TMA_1 Posted December 26, 2002 Posted December 26, 2002 there is a difference between helping your mom that is about to be killed and not killing a man that is of a political role. If Hitler was trying to kill my mom I would shoot him to protect her. but if I was around during the time of WW 2 I would not personally kill hitler. I would fight nderground. Individually you cannot do a thing. Also I was talking about self preservation. If somebody tortures you than take it because you know that heaven awaits. Also if you are to be killed and you are a believer. You are to go to heaven and served your duty on earth. There is a difference of self preservation and helping others. I would do nothing to protect myself because I am just a conduit. Others though are to be helped. if everybody had that mindset than all individuals would be selfless and care only about others, but if I was to be attacked those others in their selflessness would help me. killing is killing and none of it is good. Even killing hitler. Though a nation can kill him because they are an establishment of people serving justice, it would be wrong of me to individually kill him. although I would want to really bad.lol Your argument is kinda getting outlandish.
emprworm Posted December 26, 2002 Author Posted December 26, 2002 there is a difference between helping your mom that is about to be killed and not killing a man that is of a political roleso a man who is butchering 6 million people is simply acting out a "political role?" You would not put him down if you had the power to?
exatreide Posted December 26, 2002 Posted December 26, 2002 when one person dies its a tragidywhen 10 million die its a statistic.
VigilVirus Posted December 26, 2002 Posted December 26, 2002 That has nothing to do with what we're talking about ;D
exatreide Posted December 26, 2002 Posted December 26, 2002 yes it is. there is a differnce then personly killing someone. then giving the order to.
SurlyPIG Posted December 26, 2002 Posted December 26, 2002 Yeesh some of you clearly don't know a lot about nuclear power. If a plant were destroyed it probably would NOT meltdown and cause a fallout. If you destroy it at the right point of its operation cycle, you can make SURE it won't blow up. Like I said, Israel did it to an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.It isn't RA2. When the reactor is destroyed it doesn't leave a mushroom cloud smoking.
emprworm Posted December 26, 2002 Author Posted December 26, 2002 i have no idea what that was supposed to mean. 12 million people died under HItler. Most people call it a trajedy.
SurlyPIG Posted December 26, 2002 Posted December 26, 2002 ok fine, I'm convinced. a few of you changed my mind. bombing the plants wouild cause needless deaths. they must be disarmed either through immediate UN demands (and I mean immediate- no stalling), invasion or covert ops.Honestly, I don't think anyone here would disagree with that, but the "Pound North Korea into oblivion" is why this is even a discussion.
DukeLeto Posted December 26, 2002 Posted December 26, 2002 Yeesh some of you clearly don't know a lot about nuclear power. If a plant were destroyed it probably would NOT meltdown and cause a fallout. If you destroy it at the right point of its operation cycle, you can make SURE it won't blow up. Like I said, Israel did it to an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.Do you really think these stupid Republicans would take the time and patience needed to be that exact? Hey, it ain't there butts that would end up radioactive... ::)
exatreide Posted December 26, 2002 Posted December 26, 2002 I didnt say that.i was mearly stating that your whole mother thing has nothing to do with north Korea,Han-gook, or the USA.its differnt than that.
emprworm Posted December 26, 2002 Author Posted December 26, 2002 Honestly, I don't think anyone here would disagree with that, but the "Pound North Korea into oblivion" is why this is even a discussion.its just a propoganda ploy as a subject line to encourage responses. lol
emprworm Posted December 26, 2002 Author Posted December 26, 2002 Do you really think these stupid Republicans would take the time and patience needed to be that exact? yes Hey, it ain't there butts that would end up radioactive... if you want to talk about the private parts of presidents on the line, take a look at your precious little Clinton.
SurlyPIG Posted December 26, 2002 Posted December 26, 2002 Do you really think these stupid Republicans would take the time and patience needed to be that exact? Hey, it ain't there butts that would end up radioactive... ::)They would have to. The entire world would expect them to. It isn't that difficult. There isn't a reason for them not to. There's TONNES of time when reactors do nothing but rest while steam is expelled and the turbines are turned to generate power. During this time they're "impotent", so to speak. Besides, if Israel could do it in Iraq in 1981, then it'll be a sinch for the US to do it in North Korea in 2003 and onward.
VigilVirus Posted December 26, 2002 Posted December 26, 2002 What if they take the plutonium/uranium out of the reactors before the US forces come?Or what if they decide to blow the reactors themselves with the US forces?
SurlyPIG Posted December 26, 2002 Posted December 26, 2002 That still would not make a difference. Uranium is toxic but it's not volatile on its own. Same with plutonium. I guess they could smuggle it away to make weapons, but they could have been doing that all along if the plants had/will existed/exist.Im not sure what you mean by that second sentence...If they staged a US attack and purposely caused a meltdown it would be easy to tell and NATO, with UN support, would invade the country and oust the government for good.
emprworm Posted December 26, 2002 Author Posted December 26, 2002 well heck if it is as easy as Ace says it is, then I will fall back on my original premise- we need to destroy those reactors ASAP. Perhaps give NK one chance through UN diplomacy to do it, then swiftly do it for them.
exatreide Posted December 26, 2002 Posted December 26, 2002 oh ok.....so we fly into enemy airspace...somehow dodge there sam sites and aircraft..then bomb a nuke plant...and fly out..oh and noooooo the north koreans wont retaliate well surently they wont find that as a act of war....if we just fly over and bomb there plants ::)
emprworm Posted December 26, 2002 Author Posted December 26, 2002 wow they retaliate with non-nukes. and? they get overthrown
exatreide Posted December 26, 2002 Posted December 26, 2002 and...who says they get overthrown? china helped them out in the korean war and kicked our ass. you dont just face the koreans in the war. you face 30 illion screeming chinease. korea could be a powder keg that explodeds across asia.but ya know china wont intervine...cause well we have better relations with china than north korea dose. ::)
TMA_1 Posted December 26, 2002 Posted December 26, 2002 there is a difference though from saving your mom and killing a tyrant. I couldnt kill the tyrant because I dont have the position to. anyways its not my place. This might not make sense to you but it is immature to say it is wrong. you just dont undertand my philosophy.
emprworm Posted December 26, 2002 Author Posted December 26, 2002 fair enough tma.and if China dares to back NK for violating the UN agreement NOT to make nukes, then looks like CHina is at war with the UN as well.
Edric O Posted December 26, 2002 Posted December 26, 2002 and if China dares to back NK for violating the UN agreement NOT to make nukes, then looks like CHina is at war with the UN as well.Oh goodie! Congratulations America, you just started World War 3! ::)Emprworm, you are far too impulsive and you let your emotions control you. I despise dictators such as Kim Jong and would gladly see them removed from power, but I would trust him with 10 nukes before I trust YOU with a single one.You seem to be a warrior, not a diplomat. And that kind of attitude can lead to reckless decisions that could start another world war.
DukeLeto Posted December 26, 2002 Posted December 26, 2002 You seem to be a warrior, not a diplomat. And that kind of attitude can lead to reckless decisions that could start another world war.He's a republican What do you expect? :P ::)But there's no oil in Korea, so they'll just have to wait their turn. ::)
emprworm Posted December 26, 2002 Author Posted December 26, 2002 but I would trust him with 10 nukes lol. Another person in the forums who just cant wait until a nuclear holocaust. Of course, once NK has 10 nukes, they will continue to make more and more. People who trust dictators- espcially with nukes, are ushering the world into holocaust. Maybe YOUR dream of a nuclear war will come speedily, Edric. I hope its a sunny day, cuz those mushroom clouds will be easily seen from a great distance. the only reckless decision that will start a war around here, Edric, are the same reckless decisions that nearly put the entire earth under the third reich: apathetic inaction and "trust" of a dictator.
DukeLeto Posted December 26, 2002 Posted December 26, 2002 If you Republican boneheads don't cool off, there certainly will be mushroom clouds on the horizon! What's China going to do? Say "Okee Dokee, blow up North Korea's power plants! Fine by me!" China and the other nations of the Communist block ain't just going to roll over! If you go in and start bombing N. korea, people are going to get p*ssed! ESPECIALLY the UN, who keeps saying "Wait!" and Bushy Boy takes it to mean "Attack!" ::)
Recommended Posts