"declaration of war"

Othin · August 6, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 08 2003,17:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NK wants SK on it's side<span id='postcolor'>

South Korea says "No"

bn880 · November 7, 2001

Oligo · January 18, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 08 2003,15:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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.<span id='postcolor'>

If you invaded North Korea with conventional forces, they could nuke two of your armed formations to ashes. Needless to say, this kind of loss in men and materiel is more than U.S. public can absorb. That is why you are not preparing to invade NK, but are smoothtalking instead. The point is that you can really only safely invade countries with no WMDs. Clearly cold war does not apply, since not much invading was done during that conflict.

What do you know of NK's willingness to sell weapons? And who are you to judge? As far as I know, U.S. is selling weapons to whomever they please without any external control. Why should the rules for NK be any different? Maybe it is that U.S. has a willingness to dictate to the rest of the world what is desirable and what is not?

theavonlady · July 4, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Jan. 09 2003,08:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What do you know of NK's willingness to sell weapons? And who are you to judge? As far as I know, U.S. is selling weapons to whomever they please without any external control. Why should the rules for NK be any different? Maybe it is that U.S. has a willingness to dictate to the rest of the world what is desirable and what is not?<span id='postcolor'>

Wake up and smell the thermal blast!

Blake · July 19, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Jan. 09 2003,08:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What do you know of NK's willingness to sell weapons? And who are you to judge? As far as I know, U.S. is selling weapons to whomever they please without any external control. Why should the rules for NK be any different? Maybe it is that U.S. has a willingness to dictate to the rest of the world what is desirable and what is not?<span id='postcolor'>

I'm certain that US would never sell nuclear weapons to anyone, that is the big difference. IF it has sold nuclear weapons or technology it has been bought by at least seemingly responsible West-European NATO allies. I believe Israel has nukes but most likely it has developed without any large-scale US support. Anyway, I'm more comfortable with the idea of them having nukes than countries like Iraq, Syria or Iran.

US selling conventional weapons? Sure. But they're always bought from somebody and are not the main concern in today's world.

An economically ruined starving and desparate Stalinist state would more likely to sell nukes to terrorists or other irresponsible hands. Don't you think somebody should at least verbally try to restrain them from doing that? It's not a question of dictation but rather common sense. I bet US will not give damn if NK sells 1,000,000 AK-47s to Iran, they are not the threat.

But, let's forget that. It's always more trendy to criticise US.

Blake · July 19, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Jan. 08 2003,23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sorry, Denoir. This was the dumbest post I've ever seen you write. Take that as a compliment. <span id='postcolor'>

I think Denoir's post of comparing Saddam Hussein to a European reneissance prince was much more funnier

REALLY no offense, Denoir

Oligo · January 18, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Jan. 09 2003,08:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wake up and smell the thermal blast!<span id='postcolor'>

The point is that I feel very safe, since our little country never screwed with anybody. So it is not very plausible that we'd have a thermal blast. Anyway, I appreciate the concern of the rest of the world, I'm so sorry you had to mess with each other.

theavonlady · July 4, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Jan. 09 2003,10:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think Denoir's post of comparing Saddam Hussein to a European reneissance prince was much more funnier<span id='postcolor'>

It's nothing to sneeze at.

theavonlady · July 4, 2001

Maybe Kim and Saddam could learn how to use diplomatic persuasion from Qaddafi.

I hate the man but love his style.

Oligo · January 18, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Jan. 09 2003,08:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm certain that US would never sell nuclear weapons to anyone, that is the big difference. IF it has sold nuclear weapons or technology it has been bought by at least seemingly responsible West-European NATO allies. I believe Israel has nukes but most likely it has developed without any large-scale US support. Anyway, I'm more comfortable with the idea of them having nukes than countries like Iraq, Syria or Iran.

US selling conventional weapons? Sure. But they're always bought from somebody and are not the main concern in today's world.

An economically ruined starving and desparate Stalinist state would more likely to sell nukes to terrorists or other irresponsible hands. Don't you think somebody should at least verbally try to restrain them from doing that? It's not a question of dictation but rather common sense. I bet US will not give damn if NK sells 1,000,000 AK-47s to Iran, they are not the threat.

But, let's forget that. It's always more trendy to criticise US.<span id='postcolor'>

Of course U.S. would never sell nuclear weapons to anyone but her allies, because that would jeopardize her nuclear edge over the rest of the world. However, U.S. is currently sending out a strong message: "If you're an evil dictator, develop nukes fast or be invaded and dethroned." Isn't that a little destabilizing message to send?

In today's world, conventional weapons kill the most if not all people killed violently. I don't recall anybody dying of WMDs for a long time. Furthermore, nobody has died of nukes since Hiroshima, discounting the native deaths associated with nuclear testing. I'd say conventional weapons are a very big concern, at least for those doing the dying.

Stalinist states would not necessarily sell nukes to anybody, since if that somebody then blew the nuke up, it would surely mean the demise of the stalinist state. Even the rulers of stalinist states want to survive. Let's say that I trust the stalinist states not to sell nukes as much as I trust U.S. not to train and arm the next Osama bin Laden.

By the way, NK tried to sell some conventional weapons to palestinians or was it Iraqis and U.S. did stop them in the gulf. So U.S. does blockade even conventional arms trading by NK.

It's not that it is trendy to criticise U.S. It's just that I don't trust U.S. statements any more than I trust statements by Iraq, North Korea, Russia, Israel or Uganda. Everybody just plays to maximize their own profit. Some more aggressively than others. It is needless to camouflage it with good intentions.

theavonlady · July 4, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Jan. 09 2003,10:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By the way, NK tried to sell some conventional weapons to palestinians or was it Iraqis and U.S. did stop them in the gulf.<span id='postcolor'>

To Yemen.

Wondeful world we live in when folks start calling long range, nuclear and bio capable Scud missiles "conventional".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So U.S. does blockade even conventional arms trading by NK.<span id='postcolor'>

When Yemen piped up they're for them, the ship was released.

According to you, the US should maybe have let the ship through if it was heading to Iraq as well?

Oligo · January 18, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Jan. 09 2003,09:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wondeful world we live in when folks start calling long range, nuclear and bio capable Scud missiles "conventional".<span id='postcolor'>

Scud missiles themselves are completely conventional. It's only what you load them with that can be something else.

Hell, according to your reasoning I could call you "bio-capable", since you can be infected with smallpox and then sent out to the world to infect your fellow humans, thus acting as a "delivery system". Clearly all animals are WMDs.

Blake · July 19, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Jan. 09 2003,10:19)</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">However, U.S. is currently sending out a strong message: "If you're an evil dictator, develop nukes fast or be invaded and dethroned." Isn't that a little destabilizing message to send?<span id='postcolor'>

NK has been allowed to stay 'evil' and 'stalinist' for the past 50 years why would US suddenly attack them? The current crisis is largely of their own making because they have started to blackmail with their nuclear capabilities which shows only the desparation of world's last Stalinist fortress.

Pjongjang regime is just creating ghosts of US and South Korea to scare and brainwash it's people. Saddam has been allowed to stay on his throne despite murdering and gassing thousands of his citizens, not mentioning attacking Iran and Kuwait. Recent terror events have increased US sensitivity to any mass destruction threat which led to current escalation of Iraqi crisis. I think US is rather telling "If you're an evil dictator, stop developing nukes & WMD stuff or prepare to be dethroned". I don't see anything in that what shouldn't have been said decades earlier.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In today's world, conventional weapons kill the most if not all people killed violently. I don't recall anybody dying of WMDs for a long time. Furthermore, nobody has died of nukes since Hiroshima, discounting the native deaths associated with nuclear testing. I'd say conventional weapons are a very big concern, at least for those doing the dying.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes but that is the unfortunate fact of life, if US stops selling weapons (which they now sell with more consideratio,n especially hi-tech stuff) they simply buy them from Russians, French, UK, etc. Conventional weapons are big concern but there is little to do from preventing people getting them from countless of sources. Even if big powers stop selling them, assault rifles can be manufactured in 3rd world countries where most killings occur with simple machinery whenever needed. BUT we still can do something to stop nuclear weapons from spreading all over the world and being easily accessible to any powermonger/terrorist. I'd say nobody has died from nukes since WW2 - YET.

Oligo · January 18, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Jan. 09 2003,10:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NK has been allowed to stay 'evil' and 'stalinist' for the past 50 years why would US suddenly attack them? Pjongjang regime is just creating ghosts of US and South Korea to scare and brainwash it's people. Saddam has been allowed to stay on his throne despite murdering and gassing thousands of his citizens, not mentioning attacking Iran and Kuwait. Recent terror events have increased US sensitivity to any mass destruction threat which led to current escalation of Iraqi crisis. I think US is rather telling "If you're an evil dictator, stop developing nukes & WMD stuff or prepare to be dethroned". I don't see anything in that what shouldn't have been said decades earlier.

Yes but that is the unfortunate fact of life, if US stops selling weapons (which they now sell with more consideratio,n especially hi-tech stuff) they simply buy them from Russians, French, UK, etc. Conventional weapons are big concern but there is little to do from preventing people getting them from countless of sources. Even if big powers stop selling them, assault rifles can be manufactured in 3rd world countries where most killings occur with simple machinery whenever needed. BUT we still can do something to stop nuclear weapons from spreading all over the world and being easily accessible to any powermonger/terrorist. I'd say nobody has died from nukes since WW2 - YET.<span id='postcolor'>

Iraq has been allowed to stay 'evil' and 'bad' for a long time, why would US suddenly attack them? And if recent terror events have increased US sensitivity to mass destruction threats, why should US not attack NK which, as you said, is a stalinist state and might sell nukes to bad evil naughty terrorist men, just like Iraq might do. Hell, both countries are members of the Axis of Evil.

I say again: Since NK has nukes, US dares not to attack. The message US is sending is: "If you're weak (no nukes), you will be crushed."

Remember it was you who claimed that conventional weapons are not the problem. They clearly are.

Some people have been killed by nukes since WWII. I only need to mention the French nuclear testing in Mururoa, where some native residents got radiation poisoning and croaked. Also back in the day some japanese fishermen were killed by radiation from a US nuclear test, without forgetting the US servicemen who were killed by nuclear tests, because they were not warned about radiation. I don't know any specific incidents, but I'm sure also russian nuclear tests have killed a hefty amount of people.

Blake · July 19, 2001

3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Jan. 09 2003,123)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq has been allowed to stay 'evil' and 'bad' for a long time, why would US suddenly attack them? And if recent terror events have increased US sensitivity to mass destruction threats, why should US not attack NK which, as you said, is a stalinist state and might sell nukes to bad evil naughty terrorist men, just like Iraq might do. Hell, both countries are members of the Axis of Evilâ„¢.

I say again: Since NK has nukes, US dares not to attack. The message US is sending is: "If you're weak (no nukes), you will be crushed."

Remember it was you who claimed that conventional weapons are not the problem. They clearly are.

Some people have been killed by nukes since WWII. I only need to mention the French nuclear testing in Mururoa, where some native residents got radiation poisoning and croaked. Also back in the day some japanese fishermen were killed by radiation from a US nuclear test, without forgetting the US servicemen who were killed by nuclear tests, because they were not warned about radiation. I don't know any specific incidents, but I'm sure also russian nuclear tests have killed a hefty amount of people.<span id='postcolor'>

But what makes you now think that these so called evil dictators all over the world now quickly arm themselves with nukes to shield themselves against US attack? If they now try to get nukes US will most certainly put up fierce counter-measures before they manage to obtain them. Trying to obtain nukes now would be plain stupid and put UN & US inspectors up their ass. NK, Iraq and supposedly Iran have had their WMD programs up years before september 11th events. Current situation is just tightening the ring on global WMD control which should have been enforced much earlier.

I'm certain current situation wouldn't encourage even the most foolish dictator to obtain nuclear weapons. Granted, NK is blackmailing with nukes but I believe US will try it's best to contain the situation.

Of course weapons that kill are problem, whatever conventional or nuclear. The point is: The latter one the world has some reasonable chance of containing. I refuse to be so idealistic and say that conventional weapons will vanish from hot spots with a few goodwill agreements. They are here to stay. Nukes are fortunately - I say again: not YET.

Nukes have killed people after WW2 of course. but were are dealing with the possibility of nuclear detonation(s) aimed to kill thousands if not millions here which is a whole different context.

Oligo · January 18, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Jan. 09 2003,11:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But what makes you now think that these so called evil dictators all over the world now quickly arm themselves with nukes to shield themselves against US attack? If they now try to get nukes US will most certainly put up fierce counter-measures before they manage to obtain them. Trying to obtain nukes now would be plain stupid and put UN & US inspectors up their ass. NK, Iraq and supposedly Iran have had their WMD programs up years before september 11th events. Current situation is just tightening the ring on global WMD control which should have been enforced much earlier.

I'm certain current situation wouldn't encourage even the most foolish dictator to obtain nuclear weapons. Granted, NK is blackmailing with nukes but I believe US will try it's best to contain the situation.

Of course weapons that kill are problem, whatever conventional or nuclear. The point is: The latter one the world has some reasonable chance of containing. I refuse to be so idealistic and say that conventional weapons will vanish from hot spots with a few goodwill agreements. They are here to stay. Nukes are fortunately - I say again: not YET.

Nukes have killed people after WW2 of course. but were are dealing with the possibility of nuclear detonation(s) aimed to kill thousands if not millions here which is a whole different context.<span id='postcolor'>

As far as crazy rulers go, I'd imagine (since I am not one) that their main concern is power and how to retain it. They have this nice domain set up. They're nicely in control. But eternally over their heads will hang the damoclean sword of external intervention. I'm sure Milosevich is cursing that external intervention to hell right now.

The only way to avoid external intervention is to set up WMDs. It increases your risk of dethronal in the short run, but in the long run you become untouchable to external intervention. "It's worth the risk", the rogue rulers are saying: "Having nukes will make us untouchable, unless we actually use the nukes."

And what do you know. Here comes US with their schoolyard politics, encouraging the pattern of thought above.

Besides, there has not been any proof of Iraqi WMDs yet. Still us seems hell bent on attacking. NK on the contrary has directly admitted that they have WMDs, but all they get is smoothtalking. Funky.

Blake · July 19, 2001

OK, every lunatic dictator gets his own nukes: "Now we are invincible! Mister Bush, we demand 50% of your income as tribute!"

But then when those little dictators have put up nukes to threaten US, the evil Americans have finished their ballistic missile protection system. Whoops. Let's face it - few screwed up tests does not mean that the system will eventually work, well before potential future rogue nations have developed sizable arsenals let alone delivery systems.

And only way to really threaten US with total destruction is to use ballistic nukes, a simple suitcase nuke won't do the job.

Attack US - and you are finished. OR don't attack at all - you will still be destroyed if you dare use nukes against US intervention troops knocking at your palace door.

OK just one scenario. But points out that the stopping the spreading of nukes is important now as ever. If dictators in some small banana republics want to gamble and get nukes just to get some kind of fake immunity against the world they're mistaken and it will turn strongly against them in the form of entire international community.

I don't see that current US policy is encouraging nations to get nukes - facing the isolationist fate Iraq and North Korea during the years is hardly tempting to anyone and guarantees permanent place on the black list of the world. That is more the case today than earlier, now that most of the civilized world is commited against terrorism and potential nuclear weapon production. The only faction that has nothing to lose are the terrorists - they just want to spread death and destruction and certainly they will do anything possible to get nukes from so-called rogue nations. So in my opinion strict policies in form of political pressure or possible intervention against countries which could potentially threaten their neighbors with nuclear weapons or provide WMDs to terrorists is the only way to contain problems. This applies to Iraq and North Korea especially. What other choice there is? Just sit back and wait?

But I still not support that US should rush head-long to war with Iraq - there is little hard evidence yet and operation might be costly. It's still at the moment best to maintain strict inspections to keep Saddam at bay. Yet he is never to be trusted on these matters.

North-Korea keeps talking hard but eventually their saber-rattling policy will end up into some kind of settlement. They have always been peculiar as in the 90s - suddenly at brink of war, then the best of friends with South Korea. So they will get over it with time.

Pakistan and India have their own cold war and don't count as potential terrorist providers.

Oligo · January 18, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Jan. 09 2003,12:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK just one scenario. But points out that the stopping the spreading of nukes is important now as ever. If dictators in some small banana republics want to gamble and get nukes just to get some kind of fake immunity against the world they're mistaken and it will turn strongly against them in the form of entire international community.

I don't see that current US policy is encouraging nations to get nukes - facing the isolationist fate Iraq and North Korea during the years is hardly tempting to anyone and guarantees permanent place on the black list of the world. That is more the case today than earlier, now that most of the civilized world is commited against terrorism and potential nuclear weapon production. The only faction that has nothing to lose are the terrorists - they just want to spread death and destruction and certainly they will do anything possible to get nukes from so-called rogue nations. So in my opinion strict policies in form of political pressure or possible intervention against countries which could potentially threaten their neighbors with nuclear weapons or provide WMDs to terrorists is the only way to contain problems. This applies to Iraq and North Korea especially. What other choice there is? Just sit back and wait?

But I still not support that US should rush head-long to war with Iraq - there is little hard evidence yet and operation might be costly. It's still at the moment best to maintain strict inspections to keep Saddam at bay. Yet he is never to be trusted on these matters.

North-Korea keeps talking hard but eventually their saber-rattling policy will end up into some kind of settlement. They have always been peculiar as in the 90s - suddenly at brink of war, then the best of friends with South Korea. So they will get over it with time.<span id='postcolor'>

Crazy dictators with a few nukes are hardly in a position to blackmail US. All they get with their nukes is a protection against armed intervention, since US or any other western mediatocracy cannot absorb losses inflicted by a tactical nuke. "Bad press", you know. This immunity is in no way fake.

If there ever is a terror strike with nuclear weapons in the world, the source of the weapon is sure to be traced. And after that, the source will be blasted to bits. This should be a deterrent enough so that nobody will sell nukes to "terrorists".

Containment of WMDs is simply impossible.

North Korea will naturally yield to some settlement, but they will certainly not give up (all of) their nukes.

The real reason US wants to attack Iraq is their urge to establish a friendly puppet government in the gulf area, because Saudi Arabia cannot be trusted anymore as an ally. As an added bonus they get lucrative deals for their oil companies. And what comes to war on terror, well, it offers a very nice excuse to establish a military presence in the backyard of Russia, just like the yanks have done in Georgia for example.

Blake · July 19, 2001

But it would have to be a dictator with same kind of dictator with mental attitude of Hitler on 30th April 1945 to allow such disaster to happen - use tactical nukes then get totally wiped from the face of the earth. A bit far-fetched since we currently have only nukeless-Iraq and few nukes-NK roaming about. What would be these potential countries or regimes getting this far? I really don't believe Iran has the balls to try it anymore. I see that only terrorists at the moment who are willing to use them since they have nothing to lose - no country, no people, just themselves to sacrifice. And all measures should now be put to stop these nuclear weapons getting into their hands one way or the other.

You said no rogue nation would sell nukes to terrorists because they fear possible reprisals - well, in fact that is one efficient deterrent requiering no effort to contain WMDs.

That will also hopefully deter North Korea from selling WMDs to potential rogue nations.

I think US has plenty of supporters at the Gulf already and the cold breeze with US-Saudi relations will be only temporary and already showing things of warming up. It was just that Saudi's showed impotence in controlling their homn-grown fundamentalist terrorism that had US on it's toes. Also many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. But Saudi-Arabia has shown signs of falling in line again. I don't believe Iraq will become a limp puppet in US hands IF Saddam is removed with force - they will probably just elect new government which is pro-west but no way it will be as controllable as current Afgan regime. Kurds might get some sort of autonomy (which is de-facto already) but doubt situation in post-war Iraq will be as chaotic as in Afganistan which is mostly a tribe-controlled country.

Most of us know Saddam's sinister history, including his Arab neighbors and gladly would like to see him go even though they don't approve forceful methods. In this conflict anyway oil has much lesser importance than in the previous one altough it is a factor of course - it's more about politics this time. What comes to Georgia, of course US now has a nice strategic base considering the Caucasus oil reserves, but I think oil is a bit overrated motive issue on many occasions.

Having reasonably capable US-equipped and trained Georgian Army is better than having a power vacuum which potential terrorists could exploit.

Akira · September 20, 2001

I'm still hearing that the US should deal with N. Korea then same as Iraq, with total disregard for the realities of international diplomacy and regional politics. The US should not deal with foreign policy as an absolute, cookie-cutter policy. That is ridiculous.

Lets get a few things straight.

NK-Hasn't attacked anyone (since 1950s).

Iraq-History of causing regional instability, and attacking neighbors.

NK-Came out straight and said "We have WMDs".

Iraq-History of concealing WMD production, and lying about stockpiles and arms.

NK-Never used WMDs.

Iraq-History of using WMDs against enemies and own citizens.

N. Korea has been a problem, but their boisterousness is never backed up by military action. N. Korea is currently in strong normalization talks with S. Korea, as those two countries try to get closer together again. S. Korea is a long time important ally, and her diplomatic needs as well as regional needs must be taken into consideration as well. China has been a long time ally of N. Korea, and usually the diplomatic voice for the closed-off country. She too must be taken into consideration, as we try to forge stronger ties with her. Japan, a country still feared and not trusted even to this day, also is an important ally. Their feelings must be considered as well. All these countries have important strong diplomatic inter-dependancies that must be considered.

Saddam has long been a regional problem. His rhetoric is usually backed up by military forces. He is somewhat isolated and mistrusted by his own neighbors and friends. The US used to support him? Yeah so what? Should we have supported the Khomini who daily called for America's destruction? Besides. Russia was already supporting Iran.

N. Korea and Iraq are completely different diplomatic situations.

To compare the sale of conventional weapons to the sale of WMDs and nuclear weapons is short-sited, dangerous, and well, wrong to put it bluntly.

The two can not compare. Just exactly how many conventional weapons do you need to kill a million people? Just how many fanatics do you need to kill a million people? Quite a lot. How many nuclear bombs do you need? ONE. How many fanatics? Depends on the bomb. (How many fanatics does it take to change a light bulb?) While conventional arms sales are a problem, they are nothing compared to the unimpeded sale of WMDs to groups of dubious motives.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If there ever is a terror strike with nuclear weapons in the world, the source of the weapon is sure to be traced. And after that, the source will be blasted to bits. This should be a deterrent enough so that nobody will sell nukes to "terrorists".<span id='postcolor'>

May seem like a stupid question...but...can bombs actually be traced to their country and lab of origin based on radiological "fingerprints"?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Besides, there has not been any proof of Iraqi WMDs yet.<span id='postcolor'>

But there has been signs of Iraqi deception, "The Report" just being one layer. Hans Blix, the IAEA, and the UN all said there were gaps and less information then what was required by the resolution.

But I still don't think we should go in until the UN says "Sic em!"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I say again: Since NK has nukes, US dares not to attack. The message US is sending is: "If you're weak (no nukes), you will be crushed."<span id='postcolor'>

Staunch critics of the US would say that. Maybe the message being sent is "If you are upfront and truthful with your WMDs, then we won't attack you and diplomacy will take over."

Of course no one thought about that possibility.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't recall anybody dying of WMDs for a long time.<span id='postcolor'>

1992-3 is a "long time"? How quickly we forget...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pakistan and India have their own cold war and don't count as potential terrorist providers.<span id='postcolor'>

Man...thats a WHOLE nother thread!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hell, according to your reasoning I could call you "bio-capable", since you can be infected with smallpox and then sent out to the world to infect your fellow humans, thus acting as a "delivery system". Clearly all animals are WMDs.<span id='postcolor'>

Hehehe...I'm a "bio-weapon" cause I have a small cold....hehe. LOOK OUT!

Op-Ed

Op-Ed 2

bn880 · November 7, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 09 2003,10:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets get a few things straight.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NK-Hasn't attacked anyone (since 1950s).

Iraq-History of causing regional instability, and attacking neighbors.

Therefore Iraq is being attacked because it attacked 12 years ago? Instability? Haha, for the U.S. maybe.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NK-Came out straight and said "We have WMDs".

Iraq-History of concealing WMD production, and lying about stockpiles and arms.<span id='postcolor'> If NK came out straight, than Iraq is now so straight that I can't see it anymore. There are inspection teams on the ground and nothing.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NK-Never used WMDs.

Iraq-History of using WMDs against enemies and own citizens.<span id='postcolor'> Then Iraq is being attacked for what it did 12 years ago?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">N. Korea and Iraq are completely different diplomatic situations.<span id='postcolor'> That is, NK will not attack Israel, and NK is farther from the oil.

EDIT:Last point fixed.

2024-12-26T12:16:09Z

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 09 2003,16:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm still hearing that the US should deal with N. Korea then same as Iraq, with total disregard for the realities of international diplomacy and regional politics. The US should not deal with foreign policy as an absolute, cookie-cutter policy. That is ridiculous.<span id='postcolor'>

I'd like to make a little test here. If you are not Akira or FSPilot, don't bother to answer:

George W. Bush said in an interview yesterday: This is a cat. while refering to this picture:

Now, my question is: What animal does the picture show?

Akira · September 20, 2001

Iraq isn't being "attacked." It's being threatened with force but lets remember, no one has fired a shot yet.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote

NK-Hasn't attacked anyone (since 1950s).

Iraq-History of causing regional instability, and attacking neighbors.

Therefore Iraq is being attacked because it attacked 12 years ago? Instability? Haha, for the U.S. maybe.<span id='postcolor'>

Once again its not being attacked yet. And its not because of what happened 12 years ago, its because of what he has a history of doing.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote

NK-Came out straight and said "We have WMDs".

Iraq-History of concealing WMD production, and lying about stockpiles and arms.

If NK came out straight, than Iraq is now so straight that I can't see it anymore. There are inspection teams on the ground and nothing.<span id='postcolor'>

How so? Through the report of last month that all interested parties said had huge gaps and failed to live up to the requirements of the resolution?

SIDE NOTE: Anyone know if it is available somewhere? All 10000 pages?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote

N. Korea and Iraq are completely different diplomatic situations.

That is, NK will not attack Israel, and NK is farther from the oil. <span id='postcolor'>

Well...you got the "NK will not attack..." part right. And as for the oil bit...the US gets teh majority of its oil from non-OPEC countries. We get more oil from Venezuela than the Middle East. The Venezuelan strike is causing more harm to oil prices and our economy then any trouble in the Middle East. Yet we don't invade them...why would that be if the US is out for oil?

Probably because whenever anything happens in the Middle East left-wingers start yelling "OIL OIL".

If Bush and Cheney came from the computing industry, they would be yelling we want their sand for silicon.

Akira · September 20, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 09 2003,17:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 09 2003,16:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm still hearing that the US should deal with N. Korea then same as Iraq, with total disregard for the realities of international diplomacy and regional politics. The US should not deal with foreign policy as an absolute, cookie-cutter policy. That is ridiculous.<span id='postcolor'>

I'd like to make a little test here. If you are not Akira or FSPilot, don't bother to answer:

George W. Bush said in an interview yesterday: This is a cat. while refering to this picture:

Now, my question is: What animal does the picture show?<span id='postcolor'>

Clearly its a dog....ummm...a very wierdly colored disturbing dog.

Where is FSPilot. Haven't seen him around in awhile...least not in these topics.

So what is the test there Denoir?

bn880 · November 7, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 09 2003,11:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq isn't being "attacked." It's being threatened with force but lets remember, no one has fired a shot yet.