Hellbender Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 Not wanting to get too far off topic' date=' but i can't think of any economic interests in Vietnam worth fighting for. It looking like the war was genuinely fought to try and stop communist aggression, not for economic reasons. Anyway, this thread isn't about Vietnam or Iraq, but North Korea. What do you think should be done about the nuclearisation of North Korea?[/quote'] sorry, I did get a little off topic. From a objective standpoint, and from what I gather, North Korea is only responding to what they see as a threat. Not that it is right or anything.
budullewraagh Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 Not wanting to get too far off topic, but i can't think of any economic interests in Vietnam worth fighting for. It looking like the war was genuinely fought to try and stop communist aggression, not for economic reasons. Anyway, this thread isn't about Vietnam or Iraq, but North Korea. What do you think should be done about the nuclearisation of North Korea? no, that was just mccarthy being stupid. the vietnamese had just finished fighting the french for hundreds of years and before had been fighting the chinese. do you think they were going to submit to the soviets and chinese? ho chi minh was first a nationalist and second a communist. different times, different leaders, different motives.
JohnB Posted February 12, 2005 Posted February 12, 2005 different times, different leaders, different motives. Different "Re-education" Camps? Two facts that people should keep in mind. 1. If you look at the 10 most oppressive, mass murdering Governments of the 20th Century, at least 8 will have "Socialist" or "Communist" in their name. 2. When given a choice, people reject Communism. If anyone is believing what the NK gov is saying, I'll bet they used to believe every word that Pravda used to say about "The peace loving peoples and Government of the Soviet Union". Get a grip. Communist= Tyranny. Any other interpretation is simply ignoring the facts of history. Look at what they call themselves for crying out loud. DPNK. Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. Well at least they got the location right. I'll also add, for those who may want to get legal. North and South Korea are in a state of war. A cease fire is in effect, but they are still legally at war. If NK nuked SK, they would not be "starting a war" or "attacking" SK, they would just be breaking the Cease Fire. (As if that hasn't been done before. ) *Just to note a major point in World History, that is the first I've ever used the icon in any forum. Aren't you glad you were here to see it? I'm sure it's something you'll be telling your Grandchildren about in the decades to come.*
Aardvark Posted February 13, 2005 Posted February 13, 2005 no' date=' that was just mccarthy being stupid. the vietnamese had just finished fighting the french for hundreds of years and before had been fighting the chinese. do you think they were going to submit to the soviets and chinese? ho chi minh was first a nationalist and second a communist. different times, different leaders, different motives.[/quote'] I don't think McCarthy had anything to do with the Vietnam war. Other than that, yes, it was a stupid war, but it was still a war to stop Communist expansionism, not for any particular econmic reason.
Aardvark Posted February 13, 2005 Posted February 13, 2005 sorry, I did get a little off topic. From a objective standpoint, and from what I gather, North Korea is only responding to what they see as a threat. Not that it is right or anything. North Korea was busily developing nuclear weapons when Clinton was President. Therefore, when they say they are only responding to a threat from Bush they are lying.
Aardvark Posted February 13, 2005 Posted February 13, 2005 It seems that N. Korea wants to have direct talks with the US. It's a case of the North Koreans trying to play divide and rule. Not a matter of negotiating in good faith.
Hellbender Posted February 13, 2005 Posted February 13, 2005 North Korea was busily developing nuclear weapons when Clinton was President. Therefore, when they say they are only responding to a threat from Bush they are lying. well then I guess they being plain aggressive then. I am not oging to lose any sleep about it, this "I have nukes" stuff is just bravado anyways.
Aardvark Posted February 13, 2005 Posted February 13, 2005 well then I guess they being plain aggressive then. I am not oging to lose any sleep about it, this "I have nukes" stuff is just bravado anyways. You, personally, are probably quite safe. But considering how volitatile the NK regime is millions of people in Asia are at risk. The NK regime might decide on an aggressive foriegn policy to divert attention from internal collapse. Or the NK regime might collapse, either into bloody feuding or anarchy. Either way nuclear bombs in one of the most densely populated areas of the world makes for big problems. A collapsing NK attacking SK would mean American troops fighting and the possibility of cities like Tokyo or Seoul being hit by nuclear weapons. An eventuality worth trying to avoid.
Hellbender Posted February 13, 2005 Posted February 13, 2005 A collapsing NK attacking SK would mean American troops fighting and the possibility of cities like Tokyo or Seoul being hit by nuclear weapons. An eventuality worth trying to avoid. I am not indifferent to this at all. I know the dangers that nuclear arms are in the hands of an aggressive nation. In my opinion, they should have never been invented in the first place. What I meant about it being bravado is that anyone knows the dangers of such weapons, and using them is considered a last resort. The point is that they have them, and they serve as a potent "muscle" to flex to the world.
Aardvark Posted February 13, 2005 Posted February 13, 2005 I am not indifferent to this at all. I know the dangers that nuclear arms are in the hands of an aggressive nation. In my opinion, they should have never been invented in the first place. What I meant about it being bravado is that anyone knows the dangers of such weapons, and using them is considered a last resort. The point is that they have them, and they serve as a potent "muscle" to flex to the world. True, unfortunately the North Korean regime is known for being paranoid and unpredictable. Where another nation would be extremely reluctant to use these weapons we can not be sure that the NK regime is that rational. Esp as the regime might collapse, in which case the leaders might consider that they have nothing left to lose. (ps, good summation of the pledge of allegiance debate, but probably wasted on the trolls )
Sayonara Posted February 13, 2005 Posted February 13, 2005 North Korea was busily developing nuclear weapons when Clinton was President. Therefore, when they say they are only responding to a threat from Bush they are lying. That's simply not true (the last bit, not the first bit), since they had shelved their entire nuclear programme, and only reactivated it last year. It's not like this all happened in secret.
Silencer Posted February 13, 2005 Posted February 13, 2005 Some of you people are pretty ridiculous. North Korea is run by a maniac who needs food and energy for his army and will have a fit until he gets it. And now he has nuclear weapons. This situation requires drastic action. We can't just sit around and wait for him to get even more desperate. And other countries would have to be crazy to not be with us on this one.
Sayonara Posted February 13, 2005 Posted February 13, 2005 OK, fine. You go attack NK for no real reason, and see what happens.
Tetrahedrite Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 Nuking NK would cause a nuclear holocaust!! Remember China is NK's biggest ally and they do have nuclear weapons, and enough of them to put a sizable hole in many, many American cities, including for example, Philadelphia. China also has the biggest army in the world. America using a nuke would also cause an instant arms race, and all non-proliferation treaties would be instantly forgotten. I'll repeat, nuking NK could possibly cause armegedon!!
Sayonara Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 It's unlikely to cause a biblical town, if you really think about it.
john5746 Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 Some of you people are pretty ridiculous.North Korea is run by a maniac who needs food and energy for his army and will have a fit until he gets it. And now he has nuclear weapons. This situation requires drastic action. We can't just sit around and wait for him to get even more desperate. And other countries would have to be crazy to not be with us on this one. He is a "bad" guy, yes. We do need to respond, but we don't need to act crazy everytime someone makes a statement or does something we disapprove. They haven't been agressive lately, I see no reason to think they will be that way, unless we invade. Show them the stick, and hope we don't need to use it.
Sayonara Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 I think they're unlikely to try and nuke anyone. NK might be a repressive, near-totalitarian state run by people we'd prefer never to run into, but they aren't all dribbling fools.
TimeTraveler Posted February 14, 2005 Author Posted February 14, 2005 I agree with John5746, there is no need to be acting crazy. Both nations are acting a bit immature and need to stop using the media as a form of communication and buck up and work it out. When Bush says things to N Korea like "Axis of Evil" and "States like these" it's sounds hostile and disrespecting. Both parties need to stop acting childish and talk to each other, if NK wants one-on-one talks give it to them, on the pretenses that they will agree to meet for two one-on-one talks then re-join the 6-party talks. You have to at least open up an avenue for peace if you want to make any attempt to achieve it. Here is an interesting link I found, I have not had a chance to read it all only the first 2 pages, but I thought I would share it : Issue Brief to Congress regarding North Korea, 04-28-2003
JohnB Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 It's unlikely to cause a biblical town, if you really think about it. While that statement is factually true, you must admit that under the conditions Tetra described, quite a number of cities would have a more than passing resemblence to 2 particular biblical towns.
Aardvark Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 That's simply not true (the last bit' date=' not the first bit), since they had [b']shelved[/b] their entire nuclear programme, and only reactivated it last year. It's not like this all happened in secret. Actually it was pretty secret. In 2002 NK was found to having been continuing with its nuclear weapons programme in secret and in violation of its agreements on the matter. Here is an informative link http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp
Silencer Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 China on North Korea's side? Sure, they both have slanty eyes and live right next to each other, but North Korea is just a pain to China. They have to give them electricity and food all the time. Of course, they could use it as an opprotune time to attack America, which I think they have been planning ever since they realized how dumb Clinton was and how easily they could take advantage of a country run by people like him. Sorry for going off topic.
Hellbender Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 China on North Korea's side? Sure, they both have slanty eyes and live right next to each other, but North Korea is just a pain to China. They have to give them electricity and food all the time. Wow a conservative who is also a racist. Who woulda thunk it? Of course, they could use it as an opprotune time to attack America, which I think they have been planning ever since they realized how dumb Clinton was and how easily they could take advantage of a country run by people like him. and we all know what an absolute genius Bush is.
budullewraagh Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 um, you really don't know much of asian history. the chinese and koreans have always been like brothers. think noryang point, the mongols, japan, etc. you're using your own unbased reasoning to try to slant history in your favor. sorry man but we see through you
Phi for All Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 Sure, they both have slanty eyes and live right next to each other, but North Korea is just a pain to China.From the Forums Policy document listed under Announcements on the main page: 2.l) Racial slurs or slurs against homosexuals, or any kind of discrimination or prejudice, is not permited. Consider this a warning, Silencer. Suspension will follow the next lapse of judgement.
Recommended Posts