Sam a conventional weapon is hardly an improvement, if we are talking about a breeding type reactor. There aint nothing, and I do mean nothing on Gods green earth as toxic as plutonium, and that includes Carrot Top.
One way or another, the era of war is over. We will have peace, of one kind or another. I am not optimistic, and wish I were the sort of person who can be consoled by prayer.
Thats not inflammatory rhetoric, my friend. Its cold fact.
Oh, and he did say “nuke”.
Well, according to NPR this morning, even the South Koreans, find it a little unnerving that the North is taking down the UN equipment.
So what would it take to make the North happy? Anybody know? Does anyone know what North Korea wants besides nukes? Haven’t heard a thing from any of the news sources as to what North Korea wants, other than nukes. It makes me wonder. Of course this could all be part of some vast rightwing conspiracy to surpress the information that North Korea wants to join the WTO, but I ain’t buying that.
Does the North want to be reunited with the South? If so, under who’s terms?
Elucidator: Oh. So he did. My bad.
But I didn’t. My OP was very specific - do what the Israelis did - take the plant out with an air strike.
Of course he is, that’s the whole point. Oh, and of course Saddam Hussein has always been wholly sane, reasonable and amenable to discussion.
Wrong. It is vital to prevent nuclear weapons falling into the hands of raving megalomaniacs like Kim and Saddam. Just because they happen to have a whole country in their grip doesn’t exempt them from this. Just because we can’t turn the clock back and take away Pakistan’s bombs, or India’s, it doesn’t mean we have to keep on making the same mistakes over and over. The time to draw the line in now.
elucidator doesn’t like pre-emptive action. Do I hear a whisper of Chamberlain somewhere in the background? Does he prefer the Pearl Harbour scenario; may 9/11 is more up his alley. So what if we lose a few (hundred) thousand innocent people, at least he’ll go to sleep with a clear conscience knowing that we obeyed the “rules” like gentlemen.
Ramp just a couple clues for the historicly impaired.
Pearl Harbor was a pre-emptive scenario. We were simply on the recieving end. We responded like any normal nation would. As we might expect any other nation to respond.
And how, exactly, do you plan to implement your plan of non-proliferation by Imperial fiat? Bomb anyone who dares challenge the moral clarity and purity of the USA? Has it perhaps occured to you that not everyone accepts our vision of order and justice from On High? Post pre-emptive attack, do you expect them to throw themselves at our knees and blubber apologies?
Or strike back? Lets see now, how do the militarily powerless strike back? Hmmmmmm.
No, I do not like pre-emptive action. Quite accurate. Indeed, I do suffer under the delusion that there are “rules”, a thought which apparently does not hinder your imagination. And tossing 9/11 about like it proves something is the purest hysteria mongering, beneath contempt or comment.
Indeed, I do have a “conscience”, however such a wimp-ass concept may attract your derision. But bluntly, I would prefer my country suffer an atrocity than commit one. Nobody said it was easy to be civilized, there is risk. Grave risk. You either accept that risk or descend to tooth and claw with the beasts. I’d prefer not, you are eager to get on with it.
I presume you are an athiest? If not, you should reconsider one or another of your positions.
That’s a mighty simplistic view, IMO. Going back to Pearl Harbor- what if the US was able to learn through intellegence sources the location of the Japanese Fleet and their intentions before December 7. This not far fetched- in 1943 we were able to kill Yamamoto (CinC of Imperial Japanese Navy) based on learning his specific travel plans.
Acting on the intellegence to destroy or disable the task force would be a preemptive strike (but entirely justifiable). The fleet was clearly in international waters, and the US would not be able to justify its action to the world without compromising the extremely valuable source of intellegence. Would that have made the US the “bad guy” in your view?
Wait, what? The US was going to attack Japan and had it in the works prior to 12/7/41?
No.
Once the U.S. violated the treaty, the treaty was no longer valid.
The U.S. violated the treaty almost immediately by not working to strengthen the non-proliferation treaty, and in fact working to undermine it. Thus, North Korea is no longer bound to the treaty.
Regardless of your assertions, the fact of the matter is that North Korea is restarting its nuclear program, which is the ‘problem’ mentioned in the title of the thread.
That is of negligible concern, considering that the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons is already in the hands of a bloodthirsty wild animal. The North Korean leadership strikes me as quite rational and sane in comparison to their U.S. counterparts.
I’m speechless. I’m left to presuming that you don’t know much about North Korea, but if you do, you’re just sick.
Probably it is just your ideological blinders.
You’re right. How crazy I am to think that the US is better than a nation that uses slave labor, runs gulags, and is suffering the threat of mass starvation because of blundering and inept leadership and planning…
Nah. You just don’t know what you’re talking about. Anyone who would say that North Korea is ‘rational and sane’ compared to the U.S. simply doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.
That, coupled with your loopy assertion that the government spends far more money on research than private industry, which you claimed spends almost no money on research, has proven to me that you are incredibly ignorant on issues of public policy. Time to crack the books, Chumpsky.
The U.S. does worse, on a larger scale. Added to that, the U.S. is actively attempting to make the world more dangerous, and to increase the threat of nuclear annhilation. Next to the insance wild beast that is the U.S. administration, the NK leadership IS quite sane and rational.
The US is trying to increase the threat of nuclear annihilation? Yeah, and the Jews are taking over the worlds money supplies. :rolleyes:
Is there a fancy Latin phrase for “I can’t argue against your position, since you and I don’t seem to be in the same reality”?
The mind reels. Someone in the world is capable of looking at North Korea, and the US, and deciding that North Korea is better.
I literally cannot think of anything to say.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m “historicly impaired”! Please provide a definition of this deep insight (can’t seem to find it in my dictionary).
Yup… as we say in my culture, “stiff bikkies”!
And let the record show that being “beneath contempt”, coming from you, is a compliment.
It did, so I’m sure you’re happy! I, however, and all rational people, can tell the difference between right and wrong. You obviously can’t, so it’s just as well that you’re in such a distinct minority here.
I presume you are a fool. If not, you give a fine imitation of one!
Chumpsky, I’ll address your issues, but I’ll note that you have a bad habit of ignoring evidence that contradicts your “facts” (i.e. assertions) and just changing the tack of your tirade. The US signed an agreement in 1994 stating that we wanted North Korea to stop work on Nuclear weapons and return to the table with South Korea, in return we would promise not to target them, and we’d provide heating oil and food (cus we’re bloodthirsty wild animals). North Korea has been involved with several skirmishes with South Korea in that time (the sub incident being one) and has not disassembled their nuclear facilities as promised. Yet you consider our discussion in 2000 of a hypothetical scenario where North Korea invades South Korea and we use nuclear weapons in response to a flagrant violation of the agreement to be a violation (hint: “target” meant an that we would not attack them, not that we would rule out all discussions of it). Even if you see that as a violation (which I don’t), I don’t see how you can say it was “first”- AFAIK N. Korea never began dismantling of the reactors and even the sub incident I mentioned occurred in 1996, 4 years before our so-called “violation”.