"declaration of war"

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 08 2003,04:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is it possible NK is doing this to prove just such a point?  Make life more difficult for the U.S.?<span id='postcolor'>

pretty much. and get something out if possible(more subsidies and etc)

[FSPilot 0]

I can't believe nobody's quoted what I said, picked it apart, and thrown it back in my face yet.

I don't understand why people are comparing NK and Iraq. They're two completely different situations.

Iraq - has a history of using WMDs on civilian populations.

NK - Doesn't.

Iraq - has a history of attacks with no warning.

NK - has a history of warnings with no attack.

They're pretty dissimilar.

But then again, NK is much closer to obtaining WMDs than Iraq is, or so we think. So they should be higher priority, if anyone's taking them seriously that is.

[Paratrooper 0]

It just goes to show, if you are defenseless expect to be pushed around. If you have the Atom Bomb--Roll out the red carpet! (Red being the operative word!)

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 08 2003,06:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It just goes to show, if you are defenseless expect to be pushed around. If you have the Atom Bomb--Roll out the red carpet! (Red being the operative word!<span id='postcolor'>

I think what paratrooper said is by far the most importand aspect of the whole discussion on this topic. I'm not so conserned about "right and wrong" in this problem as I am in the effect the of "preemptive measures" and "axis of evil". The reason? If you fear that a powerfull nation/group of nations are going to undermine your regime - why wouldn't you "talk the talk" and back it up with atom/hydrogen-technology. After all, it is your best way of saying hands off!

I believe it's bad that the current US-administration is so focused on their fear of abc-weapons because it tends to speed up the game all together. Having said that I also understand americans fear it so much due to 911.

I sometimes feel though that the US population becomes too "hysterical" about certain things. Kind of reminds me of the incident where a radio station reported an alion invasion and everyone hit the highway!

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 08 2003,04:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NK has an active nuclear program and makes threats against the US. They get the nice diplomatic treatement.

Iraq hasn't threatened the US and there is no evidence of a nuclear program. Yet they will face war.<span id='postcolor'>

It's so simple: If you already have the bomb, the bullies do not dare to do anything. If you do not have the bomb, the bullies will screw you up. It's schoolyard politics, really.

By the way, I just absolutely love this "Saddam has used WMDs on people before" reasoning by the pro-war camp of U.S. I mean, the same schoolyard rules apply to Saddam as well: He can only use WMDs on people, who do not have them (like the Kurds whom everybody oppresses, even members of NATO), so U.S. (with the piles and piles of WMDs) should not be very concerned about an attack by Saddam.

So Saddam, finish your WMDs fast and talk the talk, you'll be safe.

[Akira 0]

People talk like the US is suppose to have cookie-cutter diplomatic policies, what is true for one country should be true for another, and that is a dangerous and idiotic view to take in the arena of international relations, and one I wouldn't expect from some of the more enlightened people on this forum.

First off, N.Korea has TWO bombs. Not an arsenal, and none of them with the capablity to come anywhere close to the US. So the arguement that the US doesn't "bully" those with WMDs that may threaten it is shallow in the extreme. If that was the case, the US would have backed down from every major confrontation in the Cold War. And anyone with WMDs has the capability to strike any country through rogue elements. That is the danger of them.

The US's concern, which I have stated numerous times, is of N. Korea's willingness to sell weapons to any and all buyers. This leads to the dangerous possibility that WMDs could fall into the hands of less desirable subjects.

Second, the US's desire for a diplomatic approach to the rogue N. Korea has more to do with relations with China and S. Korea then any threat from N. Korea. The US has just agreed to sit down with N. Korea for discussions on the "crisis."

Third, N. Korea has always been an aggressor in the region. Whether it be in a running naval shoot-out with S. Korean or Japanese ships, or kidnapping Japanese nationals to use for their intelligence bureau, or making threatening statements out of the blue, or actions that set the world against it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">N K has not threteaned the U.S. when it decided to cancel it's agreement and proceed with the Nuclear program. <span id='postcolor'>

PS....Threatened...not threteaned(?). We can play this game all day if you want.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

Read this

Interesting stuff...

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Jan. 08 2003,16:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Read this

Interesting stuff...<span id='postcolor'>

Yes. That was a very interesting badly balanced, completely biased read.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Jan. 08 2003,07:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Read this

Interesting stuff...<span id='postcolor'>

If you're going to post links to works of political fiction, at least link to a Tom Clancy novel.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

I found it to be un-balanced, but I wouldn't say it was a complete work of fiction. In fact, perhaps this line sums up both of the previous responses: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...merely applying the demands of logic is made to appear unpatriotic.<span id='postcolor'>

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Jan. 08 2003,16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I found it to be un-balanced, but I wouldn't say it was a complete work of fiction. In fact, perhaps this line sums up both of the previous responses: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...merely applying the demands of logic is made to appear unpatriotic.<span id='postcolor'>

<span id='postcolor'>

I made this point about another article...I forgot in which thread...

But anyway, to write a piece (under the heading "News" no less) is a rape of the journalistic code. When I was taking journalism class, it was always stressed to be impartial, balanced, and unbiased. That piece has none of those characteristics.

Here are a few examples:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Were it not for Powell, the chicken hawks in the administration -- warmongers who have not themselves experienced battle <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">these strident cheerleaders for so-called preemptive action are obviously disappointed<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">just fine relying on a cockamamie missile defense fantasy that is arguably the biggest defense contractor boondoggle in the nation's long history of such deals. <span id='postcolor'>

To name a few. The "journalist" clearly defines his agenda and political bias. This is not "news" and should not be labeled as such. "Op/Ed" is fine.

My logic facilties are working fine. That arguement is used in all the liberal media as a means to explain why people may not agree with their view. The opposite is used in the conservative media. People will find articles and "news" to fit their view of the world. Thats just the simple truth.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 08 2003,16:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When I was taking journalism class, it was always stressed to be impartial, balanced, and unbiased. That piece has none of those characteristics.

People will find articles and "news" to fit their view of the world. Thats just the simple truth.<span id='postcolor'>

I have yet to find any piece of journalism that is impartial, balanced or un-biased. All writing is in some way weighted towards the purpose of the article, or the point of view from the writer. No doubt it is possible to find another article that would completely contradict everything pointed out in the one I posted.

Perhaps some people will agree with what was written, others may not. With your swift statement that it is essentially a shoddy piece of "journalism", I assume what it said did not fit with your world view? Personally, I found some of the things mentioned worryingly close to what I percieve to be the truth.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Jan. 08 2003,17:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 08 2003,16:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When I was taking journalism class, it was always stressed to be impartial, balanced, and unbiased. That piece has none of those characteristics.

People will find articles and "news" to fit their view of the world. Thats just the simple truth.<span id='postcolor'>

I have yet to find any piece of journalism that is impartial, balanced or un-biased. All writing is in some way weighted towards the purpose of the article, or the point of view from the writer. No doubt it is possible to find another article that would completely contradict everything pointed out in the one I posted.

Perhaps some people will agree with what was written, others may not. With your swift statement that it is essentially a shoddy piece of "journalism", I assume what it said did not fit with your world view? Personally, I found some of the things mentioned worryingly close to what I percieve to be the truth. <span id='postcolor'>

I wasn't downplaying the article on whether or not the piece fit my world view. More on my growing dislike for the "news" and the reasons behind it.

You are certainly correct in saying its almost impossible to find completely unbiased writing. Thats why I try to read or watch news on both sides. Then I can try to decide on my own. Both sides say intriguing and valid points. Some are just more..."blunt" with their view then others and that is what I don't like. I don't like it when the media tries to brow-beat people into accepting their view (or any debaters for that matter).

Anyway on a side note...

N. Korea is Dark

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 08 2003,17:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then I can try to decide on my own. Both sides say intriguing and valid points. Some are just more..."blunt" with their view then others and that is what I don't like. I don't like it when the media tries to brow-beat people into accepting their view (or any debaters for that matter).<span id='postcolor'>

True enough, take the information you need and formulate your own opinion.

On that side note, North Korea is obviously a great place for astronomers.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Jan. 08 2003,17:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On that side note, North Korea is obviously a great place for astronomers.  <span id='postcolor'>

If they weren't all in prison for being intellectuals

[ralphwiggum 6]

just one thing to refresh ppl's memory. NK said they have materials that can abe used to make 2 bombs, not have 2 bombs.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Jan. 08 2003,20<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">just one thing to refresh ppl's memory. NK said they have materials that can abe used to make 2 bombs, not have 2 bombs.<span id='postcolor'>

How quickly could North Korea Develop nuclear weapons?

Actually, it may already have one or two nukes built from plutonium extracted before 1994, the CIA says. If Kim follows thorugh on threats to fire up its mothballed nuclear facilities, spent fuel rods could be quickly converted into weapons-grade plutonium. The International Atomic Energy Agency thinks North Korea could restart the reactor in two months and have half a dozen warheads sometime this summer.

Source: Business Week, January 13, 2003

NOTE: North Korea has already "fired up" their reactors since this article was written.

[ralphwiggum 6]

even your article says it has capabilities to make, not already have in definitive terms.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Jan. 08 2003,20:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">even your article says it has capabilities to make, not already have in definitive terms.<span id='postcolor'>

It says "may already have". That's a notch up from "has capabilities", which doesn't imply whether they have or haven't made any.

[ralphwiggum 6]

so one thing for sure. NK does not have nukes ATM. they have capability, but certainly there is no certain agreement on whether it has nukes or not.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Jan. 08 2003,20:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so one thing for sure. NK does not have nukes ATM. they have capability, but certainly there is no certain agreement on whether it has nukes or not.<span id='postcolor'>

So then it's not for sure if there's no certainty. What kinda glue you been eating lately, Ralphy boy?

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> the CIA says. <span id='postcolor'> Oh yeah, at least it's not the FBI... Damn speculation, paranoya. Either way, if they have nukes already or not, bad for the U.S. and Israel.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bad for the U.S. and Israel.<span id='postcolor'>

And the U.S. and Israel have what to do with one man's dream of owning nukes while his people starve?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 08 2003,21:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> the CIA says. <span id='postcolor'> Oh yeah, at least it's not the FBI...     Damn speculation, paranoya.<span id='postcolor'>

Of course, you know it's just paranoia and you know better.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">bad for the U.S. and Israel.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe South Korea, Japan, Russian, the UK, Africa, South America - who knows! Nuclear proliferation at the hands of dictatorial rogue states isn't good for anybody.

[Akira 0]

The Villian