north korea tests nuke

[colonelguppy]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/0...test/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/korea.nuclear.test/index.html)

i really don't know what this is going to get them other than further strained international relations.

[Rollo]

Why can the USA and france test nukes cant NK can't?

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 04:00 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/0...test/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/korea.nuclear.test/index.html)

i really don't know what this is going to get them other than further strained international relations.
A nuke is strong defense against imperialist nations.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:17 AM
Why can the USA and france test nukes cant NK can't?
i never said that, although i odn't know why anyone would want to further nuclear proliferation, especially in the case of a cruel dictator.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Hiero+Oct 9 2006, 12:27 AM--> (Hiero @ Oct 9 2006, 12:27 AM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 04:00 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/0...test/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/korea.nuclear.test/index.html)

i really don't know what this is going to get them other than further strained international relations.
A nuke is strong defense against imperialist nations. [/b]
who's going to invade them?

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Oct 9 2006, 05:29 AM--> (colonelguppy @ Oct 9 2006, 05:29 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:27 AM

[email protected] 9 2006, 04:00 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/0...test/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/korea.nuclear.test/index.html)

i really don't know what this is going to get them other than further strained international relations.
A nuke is strong defense against imperialist nations.
who's going to invade them? [/b]
No one, although I guess the US and other countries have made signals implying that they would like to. This is really a huge amount of resources down the drain. The money that went into this bomb could have actually been used to make life a little bit more decent for the average NKer, or at least to electrify and modernize the economy to make it somewhat functional. I wonder what the reaction of the US is going to be. Will this make them back off or make them even more hostile? Hmm...

[colonelguppy]

we'll probably just talk about it more than we normally do.

[kaaos_af]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Oct 9 2006, 05:29 AM--> (colonelguppy @ Oct 9 2006, 05:29 AM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 12:17 AM
Why can the USA and france test nukes cant NK can't?
i never said that, although i odn't know why anyone would want to further nuclear proliferation, especially in the case of a cruel dictator. [/b]
What? Like Putin, Bush, whoever's in charge of Israel right now and Hu Jintao?

[Patchd]

Originally posted by kaaos_af+Oct 9 2006, 10:53 AM--> (kaaos_af @ Oct 9 2006, 10:53 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 05:29 AM

[email protected] 9 2006, 12:17 AM
Why can the USA and france test nukes cant NK can't?
i never said that, although i odn't know why anyone would want to further nuclear proliferation, especially in the case of a cruel dictator.
What? Like Putin, Bush, whoever's in charge of Israel right now and Hu Jintao? [/b]
Ohlmert

[Rollo]

Don't forget blair.

[Goatse]

The USA, the first and only country in history ever to use nuclear weapons, is allowed 10,000, but everyone has a hissy-fit when North Korea tests one?

[Rollo]

Exactly what I'm saying. They're just testing it. I think the only reason NK would have to use the bomb would be if the USA threatened to use one against them, which is unlikely.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 01:28 PM
The USA, the first and only country in history ever to use nuclear weapons, is allowed 10,000, but everyone has a hissy-fit when North Korea tests one?
Excellent point.

Powerful states, (particularly if they are white but shhh about that part) are allowed to make as many nuclear weapons as they like to defend and preseve "world order" and the "international community" but when a small thirld world country does it its verboten and a sign of "increasing world instability" It's just pure hypocrisy at work.


That being said however, I do agree that North Korea could make much better use of their resources than building more and more weaponry - but that doesn't give the US or any other state the right to interfere or say "tsk tsk" when small states aren't playing by their rules.

[RedAnarchist]

I don't support the NK government, but I'm glad that they have a nuclear bomb, or have the ability to make one. America must be stood up to, and this is NK's way of doing it.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by kaaos_af+Oct 9 2006, 05:53 AM--> (kaaos_af @ Oct 9 2006, 05:53 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 05:29 AM

[email protected] 9 2006, 12:17 AM
Why can the USA and france test nukes cant NK can't?
i never said that, although i odn't know why anyone would want to further nuclear proliferation, especially in the case of a cruel dictator.
What? Like Putin, Bush, whoever's in charge of Israel right now and Hu Jintao? [/b]
not like bush is a dictator or anything but still i don't know why anyone thinks that further nuclear proliferation is a good thing in any case.

you guys are all responding to points i haven't made. try again.


I don't support the NK government, but I'm glad that they have a nuclear bomb, or have the ability to make one. America must be stood up to, and this is NK's way of doing it.

what do you mean? its not like we were going to do anything.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 03:58 PM

I don't support the NK government, but I'm glad that they have a nuclear bomb, or have the ability to make one. America must be stood up to, and this is NK's way of doing it.

what do you mean? its not like we were going to do anything.
You can see into the future? Wow, that&#39;s a rare gift <_<

[Whitten]

when only one country had nukes, they were used. The more countries have nukes the greater the deterent not to use them, or to use any kind of military force. NK wont use nukes unless attacked first, becdause it would obviously result in them being owned by the US and possibly China. This just adds an extra deterent against America from trying to invade again.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 05:00 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/0...test/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/korea.nuclear.test/index.html)

i really don&#39;t know what this is going to get them other than further strained international relations.
i agree it is a risky move for them, but in the past, they have received assistance from the US by easing up on their nuclear program. they may think that they can use their bomb as a further bargaining chip with diplomatic talks.

war is not imminent. :-)

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 03:52 PM
You can see into the future? Wow, that&#39;s a rare gift <_<
:lol:

Yes and I&#39;m sure if we were in 1960 he would say - why on earth is Cuba talking about allying with the Soviet Union and arming up their military; it&#39;s not like the US is gonna do anything about it..

Or

Why are some people saying that Allende should arm the workers in Chile, it&#39;s not like the US cares that about much Chile and will do anything about it

Or

Why should Lenin create a Red Army for? It&#39;s not like the US will send an army to Russia or anything....

etc etc etc.

A good book for you would be "Killing Hope - A History of US Foreign Policy since World War II" Then maybe you can begin to appreciate why third world countries who don&#39;t play by Washington&#39;s rules might have some good reason for being concerned :rolleyes:

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by ThisAnarchistKillsNazis+Oct 9 2006, 10:52 AM--> (ThisAnarchistKillsNazis @ Oct 9 2006, 10:52 AM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 03:58 PM

I don&#39;t support the NK government, but I&#39;m glad that they have a nuclear bomb, or have the ability to make one. America must be stood up to, and this is NK&#39;s way of doing it.

what do you mean? its not like we were going to do anything.
You can see into the future? Wow, that&#39;s a rare gift <_< [/b]
its not that hard to predict foriegn policy.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 11:04 AM
when only one country had nukes, they were used. The more countries have nukes the greater the deterent not to use them, or to use any kind of military force. NK wont use nukes unless attacked first, becdause it would obviously result in them being owned by the US and possibly China. This just adds an extra deterent against America from trying to invade again.
america wasn&#39;t going to invade and neither was anyone else all this got korea was more distrust from the international community.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

With a guy like GWB out there with his finger on the button... Kim Jung Il with nukes is my last worry.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 9 2006, 02:27 PM
With a guy like GWB out there with his finger on the button... Kim Jung Il with nukes is my last worry.
you can&#39;t be serious.

[Zingu]

Why the hell are you people thinking is a *good* thing that the DPRK has nukes? The more I read these forums, the more it sounds like alot of people are just occidentalist anti-americans.

[Dean]

Theres a problem with thinking that nuclear proliferation is a safety net. That is of course that there is always the potential for a "Dr. Strangelove" scenario. We see people blowing themselves up in Israel due to the suffering of their people. We all suffer, some much more than others, and I don&#39;t see how more bombing capability for more different types of government structure will discourage usage of nuclear bombs. It seems to me that quite the opposite is true.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 08:03 AM
Why the hell are you people thinking is a *good* thing that the DPRK has nukes? The more I read these forums, the more it sounds like alot of people are just occidentalist anti-americans.
It isn&#39;t a good thing but if the USA, india, UK and whoever else has nuclear bombs what gives them the authority to say " you can&#39;t have one because we don&#39;t like you? The UN? Please correct me if I&#39;m wrong which I may very well be. Isn&#39;t the UN just looking out for the large imperialist nations? They gave Israel a country because palistine is a small third world country but they wouldn&#39;t dare give it to chechnya because Russia is one of those nations the UN is protecting.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Oct 9 2006, 04:34 PM--> (colonelguppy &#064; Oct 9 2006, 04:34 PM)
Dr. [email protected] 9 2006, 02:27 PM
With a guy like GWB out there with his finger on the button... Kim Jung Il with nukes is my last worry.
you can&#39;t be serious. [/b]
All Kim has done is continue a national tradition of agression against S. Korea. Bush has continued a national tradition of agression against various countries, ideologies, religions, armed with thousands of the world&#39;s best weapons, and not afraid to use them for any outrageous objective.

As far asI know, North Korea has never used nukes against civilian populations, promoted military coups against democratic governments, and advocated and perpetrated thousands of political assasinations and tortures abroad.

There&#39;s no comparison between the real danger posed by the United States and North Korea. The former is infinitely more dangerous. By any objective measure.

In the XX century, the US has developed the most belligerent foreign policy in the world... toppling governments, supporting totalitarian military regimes, waging war... And this hasn&#39;t ended with the Cold War. See Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Bosnia, et, al.

The United States government is directly responsible for almost all warfare in the world today. And you people have the audacity to ***** about the Oaxaca commune potentially using violence and our Great Leader making a nuke.

[Hool]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+Oct 12 2006, 09:50 PM--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ Oct 12 2006, 09:50 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 04:34 PM

Dr. [email protected] 9 2006, 02:27 PM
With a guy like GWB out there with his finger on the button... Kim Jung Il with nukes is my last worry.
you can&#39;t be serious.
All Kim has done is continue a national tradition of agression against S. Korea. Bush has continued a national tradition of agression against various countries, ideologies, religions, armed with thousands of the world&#39;s best weapons, and not afraid to use them for any outrageous objective.

As far asI know, North Korea has never used nukes against civilian populations, promoted military coups against democratic governments, and advocated and perpetrated thousands of political assasinations and tortures abroad.

There&#39;s no comparison between the real danger posed by the United States and North Korea. The former is infinitely more dangerous. By any objective measure.

In the XX century, the US has developed the most belligerent foreign policy in the world... toppling governments, supporting totalitarian military regimes, waging war... And this hasn&#39;t ended with the Cold War. See Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Bosnia, et, al.

The United States government is directly responsible for almost all warfare in the world today. And you people have the audacity to ***** about the Oaxaca commune potentially using violence and our Great Leader making a nuke. [/b]
Kim would never use nukes on civilians, he prefers to starve them in order to get the nukes in the first place rather than use it for money for his own people. I&#39;m sorry but anybody who thinks Kim Jong Il having nukes is the same thing as George Bush having nukes is the same thing doesn&#39;t know what the hell they&#39;re talking about. On one hand you have someone with enough blatant disregard for HIS OWN PEOPLE&#39;s lives that he would let them starve as long as he&#39;s getting nuclear technology. What in the fuck does he need nukes for? As i recall, North Korea wasn&#39;t even on any political map until they started researching nukes. What would be the interest in attacking NK prior to the nukes, please tell me.

I need examples of Bush&#39;s aggression towards various ideologies and religion because that doesn&#39;t stand up on it&#39;s own. An outrageous objective being liberating Iraq from a genocidal murderer? What political assasinations and tortures? If you&#39;re a terrorist and want to blow up American civilians, then yes, i believe America is going to be a fairly large threat to you.

The United States is responsible for war in the world today because the U.N. is too fucking incompetant to do anything besides warn, and warn again once they are disobeyed. The U.N. has the audacity to say "never again will the global community sit idol while such atrocities are committed" at the Holocaust 60th anniversary, while at the same time Christians in Darfur are being massacred.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

&#39;m sorry but anybody who thinks Kim Jong Il having nukes is the same thing as George Bush having nukes is the same thing doesn&#39;t know what the hell they&#39;re talking about.

No. I think that the United States having nukes is far worse than North Korea having nukes. North Korea has been among the least aggressive countries in the world. Compared to the US, which has been involved in dozens of wars, overthrown democratic governments, installed dictatorships, promoted political assasinations and torture, invades crap all the time, etc. How can you say that North Korea is dangerous and the US isn&#39;t?


What would be the interest in attacking NK prior to the nukes, please tell me.

We&#39;re talking about these two countries posing a threat to the world community, not the other way around.


I need examples of Bush&#39;s aggression towards various ideologies and religion because that doesn&#39;t stand up on it&#39;s own.

Not just Bush, but the US government over the past 50 years. Much of this action can be blamed on the cold war, but since the end of the cold war, you fuckers haven&#39;t shown any sign of stopping.
American political and police action in nearly every Latin American country against communists and unionists through the CIA and the AID. Not to mention these organization&#39;s very active roles in imposing the various right-wing, murderous military dictatorships in various countries.

And the US has also been the leading initiator of "legitimate" warfare in the recent past. Your country is responsible for most conflict in the world now. Including in Korea.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

this is my ideas and they&#39;re probably all wrong...

i think north korea wants the nuke for the same reason the soviets, the french, the chinese, and the english did: deterrent, duh.

they&#39;re in a very harsh political climate these days (with the break-up of their former closest trading partner and military ally, the ussr). the us has never treated the north koreans as political equals, and they face the constant, immediate threat, whether real or immagined, of invasion by the us, south korea, and apperantly, even japan (smirk, lol - the japanese would whoop &#39;em hardcore with their deadly consumer-end electronics).

considering the &#39;shoot first, ask questions later&#39; policies of our current almighty omnipresent great oneof the high heavens (the white house), those threats are probably moreso real than immagined; i could very easily see bush just whooping the dog shit out of korea just for these 2 simple facts: A) they ain&#39;t like us, and B) their food is too spicy.

and suppose a war did break out between north and south korea (which could happen very easily) - the south koreans would have worldwide support: US, Japan, and probably a few western european nations.

but who would come to help the north koreans? the chinese? not likely, they&#39;re too busy strapping on their knee pads so they can service us again and again (i.e., they&#39;re too busy trying to make friends with their former cold war enemies to come to the aid of their former cold war allies - there&#39;s more money in it for them to be peaceful to us than to be helpful to them). i imagine cuba would help (castro was the only leader in the world to offer military assistance to Hussein prior to the invasion), but that ain&#39;t much. Vietnam might, but probably not. so who else? no one.

I&#39;ll put this in everyday terms to make it short and simple: if your enemy and 4 of his homies jump you, what do you do if all of your homies are too busy selling crack? you grab a baseball bat or a tire iron or a cue stick and start swinging. but if your enemy&#39;s homies come to jump you, and you already have a baseball bat in one hand and a length of tow chain in the other... do you think they&#39;ll carry it through? of course not.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+Oct 12 2006, 04:50 PM--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ Oct 12 2006, 04:50 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 04:34 PM

Dr. [email protected] 9 2006, 02:27 PM
With a guy like GWB out there with his finger on the button... Kim Jung Il with nukes is my last worry.
you can&#39;t be serious.
All Kim has done is continue a national tradition of agression against S. Korea. Bush has continued a national tradition of agression against various countries, ideologies, religions, armed with thousands of the world&#39;s best weapons, and not afraid to use them for any outrageous objective.

As far asI know, North Korea has never used nukes against civilian populations, promoted military coups against democratic governments, and advocated and perpetrated thousands of political assasinations and tortures abroad.

There&#39;s no comparison between the real danger posed by the United States and North Korea. The former is infinitely more dangerous. By any objective measure.

In the XX century, the US has developed the most belligerent foreign policy in the world... toppling governments, supporting totalitarian military regimes, waging war... And this hasn&#39;t ended with the Cold War. See Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Bosnia, et, al.

The United States government is directly responsible for almost all warfare in the world today. And you people have the audacity to ***** about the Oaxaca commune potentially using violence and our Great Leader making a nuke. [/b]
wait i thought we were talking about using nuclear arms, not petty conventional warfare. do you honestly think we are any more likely to nuke someone than nk?


The United States government is directly responsible for almost all warfare in the world today

now thats just plain false.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Oct 15 2006, 10:44 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Oct 15 2006, 10:44 PM)
Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 12 2006, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 04:34 PM

Dr. [email protected] 9 2006, 02:27 PM
With a guy like GWB out there with his finger on the button... Kim Jung Il with nukes is my last worry.
you can&#39;t be serious.
All Kim has done is continue a national tradition of agression against S. Korea. Bush has continued a national tradition of agression against various countries, ideologies, religions, armed with thousands of the world&#39;s best weapons, and not afraid to use them for any outrageous objective.

As far asI know, North Korea has never used nukes against civilian populations, promoted military coups against democratic governments, and advocated and perpetrated thousands of political assasinations and tortures abroad.

There&#39;s no comparison between the real danger posed by the United States and North Korea. The former is infinitely more dangerous. By any objective measure.

In the XX century, the US has developed the most belligerent foreign policy in the world... toppling governments, supporting totalitarian military regimes, waging war... And this hasn&#39;t ended with the Cold War. See Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Bosnia, et, al.

The United States government is directly responsible for almost all warfare in the world today. And you people have the audacity to ***** about the Oaxaca commune potentially using violence and our Great Leader making a nuke.
wait i thought we were talking about using nuclear arms, not petty conventional warfare. do you honestly think we are any more likely to nuke someone than nk? [/b]
Well, they both have unhinged pyschopaths in power. They both are trying to prove themselves to be &#39;big bully&#39; nations.One of them has used nukes twice. The other hasn&#39;t. Think boy, think.




The United States government is directly responsible for almost all warfare in the world today

now thats just plain false. Examples of wars which America is not directly responisble for?

[colonelguppy]

Well, they both have unhinged pyschopaths in power. They both are trying to prove themselves to be &#39;big bully&#39; nations.One of them has used nukes twice. The other hasn&#39;t. Think boy, think.

yeah world conditions couldn&#39;t have changed or anything to make us less likely to use nukes or anything. IMPOSSIBLE.


Examples of wars which America is not directly responisble for?

well i&#39;m not really obliged to answer considering i&#39;m not the one making the claim, but...

sri lanka civil war
somali civil war
kashmir conflict
nepal civil war
chechen conflicts
darfur conflict and sudanese civil war
rwandan civil war
algerian civil war
yugoslav wars
georgian civil war
sierra leone civil war
tajikstani civil war
burundi civil war
yemeni civil war

theres alot more, read about it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars

if the US doens&#39;t initiate force, does that qualify them as not responsible?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:11 PM

Well, they both have unhinged pyschopaths in power. They both are trying to prove themselves to be &#39;big bully&#39; nations.One of them has used nukes twice. The other hasn&#39;t. Think boy, think.

yeah world conditions couldn&#39;t have changed or anything to make us less likely to use nukes or anything. IMPOSSIBLE.
They&#39;re the psycotic children of the psychotpaths that dropped those nukes. I wouldn&#39;t trust them with firecrackers personally.




Examples of wars which America is not directly responisble for?
if the US doens&#39;t initiate force, does that qualify them as not responsible? No.

I&#39;ll look into those wars tomorrow and the day after and reply at length, refering to any I see that the US had a hand in.

[colonelguppy]

They&#39;re the psycotic children of the psychotpaths that dropped those nukes. I wouldn&#39;t trust them with firecrackers personally.

fine ignore reason, WERE ALL CRAZY&#33;


No.

I&#39;ll look into those wars tomorrow and the day after and reply at length, refering to any I see that the US had a hand in.

having "a hand in" doesn&#39;t make one "directly responsible".

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:25 PM

They&#39;re the psycotic children of the psychotpaths that dropped those nukes. I wouldn&#39;t trust them with firecrackers personally.

fine ignore reason, WERE ALL CRAZY&#33;
Sorry, you were under the impression that your nation&#39;s leaders were not in the least unhinged? Poor you.

Also, being under the impression I&#39;d ever bother arguing with somone as deeply indoctrinated and annoying as you is, whilst very cute at the same time very, very, wrong.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Oct 15 2006, 06:34 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Oct 15 2006, 06:34 PM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 11:25 PM

They&#39;re the psycotic children of the psychotpaths that dropped those nukes. I wouldn&#39;t trust them with firecrackers personally.

fine ignore reason, WERE ALL CRAZY&#33;
Sorry, you were under the impression that your nation&#39;s leaders were not in the least unhinged? Poor you. [/b]
not unhinged enough to use nuclear weapons, which i believe is the whole point of this debate.


Also, being under the impression I&#39;d ever bother arguing with somone as deeply indoctrinated and annoying as you is, whilst very cute at the same time very, very, wrong.

that statement might hold some water if you weren&#39;t simultaneously responding to me in 4 or 5 other threads.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Oct 15 2006, 11:37 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Oct 15 2006, 11:37 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:34 PM

[email protected] 15 2006, 11:25 PM

They&#39;re the psycotic children of the psychotpaths that dropped those nukes. I wouldn&#39;t trust them with firecrackers personally.

fine ignore reason, WERE ALL CRAZY&#33;
Sorry, you were under the impression that your nation&#39;s leaders were not in the least unhinged? Poor you.
not unhinged enough to use nuclear weapons, which i believe is the whole point of this debate.


Also, being under the impression I&#39;d ever bother arguing with somone as deeply indoctrinated and annoying as you is, whilst very cute at the same time very, very, wrong.

that statement might hold some water if you weren&#39;t simultaneously responding to me in 4 or 5 other threads. [/b]
A) They&#39;re unhinged enough to use nice, friendly &#39;conventional&#39; weapons like cluster bombs. It&#39;s no huge leap.

B) Sorry, forgot to chuck in a &#39;seriosuly&#39; or &#39;with any intention of doing anything other than amusing myself&#39; in there.

[colonelguppy]

A) They&#39;re unhinged enough to use nice, friendly &#39;conventional&#39; weapons like cluster bombs. It&#39;s no huge leap.

not that i really think using conventional weapons is unhinged or anything, but thats not what were talking about.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The United States uses conventional tactics against people all the fucking time. And never caring about whether or not civilians are being harmed. The United States is undoubtedly the greatest military threat to basically all countries and peoples of the world. Except perhaps South Koreans and Israelis.

The US not involved in Yugoslavia? hahaha Funny.
Over the past fifty years, the US has been by far the leading perpetrator of violence and Goliath beating up David.
With the Soviet Union gone, there is absolutely no question.

Tell me, what has North Korea or The Great Leader done to justify anyone not in South Korea being worried?
Anything....?
Anything at all.
Despite The Great Leader being crazy and the leader of one of the most militarized nations in the world, he doesn&#39;t fuck with anyone. I want all Americans, who negate or are ignorant of their own government&#39;s military crimes, and who claim Our Great Leader of being an international threat, to shut the fuck up.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 16 2006, 12:18 PM
The United States uses conventional tactics against people all the fucking time. And never caring about whether or not civilians are being harmed. The United States is undoubtedly the greatest military threat to basically all countries and peoples of the world. Except perhaps South Koreans and Israelis.

The US not involved in Yugoslavia? hahaha Funny.
Over the past fifty years, the US has been by far the leading perpetrator of violence and Goliath beating up David.
With the Soviet Union gone, there is absolutely no question.

Tell me, what has North Korea or The Great Leader done to justify anyone not in South Korea being worried?
Anything....?
Anything at all.
Despite The Great Leader being crazy and the leader of one of the most militarized nations in the world, he doesn&#39;t fuck with anyone. I want all Americans, who negate or are ignorant of their own government&#39;s military crimes, and who claim Our Great Leader of being an international threat, to shut the fuck up.
Kim Jong Il likes to show off his troops and weapons as a sort of sign on DPRK&#39;s front door. "leave us alone", the last thing he wants is for the USA to come and invade his country.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Cuba does that too. The difference is that Cuba has fairly good relations with some countries. North Korea just doesn&#39;t give a fuck what anyone thinks anymore. As long as nobody fucks with them. Which is fairly sensible.

[Rollo]

Yeah, I hope nobody does try and fuck with them. It would most likely result in nuclear war.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 15 2006, 09:18 PM
The United States uses conventional tactics against people all the fucking time. And never caring about whether or not civilians are being harmed. The United States is undoubtedly the greatest military threat to basically all countries and peoples of the world. Except perhaps South Koreans and Israelis.

The US not involved in Yugoslavia? hahaha Funny.
Over the past fifty years, the US has been by far the leading perpetrator of violence and Goliath beating up David.
With the Soviet Union gone, there is absolutely no question.
i never claimed that the US didn&#39;t use conventional arms, we do it alot. yeah and we probably use them more than anyone else. of course, this is not the claim being discussed.

we are talking about nuclear weapons, and their use.


Except perhaps South Koreans

what?


Tell me, what has North Korea or The Great Leader done to justify anyone not in South Korea being worried?
Anything....?

well they did invade them that one time. and they always have a threatening demeanor when delaing with international relations.


Despite The Great Leader being crazy and the leader of one of the most militarized nations in the world, he doesn&#39;t fuck with anyone. I want all Americans, who negate or are ignorant of their own government&#39;s military crimes, and who claim Our Great Leader of being an international threat, to shut the fuck up.

why do you call him your great leader, do you really buy into his propaganda? or do his censorship goons force you to do it?

[Rollo]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Oct 16 2006, 01:37 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Oct 16 2006, 01:37 PM)
Dr. [email protected] 15 2006, 09:18 PM
The United States uses conventional tactics against people all the fucking time. And never caring about whether or not civilians are being harmed. The United States is undoubtedly the greatest military threat to basically all countries and peoples of the world. Except perhaps South Koreans and Israelis.

The US not involved in Yugoslavia? hahaha Funny.
Over the past fifty years, the US has been by far the leading perpetrator of violence and Goliath beating up David.
With the Soviet Union gone, there is absolutely no question.
i never claimed that the US didn&#39;t use conventional arms, we do it alot. yeah and we probably use them more than anyone else. of course, this is not the claim being discussed.

we are talking about nuclear weapons, and their use.


Except perhaps South Koreans

what?


Tell me, what has North Korea or The Great Leader done to justify anyone not in South Korea being worried?
Anything....?

well they did invade them that one time. and they always have a threatening demeanor when delaing with international relations.


Despite The Great Leader being crazy and the leader of one of the most militarized nations in the world, he doesn&#39;t fuck with anyone. I want all Americans, who negate or are ignorant of their own government&#39;s military crimes, and who claim Our Great Leader of being an international threat, to shut the fuck up.

why do you call him your great leader, do you really buy into his propaganda? or do his censorship goons force you to do it? [/b]
He was using satire I think.

[colonelguppy]

the humor was lost on me i suppose.

[RNK]

sri lanka civil war
somali civil war
kashmir conflict
nepal civil war
chechen conflicts
darfur conflict and sudanese civil war
rwandan civil war
algerian civil war
yugoslav wars
georgian civil war
sierra leone civil war
tajikstani civil war
burundi civil war
yemeni civil war


Since nobody bothered stepping up to the challenge that the US was not involved in these conflicts, I will.


sri lanka civil war
The Sri Lankan government receives considerable assistance, both military and non-military, from the United States. The Tamil Tigers was listed by the UN and US as a terrorist organization and as such the UN and US have pressured Sri Lanka to crack down on them, at the very least excacerbating the war if not openly prodding the Sri Lankan government to pursue it.


somali civil war
Besides the fact that al Qaida and the Mujahadeen have been suspected of involvement in the Somali conflict, the United States led a military incursion with the UN into Somalia in 1993, setting off the powder keg. The Civil War itself was precipitated by the overthrowing of Somalia&#39;s pro-US President, and prior and during the conflict Somalia was permeated with foreign (mainly US) oil corporations.


kashmir conflict
The US is a close ally of India and since 9/11 an ally of Pakistan. Both countries within the last several years developed nuclear weaponry (hey, what happened to non-proliferation?) which the United States and the UN had the capability to pressure the two countries against. Instead, nuclear armament was accepted wholesale. The US provides substantial military aid to India and has a heavy military presence in Pakistan. The US did not start the conflict, but it is involved.


nepal civil war
The Nepali Civil War is a Maoist uprising against the Nepali monarchy and parliament which receives massive military aid from Britain and the US. The Nepali Maoists have been listed by the US as a terrorist organization, and the Nepaly Army receives training and funding by the US to help combat the Maoist rebellion.


chechen conflicts
The Chechan conflict can be linked strongly to the Soviet-Afghanistan war in which the United States played a huge part in training and funding Muslim radicals (Mujahadeen). After the Soviet withdrawl the Mujahadeen largely splintered into hundreds of different groups, many remaining in Afghanistan but many leaving to other countries and regions, including neighbouring Chechnya. Since the Afghanistan war, Southern Russia has seen an explosion in Muslim insurgency and the Chechan rebels include former Mujahadeen in their ranks.


darfur conflict and sudanese civil war
Like Chechnya, this area of the world was also visited by former Mujahadeen, who went to work spreading their radical "Islamist" ideology of violent insurgency to attain Muslim dominance. Ontop of that, the Darfur situation has largely been completely ignored by the US, mainly because there is no oil there to warrant any American involvement. If the United States can send 150,000 troops to invade and occupy an oil-rich nation, why can&#39;t they spare some help for a few million starving, abused people?


rwandan civil war
Like Darfur, the Rwandan genocide was completely ignored by the US & UN. Interestingly enough, hundreds of thousands of Africans can be butchered and the world does nothing, but as soon as the tiniest shred of violence pops up in a white european country the whole world mobilizes to intervene (Yugoslavia).


algerian civil war
Like Chechnya as well, the Algerian Islamist resistance groups, either made up of former Mujahadeen, trained by former Mujahadeen, or inspired by former Mujahadeen, still find atleast some of their existance linked to the US.


yugoslav wars
Mainly a product 50 years of cold war politics that morphed from the downfall of the Soviet Union into anarchy and chaos and ultra-nationalism. US-led NATO force intervened several times over a decade.


georgian civil war
Another by-product of cold war-era political espionage and the shameful attack on world socialism. In a very broad sense of it, if the United States had not launched its viscious bourgouisie attack on Communism, this, and many other conflicts would never have happened. It is not direct involvement by the US, but still was caused by US action.


sierra leone civil war
This I blame more on the systemic attitude and treatment towards Africa over the past 500 years, not only by America but by Europe as well. Many, if not all the conflicts and troubles in Africa can be traced back directly or indirectly to the shit they&#39;ve had done to them by Europeans (and Americans) over time. Everything from work-slavery in diamond mines to slavery in America to colonialism, apartheid and racism.


tajikstani civil war
Yet another example, both of the aftermath of America&#39;s brutal defeat of the Soviet Union and the backlash of CIA-funded Islamic fundamentalism spreading.


burundi civil war
Like Rwanda and Sierra Leone, another example of the US and UN doing fuck-all as hundreds of thousands died and millions suffered.


yemeni civil war
Besides perhaps some behind-the-scenes workings and some distant indirect domino affect, I don&#39;t think the US was physically involved. Hurrah&#33;

Anyway, like I said, the US wasn&#39;t directly involved in many of these, but many of these were either the result of American actions in the past, or made worse by American actions (or inactions) at the time of the conflicts, and a few are instances where the United States could very easily step in and end the conflict but chooses not to. (Pfsh, it sure chose to invade Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqi people but they won&#39;t lift a damned finger to help in the smallest way millions more people who are a fucking hell of a lot worse off than the Iraqis were)

[Gradualist Fool]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 10:03 PM
Why the hell are you people thinking is a *good* thing that the DPRK has nukes? The more I read these forums, the more it sounds like alot of people are just occidentalist anti-americans.
QFT.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Blue Dog Liberal+Oct 16 2006, 06:47 PM--> (Blue Dog Liberal @ Oct 16 2006, 06:47 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 10:03 PM
Why the hell are you people thinking is a *good* thing that the DPRK has nukes? The more I read these forums, the more it sounds like alot of people are just occidentalist anti-americans.
QFT. [/b]
I suggest you read the rest of the thread.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I asked why should the international community have greater fear of North Korea than of the United States. Not South Korea.

Answer my question.

How do they have a more threatening demeanor than the US? You just admitted that the US is the most violent country in the world. They have declared three countries "evil". They are politically involved in basically every country, in defense of capital and oppression. They are militarilly involved in most conflicts in the world, also in the defense of capital and oppression. How the fuck can you claim North Korea to be belligenrent? Christ

And yeah, the "Great Leader" thing is a joke. I find it funny.

[nancyhutto]

It is about time they tested nukes. The US and the rest of the world will not have a dialogue with them. If that is what it takes, viva la revolucion&#33;

Nancy Hutto
[email protected]

[nancyhutto]

Furthermore, I think it is perverted propaganda by Imperialists that has brought us to this point. While working on my PHD at Baylor, I researched North Korea and even met Kim Jong Il. Everything about him has been misportrayed; he truly is a great leader.

Nancy Hutto
[email protected]

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 16 2006, 07:36 AM
I asked why should the international community have greater fear of North Korea than of the United States. Not South Korea.

Answer my question.

How do they have a more threatening demeanor than the US? You just admitted that the US is the most violent country in the world. They have declared three countries "evil". They are politically involved in basically every country, in defense of capital and oppression. They are militarilly involved in most conflicts in the world, also in the defense of capital and oppression. How the fuck can you claim North Korea to be belligenrent? Christ

And yeah, the "Great Leader" thing is a joke. I find it funny.
regardless of the past actions of the US, i&#39;m still not sure why so many people here seem to favor nuclear proliferation.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:00 PM
Furthermore, I think it is perverted propaganda by Imperialists that has brought us to this point. While working on my PHD at Baylor, I researched North Korea and even met Kim Jong Il. Everything about him has been misportrayed; he truly is a great leader.

Nancy Hutto
[email protected]
yeah i bet.