 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| User | Post |
| Deleted User Posts: 4/-7750 |
Neitzluber has some points to make:
1) USA can't just nuke a country, it would lower themselves into being hated not only by the nuked nation but also by any countries nearby, allies, etc. Nukes spread radiation, and worldwide weather is damaged, besides, winds could carry radiation back to the USA. 2) North Korea has no intention of starting a war, but wants to protect itself from invasion by using nukes as a threat. 3) Communism is not when the state owns everything, Communism is a system in which everyone earns the same wage and everything is distributed equally, which is good for poor countries such as North Korea, and overpopulated ones like China. People are still allowed to own what they can buy with the little money the state gives them, but the state feeds them and gives them a home no matter what so they don't care. 4) Russia is not a communist, it is a capitalist like USA, and they are not as much of a superpower as when they were part of the Soviet Union, but they still have plenty of weapons and nukes to call themselves a world power, besides, they are part of the G8 (the eight richest countries in the world: USA, UK, Germany, France, Russia, Canada, Japan, and Italy) 5) American media broadcasts two things, what the government tells them, and what the people want to know, but by following this they rarely broadcast truth. 6) Almost all countries in the world have nukes, but they don't say because then the USA would start bitching about it and make life hard for them. 7) France has more than 2 nukes, because they have already tested 2, and still claim to have nukes, so they might have 100, considering they have plenty of money to do so. 8) Japan will not help the USA invade North Korea because Japan has no army thanks to US regulations after WWII, and the US bases in Japan would get filled with soldiers, and the Japanese don't want them roaming around Japan (there has already been many cases of rape, theft, and murded by US soldiers from the bases but they can't be arrested by Japanese police because they're US soldiers). On top of all, Japan keeps a peaceful policy. 9) Bush probably took down the World Trade Center as an excuse for invading Afghanistan and Iraq and attempt to get oil for supporting US companies, who knows what he will use to invade North Korea? 10) North Korean citizens get fed by the state, the media always has to broadcast crap to make a country look evil at the request of the government, those people they show starving are probably after a natural disaster or just paid actors, don't always believe TV and do some of your own research. 11) If there's a human's right problem in North Korea it's the US' fault, as they did not allow North Korea into the United Nations, therefore human rights can't be enforced, because the UN can only enforce human rights in member countries. |
| Wurl Posts: 822/842 |
Originally posted by witeasprinwow Although the Korean Worker's Party controls North Korea, they openly (well, open by North Korean standards) reject the notion that they are a Marxist-Leninist state and have attacked Marxism-Leninism in favor of their "self reliance" ideology. |
| witeasprinwow Posts: 176/613 |
Originally posted by ziffhasnoaim/password First off, yes, I know this about Russia, even though I said it was a superpower like an idiot... It's probably best to just forget I said it. Maybe it's just me, and no other Americans share this. I don't even know anymore. For #2, I think for economic strength to benefit it's people, Kim Jong Il has to go. I don't believe that he would fairly pass on economic benefits to his citizens. Certainly, if he had a huge excess of resources then I'm sure they would benefit, but I think he could be doing a lot more for them than he is. There's also be the problem of brainwashing and "labor" camps, which would probably still exist even with a better economy. For #3, I blame the American media. All you see on TV is how scary other nations are and how we could all die. There seems to be a big problem in America with people accepting they are going to die, too. I agree totally with #4. |
| ziffhasnoaim/password Posts: 153/292 |
1. Russia isn't a super power anymore
2. We want North Korea around or at least an economically stronger/no Kim Jong Il communist state for the next x decades. You let that nation collapse. Death to the South Korean economy! 3. Why are you afraid of this? I don't understand American fear of other nations. I live right across the lake from Rochester. If someone decided to nuke the great city of Rochester or Buffalo, I'd be just as screwed  Maybe it is the product of being in an increasingly insecure world standing. I understand the basic paranoia of the American government, but I don't understand why the civilian populace is scared...Meh.
4. One missile failing isn't really that much of a set-back. They called the US space program a widow maker back in the day. Germany with its V2 lost hundreds, but still managed to pummel London. It is their first generation native ICBM. Of course there is going to be kinks.  I think that they are going to improve the technology and make it sturdier and more reliable and try to make it into an export type weapon. |
| Sweet Kassy Molassy Posts: 160/886 |
I understand peoples' concern, but we can't just crap our pants and puff up and flail our arms every time a country develops technology we don't want them to have. And people should keep an eye on things like this for sure, but there's no reason to spaz out. We can't live our lives in fear of everything that happens in the world. What's the point of living in constant paranoia? If something terrible is going to happen, being all panicky isn't going to make it any better.
North Korea officially having ICBMs isn't really a threat. What could possibly posess them to actually fire them at us in anything other than a world war type situation? That would spell the end for them. I don't think they're quite that stupid. |
| Cynthia Posts: 3357/5814 |
They literally worship Kim Jong and Kim Sung as deities.
Well, it's not like they have a choice and they've either been brainwashed or forced into doing so. Take your pick. I figure this will have to be resolved diplomatically but I'm not sure how long it's going to take. North Korea's hardly in a position to bully anyone around, and they *had* a deal in the talks but backed out of it. Besides, even if there was a threat, having your long-range missile crap out on you in no time at all is a sign to go back to the drawing board. |
| Pyris Posts: 18/25 |
I agree. The whole nuclear thing is just a ruse to get attention. |
| witeasprinwow Posts: 173/613 |
Originally posted by ziffhasnoaim/password I'm talking established superpowers. I wasn't including India or Pakistan or Iran or any up-and-comers like that. I trust all those countries way less than Russia, no contest. And I don't know if the NK people have the resources to push for change. They are barely able to keep themselves alive, and they're quite literally brainwashed by constant propaganda. Just as well, they are completely cut off from the outside world. I get the feeling that if we give Kim Jong a voice, it is just Kim Jong that gets that voice, not his people. |
| ziffhasnoaim/password Posts: 152/292 |
that's not fascism either. It is a totalitarian theocracy. They literally worship Kim Jong and Kim Sung as deities.
Anyways, yeah. Dumb rehash from the Cold War. Americans really, REALLY need to get out of that mind set. India and Pakistan have caused us enough scares in the past 5 years with their nuclear arms. And then we have really pissed off Israel with nukes.
The Koreans don't have the technology to miniaturize nuclear weapons and put them atop missiles. Nor do they have the capability to strike at the US. Sure, it is a threat to South Korea...but there is a great amount of kinship between the two peoples. Kim knows that he cannot reasonably do that even if he is crazy. There is also the fact that they are impoverished. They just want leverage and a voice on the international stage. Once that voice is granted and they hear their own voice the people will push for change. An isolated regime can't undergo positive change if it is silent - if you don't talk you can't hear. If the Soviets had been completely shut off from the outside world then the various revolutions in East Europe wouldn't have happened. |
| witeasprinwow Posts: 171/613 |
Originally posted by ziffhasnoaim/password Maybe it's just my feeling as an American, like some kind of artifact from the cold war. I trust them more than I do a lot of countries, but if I had to pick one large power to go bonkers and blow up the world, it would just be Russia. They're poor and we have a bad past with them. That's the best rationalization I can come up with. Kim Jong is a totalitarian facist, but not a commie. Communism is when the state owns everything and distributes it out to the people for use. North Korea is more like Kim Jong owns everything and he's keeping it all for himself. |
| ziffhasnoaim/password Posts: 150/292 |
So...why don't we trust Russia, again? |
| Pyris Posts: 12/25 |
Ok, fine. I completely agree that russia COUGHstart world war threeCOUGH is not trusted.
However, that doesnt change the issue. Just because there are people who cant be trusted as much as us, doesnt mean that were trusted. For the love of god, were in TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES WAGING TWO WARS RIGHT NOW, who in the right mind would trust us? And ontop of that, fine, our government is not run by some totalitarian commie facist, and yet the person who is running out government has started two wars in six years... sorry, if I lived in a neutral country, I REALLY wouldnt trust the US. |
| witeasprinwow Posts: 169/613 |
Originally posted by Pyris Dude, the difference between USA / Russia / England / France / Other Countries is that they are not run by a fascist who shows no value for human life. Russia is probably the least trusted superpower, and even they aren't nearly as bad as North Korea is. If you got to choose wether Hitler got nukes or not, would you stop him? |
| pokerutoman Posts: 35/64 |
That's a good point, noting that our president is a moron. |
| Pyris Posts: 8/25 |
This might only be me, but WHO THE HELL ARE WE TO DECIDE WHO SHOULD HAVE TEH BIG BOMBS ANYWAYS!?
We dont want anyone else to have nukes, because they could be a "threat". Has anyone ever stopped to consider how threatening we are with our hundreds of thousands of limb-ripping bombs of all sorts, from grenades to nukes? We have nukes. Russia has nukes. England has nukes. France has like 2 nukes. And its strange, we dont want anyone else to have nukes. Why? Are we better behaved with our nukes than other countries? God, there are countries out there that are PRAYING for a reason to nuke us. |
| witeasprinwow Posts: 166/613 |
Originally posted by ziffhasnoaim/password I don't think it matters how much food we give them. I think Kim Jong is gonna starve all the NK civilians anyways. Basically, if we can't get China and South Korea to cooperate and convince Kim Jong to stop his research and feed his people, then the only other option I see is to use force. I heard on CNN that Japan is trying to take a pro-active stance on this issue. I don't know how reliable that is, but if it's true, I'm grateful for it. It's vital that the US does not try and stand alone on this issue. |
| ziffhasnoaim/password Posts: 146/292 |
It doesn't really matter that it failed. The fact is that they now have the technology to - IN THEORY - reach the Western seaboard of North America. And that represents a potential risk. The North Korean's do not yet have the technology to miniaturize warheads to sit atop those missiles. Plus, I don't think that they have the necessary technology to utilize their stores of biological/chemical weaponary in the context of an ICBM.
This is both a good thing and a bad thing. 1. it offers North Korea leverage. "We have this level of technology - we can develop industry." sort of talking points 2. it is militarily provacative and could encourage certain nations to back off or lax sanctions. It wouldn't be appeasement or rewarding "bad behaviour". It would be a logical maneuver. 3. it could just piss off the international community into strengthening sanctions. 4. it could debase their entire agenda at the 6-nation talks. Frankly, putting MORE sanctions on this regime is inhuman and cruel. It would be like taking away food from any other starving nation - it is wrong. It doens't hurt the regime, it hurts the people. |
| beneficii Posts: 185/310 |
Randy,
Yes, they test-fired 7 missiles, and the long-range missile they were touting, the Taepondong-2, failed in mid-air. It's pretty interesting. It's on the front page of Wikipedia. Billiards Koopa, That seems to be a pretty inflammatory comment out of nowhere. Please cool it down for this discussion. |
| Randy53215 Posts: 324/726 |
Originally posted by Billiards Koopa WTF does that have to do with this thread? It has nothing to do with this topic. This is the topic of North Korea testing balistic missles._¬ I havent heard anything lately on this. Did they launch it yet? |
| Billiards Koopa Posts: 144/174 |
Where is Bush's retarded need to invade any country that doesn't have democrazy as its government when it would be useful? |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
