North Korea Admits to having Nukes

[Khan]

What about the korean war?

That was started by America and Russia, not Korea

[GUNWOUNDS]

That was started by America and Russia, not Korea

who cares who started it.  this isnt a group of kids saying "he started it!"

but if you want to go that route.... then when we nuked Japan we can say "they started it !!"  ::)

[Khan]

who cares who started it. this isnt a group of kids saying "he started it!"

err I'm gonna type slow so that you can catch up jackass...

Ken made a comment about me saying that N. Korea hasn't started any wars based on lies and misinformation, unlike the US. He brought up the Korean war implying that it was started by korea based on lies and misinformation and then I said that it was started by the US and Russia as a part of the cold war.

So in this instant it is pretty important who started it moron.

but if you want to go that route.... then when we nuked Japan we can say "they started it !!" ::)

Irrelevant.

[Dunenewt]

If we're going to get picky then Daisy-Cutters aren't part of conventional warfare as they're obselete and the US now uses MOABs.

[GUNWOUNDS]

err I'm gonna type slow so that you can catch up jackass...

Ken made a comment about me saying that N. Korea hasn't started any wars based on lies and misinformation, unlike the US. He brought up the Korean war implying that it was started by korea based on lies and misinformation and then I said that it was started by the US and Russia as a part of the cold war.

So in this instant it is pretty important who started it moron.

Irrelevant.

exxxcuse me.... first off you werent clear... secondly... i thought ken was referring to the death and destruction part of your previous query.

Also thanks for calling me names.... sometimes i cant tell if i am discussing topics with little children or adults on this forum.

[Khan]

exxxcuse me.... first off you werent clear... secondly... i thought ken was referring to the death and destruction part of your previous query.

How was Ken not clear? it was the only part of my post related to war, and how was I not clear?

And as for name calling, it's not exactly unlike you to resort to derogatory comments, see the life on new worlds discussion. And have you ever wondered if the forum acts childish, or if its just you? ;)

[Megashrap]

Why don't you put forth some actual facts rather than just your side of why the U.S. sucks, nukes civilians, started the Korean war, etc...etc. Your in dire need of a brief history lesson.

"The Korean War was one of the most important events of the 20th Century because for the first time, force was used to contain communism. Had North Korea succeeded in adding territory to the communist bloc of nations through a force of arms, they would have tried again and again.

[Khan]

Why don't you put forth some actual facts rather than just your side of why the U.S. sucks, nukes civilians, started the Korean war, etc...etc. Your in dire need of a brief history lesson.

I only did it in response to gunwounds post, and I have studied the cold war in history so I think I know quite a bit. And can you actually argue with what I said, considering I didn't bring the Korean war into this, Ken did. You can't argue that America hasn't used atomic weaponry in the past, you can't argue that America doesn't go around the world trying to free people and then ends up killing them because it does, and you can't argue that Iraq wasn't started based on lies and misinformation, because it was. Even Gunwounds says so.

Thats right...

[nemafakei]

"Also thanks for calling me names.... sometimes i cant tell if i am discussing topics with little children or adults on this forum"

I had assumed (and I think this may be a clarification of Khan's point) he was calling you a moron as a response in kind, albeit a slight escalation.

[Megashrap]

You can't argue that America hasn't used atomic weaponry in the past, you can't argue that America doesn't go around the world trying to free people and then ends up killing them because it does, and you can't argue that Iraq wasn't started based on lies and misinformation, because it was. Even Gunwounds says so.

[Khan]

[Megashrap]

Because it took 2 to get an unconditional surrender from Japan. If your going to commit to using such force, then it better be to get such a result.

It would've been far more foolish to use 1 nuke and not get a surrender and a continuing war, than what was achieved by using 2.

[nemafakei]

Scar, out of interest, what made the US think two? And why two rather than three, etc?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Nema they dropped the first bomb.... and japan thought it was a fluke... and did not offer an unconditional surrender.

So the United States dropped the second one.... and then the unconditional surrender was given by Japan as they finally realized that we possessed a superweapon.

That is why there were two bombs used. They were dropped in succession not at the same time.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Has N. Korea used atomic weapons to kill over 150,000 civilians? No but America has.

Has N. Korea started any wars based on lies and misinformtation? No But America has

Is N. Korea responsible for the death of thousands of civilians in the past couple of years due to their attempts at 'freedom'? No but Amercia is.

err I'm gonna type slow so that you can catch up ...

1.) My post which your post is obviously referring to did NOT deny that the USA did distasteful acts.

[ken124578]

Guys, I think this thread is getting too hot :X please don't take anything on this board personal.

Pull the fence post out of your arse and take a side. Not for the weak minded.

I should've used a quote in my post:

Has N. Korea used atomic weapons to kill over 150,000 civilians? No but America has.

Has N. Korea started any wars based on lies and misinformtation? No But America has

Is N. Korea responsible for the death of thousands of civilians in the past couple of years due to their attempts at 'freedom'? No but Amercia is.

Wasn't N.korea the one who started the korean war?

Didn't thousands of people get killed in that war?

------

(Isn't there a possibility that N.Korea wil use nukes in the future? They'll get invaded anyway)

[Khan]

err I'm gonna type slow so that you can catch up ...

1.) My post which your post is obviously referring to did NOT deny that the USA did distasteful acts.

[Edric O]

I haven't read this whole topic, but here's my take on the situation:

In geopolitics, nuclear weapons = invulnerability device. Nobody builds nukes with the intention of actually USING them. The point of having nukes is to make sure that no one will ever dare to invade you. And given Bush's trigger-happy nature, any "axis of evil" leader with half a brain knows that he should be trying to build as many nukes as fast as possible, in order to be safe from a possible American invasion.

No rogue nation has ICBM's capable of hitting the USA itself, of course, but that's not a problem. The fact that the North Koreans could turn Seoul into a radioactive crater is enough to deter any American attack.

Oh, and you'd have to be ridiculously stupid to accept to give up your nukes when you know you're on a superpower's hit list.

How can you justify spending trillions on bombs while billions of poeple starve, and millions in your own country cannot make ends meet.

That reminds me of a great quote - by a Republican, of all people:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

- Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Anathema]

Japan would be nuked before South Korea would. South Korea is inhabited by the families of those in NK, and nobody in SE Asia really likes Japan anyway. Even with a low yield nuke on a densely populated place like Tokyo, I shudder at the casualty rates.

[VigilVirus]

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Ah, indeeed, heard that recently in a documentary. I couldn't agree more.

As for Gunwounds...you can't balance out evil acts with good acts, life is not a Star Wars video game. And you can't say that North Korea doesn't do anything good...cause who are you exactly do define what good is? Who are WE to define what good is? For me, all those foreign aid shipments by US don't mean shit. They seem like a cheap political ploys to safe face after such disasters as Iraq.

Personally, I see North Korea and Iran as probably two of the last strongholds not of terror, but of tradition. They have not yet been dictated to have a democracy by the good ol' Bush. Bush has to realize that he can't make all of the world the way he wants it to be. No one should have that power.

[Edric O]

I'm glad you agree with that quote, but there are a few points I need to make...

As for Gunwounds...you can't balance out evil acts with good acts, life is not a Star Wars video game. And you can't say that North Korea doesn't do anything good...

Ok, so can you name one good thing that North Korea does? :)

...cause who are you exactly do define what good is? Who are WE to define what good is?

"Good" is defined by various religions and philosophies in more or less complex ways. For all practical purposes, the utilitarian definition of "Good" is the most suitable: Good is that which causes happiness and/or removes suffering.

Personally, I see North Korea and Iran as probably two of the last strongholds not of terror, but of tradition.

Yes they are. But since when is "tradition" a good thing? Slavery and burning heretics at the stake used to be part of our tradition - and I sure am glad that we got rid of them. Iran is so conservative that it makes Bush look like a hippie, and North Korea is just insane.

They have not yet been dictated to have a democracy by the good ol' Bush. Bush has to realize that he can't make all of the world the way he wants it to be. No one should have that power.

You can't dictate a democracy - that's a contradiction in terms. If you have to dictate it, then it isn't a democracy. And that's exactly what the problem is with Bush's plans for spreading "democracy" across the world: He's doing a horribly bad job at it. I'm all in favour of spreading democracy (and socialism, if that were an option), but I oppose Bush's foreign policy because, in Iraq at least, he's spreading more chaos than democracy.

[Wolf]

So, assuming there was some surefire way of making undemocratic nations democratic, would you be for it?

The question I have, assuming that we could spread democracy without creating chaos, how would we be able to gauge the feelings of people in undemocratic countries without having them distorted by fear-of-the-leader? Should we just generally assume that democracy is preferable to anything undemocratic?

And, even then, democracies can still elect terrible people. Indeed, the only reprieve that the Iraqi people might have from fear of a seemingly all-powerful dictator is the interim between elections -- the chaos, if you will.

[Edric O]

So, assuming there was some surefire way of making undemocratic nations democratic, would you be for it?

Yes, absolutely.

The question I have, assuming that we could spread democracy without creating chaos, how would we be able to gauge the feelings of people in undemocratic countries without having them distorted by fear-of-the-leader? Should we just generally assume that democracy is preferable to anything undemocratic?

Democracy is always preferable to anything undemocratic, because in a democracy the people can get back their old leader if they really liked him, but in a dictatorship they can't get a new leader if they don't like the current one.

Simply put, if we make a mistake and "liberate" some people from a dictator that they actually liked, they can always elect him back as a democratic leader. (IMO, the Ba'ath Party should be re-legalized in Iraq; Iraqis should be allowed to vote for the old regime if they wish)

And, even then, democracies can still elect terrible people.

Of course. But history shows that it is much, much less likely for a democratically elected leader to abuse human rights than it is for a dictator to do so. In democracy, there is always a remote chance that a terrible man will come to power. On the other hand, in a dictatorship, it's almost certain that a terrible man will come to power.

[ordos45]

Democracy is always preferable to anything undemocratic, because in a democracy the people can get back their old leader if they really liked him, but in a dictatorship they can't get a new leader if they don't like the current one.

Simply put, if we make a mistake and "liberate" some people from a dictator that they actually liked, they can always elect him back as a democratic leader. (IMO, the Ba'ath Party should be re-legalized in Iraq; Iraqis should be allowed to vote for the old regime if they wish)

Agreed on both points.  In Democracy you need to have the choices that represent the will of the people, and some of the people probably would elect a Ba'athist.  You can't just pick and choose what people vote at the point of the gun, that's what Saddam did getting 100% of the vote.

On the Eisenhower quote, definitely one of the better speeches of a U.S. President.  How prescient that warning of the Military-Industrial Complex was, and continues to be.

[Wolf]

Edric, I think the issue with re-legalizing the Ba'ath party is that, if once legalized, old ex-Ba'athists would go back to their own ways and run entire towns like mafia families; terrorizing and threatening to get themselves into office. They would be democratically elected, but only out of fear.