North korea warns us of "uncontrollable catastroph

[foxer 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2002....ex.html

WeIrD world.Too bad south korea is there ,because if it wasn't the US would have bomb NK long time ago.

[llauma 0]

Every action has it's opposite and equal reaction...

The US foreign policy does not justify terrorist attacks, nothing can justify such an evil act, but it surtanly do cause the terrorist groups to do them.

US recently stated that they will use nukes if they feel that it's needed...

but in the same time they do not accept that other countries have nukes.

[Jinef 2]

Well that's a load of bollocks.

What Rummy really means is that it will start the war and get us to do the rest of the work. America had problems in Vietnam or even Korea so what makes them think with an army smaller than what they had in Vietnam they can go against an Army far larger and more advanced while also fighting street wars in Iraq with all the political pressure from the rest of the world? Plus as soon as an American dies there is uproar in America.

There is no way they could conventionally win both practically - maybe in theory but with large losses but never with support from us.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Should have allowed Gen. MacArthur to use A-bombs against PLA and NKA staging points in southern China back in the 50's.

Would'nt have all these problems today.

Tyler

[Die Alive 0]

I just heard that there was a major earthquake in North Korea.

Oops, it was just the starvin' population of North Korea stomachs grumbling all at once.

Think I'll go buy a ten pound bag of rice and throw it into a dumpster.... Merry Christmas North Korea. Remember don't eat the Christmas tree, that tinsel isn't to good for you

-=Die Alive=-

[DarkLight 0]

It's not funny to laugh with people who don't have enough food.

Korea can be dangerous, don't think you're invincible, one bomb can make a huge difference...

Think about what happened on 9/11, only about 4000 people died, it wasn't a really big attack and the US still suffers from it after more than 1 year. A big attack would definitely change a lot...

Don't think you are harmless, cuz you are not, everyone on this world can get killed, ever nation, every country...

Some people feel a bit too safe lately...

[Supah 0]

Wow thats two countrries george has managed to piss off severely! Whose next? This is fun Good of the americans to elect ChimpPresident .

This guy is proving more dangerous and damaging to america then all its adversaries combined. Lets just hope our (european) politicians dont follow america blindly. If bush wants to send his army to its death thats his problem but i honestly dont see why our armies should fight for him.

[cam0flage 0]

I agree with DarkLight, it's kinda sad to make jokes about the suffering of the civil population. What would you think if it was your country?

I don't think NK can seriously harm the U.S., after all, they don't have ICBMs. There's another country which is probably scared to hell by the current situation besides South Korea, that is, Japan. I hope the North Koreans don't have the guts to use nuclear weapons, but when I see how they treat their civil population, who knows what's going to happen?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Dec. 24 2002,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good of the americans to elect ChimpPresident â„¢.<span id='postcolor'>

Why are you using an insulting statement like that? Chimps are actually very clever animals and do not deserve to be put in the same category as Bush

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 24 2002,18:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Dec. 24 2002,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good of the americans to elect ChimpPresident â„¢.<span id='postcolor'>

Why are you using an insulting statement like that?   Chimps are actually very clever animals and do not deserve to be put in the same category as Bush  <span id='postcolor'>

set category=moderators;

[Supah 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cam0flage @ Dec. 24 2002,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think NK can seriously harm the U.S., after all, they don't have ICBMs.<span id='postcolor'>

Well lets hope NonDiscriptDumbAnimalPresident (better denior? ) doesnt use nukes either. Besides they NK's have a giant conventional army which isnt too outdated. They can seriously dent the americans. Numerical superiority is one way of winning. Besides, Bush has managed to get america almost in to a war with Iraq too .... and lets not forget afghanistan. 3 simultanious wars ........ isnt Bush doing great? Just imagine all the expansion packs of america's army we are going to have to bear!THE HORROR!

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Dec. 24 2002,17:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not funny to laugh with people who don't have enough food.<span id='postcolor'>

I would have said something similar but with the intent of cynically referencing the NK regime. Maybe he meant the same. That's how I understood it.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Hold on- North Korea is the one threatening nuclear war after breaking a UN (that means all of us) agreement...

And you guys are (again) criticizing America's foreign policy?

Look, Rumsfeld has to say something to respond to this kind of drumbeating, especially after his hands have been tied by Bush's desire to seek a "diplomatic" solution. And, short of saying that if the NK's even start looking across the DMZ the wrong way we will turn Pyongyang into a parking lot, what is he going to say other than that we can indeed fight two regional conflicts at once?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Dec. 24 2002,18:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hold on- North Korea is the one threatening nuclear war after breaking a UN (that means all of us) agreement...

And you guys are (again) criticizing America's foreign policy?<span id='postcolor'>

Knee jerk reactions.

[Supah 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Dec. 24 2002,17:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hold on- North Korea is the one threatening nuclear war after breaking a UN (that means all of us) agreement...

And you guys are (again) criticizing America's foreign policy?<span id='postcolor'>

I am not attacking you personally nor do i think that all americans agree with bush (I know from personal experience lots dont) but I (and allot of other europeans) find bush his policy of fake political efforts so he can get to the bombing the crap out of people sooner a bit dangerous. Besides why is the USA allowed to have WMD's and, lets say, Iraq isnt? I personally dont find George W Bush all that stable a person and the thought of a man merely in office to serve big bussiness their interest commanding one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world is not fun at best.

And the "We can fight wars on 2 fronts" part ... the US is barely managing waging a war in Afghanistan and invoking a war with Iraq without considerable Brittish help and backfill from other european nations. So if George manages to stumble in to a war with NK ..... well good luck!.

[FSPilot 0]

I think it's pretty obvious now that NK is developing, or already has WMDs. But for those who want more evidence to make this decision, look at this.

At this website (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001127.html) there's a picture of the world at night. Find North Korea. It's just to the left of Japan, and, well, nort of South Korea. Notice how dark it is? Does this country look like it's using a bunch of nuclear power plants?

Doesn't to me.

Either way, with nuclear weapons in the hands of ANYBODY willing to use them, it's not going to be a merry Christmas.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Dec. 24 2002,19:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Besides why is the USA allowed to have WMD's and, lets say, Iraq isnt? I personally dont find George W Bush all that stable a person<span id='postcolor'>

Well I'm certainly glad you're not the prime minister of any country, too! Unless............. you really are and this forum is what keeps you busy. See? I proved my own point!

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Dec. 24 2002,23:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Besides why is the USA allowed to have WMD's and, lets say, Iraq isnt? I personally dont find George W Bush all that stable a person and the thought of a man merely in office to serve big bussiness their interest commanding one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world is not fun at best.<span id='postcolor'>

Because he would only use them in retalliation. Saddam and whoever's leading NK now would use them in haste and in hate.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And the "We can fight wars on 2 fronts" part ... the US is barely managing waging a war in Afghanistan and invoking a war with Iraq without considerable Brittish help and backfill from other european nations. So if George manages to stumble in to a war with NK ..... well good luck!.<span id='postcolor'>

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

ahh, hahh, hahaha, hahaaaaaaa

We're almost done in Afghanistan, we'll just need a big security force to keep things calm. Iraq will be a cakewalk, better than before, and NK only has starving troops with mediocre technology. I don't think we'll have a problem fighting a conventional war.

But a nuclear war would be a problem. I just hope we get some B-2s over the post haste and take out those nukes.

[Supah 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Dec. 24 2002,18:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well I'm certainly glad you're not the prime minister of any country, too! Unless............. you really are and this forum is what keeps you busy. See? I proved my own point! <span id='postcolor'>

Well no i applied but i cant that Stampeler-jockeying down right But my point is where is the USA going to stop attacking anyone with WMD? If they are true in their policy why isnt george bush threatening Russia or China? Or is that still going to come? After that happens (and the world doesnt end up as glow in the dark stardust) the USA will be the only ones with WMD so we will have a dimwitted marionet of the bussiness world being able to strong arm the world in to what ever ludicrous thing pops up in his head. I wouldnt call that a good situation.

[Supah 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 24 2002,18:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We're almost done in Afghanistan, we'll just need a big security force to keep things calm.  Iraq will be a cakewalk, better than before, and NK only has starving troops with mediocre technology.  I don't think we'll have a problem fighting a conventional war.<span id='postcolor'>

Well for your countries sake lets hope it is. Lets hope saddam doesnt pull his troops back in to big cities and makes you fight there because i dont think you will be laughing when planes full of coffins start returning home. CQB isnt as clean as you apparently think it is. The last time saddam knew the US wasnt going to take him personally out. This time he will fight to the death (well him being a coward his armies will, he will mostlikely do the old "suicide just before getting caught" trick). And those starving NK troops with mediocre technology (If you want to call license built SU-27 flankers that) might be a nasty surprise too. I wouldnt be too hasty to dissmiss the threat either country poses.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Dec. 24 2002,23:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CQB isnt as clean as you apparently think it is.<span id='postcolor'>

When did I say anything about CQB?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The last time saddam knew the US wasnt going to take him personally out.<span id='postcolor'>

hahaha, the last time Saddam thought he was going to win.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This time he will fight to the death (well him being a coward his armies will, he will mostlikely do the old "suicide just before getting caught" trick).<span id='postcolor'>

His troops will probably surrender more readilly than they did before. They've been starving, and they have good memories.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> And those starving NK troops with mediocre technology (If you want to call license built SU-27 flankers that) might be a nasty surprise too. I wouldnt be too hasty to dissmiss the threat either country poses.<span id='postcolor'>

OOh, SU-27s. Tell me, what kind of avionics do they have on those things? How are their long range missile supplies?

[Supah 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 24 2002,18:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When did I say anything about CQB?<span id='postcolor'>

You didnt, I did. Dont expect Iraqi forces to just sit their waiting to be killed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hahaha, the last time Saddam thought he was going to win.<span id='postcolor'>

He expected no one to take notice of him annexing a smaller nation. Besides, he was on the USA his nice people list till then

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">His troops will probably surrender more readilly than they did before. They've been starving, and they have good memories.<span id='postcolor'>

His people may have been starving, his army sure hasent. Remeber he is a dictator.... armed disgruntled and hungry armies can seriously shorten your time in office (and your live) is a dictator

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OOh, SU-27s. Tell me, what kind of avionics do they have on those things? How are their long range missile supplies?<span id='postcolor'>

Well I dont know if you have ever gone in to the situation there locally in any depth but NK is quite good friends with china and has been supplied with SU-27's similar to china's. Which are the most modern Su-27's Even by russian standards ... so the avionics are bound to be good. (Face it russia doesnt make crappy aircraft) Also these birds were delivered with a full complement of missiles (pays to be friends with china huh?) BTW same thing about starving troops goes here .... The Current Kim (their leader) is a dictator.... it would be stupid of him to piss off the one force able of deposing him.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Dec. 24 2002,187)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Dec. 24 2002,17:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hold on- North Korea is the one threatening nuclear war after breaking a UN (that means all of us) agreement...

And you guys are (again) criticizing America's foreign policy?<span id='postcolor'>

I am not attacking you personally nor do i think that all americans agree with bush (I know from personal experience lots dont) but I (and allot of other europeans) find bush his policy of fake political efforts so he can get to the bombing the crap out of people sooner a bit dangerous. Besides why is the USA allowed to have WMD's and, lets say, Iraq isnt? I personally dont find George W Bush all that stable a person and the thought of a man merely in office to serve big bussiness their interest commanding one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world is not fun at best.

And the "We can fight wars on 2 fronts" part ... the US is barely managing waging a war in Afghanistan and invoking a war with Iraq without considerable Brittish help and backfill from other european nations. So if George manages to stumble in to a war with NK ..... well good luck!.<span id='postcolor'>

Look at the topic title. Do you see anything about Iraq? If you want to talk about that, there's already a topic for it. Now, for the sake of argument, let's cross-apply your argument to North Korea. There are several reasons why NK should not be allowed to attain nuclear weapons, and one of them is their press release excerpted in that CNN article. Does that sound like the kind of government you want with nukes? Another reason would be their southerly neighbors. South Korea and Japan are the only two conceivable targets of any NK nuclear attack (unless of course China decided to make a little Xmas gift of some ICBMs). Allowing NK to have nukes puts several million innocent democratic citizens of two of the larger economies in the world at risk. The fact that NK intends to reunite the Koreas is no secret, allowing them to have nukes just gives them a trump card.

[Supah 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Dec. 24 2002,18:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look at the topic title. Do you see anything about Iraq? If you want to talk about that, there's already a topic for it. Now, for the sake of argument, let's cross-apply your argument to North Korea. There are several reasons why NK should not be allowed to attain nuclear weapons, and one of them is their press release excerpted in that CNN article. Does that sound like the kind of government you want with nukes? Another reason would be their southerly neighbors. South Korea and Japan are the only two conceivable targets of any NK nuclear attack (unless of course China decided to make a little Xmas gift of some ICBMs). Allowing NK to have nukes puts several million innocent democratic citizens of two of the larger economies in the world. The fact that NK intends to reunite the Koreas is no secret, allowing them to have nukes just gives them a trump card.<span id='postcolor'>

They have been intending to reunite korea since the korean war stopped. They havent tried since. And they arent the only party in that region with nukes. The USA maintains a strong presence there and i'm pretty sure they have nukes in the area too along with the means to deliver them. One nuclear rocket armed sub in the region is enough .... besides the us their ICBM's can stike north korea from the us mainland. Nukes dont give NK the key to reunification by force, using them would mean the destruction of both korea's. The NK leaders know that.

[eh remraf 0]

Exactly. To Tex that is. Allowing NK to have any nukes is a threat to the free world.