Fuck off North Korea

The BBQ Pit
21

North Korea wants to be removed from the list of states sponsoring terrorism. The US wants anytime, anywhere inspections of NK nuclear facilities. Some in the US believe this more about politics then verification.

The US isn’t in a position to tell the NK what to do; for one thing, we’re not sure who’s running the country, and second, outside of a nuclear first strike, we’re too weak politically to force them to do anything.

Come the next administration, you’ll probably see a change of heart by the US-NK. Or the VP shuffles off his mortal coil before the election.

22

This is just silly. America had an aggressive policy towards Iran before the cold war, during the cold war and after the cold war. America overthrew a democratically elected government and installed the Sha who was a murderous dictator and American puppet. So spare me the line that America is a peaceful country which does not attack anyone. It has a long history of overthrowing democratically elected governments and installing murderous dictators.

Later America supported Saddam Hussein in his long war against Iran and Iran paid a very heavy price in loss of life. America helped Saddam Hussein in his infamous poison gas attacks against Iranians.

Now America is being more aggressive and threatening than ever and Iran has good reason to be alert and prepared. America has already invaded two of Iran’s neighbors. I mean, come on! Anyone who says Iran has no reason to feel threatened by America is just ignoring reality. Iran is under serous threat from America and the primary obligation of their government is to be prepared to defend against that threat.

It is clearly America who has been a constant threat to Iran for many decades now. As far as I know Iran has not invaded western countries, nor tried to overthrow our democratically elected governments.

It is America’s fault that relations with Iran are bad and it is Bush fault that he continues the same aggressive policy.

I do not agree with Iran’s government on many issues but when defending themselves from the aggressive policies of America they are 100% in the right and America is 100% in the wrong.

23

No, certainly not. The US (CIA) plus the British secret agency was behind the move to topple the legitimate government and helped install the Shah in order to prevent nationalisation of Irans oil industry, so that the British could continue controlling it. And the Shah was murderous, he tortured and killed the opposition members. Probably many Iranians today would say that if the US and the British had left them alone, the Shah wouldn’t have been able to hang onto power for so long, and instead of the religious revolution, they could have continued with a democratic (if socalist leaning) secular government.

NO. They started the program before Shrub jr. because Bush sr. was arming Iraq (and maybe you missed it, but Iraq and Iran had a war in the 80s were the US was helping Hussein). They racked up the pace from normal to frantic in response to Shrubs recent policy. If not for the attack on Iraq, and if Shrub wasn’t such a religious zealot and macho hardliner, the talks the EU was having with Iran to disarm the nuclear program could have continued and might have been sucessful. But with a madmen putting them on their hit list, any chance of that is down the toilet, and aquiring of nuclear weapons is top priority, instead of other things like rebuilding the economy or anything else.

24

Thanks very much for the nice words. Reading the threads already takes a long time, and posting even more (it’s already about 3 hrs past my intended bed time), and usually nobody listens to what I write, or jumps on me, so your words are honey in my ears.

25

The problem with that of course is that everybody knows from recent history that the US will use the inspections for spying and industrial espionage, while UN inspectors (which are above-board and neutral) are not acceptable to the US (see Hans Blix trying in vain to get the truth about there being no WMDs and no danger in Iraq into US heads and failing. But then the whole requests were a farce - Saddam complied with everything and Shrub attacked regardless).

26

Doh. I didn’t see sailors post nr. 22 when I replied, but I agree with his more eloquent and complete post.

And to repeat, saying that Iran is in the right with regards to defense doesn’t mean that their human rights records or other problems are ok. They’re wrong in that regard.

27

Wow, tag team of guests. Good job hyperventilating about the U.S which has little to do with my OP. And yes Russia and China have a long and illustrious history on human rights. North Korea’s is even better. If your brothers in arms want to feed them then go ahead.

I do feel sorry for the North Korean people lead by a nutjob government and apparently unwilling to change.

28

and mine. Actually you look like one yourself sailor. You two have managed to say everything I was going to.

29

Funny how certain political ideologies will do that to ya…

I’ll spell the contradictions out, simpler this time. Ttry not to simply use a “Blame the US!” lens and instead look at actual facts. If you’re a partisan who has already decided to be irrational and blame the US “100%” and another sovereign nation “0%” for that nation’s own actions? Well, then you’ve abandoned reason and logic and it’d be better to just selectively choose data to fit your prejudices.

Assuming you’re actually curious about the glaring contradictions with tying this back to America, well, here goes.

  1. Iran started its nuclear weapons program about a decade before Bush took office.
  2. The poster you’re defending is arguing that a program which was started more than a decade before Bush took office was, in fact somehow in response to/justified by Bush’s remarks. Clearly, this is a contradiction as whatever the motive of Iran’s nuclear weapons program was, it wasn’t to deal with Bush.
    As such, any mention of Bush in that context is, at best, bombast and at worst, obfuscatory.
  3. Iran’s initial decision to nuke-up was not due to Bush, as he wasn’t president yet. It wasn’t to deal with Bush arming Iraq, either, as not only were we not arming Iraq by that point, but we’d just fought the Gulf War in 1991.

So not only did Iran decide to initiate their nuclear weapons program at a time when we weren’t actually attacking them, after we didn’t declare war over the hostage crisis, after we didn’t respond to Iranian trained/backed/directed/orchestrated attacks, over the next decade or so, which would go on to kill literally hundreds of American soldiers.

The idea that then, after a decade of launching attacks against the US with no major military response, at all, from us? Well, the idea that at that point Iran is the one being threatened, The US is 100% at fault for Iran choosing to develop nuclear weapons and Iran is 0% at fault for its own choices?
It’s not only paternalistic and infantalizing, it’s absurd.

I know this is election season and all, but less partisan whoring would be better.

So even if they weren’t actually defending themselves from the US, they might have been interested in nuclear weapons defensively… in an existential sense.
Even though, of course, at that time they were working on founding international terrorist plots and directing attacks against US soldiers as late as 1996, in reality, they were the victim of circumstances. Don’t blame them. In fact, blame the US, who was a massive threat to them even while we didn’t attack after they murdered hundreds of American soldiers.

I mean, honestly, do you even listen to yourself? Do you wonder why Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc… are not all ‘next on the list’? Do you perhaps wonder why you’re being so hysterical about America invading Iran when even a cursory glance at our military capabilities should tell you it’s not a pipedream, it’s just stupid?

Iran, at any time, could have regained the good graces of the world by simply dropping its support for global terrorism, especially genocidal global terrorists. The idea that Iran went about launching attacks of aggression against US assets and soldiers overseas, refused to dismantle its global terrorist infrastructure… and it’s the intolerance of the rest of the world (or just the evil US) which caused them to feel unsafe and/or want nukes?

Luckily it’s 100% the US’ fault, though.

A little bit like how the a burglar has to carry a gun when he breaks into houses, in order to defend himself!
Eh?

So… Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program while Bush II wasn’t being aggressive, or while Clinton wasn’t, or Bush I? How about their support for global terrorism? While Clinton, for instance, wasn’t doing a damned thing about Iran, there was something forcing them to keep up their nuclear weapons program and keep funding/supporting/training/arming/giving safe harbor to global terrorist organizations?

No?
Why… it’s almost like, whatever the Iranians choose to do on their own, the US is at fault. 100% !
Go figure.

Because if there’s a single thing that the Dope needs more of, urgently, it’s people who don’t think they need to know the facts before they spew an opinion.

30

First of all, when did this become about Iran? Second of all - the U.S. had an aggressive policy towards Iran before the Cold War? I think you’re confusing the U.S. with the British and the Soviets, both of whom invaded in 1943.

Congrats on setting up and knocking down that strawman. Where did anyone in this thread EVER say that “America is a peaceful country which does not attack anyone”? Oh, and while the U.S. has certainly overthrown or helped indigenous forces overthrow democratically elected governments and installed dictators, the U.S. also has a long history of overthrowing murderous dictators and helping to usher in democratically elected governments - i.e. West Germany, Italy, Japan. I guess history is just a mixed bag.

31

Wow, this thread is getting really off-track, really quickly.

To add to the chorus of detractors, gravitycrash, you’re way off base here. First of all, the US is not “sucking off” the DPRK; it is negotiating. Secondly, aid to North Korea is not a part of that negotiation. Kim Jong-Il’s regime is more than happy to starve its own people; taking away that aid does them no damage whatsoever*. None. Its purpose is humanitarian – we care more about the people of North Korea than their own government. The United States, China, and South Korea all have various tools to negotiate, i.e. improved rhetoric (US), industrial/military/other support (China), and economic development (South Korea); notice that the US really isn’t looking to give up much.

Your plan to cut off Food Aid to North Korea is despicable all by itself, though. If I may share an anecdote, I met the former EU ambassador to the Koreas this year, and he had an interesting story about touring North Korea while working on whether to cut aid to the DPRK or not (the EU kept aid flowing, as it turned out.) On that tour, he visited a hospital, and he was shocked by the constant sound of screaming. You see, they had run out of anaesthetic, so they were operating on patients without.

Two million North Koreans died of starvation in the 1990’s, and Kim Jong-Il neither cared nor lost power. You really think things are going to change now?
*The US tried it, BTW, but they began it again this spring in response a poor growing season in North Korea.

32

First of all, there are very good signs that humanitarian aid is being used to feed not the starving populace but by the North Korean military. Already, in 1997 the New York Times was reporting:

However, much more troubling is this recent report by a North Korean officer who defected to the South:

It’s pretty much common knowledge here, in eastern Asia, that the North Korean military is fed, at least in part, with international aid. There are also very frequent rumours about the state of morale in their ranks. For instance, see this story, which deals specifically with border guards.

There has been rumours, repeated in Japanese and probably South Korean media, that the recent nuclear tests have further eroded moral among North Korean troops, with starving soldiers wondering how their leaders can spend so much money when they barely have enough rice.

Now, it’s always very difficult to get a clear picture of what is happening in a country as closed as North Korea. We have to rely on the few visitors, who only get a very narrow glimpse, and defectors who almost by definition are the most disgruntled of the lot.

However, considering what has been reported, I believe that it’s very likely that foreign aid is being used to feed a starving and demoralized military. In this context, cutting off said aid, could conceivably destabilize the rulers’ grip on their military. Now, this may not necessarily be a good thing, but some defectors, at least, believe it’s the right thing to do.

33

America has been attacking and harassing Iran for many decades and that is “that nation’s own actions”? Iran, as far as I know, has nevr tried to overthrow any western government, much less that of the USA. Iran’s fault was in trying to control its own oil rather than submit to British-American companies. That is their sin: trying to exercise control of what is theirs.

In American-Iranian relations America has been in the wrong for decades and continues to be in the wrong. Bush is the deciderer and continuator of a policy towards Iran which is wrong and counterproductive. And the only reason for this policy is that Iran will not let itself be subdued by western interests. I say good for them.

America has never ceased attacking Iran, more or less overtly. The US-sponsored war with Iraq cost them dearly. They would be fools not to seek all arms they could use against America. If one thing is to be learnt is that a country can either submit to America or be well prepared to defend itself against America.

The countries “not on the list” are countries playing nice with the USA. Saudi Arabia is pretty much a vassal state and the mere existence of that government depends on the USA. Should they change allegiance and start doing things America did not approve of they would be gone within days.

Give me a break. America attacked Iran by proxy with Saddam Huseein and Bush has not ceased to make threats against Iran.

This is just babbling agit-prop.

Cet animal est très mechant,
Quand on l’attaque il se défend.
(La Ménagerie, Theodore P.K.)
This animal is very wicked,
When attacked it will defend itself.

That is a very good example. The USA is the burglar trying to get into Iran and its oil.

We definitely need people who can use logic and reason, unlike you.

34

Here’s what I’d like to see. Get the world’s top graphic artists on this. Develop the most realistic photoshops of prominent North Korean leaders sucking off goats and being fucked by horses. Then on the back pictures of food and text in Korean about how they’d have plenty of food if their government wasn’t continually failing them do to it’s incompetence.

Whenever North Korea acts up a remote controlled plane fly’s over and drops hundreds of thousands of these pics.

35

Ahhh, I see, you’re a proudly ignorant jackass.
Well, let’s play this crap, one more time.

The last time we took any action against Iran, was about two decades ago. In those two decades, in fact, we’ve avoided military responses even when Iran has repeatedly attacked us. So not only has the US not been “attacking” Iran for decades, during the last few decades it was Iran that was attacking the US.

See what I mean about relying on facts and not simply making shit up because it fits in with your politics?

You think that the ‘only reason’ for this policy isn’t Iran’s continued support for global terrorism, its history of murdering hundreds of American soldiers and its long (and still totally unresolved) history of a secret nuclear weapons program. Not even its stated goals and methods for exporting Khomenism?

Do you read newspapers, or urinate on them?

Are you stupid and ignorant, or a liar? Please list all the many attacks that America kept carrying out from, say, 1992 to 2002. We should have an attack a year, or at least every two years, if you’re not simply a liar. How about every five years? How about you show that we’ve attacked Iran one single solitary time in those 10 years? Just once?

Sound fair? Provide proof, or you admit you are a liar.
It’s okay, I already know the history of the region.
But it’d be fun to see if you can be honest.

What kind of stupid are you, exactly?
Saudi Arabia, exporter or the Wahabist death cult, intransigent almost whenever we talk to them about oil production, and they’ve just gotten us to help them set up nuclear technology. And they’re our “vassal”.

I’m pretty sure that we can safely ignore your embarrassing level of stupidity when you claim that not only could we topple another sovereign nation and set up another friendly regime, but we could do that to the nation which houses Mecca without causing WW III and completely destroying most oil production for a long, long time.

The gleeful ignorance of you Ignorti is really something else. If the Saudis ‘stepped out of line’, we’d just go in their and “get” their oil, just like that.
You live in a cartoon fantasy world, schmuck.

I must admit, listening to you frothing Ignorati in your mad quest to blame the actions of other sovereign countries, on us, even when you have to lie to make any sense? It’s a hoot. A real hoot.

Interestingly enough, you have no problem lying and claiming that we’ve been 'attacking" iran for decades, even when the actual truth is that they were attacking us and we didn’t respond with our military might. You are ignorant of the fact that not only do the Saudis routinely thumb their noses at America, but they also export one of the most virulent and toxic strains of militant Islam on Earth… and you call them a “vassal”.

And yet, in your twisted “It’s all America’s fault!” haze, you actually believe it to be “babbling agit-prop” that if Iran was a peaceful member of the global community instead of a terrorist sponsor and wasn’t involved with a 20 year old covert nuclear program, and wasn’t involved with trying to spread its own brand of radical Islam… You actually believe that if Iran was doing that, it’d still be in danger of, well, something.

And yet, when it’s pointed out to you that hundreds of nations on the planet, and indeed, many oil producing nations in the ME all enjoy good relations? Why, then it’s because they’re ‘bowing to the US’, or whatever bullshit you’re spewing. Only in Ignoratiland does ‘not murdering American soldiers in unprovoked attacks’ mean “doing whatever big mean America says.”

Yes yes, again, just what specific variety of stupid are you? Deliberately inattentive? Blissfully ignorant? Unsparingly uncomprehending?

How, exactly, do you think that the US can “get” Iran’s oil, exactly? You do realize that oil is fungible, and once its on the global market we cant claim dibs, right? You do realize that we could have attacaked and conquered Iran any time in the 80’s and 90’s, and not only did we refrain from doing that, we refrained from attacking them even after they murdered hundreds of our troops.

You’re full of shit, a deliberately ignorant partisan whore who doesn’t stop at lying or fabrication to craft a political worldview which hasn’t even got a tangential relationship to actual facts.
He’s a hint, I’ll write real slow for you: you can’t apply reason and logic to something if you’re a liar who makes up facts and ignores reality when it doesn’t suit your political agenda.

36

How often do we have to fall for this act? NK has been extorting money and food from us for years-by playing the same game. this time: just tell them-sure-start up your reactor-but don’t expect a penny from us.

37

Yes, let’s see how you make a fool of yourself you idiotic imbecile. Let’s repeat ourselves over and over.

Not true. Entirely false. America has never stopped threatening Iran and has conducted secret ops inside Iran. Not to mention that asking a country to disarm on the basis that hey, we haven’t threatened you for a week, is just plain stupid.

You’re delusional. Iran is supporting “global terrorism”? And murdering hundreds of American soldiers? I must have missed that. I do not know what you call “global terrorism” but I can tell you that America has a pretty high score on that count.

I was going to respond to the rest of your post but fuck that, I’m not wasting my time. It’s just full of insults so I’ll just reciprocate by saying that I fart in your general direction.

38

[Bolding mine]
Good idea. After FinnAgain kicks your ass that hard its best just to shut the fuck up.

39

Bush did what he had to do. Iraq was full of WMDs, he seized them. The entire Saddam Hussein gig is nothing more than a very dramatic use of long-running diplomatic bargaining. And that’s all.

40

I guess your version of history thinks World War 2 started with Pearl Harbour. :smack: