Posted by Davo_169
i mean come on...thats just rediculous...but good on them for not backing down.
whatdo you guys reckon
Posted by leeboy13
i reckon theyve opened a can of worms, the thing is if noone agrees to stick to things then were all knackered..... they shouldnt of done this... there will be conciquences you watch....
Posted by >500
i really have not followed this...what exactly is happening? US going to bomb korea?
Heard something along the lines of countries attacking them or something if they dont back down on the news before?
if some one can fill me in that would be great
Posted by brix25
I say let them all destroy each other with their nukes. There's no way North Korea will fire a live head without risking total anhilation from the US and her allies.
I still find it strange that they actually went ahead with the test after years of sabre rattling.
North Korea should make an interesting holiday destination
Posted by Davo_169
like i said, theyve got balls...being the last communist nation in the the world and actively testing nuclear weapons, i dont think theyre anyones freind at the moment....even their greatest ally china has shunned their behavior
Posted by SsTiTcH
Thats whats scary nobody really knows what the N. Koreans were (are) thinking when they went ahead with their test. Hope nobody gets stupid and starts an all out launch ...
Posted by SsTiTcH
@Trogdor .. China (in spite of recent reforms) and Cuba are also both Communist Nations.
Posted by Davo_169
i think both parties are wise enough not too make a descision like that...its kind of like those big mouth a**holes who start a fight with you but they know they cant beat you so they dont do anything....kind of like empty threats.
Posted by goldenface
I think the best thing that could happen at this stage would be for harsh sanctions to cause a collapse of N Korea.
Then South Korea, US and China will have to just 'bite the bullet' and clean up the mess by absorbing the refugees. A huge task but not impossible.
I can't see any other way out of this, really.
The Military option is not on the table at this point.
Posted by amnesia
I say GO North Korea.
It just pisses me off that some countries are seen as threats and others aren't.
I say NOBODY has NUKES, or stfu.
Posted by goldenface
| Quote: |
|
So your saying the either everyone is a threat or no-one is a threat?
N.Korea is a threat to Japan.
Pakistan is a threat to India and vice-versa, etc etc etc
If the UN didn't exist lots more countires would be threats to others. The UN is there so countries sort out their problems through debate and discussion. N Korea seems to have a problem with this.
Posted by leeboy13
you hit teh nail right on the head there goldenface...
Posted by Johnex
i say, bush, do what your are best at, declare war for no reason, but in this case, at least japan will join in. . . .
Posted by brix25
| Quote: |
|
Eventually everything will be balanced out. We can't have a situation where only six countries have nuclear weapons. I don't agree with WMD's but if that's what it takes to keep everyone sane than I agree let them proliferate.
India won't attack Pakistan vice versa because they both know they face being wiped out...Even Iran would not dare fire a missile at the Jewish State...Israel will just retaliate and wipe Iran off the map.
I agree the UN is pretty pointless if they can't intervene militarily instead of endless debates while people are dying in places like Darfur.
Posted by goldenface
| Quote: | |||
| |||
| Quote: |
Eventually everything will be balanced out. We can't have a situation where only six countries have nuclear weapons. I don't agree with WMD's but if that's what it takes to keep everyone sane than I agree let them proliferate. |
You seem to be saying that either everyone has nukes or no-one. If no-one had nukes then would that make the world a safer place? I think not. Sadly there will always be wars - with or without nukes.
The sad fact is that nukes do exist whether we like it or not and that is something we all have to deal with together by controlling them together. Hence the NPT.
Do you honestly think that piling all the nukes together in a big basket then sharing them out equally to all the countries in the world is a good idea and we will all live happily every after?
| Quote: |
India won't attack Pakistan vice versa because they both know they face being wiped out... |
This isn't necessarily true. When you take into account the population of India and look at the Pakistani Nuclear arsenal it would sustain heavy loss of life but it would be far from being wiped out.
| Quote: |
|
I agree with this somewhat but ask yourself what would happen if it did intervene militarily. Do you know how many N Koreans are in the military?
Posted by brix25
@goldenface: IMHO, more nukes won't make the world a safer place but it's the final deterant when countries with little resources face the threat of invasion from warmongering superpowers.
Every little tinpot dictator is looking at Iraq as a prime example of what could happen if you're not suffeciently armed. Now with all that history and threats of attacks against Iran and Syria how are you expecting the North Koreans to be rational.
Posted by goldenface
@Brix25
Why on earth would the USA want to invade N Korea?
1st of all, China is right on its doorstep and I am not sure she would be happy about an invasion of its ally.
2nd The North Korean Army numbers 6 million? I mean would you?
The US has no intention of invading N Korea. Yes, it would prefer it if N Korea was more like its S Korean neighbour.
I think most countries would. However, launching test ballistic missiles towards and over Japan, a country that only has a self defence force and no nukes, and then detonating nukes underground and threatening to put the two together, isn't exactly a recipe for peaceful relations.
_________________
My Friends 3G World Analysis Mobizines
[ This Message was edited by: goldenface on 2006-10-10 16:02 ]
Posted by brix25
@goldenface: When dealing with nutcases like Kim Jong Il, rational thought is never considered. He's looking at the example of Sadaam Hussein probably paranoid that the US might try the same tricks.
Okay, six million armed personel might be challenging but ask someone like Donald Rumsfeld and he'll probably tell you they could invade North Korea with a 2 million strong force.
Posted by axxxr
I'd like to see the U.S go after Kim Jong il now since he has REAL WMD's and not make believe ones which dubya and Co very openly lied about....but somehow i doubt that america will have the guts to go against a proper adversary....but on the other hand i also wish they do because they will get a good walloping.
Posted by goldenface
@axxxr Although they tested a weapon they won't have the capability to actually launch a nuke missile for another 5 years. Hopefully he'll be talked around by then. That is unless you'd be pleased seeing Japan and S Korea obliterated....
Posted by Sammy_boy
Interesting little debate! I'm rather hoping that the North Koreans themselves well get pissed off with having absolutely no friends in the international stage, and there will be regime change from within, though it will be hard as the media there is so tightly controlled and everyone toes the line as I imagine they are pretty much told what to think by a contolling media (I feel I might get a few comments there about our/the US media at this point!
).
But I'm a little off track here. I can't see the US invading N. Korea, if they did there would be many US soldiers' lives at stake, and it would end up being political suicide by the Bush regime. However, I'm sure they wouldn't be above firing a few criuse missiles into downtown Pyong Yang (I think that's how you spell N. Korea's capital's name!) or suspected nuclear sites, in fact it might make them sit up and think! I don't think even China will come to their aid, in fact they are demanding action, however not military action according the the BBC website.
Posted by axxxr
| Quote: |
|
I don't think north korea is the kind of country that can be talked around,thats why they've cut themselves off from the rest of the world...Its going to be mission impossible, to in any way to delegate with them to not to go the Nuke route...Why don't now america invade and restore democracy,I mean we all know how mighty and powerful the U.S are so whats a little country like North korea?...oh i know,of course No Oil and No Muslims! ....I would'nt be pleased if NK attacked anyone but lets see how brave the U.S are with them...should be interesting!
Posted by brix25
@axxr: There's no way that America's got the appetite for another conflict...it's kinda funny because the usual warmongers in the Bush administration are unusually quiet...If this was four years ago Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz would've drawn up plans to invade but Iraq has taught them an ugly lesson- you can't always achieve your goals through war.
Has anyone ever noticed how the North Koreans always choose this time in a four-year cycle to up the ante with the US...just close to an election.
Posted by goldenface
@axxxr You'll be pleased to know That N Korea is already Democratic (DPRK Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea? )
It's regime change thats needed. Even China wants the UN to act. This is not about America wanting to invade, its about stabilising a region, a part of the world containing 3 of the worlds largest economies.
[ This Message was edited by: goldenface on 2006-10-16 16:30 ]
Posted by axxxr
| Quote: |
|
If you can classify Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), as \"democractic\" then fair enough....Isn't Regime change what the U.S always wants with country's that disagree with them? ...Thats precisely it america won't invade because it doesn't have anything to gain from them....and as brix25 mentioned even they don't have the appetite for another war...specially this one in which they stand to lose out a lot more with NK having the fifth-largest military in the world...NK is no Iraq or Afghanistan.
Posted by Bandit
Props to Japan for maintaining its position of not starting an arms race.
~LB
Posted by goldenface
@axxxr. Its not just the US that wants action, (although I know you wish it was
) Anyone with half a brain can see that other countries including China, Pakistan, India and Australia want action, so its useless to try and turn this into an anti Bush thread isn't it? 
Of course America has a lot to lose, we all do.
Any attack - nuclear or otherwise - on Japan will affect the stock markets of that country, a country with a huge economy and which invests billions in other countries such as the Middle East, the UK, USA and South America.
[ This Message was edited by: goldenface on 2006-10-11 08:53 ]
Posted by Sammy_boy
| Quote: |
|
Didn't Iraq have the fourth-largest military in the world at one stage? Think that was before Gulf War I though, not Gulf War II!
If there's going to be any military action I can see it as only being cruise missiles or perhaps airstrikes, no military landings as that would be too politically sensitive, and in that article I quoted China did still say that military action was 'unthinkable' as things stand anyway!
Posted by Alec
| Quote: |
|
WHat country are you in? You do realise that an attack on America will probably also mean an attack on the UK? For me and every other UK citizen, I'd rather that didn't happen.
The US probably won't go for N Korea simply because they're scared of what could happen. No one is totally sure what Korea has at it's disposal, but if they're testing nuclear devices underground then it's really not a good sign. But if the US were to go for it, you think the numbers of Korean's would make a difference? The US could wipe them out with bombs of all descriptions. I'm no expert on this, but I'm certain the US has weapons advanced enough to take out the Korean army.
Posted by goldenface
I certainly wouldn't want to see anyone go to war to see if 'they got walloped' . An attack on N Korea would undoubtedly mean retaliation on S Korea. Horrific.
Posted by brix25
We certainly do not need another war...there certainly is not any push for military action...right now the five permanent members of the Security Council are only proposing sanctions which will hopefully force the Kim Jong Il to return to six-party talks...something which seems, for the time being, unlikely.
Here's a good quote by Tony Blair about North Koreans in an interview with the Beeb.
"The other tragedy about North Korea is what is happening to the people there. The people live in virtual starvation, almost a form of political oppression that's akin to slavery. And meanwhile they spend billions of dollars on a nuclear weapons program."
Posted by goldenface
@brix25
The real tragedy is that the inhabitants of that country don't know any different. They don't know how dangerous their own situation is because of the media blackout.
Posted by Davo_169
it shows you how far behind australia is....we are arguing over whether to build a nuclear power plant, let alone weapons of any sort...
and yet we have the largest deposits of uranium in thw world
Posted by amnesia
@golden, no, If I meant to say that I would. (I should really have a note in my signature saying, 'please do not interpret my comments')
I am saying that I say that NOBODY has nukes.
However, it seems to me that at this rate. Whenever any country gets Nukes. America will say they're evil.
Posted by goldenface
@Amnesia
Yes thats right!
America, Japan, China, Pakistan, India and a whole host of countries in the East do not want to see N Korea test firing nuclear weapons. So all these countries would think N Korea is evil too.
India, Pakistan and China all have developing economies. Do you think they want to see all their hard work threatened by a state which is threatening to fire nuclear missiles at its neighbours and destabilise the whole region? Don't you think these countries see it as evil too?
_________________
My Friends 3G World Analysis Mobizines
[ This Message was edited by: goldenface on 2006-10-11 09:35 ]
Posted by amnesia
I haven't seen any country call them evil yet though except for America.
Posted by goldenface
@Amnesia
What difference does it make if they are called Evil or not? Really? Thats just political speak. I can think other words he could of used.
From Yahoo News:
Pyongyang again demanded one-on-one talks with Washington and threatened to launch a nuclear-tipped missile if the U.S. doesn't help resolve the standoff. Bolton dismissed the demand, saying the North should instead "buy a ticket to Beijing," and rejoin stalled six-nation talks over its nuclear and missile programs
Now if you don't think the above is evil then I honestly don't know what is..
Posted by Krubach
North Korean leader is just plain crazy with his Elvis-like haircut...
The guy should be arrested and brought to justice along with the top level politicians of NK.
More than half the country is starving and the guy only thinks about military things and Nuclear weapons...
Can't someone just smuggle in an agent and knock him down?
I'm sure no-one in NK would miss him.
The regime is something between a theocracy where Kim is God, and a dictatorship. How wicked is that?
Posted by fatreg
rottne.com
you cant beat a bit of rotten dot com to give you the low down!
fatreg
Posted by goldenface
@fatreg
That is indeed very rotten
His son had all triplets in the country rounded up and taken to orphanages because he believe his job would be taken over by a triplet, even though he was an only son.
Posted by Bandit
Question isn't about who's gonna kick who's arse. Question is how many people are going to be affected. N Korea already has missiles pointed at Japan, S.Kor, China. Additionally, while they don't have the ability at the moment to deploy a nuke at the US. They certainly CAN smuggle a warhead in and cause a major fallout.
China doesn't want anyone to start anything because they'll just end up with sh*tloads of refugees, and same with Russia.
The US is already fighting a 2 front war between Iraq and Afghanistan. Isreal is a boiling pot with no one knowing when things there are going to blow. N.Kor is really the LAST thing Dubya needs at the moment.
While N.Kor might not be able to inflict much DAMAGE in a real war, they can definitely set the world back quite a bit.
~LB
Posted by amnesia
@gold, there is a big difference.
edit:
I find America Evil (the government of course)
_________________
The Cheapest UK Mobile Contracts Guaranteed! | Compare all mobile deals on the net.
áÇÝä ÈäÛÍÈÉ - Razor Ramon HG
[ This Message was edited by: amnesia on 2006-10-11 16:14 ]
Posted by Bandit
@amnesia. i'll drink to that.
~LB
Posted by axxxr
| Quote: |
|
I second that!
Posted by axxxr
Found this really funny video on youtube with Kim jon il. WATCH HERE
Posted by goldenface
@all
I think America is the lesser of two evils
I third that... .
_________________
My Friends 3G World Analysis Mobizines
[ This Message was edited by: goldenface on 2006-10-12 08:26 ]
Posted by Bandit
American Gov't is probably the 'biggest' evil....but they do it 'nicely'. as opposed to governments like N.Korea....maybe not AS evil, but they're mean about it =)~
~LB
Posted by brix25
America is not far down the line to adopting North Korea's tactics if this bill passes in the Senate.
I'd still say they're the lesser of two evils...I'd have America any day than a dictatorship.
Posted by slattery69
| Quote: |
|
got to say i agree with yoou. the benefit of america is if people dont like the bill ( or certain things) they can vote the repulicans out and the democrates can remove the bill. unlike north korea where if you dont agree with something that god/president/lord of all his little midget frame can see. i ve no idea what may or may not happen to you
Posted by *Jojo*
Looks like NO matter WHAT they say COMMUNIST countries will HELP each other . . . as of the latest from CNN, China and Russia (pro-communist states like Pyongyang . . .) are IN favor of not giving HARD sanctions to the latter
