military, nothing like that.
We do what we can for our size and you can not dismiss that in anyway because it is the truth.

And if you dont think sweden has men of action. Just look up Raoul Wallenberg for instance. Not to mention alot of swedes have held important positions in the UN. Like Hans Blix for instance or Dag Hammarskjöld that was general secretary of the UN. Carl Bildt was a important mediator in the balkan conflicts. I could go on and on but all of them have very limited options and limited power.

Hans Blix worked very hard to prevent the iraq war. 

Im willing to bet sweden does more for peace in the world than ANY other country similar in size. We do far more than just give our oppinion. We back that oppinion up as much as we can.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

Anyway Im done with this now. All it does it piss us off, so far in all threads we have managed to stay peacefull so no point in breaking that record here  :Smilie:

----------


## Badgerman

> I totally agree with your proper military solution. As you know, I am a Bush supporter, but the war in Iraq has not gone down the way it should have IMO. We are letting politics interfere with what nees to be done, at the cost of soldiers lives I might add. If we are gonna go to war, we had better do what needs to be done from the beginning to the end to win it. This half ass fighting is driving me nuts. I know Johan thinks that diplomacy can work with everyone, but the fact of the matter is that it can not.


Diplomacy seems to work for awhile.......but then the human condition takes over.......greed, lust, vengence........the very things the law tries to control
I consider Iraq a test ground for weaponry.......in ways they did their job.....
quick defeat.......but the military and politicians can not cope with the human condition........they have no clue and can never understand why we weren't embraced as liberators........you have people who are hot tempered, living in heat and poverty.......no wonder they are all pissed off........now we are mired in the muck.......and we're pissed off........that's why our guys are going insane too.........
These smart weapons might seem to be the solution.........but there is more of a civilian component to the problem than meets the eye........they plain
DONT LIKE US...........
my solution is either destroy the country........or leave it alone
best leave it alone and save 500 billion

----------


## Badgerman

> Anyway Im done with this now. All it does it piss us off, so far in all threads we have managed to stay peacefull so no point in breaking that record here


The problem is smart people have figured out war is not a good approach..........now how do you get rid of the 99% of the population that hasn't quite figured that out.........

----------


## Logan13

> Anyway Im done with this now. All it does it piss us off, so far in all threads we have managed to stay peacefull so no point in breaking that record here


No reason to get pissed. How better to grow one's perception of the world than through a peaceful debate? A narrow minded fool would choose not to discuss such issues, we are simply giving ourselves a chance to rethink and reshape our own opinions. For this we grow as a person. I appreciate your passion. As I stated 2 times during our discussion, I still respect you as a member here with valid opinions which I continuely like to hear and discuss. Just remember Johan, we ALL live in glass houses.
-Logan13

----------


## Badgerman

If we could only convince the religious radicals that Mars is the promised land..........and then ship them all there!!

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> No reason to get pissed. How better to grow one's perception of the world than through a peaceful debate? A narrow minded fool would choose not to discuss such issues, we are simply giving ourselves a chance to rethink and reshape our own opinions. For this we grow as a person. I appreciate your passion. As I stated 2 times during our discussion, I still respect you as a member here with valid opinions which I continuely like to hear and discuss. Just remember Johan, we ALL live in glass houses.
> -Logan13


Yupp. Sometimes(not that often though) I just get to worked up for my own good and lose my edge so to speak. So then its better for me to take a few steps back rather than make posts that doesnt present my point of view properly  :Smilie:

----------


## ZIA1

> The only thing Im gonna reply with is that sweden was waring before anyone had a clue your beloved country even existed. We have seen far more war in our history than american can even dream of. 
> Europe has learned its lessons. Maby america will in the next few hundred years.
> 
> Open up your eyes and realise the shortcomings of your own country and maby someday you will realise why the rest of the world is so critical....


Only took Europe 1,000 years to learn its lesson. And just to add, I guess you meant Western Europe b/c the former yugoslavia is one fvcked up area. 

Further, I would add that Europe's colonialism only ended in the 1970s. If Europe truly had learned its lessons after the great wars, they wouldn't have tried to hold on to far off lands.

----------


## kdawg21

I think Badger said that we should leave them alone and save a few billion dollars. At the risk of sounding like a war monger, I would like to point out that war was the greatest economic venture ever created, it generates far more money than most companies ever dream of, lest I remind you that it was WWII that vaulted the United States into the world economic drivers seat, those billions of dollars that we spend on troops and supplies go right back into the economy, the rebuilding that we do in those countries will go a long way for free trade in the future and make may people rich. I believe that history has shown us that the economic benefits of a victorious war far outweigh the cost of neutrality. 

*I am not a war monger, nor should my statements be construed to support war at all times. I am simply pointing out another way of viewing war in general*

----------


## Phreak101

BOLD




> i'm with you on this johan, though it seems way too many others are too involved with being "patriotic" and backing our govt's actions to see any reason here. i just don't understand how so many americans are completely blind to how things really are rather than just listening to what our media tells us?
> 
> *Bush's approval rating is at an all time low, not many are backing this war. Give us some credit!*
> 
> when we invaded iraq, we had no damn right to. if their people wanted change as bush claimed, they should've taken action themselves. if they can't, that should not be the responsibility of another country to do so for them. one country has no place to decide "what's best" for another. they don't live there, they don't see it everyday and live in it. they have no clue what's best for their people. but time and time again, the US govt intervenes with their conceited "we're right" attitude.
> 
> *Sadamm had 10 years to let weapons inspectors in, we would be the primary target to all terrorist groups if in fact he had weapons, which he may or may have not. Even if he didn't at the time, I think we can all agree if he could have made them, he would have made them. Imagine a nuclear payload flying into the WTC....*
> 
> i have seen posts complaining about other countries not taking action. well IMO, the US takes too much action, and keeps putting their noses where it doesn't belong. by doing so, they continually piss of more and more of the other countries at us, which will only potentially lead to more and more attacks on the US, either terrorist or otherwise.
> ...

----------


## RA

> Huh?? quite possible I was semi worked up last night. 
> 
> 
> 
> Not realy. I would be more afraid that we would be speaking russian though. Because the russians would have beaten germany.
> 
> 
> *So a one on one fight between Germany and Russia, you think Germany would have won?* 
> 
> ...


 

*She was told it was the same quality as absolut but cheaper.*

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> So a one on one fight between Germany and Russia, you think Germany would have won? 
> 
> I did say "countries" also. I know the us wasnt the only country in there.



Nah I think Russia would have won in the end. Not like Im a history expert  :LOL:  but no country has ever beaten russia on there own ground. Those bastards always come back and **** you upp  :LOL:  if germany wouldnt have had other fronts to worry about and if Hitler would have let his generals run the show I think they would have beaten russia. But with the way the war was going and Hitlers constant meddling I think russia would have won in the end. 




> At this point we agree. More talks. But when, not if that doesnt work its time to do something more.


Seems like Japan might beat you to it...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060710/...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

I would not object to a attack if it is clear without any shadow of a doubt that Kim will use a nuclear weapon if he gets a delivery vechicle.




> *She was told it was the same quality as absolut but cheaper.*


We have a few brands  :Smilie:  I you ever find a bottle of koskenkorva vodka be sure to pic it up. Its finish vodka(I am 1/8 finnish and got a finnish surname so got to stand up for them aswell :Wink:  )

----------


## RA

> Nah I think Russia would have won in the end. Not like Im a history expert but no country has ever beaten russia on there own ground. Those bastards always come back and **** you upp if *germany wouldnt have had other fronts to worry about and if Hitler would have let his generals run the show I think they would have beaten russia*. But with the way the war was going and Hitlers constant meddling I think russia would have won in the end. 
> 
> 
> *Right, they had their hands full..with the U.S.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*My Grandma is 100% Fin. She grew up in the U.S. but her parents only spoke Finnish to her. Shes still got a thick accent. Maybe thats why Im such a pain in the arse..hey johan?*

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Right, they had their hands full..with the U.S


Dont forget the stubborn britts in africa  :Smilie: 




> Yeah, they were waiting for us to step up. We didn't so they have to do something to protect themselves.
> 
> You would not know without a shadow of a doubt until the nuke is fired. Then its too late. You cant wait that long.


Im kind of suprised that japan is thinking about that. Ever since ww2 they have been maby the most pacifistic country in the world.

well lets say 99% confidence like in they are fuling the ICBM's and you have trusthworthy intel that they are indeed armed with nukes..




> *My Grandma is 100% Fin. She grew up in the U.S. but her parents only spoke Finnish to her. Shes still got a thick accent. Maybe thats why Im such a pain in the arse..hey johan?*


Maby we are related  :Big Grin:  Finns are know to be stubborn bastards!

Do you love sauna as much as me?

----------


## RA

> Dont forget the stubborn britts in africa 
> 
> 
> 
> Im kind of suprised that japan is thinking about that. Ever since ww2 they have been maby the most pacifistic country in the world.
> 
> well lets say 99% confidence like in they are fuling the ICBM's and you have trusthworthy intel that they are indeed armed with nukes..
> 
> 
> ...


 
*omg, thats funny as hell you brought up the sauna. All my relatives on that side of the family have one outside. I like em sometimes but Im not crazy about them like they are.* 

*Saunas and pasty.*

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> But what if you dont get the intel in time? What if he has nukes and has icbms and is making threats? Do you wait while your populous is scared out of there mind or do you hit them first?


If he has them and is making definite threats that seems serious Im not sure. But right now Kim seems to be making mostly self defense related threats. Sanctions us and its war, attack us and we strike back ect. He hasnt made any claim that he wants to nuke you without provocation atleast.

I would still wait until the ICBM's are getting fuled because that can be spotted through sattelite.




> *omg, thats funny as hell you brought up the sauna. All my relatives on that side of the family have one outside. I like em sometimes but Im not crazy about them like they are.* 
> 
> *Saunas and pasty.*


I miss Sauna so ****ing much since I moved from northern sweden. Up there there is a sauna in each apartment block ect. Down here no one cares about sauna :Icon Pissedoff:  
there is nothing like a good sauna. Your relatives are wise men and women  :Smilie:

----------


## Phreak101

I like the steam room personally

----------


## RA

> If he has them and is making definite threats that seems serious Im not sure. *But right now Kim seems to be making mostly self defense related threats*. Sanctions us and its war, attack us and we strike back ect. He hasnt made any claim that he wants to nuke you without provocation atleast.
> 
> I would still wait until the ICBM's are getting fuled because that can be spotted through sattelite.
> 
> *Self defense? I dont think anyone is talking about going after them unless they rattle the sabres.*
> 
> 
> I miss Sauna so ****ing much since I moved from northern sweden. Up there there is a sauna in each apartment block ect. Down here no one cares about sauna 
> there is nothing like a good sauna. Your relatives are wise men and women


 
*Apparently one of their favorite things to do is sit in there until they get over heated and then jump in the snow..*

*I did an appraisal on this house and as soon as I found out the couple was Finnish I started looking for the sauna...they had a built in one...and were so proud of it.*

----------


## kdawg21

> Nah I think Russia would have won in the end. Not like Im a history expert  but no country has ever beaten russia on there own ground. Those bastards always come back and **** you upp  if germany wouldnt have had other fronts to worry about and if Hitler would have let his generals run the show I think they would have beaten russia. But with the way the war was going and Hitlers constant meddling I think russia would have won in the end.



Hitler and Napoleon both made the same mistake, invading russia and then leaving your troops over the winter it was not the Russian army that defeated their foes it was the weather and terrain. Hitler could possibly have crushed Russia had he just swallowed his pride and ended the seige of stalingrad and moved toward Moscow.

----------


## ZIA1

> Hitler and Napoleon both made the same mistake, invading russia and then leaving your troops over the winter it was not the Russian army that defeated their foes it was the weather and terrain. Hitler could possibly have crushed Russia had he just swallowed his pride and ended the seige of stalingrad and moved toward Moscow.


The Nazis were trying to fight on too many fronts. They had no way of sustaining a long fight with Russia on Russian territory, especially during Russian winter. Stalingrad or not, they probably wouldn't have defeated the Red Army. Moreover, other nations wouldn't have allowed Moscow to fall.

----------


## kdawg21

I have to disagree, given the divergence of philosophies that were clearly evident at the first war conferences and much more eveident in later stages (potsdam, yalta, Tehran etc) I think that russia may very well have been conceided if it came to that. Now we are getting hypothetical, but who is to say that the increase in natural resources gained from defeating or taking a large part of russia would not have been enough to reinfuse the German Army?

----------


## kdawg21

If I may discuss something that I find puzzling, and Aiz perhaps you can help me with this, why is it that when people choose to deny the existance of the holocaust, they often neglect to include all of the Jews that were killed by Stalin and the communist party, I have read a few sources for some papers that indicated Stalin was responsible for more Jewish deaths than Hitler. Even should some nutcase deny the holocaust how would they account for all the deaths associated with the USSR? I think I asked M'gay and C this once and both refused to even mention it.......... selective memory I guess.

----------


## firmechicano831

yeah its dumb that many people still don't believe in the holocaust then their is pictures,video and people who witnessed it.

----------


## ZIA1

> If I may discuss something that I find puzzling, and Aiz perhaps you can help me with this, why is it that when people choose to deny the existance of the holocaust, they often neglect to include all of the Jews that were killed by Stalin and the communist party, I have read a few sources for some papers that indicated Stalin was responsible for more Jewish deaths than Hitler. Even should some nutcase deny the holocaust how would they account for all the deaths associated with the USSR? I think I asked M'gay and C this once and both refused to even mention it.......... selective memory I guess.


I'll tell you what: I don't want this thread turned into a debate on the holocaust, which it will become. So, I'll PM you with an answer later this afternoon. Good question by the way but there is an answer. Will PM...

----------


## The OutLord

he he he .. N,k Is dangeres LOL

----------

