North Korea Tells US It Will Win "Nuclear War"

[Jedi Knight]

North Korea informed the United States today that it would win a "nuclear war" against the United States (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/17/nkorea.nuclear/index.html) the instant one is initiated. Their claimed reason? The North Koreans said they would win because they have an "Army-First" policy lol.

Are anymore comments really necessary that the North Koreans are nutcases who have to be taken out because they are a threat to global security? This is what happens when people like Saddam Hussein are left in power to freely build weapons of mass destruction. This is a classic example of why Saddam cannot be allowed to expand his nuclear program.

JK

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
North Korea informed the United States today that it would win a "nuclear war" against the United States (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/17/nkorea.nuclear/index.html) the instant one is initiated. Their claimed reason? The North Koreans said they would win because they have an "Army-First" policy lol.


You f**king idiot. :(

Do you want to take it to the limit and find out?

Do you think that if North Korea managed to get three of four strikes in before the US blasted it off the face of the globe that this would constitute a victory for the United States under your "peace through superior firepower" philosophy?

Jedi Knight you are a complete f**king moron.

Apologies to everyone else for the language.


Are anymore comments really necessary that the North Koreans are nutcases who have to be taken out because they are a threat to global security?


Moron.


This is what happens when people like Saddam Hussein are left in power to freely build weapons of mass destruction. This is a classic example of why Saddam cannot be allowed to expand his nuclear program.




NO you total waste of space. The US is attacking Iraq NOT North Korea. The US is not attacking North Korea BECAUSE IT HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS. So now, if any country wants to protect itself from United States agression it knows the best way to do so is to arm itself with nuclear weapons and threaten all out war.

YOU ARE A MORON.

Nice example of an incredible and unjust overreaction, UCE. :(

Originally posted by sundog
Nice example of an incredible and unjust overreaction, UCE. :(

You think so?

I don't, actually. JK represents the very worst of right-wing US patriotic scum.

[edited]

...of course I probably know nothing.....the far right in the US is probably much much worse than JK. But they don't post here.

[Doctor X]

Well then maybe you should get to know them first before insulting them.

Maybe you should walk awhile in their hobnail boots around the compound.

Maybe you will understand that they are sensitive people who can quote Hitler.

--J. "Maybe Just a LITTLE TOO MUCH COFFEE!" D.

Originally posted by Doctor X

Well then maybe you should get to know them first before insulting them.


You mean Jedi Knight or the American Far right?


Maybe you should walk awhile in their hobnail boots around the compound.


The American Far Right then......


Maybe you will understand that they are sensitive people who can quote Hitler.


I am a sensitive person who can quote Hitler.


"Maybe Just a LITTLE TOO MUCH COFFEE!" D.


I don't drink coffee for precisely that reason.

But I have got it out of my system now........

:)

[Doctor X]

What? Do you NOW imply that JK does not wear hobnails when touring his compound?

What does he wear?

Stilletoes?

[Stop that!--Ed.]

--J.D.

[Kodiak]

The North Koreans better start building those nukes faster then, because at the rate they're starving to death, there will soon be no one left to push the "LAUNCH" button...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


You mean Jedi Knight or the American Far right?



The American Far Right then......

Define for me please, UE, the "American Far Right"...

Who exactly are these rapscallions, and how do we identify them?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


You f**king idiot. :(

Do you want to take it to the limit and find out?

Do you think that if North Korea managed to get three of four strikes in before the US blasted it off the face of the globe that this would constitute a victory for the United States under your "peace through superior firepower" philosophy?

Jedi Knight you are a complete f**king moron.

Apologies to everyone else for the language.



Moron.




NO you total waste of space. The US is attacking Iraq NOT North Korea. The US is not attacking North Korea BECAUSE IT HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS. So now, if any country wants to protect itself from United States agression it knows the best way to do so is to arm itself with nuclear weapons and threaten all out war.

YOU ARE A MORON.

To get a leftist like you so upset I must have said something right. Let's expand on it a bit more.

The Korean problem was the result of the United Nations forming. The communists didn't want a global alliance with the United States at the helm. No, the communists just wanted an eastern block alliance filled with communist tyrants and socialists of the worst sort.

So as the new United Nations left the gate looking to spread peace, democracy and goodwill across the world, the communists instigated a war in Korea at the behest of their comrade at the helm of China. If the communists could get the Korean mission to fail, it would discredit the new UN organization and potentially cause it fail--the ultimate goal of the communist.

Now, you say that 50+ years later that it would be "crazy" to engage the North Koreans because they have nuclear weapons? That is ridiculous. Just because a nation-state has nuclear weapons does not mean that the nation-state that holds them is a just nation-state. Is North Korea a just nation-state or a nation-state engulfed by perversionist ideology?

The United States may take out North Korea, not because it is a persionist state, but because it is a perversionist state with nuclear weapons. Mild communists like socialists and real communists enjoy it when these types of nation-states get nuclear weapons because they can then claim some level of self-legitimacy on the global stage. After all, any state with nuclear weapons gets to join the nuclear club.

Now, would Iran be a legitmate non-perversionist state if it came forward and told the world that it had nuclear weapons and threatened to use them against the United States? I think nuclear blackmail is uncool. Nukes do not add legitimacy to the state possessing them. No, that is not how it is.

The United States and the rest of the free world has to stop states like North Korea from getting nuclear weapons or there will be a nuclear war. North Korea has no legitimacy and if nuclear weapons detonate in their country, they started it.

Maybe you should rally for disarming and preventing states from gaining access to nuclear weapons instead of attacking the United States for trying to prevent nutcase perversionist states like North Korea from acquiring them.

JK

Originally posted by Kodiak


Define for me please, UE, the "American Far Right"...

Who exactly are these rapscallions?

Well, actually, before JK made his political views known I had your good self down as heading in that vague direction.

I have been astonished recently to read comments made by apparently normal people suggesting they are still terrified of "reds under the bed". I watched "Bowling for Columbine" and wasn't sure whether I should be laughing or crying. I suppose it is a matter of extrapolation - if people like yourself and JK are considered to be normal then how bad are the extremists? I'm not sure I want to know. What do you have to do get classed as a far-right extremist in a country who 'elected' a brain-damaged gun-toting bible-bashing oil industry stooge as its president? Walk around with a white cone on your head perhaps?

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Maybe you should rally for disarming and preventing states from gaining access to nuclear weapons instead of attacking the United States for trying to prevent nutcase perversionist states like North Korea from acquiring them.

JK

The UNITED STATES has more nuclear weapons than everyone else put together.

The UNITED STATES has more chemical weapons than everyone else put together. It has withdrawn from an international non-proliferation treaty.

The UNITED STATES has more biological weapons than everyone else put together.

The UNITED STATES is currently threatening to use pre-emptive force against another state with express disapproval of the UN security council. We are told that this other state has chemical weapons. We cannot actually find any evidence. We are told this state has links with terrorists. No evidence for that either.

The UNITED STATES is, according to polls carried out all over the globe, considered to be the biggest threat to world peace - bigger than either North Korea or Iraq.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
The UNITED STATES has more nuclear weapons than everyone else put together.

Have we used them preemptively against states that we were not at war with?

The UNITED STATES has more chemical weapons than everyone else put together. It has withdrawn from an international non-proliferation treaty.

Have we used them preemptively?

The UNITED STATES has more biological weapons than everyone else put together.

Have we used them preemptively?

The UNITED STATES is currently threatening to use pre-emptive force against another state with express disapproval of the UN security council.

Really? What state is that? You can't be talking about Iraq.

The UNITED STATES is, according to polls carried out all over the globe, considered to be the biggest threat to world peace - bigger than either North Korea or Iraq.

Nonsense. Maybe commies will think that. If the United States was the imperialist power you say we are, we would already control the world. Ask yourself this basic history 101 question. In all the wars in the modern world America has fought, why did every country we kicked ass on get their country handed back to them and rebuilt for free?

Face it UE, you are a hypocrite. If the United States wasn't involved in the world, you would call us isolationist bastards. Since we are involved, we are imperialist bastards. It just goes to show that #1 is a lonely number and nothing we do will be right to socialists and communists because they were never aligned with what the US is anyway.

JK

[Doctor X]

What do you have to do get classed as a far-right extremist in a country who 'elected' a brain-damaged gun-toting bible-bashing oil industry stooge as its president? Walk around with a white cone on your head perhaps?


It was that or the brain-damaged gun-toting bible-bashing tobacco industry stooge. . .

Nevertheless, such generalization do not support your point.

I enjoy humor and teasing, of course, however, one cannot really condemn another for hasty generalizations and the like when engaging in them.

Indeed, North Korea rather does serve as a good warning for not allowing sociopaths with a record of invading neigbors and using WMD to have "da bomb."

--J.D.

The UNITED STATES has more nuclear weapons than everyone else put together.

Have we used them preemptively against states that we were not at war with?


No. But neither has anybody else. Why does the US have the right to have nuclear weapons but nobody else has the right to have nuclear weapons? What gave them the right to define one rule for themself and another rule for everybody else?


The UNITED STATES is, according to polls carried out all over the globe, considered to be the biggest threat to world peace - bigger than either North Korea or Iraq.
------

Nonsense.


Moron.


Maybe commies will think that.


Fascist Moron.


If the United States was the imperialist power you say we are, we would already control the world.


If you already controlled the world the current pantomime wouldn't be neccessary.


Ask yourself this basic history 101 question. In all the wars in the modern world America has fought, why did every country we kicked ass on get their country handed back to them and rebuilt for free?


WHAT???!!!!! :eek:

You really believe that, don't you? :(

[rikzilla]

Originally not posted by UndercoverElephant


Why do the London police have the right to have weapons but nobody else has the right to have weapons? What gave them the right to define one rule for themself and another rule for everybody else?



Back in the old west Geoff, everyone had a gun. Ever seen a western movie? When the law came to town they, in many cases started collecting guns at the town line. In the end, once the rule of law had been established, people again had rights to their guns. But in many cases local ordinance still prohibits the free exercise of a basic American right.

Now, I'll tell ya this,...I'm for gun control. Common sense gun control means we're not able to buy AK-47's and grenade launchers..etc. However, enshrined in the bill of rights, we have a right to bear arms. You euros constantly win arguments against gun-loving Americans because your more restrictive laws actually do save lives. In any given American city...legal guns are used every day in murders and crimes.

Now, suddenly, here you are crying that "gee...why can America and the west only have the bomb??? This is unfair!!!" So, now you have placed yourself firmly in the gun lobby's camp? Because this is indeed their argument....bolstered by an unfortunate part of the constitution.

Imagine now Geoff, if you will....the entire world nuclear armed. A global "wild west"....how long would it take for the world to end then???

No,...we need the law. You may not like the law...but you need it as much as anyone else. The west is the law. America is the sheriff. You don't like it? Then change it, make a better way...but right now it's a fact of life and ignoring that fact will never change it. It doesn't mean we get to be imperialists....it doesn't mean we get to govern anyone else. What it does mean is we get to set and enforce global law. That's what the UN pretends to do.....but the democratic and capitalistic west is the enforcer. Without us even this useless incarnation of the League of Nations would not exist. You call the US the biggest threat to peace....that's not true and you know it...you're just trying to get attention and rile people up. If the US really wanted to rule the world they'd have started doing it in 1945...just like General Patton suggested.

Under the law is the only way this planet...and our human race has a chance to live beyond the next few years. The law is being written in Washington and London right now....this is what Paris and Berlin have really opted themselves out of by listening to the communists/socialists.....they've isolated themselves, and proved that they do not have the discernment and sheer guts it takes to lead. Blair has those guts....and a labour party pol as well! You should be thankful for him. Without guys like him the labour party would have sunken into the depravity of the loony left ages ago.


-zilla

[hammegk]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


You think so?

I don't, actually. JK represents the very worst of right-wing US patriotic scum.

[edited]

...of course I probably know nothing.....the far right in the US is probably much much worse than JK. But they don't post here.

You maybe should get out more.

Visit the stormfront group. They'll explain why JK is a pinko fellow-traveler at best. ;)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by hammegk


You maybe should get out more.

Visit the stormfront group. They'll explain why JK is a pinko fellow-traveler at best. ;)

Good one! The nutcases @ Stormfront are both laughable and scary. They'd think me a communist...and JK a stooge of the UN!
:D :D

Go to stormfront.org sometime Geoff. The far, far, far right in all their glory. Who knows, you are so far left you'd have a great deal in common with them. They also fear and loathe the US government. They believe it's ruled by Zionists! Lately the KKK and Stormfront have been co-opting some "free-Palestine" rallys, see? the pacifists play into the hands of the far right, almost as much as they do to the far left. After all...if all politics is a circle...then far-right and far left are much closer to each other than they are to the mainstream political middle.

-zilla

[Doubt]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


The UNITED STATES has more nuclear weapons than everyone else put together.

The UNITED STATES has more chemical weapons than everyone else put together. It has withdrawn from an international non-proliferation treaty.

The UNITED STATES has more biological weapons than everyone else put together.

The UNITED STATES is currently threatening to use pre-emptive force against another state with express disapproval of the UN security council. We are told that this other state has chemical weapons. We cannot actually find any evidence. We are told this state has links with terrorists. No evidence for that either.

The UNITED STATES is, according to polls carried out all over the globe, considered to be the biggest threat to world peace - bigger than either North Korea or Iraq.

We may have more nukes than all others, but at least our stockpile is shrinking.

I doubt that we have that many chemical weapons. I do know that they are being destroyed. It takes a while to do it right. We are also helping the Russians destroy their stockpile, which is still quite huge.

Do you have an estimate of who has what in the way of biological weapons? I doubt it. I do know the US has been doing questionable research, but I don't know of any stockpile.

Also, given how the veto process works in the UN, I don't think you can claim that the US is going to act with the "express disapproval" of the Security Council. That would require them to take a vote that condemned action on Iraq, which has not even been proposed.

Do you have anything to back up your claims about US chemical and Bio weapons?

[Pyrrho]

Yo, combatants...as usual with media reports, it's possible that something has been misreported. FoxNews article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78739,00.html


"In the North Korea-U.S. nuclear standoff, which the world is watching with sweating hands, we were always ultra-hardline and that ultra-hardline response is the response of the mighty army-first policy," said the North's state-run Central Radio.

"The victory in the nuclear conflict is ours and the red flag of the army-first policy will flutter ever more vigorously," said the broadcast, monitored by South Korea's Yonhap news agency.


Compare to the CNN article. Are the North Koreans talking about a war or the "conflict" over their nuclear program?

Which U.S./Western news organ do you trust? Can we trust any of them?

Keep in mind that public political statements can often be far different from backchannel communications.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
No. But neither has anybody else. Why does the US have the right to have nuclear weapons but nobody else has the right to have nuclear weapons? What gave them the right to define one rule for themself and another rule for everybody else?

That is freshman American-bashing. You know, equating a moral relativism between the United States and any other nation-state that seeks nuclear weapons--as if Iraq and North Korea are nation-states comparable to the responsible nation-state of the United States. It is laughable socialist nonsense, but keep it coming because I need some humor at least a few times a day.

Moron.

Like I care?

Fascist Moron.

Since I am politically pretty close to the middle, what do you call real fascists, or have you yet to invent a new political term for them?

If you already controlled the world the current pantomime wouldn't be neccessary.

That's the point--you just admitted the US is not imperialist. Why do you use rhetoric to suggest we are?

You really believe that, don't you? :(

Of course I do. It is true. Socialists and their communist allies whine when the US isn't engaged around the world. They call America "isolationists". But no, when we do engage in the world, we become "imperialists".

So what is it? We can't be both, right? If we do not engage the world anymore, will leftists say we are "isolationists" shirking global responsibility?

JK

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
No. But neither has anybody else. Why does the US have the right to have nuclear weapons but nobody else has the right to have nuclear weapons? What gave them the right to define one rule for themself and another rule for everybody else?

That is freshman American-bashing. You know, equating a moral relativism between the United States and any other nation-state that seeks nuclear weapons--as if Iraq and North Korea are nation-states comparable to the responsible nation-state of the United States. It is laughable socialist nonsense, but keep it coming because I need some humor at least a few times a day.

Moron.

Like I care?

Fascist Moron.

Since I am politically pretty close to the middle, what do you call real fascists, or have you yet to invent a new political term for them?

If you already controlled the world the current pantomime wouldn't be neccessary.

That's the point--you just admitted the US is not imperialist. Why do you use rhetoric to suggest we are?

You really believe that, don't you? :(

Of course I do. It is true. Socialists and their communist allies whine when the US isn't engaged around the world. They call America "isolationists". But no, when we do engage in the world, we become "imperialists".

So what is it? We can't be both, right? If we do not engage the world anymore, will leftists say we are "isolationists" shirking global responsibility?

JK

You know they will.....ask AUP. ;)

[Smalso]

Oh, pish-posh.

There is no such thing as "winning" a war. Every person, soldier or civilian, who is killed has lost the war; no matter which "side" wins.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Smalso
Oh, pish-posh.

There is no such thing as "winning" a war. Every person, soldier or civilian, who is killed has lost the war; no matter which "side" wins.

At least they fought for something.

JK

[Advocate]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Do you want to take it to the limit and find out?

I don't think anyone wants a war with North Korea, especially a nuclear war. But if the only other option is to allow nuclear blackmail and an increasing North Korean arsenal, then fighting a war now may be better than fighting one later when North Korea has more weapons and less reason not to use them because of problems at home, which North Korea has in abundance.

Do you think that if North Korea managed to get three of four strikes in before the US blasted it off the face of the globe that this would constitute a victory for the United States under your "peace through superior firepower" philosophy?

Again, it depends on the other options. But the idea is not to acheive a victory but to prevent the problems of nuclear blackmail. This is exactly why Iraq must not be allowed to continue possession of WMDs and why North Korea must be made to comply with its agreements not to develop nuclear weapons. In fact it must be made to dismantle those it does have.

NO you total waste of space. The US is attacking Iraq NOT North Korea. The US is not attacking North Korea BECAUSE IT HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS. So now, if any country wants to protect itself from United States agression it knows the best way to do so is to arm itself with nuclear weapons and threaten all out war.

How is this different than the state of affairs that has prevailed for 50 years? And it's not just protection from aggression (by the US or anyone else) it's the ability to blackmail countries with more to lose (particularly wealthy, democratic ones). It was exactly for this reason that a nuclear non-proliferation treaty was signed.

Do you think that leaders with little to lose should be able to blackmail the US with nuclear weapons? This is exactly what North Korea is doing. The US had not failed to deliver on its promise. The new reactors were not due to be delivered yet. North Korea, on the other hand, violated its part of the agreement from the beginning by developing nuclear weapons technology. The US cannot let this stand. We can try to get North Korea to return to its original agreement if they will, but failing that then the US will be forced to confront them, with or without nuclear weapons.

Iraq is a different issue. However, according to all the resolutions I have seen, the burden is on Iraq to demonstrate that they have disarmed, not on the inspectors to search for weapons. It is almost universally agreed that Iraq has not done this. Why is it not time for those "serious consequences"? Do we really want Iraq to be able to blackmail us as well? And if you think it is only the US that will be blackmailed, think again. The US is just being targeted now because it is the largest and wealthiest. If it gives in to this, it will not be the wealthiest long and then we will see who is next on the target list.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


At least they fought for something.

JK

You never heard of an emporer getting hit by a cannonball.

(Anybody know who said that?)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Back in the old west Geoff, everyone had a gun. Ever seen a western movie? When the law came to town they, in many cases started collecting guns at the town line. In the end, once the rule of law had been established, people again had rights to their guns. But in many cases local ordinance still prohibits the free exercise of a basic American right.



Ah, and I bet you liked 'Top Gun' and 'Rambo' too.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


At least they fought for something.

JK

which appears to be the main point, the US military cannot exist without fighting.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
North Korea informed the United States today that it would win a "nuclear war" against the United States (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/17/nkorea.nuclear/index.html) the instant one is initiated. Their claimed reason? The North Koreans said they would win because they have an "Army-First" policy lol.

Are anymore comments really necessary that the North Koreans are nutcases who have to be taken out because they are a threat to global security? This is what happens when people like Saddam Hussein are left in power to freely build weapons of mass destruction. This is a classic example of why Saddam cannot be allowed to expand his nuclear program.

JK

and if you believed that, you'd believe we came from mars, too.

[Goshawk]

I still don't see how JK believes North Korea is any kind of threat to anybody except South Korea and maybe Japan, let alone "global security".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2774003.stm
The North Koreans are believed to possess one or two nuclear weapons already, as well as enough spent fuel rods to make four or six more. So they *possibly* might have as many as eight, count 'em, eight, missiles.

So BFD.

<< shrug >>

My panties are unbunched, thank you very much. Sorry about yours, JK.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


which appears to be the main point, the US military cannot exist without fighting.

True, true, and that's because we have to clean up Europe's messes.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Goshawk
I still don't see how JK believes North Korea is any kind of threat to anybody except South Korea and maybe Japan, let alone "global security".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2774003.stm
So they *possibly* might have as many as eight, count 'em, eight, missiles.

So BFD.

<< shrug >>

My panties are unbunched, thank you very much. Sorry about yours, JK.

North Korea has a military surprise. That is what they are all about. Look how giddy their leader is stepping up to blackmail the United States.

JK

Rik wrote :


America is the sheriff. You don't like it? Then change it....


That is precisely why September 11th happened Rik. Osama didn't like the America declaring itself as Sheriff, understood only too well that the only language America understood was gross violence, and spoke to the American people in the only language they are willing to listen to. So long as you and your countrymen believe that you have a right to make the rules because you have the biggest guns and the most money then you are inviting September 11th part two.

[Flo]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Rik wrote :



That is precisely why September 11th happened Rik. Osama didn't like the America declaring itself as Sheriff, understood only too well that the only language America understood was gross violence, and spoke to the American people in the only language they are willing to listen to. So long as you and your countrymen believe that you have a right to make the rules because you have the biggest guns and the most money then you are inviting September 11th part two.


Bad example, UCE.

Thugs like AlQaeda don't try to make themselves understood, they just want to draw attention on themselves by hurting the biggest guy in the neighborhood, then go back into hiding and gloat. "The only language America understands is gross violence" is just a post hoc argument to try to make their act palatable to some, and even if it was right, it doesn't justify the method. You don't seem to accept it when used against Saddam, why would it be OK to use it against the US ?

Also, it is not by insulting the "American people" on their capacity to understand what the World think and how it sees them, or by likening them to people like JK that things will go any better.

JK and some of his ilk may delude themselves in thinking that "might makes right", but don't fortunately represent the whole country.

Flo :


Thugs like AlQaeda don't try to make themselves understood, they just want to draw attention on themselves by hurting the biggest guy in the neighborhood, then go back into hiding and gloat. "The only language America understands is gross violence" is just a post hoc argument to try to make their act palatable to some, and even if it was right, it doesn't justify the method. You don't seem to accept it when used against Saddam, why would it be OK to use it against the US ?


I have had to listen to a endless stream of American voices who seem to think it is alright for them to use firepower to get what they want, but not alright for others to do the same. No attempt is ever made to explain why America has the right to dictate to the rest of the world how to behave. Jedi Knights mantra is "Peace through superior firepower". Rik has said "America is the Sheriff - what're you gonna do about it?". These people have to understand that this attitude is exactly what provoked 9/11. These people are saying "YOU LISTEN TO US, SUCKERS, COS WE HAVE GUNS AND BOMBS!". Osama replied "NO, MOTHERF**KERS, YOU WILL LISTEN TO US." Bush cannot defeat terrorism by attacking countries like Iraq. It doesn't work. You think the British government didn't try to suppress Irish terrorism with force? You cannot defeat terrorism by hunting down terrorists and attacking rogue states. Peace by superior firepower simply invites more terrorism. If the American 'method' is to bypass the UN and do whatever it damn well pleases then any method used to stop it is justified.

Saddam was at his most dangerous when he was an ally of the west. He is not a serious threat today.


Also, it is not by insulting the "American people" on their capacity to understand what the World think and how it sees them, or by likening them to people like JK that things will go any better.

JK and some of his ilk may delude themselves in thinking that "might makes right", but don't fortunately represent the whole country.


It seems to represent the President.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Saddam was at his most dangerous when he was an ally of the west. He is not a serious threat today.


...and pretty soon he will never be a threat again.

JK

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Saddam was at his most dangerous when he was an ally of the west. He is not a serious threat today.


Countries within his striking distance, none of which have not been attacked by him, feel otherwise.

Originally posted by synaesthesia


Countries within his striking distance, none of which have not been attacked by him, feel otherwise.

They feel more threatened by the US intervention than by Saddam. Even the Saudis have come out (last night) and called a US invasion without a second resolution "an act of agression which will destabilise the whole region". There is only one country in that region who supports this war. No prizes for guessing which one.

[HarryKeogh]

getting back to the original topic...if NK launched a nuclear strike on USA would USA be able to retaliate with nuclear weapons or would that put the lives of the south koreans in jeopardy (fallout or other effects from blast) since the island is so relatively small.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
getting back to the original topic...if NK launched a nuclear strike on USA would USA be able to retaliate with nuclear weapons or would that put the lives of the south koreans in jeopardy (fallout or other effects from blast) since the island is so relatively small.

Island?

I think that it would be possible to launch a limited nuclear strike (targeting Pyongyang, and using the smallest-yield nukes on military installations.) It would not take much. There would be fallout and a mess, but I would guess problems would be comparable with that seen after the Chernobyl fire. Except in North Korea, of course. But don't think I'm trying to minimize how awful it would be. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

And I am really just speculating based on my limited knowledge of nuclear weapons, which mostly comes from news magazines and repeated viewings of "Dr. Strangelove."

I think a good question would be whether it would be possible for the US and its allies to launch an effective conventional response without resorting to nuclear weapons. Could we strike back without nukes, and still be sure that the threat of them using another nuke is eliminated? If so, which option would be more devastating on an international level?

[Goshawk]

JK, how in the world is North Korea "blackmailing" the U.S.? Blackmail is like where you have the goods on somebody, and you use it as leverage to get them to give you something, or to do what you want.

I don't see even a blackmail attempt, let alone a successful blackmail attempt. North Korea hasn't succeeded in using any kind of leverage to get the U.S. to do what they want them to do.

Q: What does North Korea want?
A: South Korea.

Q: Have they succeeded in making the U.S. give them South Korea?
A: No.

So, what "blackmail"?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Goshawk
JK, how in the world is North Korea "blackmailing" the U.S.? Blackmail is like where you have the goods on somebody, and you use it as leverage to get them to give you something, or to do what you want.

Q: What does North Korea want?
A: South Korea.

Blackmail can also involve threats against citizens (give us stuff or we nuke you....), not just having 'goods' on someone.

North Korea also wants other stuff besides South Korea:
- Cheap oil
- Food
- Other types of foreign aid
- International recognition as a 'strong country'

The west has sent them oil in the past (right before the latest nuclear crisis began.) In fact, wasn't that part of the terms of the past agreement that the North Korean's broke? (Send North Korea oil regularly, and they agree to stop their nuclear program)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


The UNITED STATES has more nuclear weapons than everyone else put together.

The UNITED STATES has more chemical weapons than everyone else put together. It has withdrawn from an international non-proliferation treaty.

The UNITED STATES has more biological weapons than everyone else put together.

The UNITED STATES is currently threatening to use pre-emptive force against another state with express disapproval of the UN security council. We are told that this other state has chemical weapons. We cannot actually find any evidence. We are told this state has links with terrorists. No evidence for that either.

The UNITED STATES is, according to polls carried out all over the globe, considered to be the biggest threat to world peace - bigger than either North Korea or Iraq.


Sounds like it would be a bad idea to flip around with the UNITED STATES .....:D

[Goshawk]

Okay, granted, that NK, like other nations, probably wants other "stuff" besides just South Korea, but--what leverage are they're using for their "blackmail"? The threat of nuking the West Coast? That sure doesn't seem to be working, since I don't see the Administration scrambling to provide them with cheap oil, food, foreign aid, and a place at the global table, to prevent them from nuking the West Coast.

Actually, except for barely responding to Kim Jung's press releases, I don't see the Administration paying much attention to NK at all, let alone giving in to their "blackmail" threats by giving them what they want.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Goshawk
Okay, granted, that NK, like other nations, probably wants other "stuff" besides just South Korea, but--what leverage are they're using for their "blackmail"? The threat of nuking the West Coast? That sure doesn't seem to be working, since I don't see the Administration scrambling to provide them with cheap oil, food, foreign aid, and a place at the global table, to prevent them from nuking the West Coast.

Actually, except for barely responding to Kim Jung's press releases, I don't see the Administration paying much attention to NK at all, let alone giving in to their "blackmail" threats by giving them what they want.

They have gotten what they wanted in the past simply by threatening to develop nuclear weapons. I guess they decided that scheme wouldn't work anymore so they took it to the next level. This should be a lesson to the world about concessions for peace schemes. As for what to do now, I'm not so sure. I see three possibilities and none of them is good:

One is to isolate North Korea and wait for the system which can't feed its own people to not be able to feed its own army either, provoking a coup. The problem with this is that before it gets to that point Kim and his cronies, knowing they will soon face such a coup and having nothing to lose, may well resort to a more direct blackmail - "Give us the resources we need to maintain power or say goodbye to a couple cities." A desperate leader with nuclear weapons and little to lose is a very dangerous thing.

The second is to simply accept that the North Korean regime is around for good and keep it from degenerating further. The problem with this is that it is basically succumbing to the blackmail above preemptively.

The last is a preemptive war to try to take out the weapons before they can be used. The problems with this should be obvious. If you think an attack on Iraq is problematic, try an attack on North Korea.

It is exactly because of the fact that the US and its allies in the region (Japan and South Korea) have very few options in dealing with North Korea that it must deal with Iraq decisively before Saddam Hussein can put himself in the same position Kim has already found, where the US must either help him maintain power or face the risk of a nuclear attack.

[Goshawk]

I guess they decided that scheme wouldn't work anymore so they took it to the next level. "Took it to the next level how?" What, exactly, are the North Koreans DOING to "take it to the next level"? What are they doing, what are they saying, what public statements are they making, to the effect that, "America, you MUST do such-and-such or ELSE we will do such-and-such"? They decided to rev up the nukes entirely on their own tick--it had absolutely nothing to do with blackmail. As a matter of fact, they were already being paid NOT to rev up the nukes, so you could interpret THAT as being blackmail. "Give us cheap oil or we will rev up the nukes." But, oh look--if it was blackmail, evidently the blackmailer got tired of the deal and reneged. "Never mind about the oil," said North Korea. "We'd rather rev the nukes."

So, the deal's off, ain't it? So how are they blackmailing the U.S. now?

I haven't heard Word One from North Korea to the effect of, "Give us cheap oil or we will continue to develop the Taepodong II".

I haven't heard Word One from North Korea to the effect of, "Give us food or we will invade South Korea."

I haven't heard Word One from North Korea to the effect of, "Give us trade concessions or we will launch missiles at your West Coast."

What are they threatening to do, and what are they demanding in return for not doing it? And, where have they said this?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Goshawk
JK, how in the world is North Korea "blackmailing" the U.S.? Blackmail is like where you have the goods on somebody, and you use it as leverage to get them to give you something, or to do what you want.

I don't see even a blackmail attempt, let alone a successful blackmail attempt. North Korea hasn't succeeded in using any kind of leverage to get the U.S. to do what they want them to do.

Q: What does North Korea want?
A: South Korea.

Q: Have they succeeded in making the U.S. give them South Korea?
A: No.

So, what "blackmail"?

The United States was already successfully blackmailed by the North Koreans in the 1990's. We gave them oil and food and other credits just so they wouldn't, gosh, develop their nuclear program.

That is nuclear blackmail.

What is this latest tirade about? Hmm..let's see. First North Korea removes the UN nuclear inspectors from its sites, removes the remote cameras on the storage facilities for nuclear fuel rods and then contacts the leftist global media with its demands directed at the United States and Japan.

Can you blame them? The 1990's created that attitude. If you have an unreasonable leader like Kim II who already milked via extortionist security arrangements the United States for $untold $$$$$ in aid, why on earth would they not kick it up a few notches? America already paid them off before. To not pay them off now via blackmail will mean war. There isn't a tree standing in some parts of North Korea. They sold the wood--raped their forests. North Korea is a gothic state of darkness.

North Korea is loud now because they have a military surprise and with that surpise comes the temptation to revisit history and make it right. That is what is happening in North Korea. They are no longer a reasonable state actor.

The US policy of engagement has been to attack them at their weakest point, to starve them, rather than attack them militarily at their strongest. The problem is, now they are really starving and have nuclear weapons. This is what happens when the United States appeases its enemies. President Bush said it correctly during his State of the Union address when he mentioned that it was not a good idea to let problems carry over into other administrations.

JK

[Smalso]

President Bush said it correctly during his State of the Union address when he mentioned that it was not a good idea to let problems carry over into other administrations.

Maybe it's not a good idea, but how does a president get around it? Administrations change regularly and each one has to some exrent to deal with problems from the previous one; and this president will leave problems for his successor.

[Goshawk]

[sigh] I will try it one more time and then I'll get on with my life.

JK:

They were blackmailing us back in the 1990s. Yes. "Give us cheap oil or we will continue our nuke program."

So it worked. We gave them cheap oil. And--supposedly--they discontinued their nuke program.

But.

Apparently they did NOT after all discontinue their nuke program, so...

that means that the Deal is Off. They are no longer blackmailing us. We are no longer giving them cheap oil in return for their agreeing to discontinue their nuke program. They have not agreed to discontinue their nuke program. They are apparently continuing with their nuke program. That means that...

The deal is OFF. They are NO LONGER blackmailing us.







So--HOW are they blackmailing us NOW?

Not, "How WERE they blackmailing us back in the 1990s", but...

HOW are they blackmailing us NOW?

Answer--they aren't.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Smalso


Maybe it's not a good idea, but how does a president get around it? Administrations change regularly and each one has to some exrent to deal with problems from the previous one; and this president will leave problems for his successor.

Jimmy Carter tried to wind back the empire a bit, and was roundly condemned for doing so.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Goshawk
[sigh] I will try it one more time and then I'll get on with my life.

JK:

They were blackmailing us back in the 1990s. Yes. "Give us cheap oil or we will continue our nuke program."

So it worked. We gave them cheap oil. And--supposedly--they discontinued their nuke program.

But.

Apparently they did NOT after all discontinue their nuke program, so...

that means that the Deal is Off. They are no longer blackmailing us. We are no longer giving them cheap oil in return for their agreeing to discontinue their nuke program. They have not agreed to discontinue their nuke program. They are apparently continuing with their nuke program. That means that...

The deal is OFF. They are NO LONGER blackmailing us.


So--HOW are they blackmailing us NOW?

Not, "How WERE they blackmailing us back in the 1990s", but...

HOW are they blackmailing us NOW?

Answer--they aren't.

You have the definition of blackmail confused. Just because the United States (the target of North Korean blackmail) is not giving into the blackmail anymore does not mean that the North Koreans are not trying to blackmail us. The North Koreans are certainly trying to blackmail us with nuclear weapons, elimination of the Korean Armistice, etc. That is blackmail.

If a country tells your country IF you do not "do this", THEN this is what we will do. Blackmail always has an "if" demand statement, followed by a "then" punishment statement.

JK

If a country tells your country IF you do not "do this", THEN this is what we will do. Blackmail always has an "if" demand statement, followed by a "then" punishment statement.


"If you do not declare your [currently non-existent] weapons of mass destruction THEN we will bomb the hell out of you."

Blackmail by your definition, but with the added twist that if Saddam has no WMDs then he can't fulfill the IF even if he wanted to, and if he has got WMDs and he declares them then the US will just say "We were right" and bomb him anyway!

:confused:

[Roadtoad]

UCE, I realize you hate my nation. I'm not real happy with what we're doing right now, either, but given the evidence that's been mentioned in other threads, I don't see much in the way of alternatives.

The U.S. is probably one of the few nations that has been consistently ridding itself of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. We have a vast infrastructure which does nothing BUT dismantle NBC type weapons, (my dad did some work regarding a couple of places like this, in some very remote areas), unlike the former Soviet Union, and most of the nations which are bleating about how we won't sign certain treaties. Yes, we have a very long way to go, but you ought to consider how long the Cold War lasted.

In order to bring an end to the war in '91, Hussein agreed to dismantle and destroy ALL WMDs. He ain't done it. He's in violation of UN Resolutions. So far, the UN's word is meaningless. Maybe if Bill Clinton had done his job, instead of getting BJs in the Oval Office, we wouldn't be in this mess now.

So much for where we disagree.

As far as JK goes, you have just discovered why racist, bigoted, meretricious, vile, cranially-challenged, bloated, fanatical, hateful, scumsucking trailer trash like JK are on my ignore list.

Yes, Communism was and is a terrible thing. But I sure as hell don't need to listen to a twink like JK to tell me about the evils of Marxist Dogma, (which strikes me as the closest thing we've seen to an Atheistic Religion). I, too, got real tired of reading JK's banshee shrill regarding the left, because sometimes, (hold on to your hats, ladies!), THE LEFT IS CORRECT! This sort of neo-fascist drivel from JK is enough to make me puke; he reminds me of a former neighbor of mine who said she liked Rush Limbaugh, even if he was "a commie-pinko." (She was serious!)

I, too, get a little sick of the "Might Makes Right" argument, if for no other reason than because it's so blatantly wrong. I'd say, don't sweat it. Pop open a cold one, or pop over to the pub and have a glass. (I'd say have one on me, except I don't know where you are, and right now, I'm broke.)

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Goshawk
What are they threatening to do, and what are they demanding in return for not doing it? And, where have they said this?
You are right on that point. As far as I know, they haven't made any demands except that the US not increase its forces in the area, as one would expect when the "other side" has just increased its own capabilities. But I wouldn't call that a blackmail yet. However, North Korea has blackmailed the US before and has just developed an even greater capacity to do so now. While I can't prove they are going to try more blackmail, it would seem a reasonable expectation that they will, considering their history. Now maybe this can be resolved peacefully. I would hope that it can, but I do not see it as likely. Still, considering the consequences, it is certainly worth making an attempt. But I wouldn't get overly optimistic.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


"If you do not declare your [currently non-existent] weapons of mass destruction THEN we will bomb the hell out of you."

Blackmail by your definition, but with the added twist that if Saddam has no WMDs then he can't fulfill the IF even if he wanted to, and if he has got WMDs and he declares them then the US will just say "We were right" and bomb him anyway!

:confused:

By that logic, any attempt to enforce a treaty or ceasefire agreement, such as the one that ended the previous Gulf War, is blackmail. Also, any attempt to enforce any law, contact, or agreement would be blackmail. Since I don't think you want to say that all law is based on blackmail, do you agree that the definition as stated must be incomplete?

As far as I know, the US case is that Iraq has failed to meet the requirements it agreed to when the previous Gulf War ended. Do you think that it has not done so? Remember that under the UN resolutions, it is the obligation of the Iraqi government to destroy its WMDs and demonstrate that it has done so, not the obligation of the UN inspectors to prove that they have not done so.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


"If you do not declare your [currently non-existent] weapons of mass destruction THEN we will bomb the hell out of you."

Blackmail by your definition, but with the added twist that if Saddam has no WMDs then he can't fulfill the IF even if he wanted to, and if he has got WMDs and he declares them then the US will just say "We were right" and bomb him anyway!

:confused:

No, Saddam is about to be liquidated because he ignored twelve years of UN resolutions and failed to adhere to the surrender agreement he agreed to at the end of Gulf War I.

JK

Originally posted by Roadtoad

UCE, I realize you hate my nation.


I don't hate your nation. I feel compelled to say certain things to some Americans because I think they need to be said. I don't hate America any more than Michael Moore does.


As far as JK goes, you have just discovered why racist, bigoted, meretricious, vile, cranially-challenged, bloated, fanatical, hateful, scumsucking trailer trash like JK are on my ignore list.


I had failed to realise quite how cranially-challenged he was. I really cannot be bothered to engage him any further.


Yes, Communism was and is a terrible thing. But I sure as hell don't need to listen to a twink like JK to tell me about the evils of Marxist Dogma, (which strikes me as the closest thing we've seen to an Atheistic Religion).


I have a great deal of sympathy for Marx. I do not believe that politics and philosophy mix, but what Marx was doing was an attempt in that direction. You can no more blame Marx for the political abuses of communist dictatorships than you can blame Jesus Christ for the crimes of the Catholic church.


I, too, get a little sick of the "Might Makes Right" argument, if for no other reason than because it's so blatantly wrong. I'd say, don't sweat it. Pop open a cold one, or pop over to the pub and have a glass.


Oh, I do both of those on a regular basis......

:)

Jedi Knight :

I hope you won't mind if I just ignore you from now on.

:)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Jimmy Carter tried to wind back the empire a bit, and was roundly condemned for doing so.

Yes, but he did it through incompetence, not by design.

[Supercharts]

There was a series on the History Channel last week about the U.S. Navy. One segment delt with the "Revolt of the Admirals" where the top Navy brass wanted to upgrade the current fleets - to modernize them.
In dealing with this question the producers interviewed Ad. Zumwalt. Zumwalt told an interesting story about Jimmy Carter. His take on Carter was that JC didn't understand global politics. JC cut back on defense spending in the hope that the USSR would do the same. Then the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Carter, shown to be a fool, then started to build up the defense budget. Tough lesson.

[HarryKeogh]

earlier in this thread i stated the koreas were on an island. of course i meant peninsula.

ok, i meant island. but i cant be expected to know everything about australian geography.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Supercharts
There was a series on the History Channel last week about the U.S. Navy. One segment delt with the "Revolt of the Admirals" where the top Navy brass wanted to upgrade the current fleets - to modernize them.
In dealing with this question the producers interviewed Ad. Zumwalt. Zumwalt told an interesting story about Jimmy Carter. His take on Carter was that JC didn't understand global politics. JC cut back on defense spending in the hope that the USSR would do the same. Then the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Carter, shown to be a fool, then started to build up the defense budget. Tough lesson.

given US foreign policy, I would say it is the generals who don't understand global politics. Weren't the admirals the ones who paid many millions to resurrect those battleships, only to send them off to the scrapyard after a few years?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I hope you won't mind if I just ignore you from now on.

:)

By all means, add yourself to the list of leftists who do and ignore truth.

JK

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


given US foreign policy, I would say it is the generals who don't understand global politics. Weren't the admirals the ones who paid many millions to resurrect those battleships, only to send them off to the scrapyard after a few years?

Ever heard of the mothball fleets? We have one just offshore from Benicia, CA. One of the reasons we have them is to use them to fill in the gaps for a short time, then send them back to sit it out for a while longer, until they're needed again. The admirals understood this. Carter did not.

The ships aren't scrapped. They're sitting in a mothball area, waiting for the next nitwit who can't figure out that a navy isn't any damn good without ships.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


Ever heard of the mothball fleets? We have one just offshore from Benicia, CA. One of the reasons we have them is to use them to fill in the gaps for a short time, then send them back to sit it out for a while longer, until they're needed again. The admirals understood this. Carter did not.

The ships aren't scrapped. They're sitting in a mothball area, waiting for the next nitwit who can't figure out that a navy isn't any damn good without ships.

those battleships are a relic of a bygone age. One missile destroyer can sink one, or an aircraft. that money spent on those battleships was purely to satisfy some admirals problem with the size of his p***

[stamenflicker]

UE,

Blackmail by your definition, but with the added twist that if Saddam has no WMDs then he can't fulfill the IF even if he wanted to, and if he has got WMDs and he declares them then the US will just say "We were right" and bomb him anyway!

Your passion on this issue is to be admired, but I think you are extremely misled. The facts unfortunately are stacked against you on this one. First up, surely you know the weapons inspectors were destroying biological and chemical weapons as late as 1998, a full seven years after the UN resolution demanding Iraq to disarm. Why is this so?

To justify any stance on this issue, you must answer this one question: After seven years of sanctions, over 1/2 million Iraqis dead of starvation and disease (many of them children), why was Sadaam still not giving up his weapons as demanded by the nations of the world?

Sadaam refused to cooperate at every turn. Always double talk, lies, and deceit. Weapons that were destroyed were done so because the UN found them. Would you not comply with the will of the world if your nation was starving to death? Of course you would, unless you were crazy, as Sadaam clearly is.

You are right about one thing though... we will remove Sadaam one way or the other. Disarming Iraq is a smoke screen. We could care less if they have weapons. We just don't want Sadaam to have them.

Flick

[Baggle]

[/lurk]

Maybe I am showing my ignorance here, but it seems to me like many posters here and VERY MANY people in general who argue the "asking Saddam to prove a negative!" argument do not understand what, exactly, the US/UN is asking Saddam to supply. Saying that the US is telling Saddam, "Prove you have no weapons or you die!" is misleading at best. Sure, I guess that is what the US is saying, but that is only half of the story; a half truth. The United States knows, by whatever method, that Saddam had 10 of weapon A, 15 of weapon B and 20 of weapon C. The United States demanded that Iraq tell the UN where each of these were. Iraq sent back a report which essentially said, "There is 1 of A here, 2 of A there, 5 of B here, and 7 of C here." The United States is now demanding to know what happened to all the rest of the weapons. These weapons are now unaccounted for. The United States is demanding that Iraq tell the US/UN what happened to said weapons with documentation. So, while it sounds great to say, "It's impossible for Saddam to do what is being asked of him!" that may not really be the case.

Then again, maybe I am the one misunderstanding this whole issue....or am I? Anybody want to confirm/deny this? Thanks.
-Baggle
[lurk]

[Aquila_ka_Hecate]

UCE:

You go boy!!

Just reading your first reply to JK (whom I can't see unless I make an effort) has brightened up my day.

Where's the hugs and kisses icon?

Terri

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Aquila_ka_Hecate
UCE:

You go boy!!

Just reading your first reply to JK (whom I can't see unless I make an effort) has brightened up my day.

Where's the hugs and kisses icon?

Terri

Tell me two good things about South Africa (without making them up).

JK

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Tell me two good things about South Africa (without making them up).

JK

1. It isn't America.
2. It isn't America.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


1. It isn't America.
2. It isn't America.

Oh, you are right it isn't America. I bet 99% of the South African population would love to move to America.

JK

[Aquila_ka_Hecate]

Tell me two good things about South Africa (without making them up).


1.The weather
2.We have a constitution that would make you weep with envy
3.As a female, I earn more than 90% of males, even in America you twat
4.I have absolute freedom of religion.
5.(thanks uce)yes, it sure isn't America
6.It doesn't contain you.

I was brought up in England and America,but I have absolutley no wish to return to either, thank you.You people scare the crap out of me at the moment.

Terri

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Aquila_ka_Hecate


I was brought up in England and America,but I have absolutley no wish to return to either, thank you.You people scare the crap out of me at the moment.

Terri

Gee Terry, at least we don't equip our cars with flamethrowers to keep the carjacking mooks at bay. ;)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Aquila_ka_Hecate



1.The weather
2.We have a constitution that would make you weep with envy
3.As a female, I earn more than 90% of males, even in America you twat
4.I have absolute freedom of religion.
5.(thanks uce)yes, it sure isn't America
6.It doesn't contain you.

I was brought up in England and America,but I have absolutley no wish to return to either, thank you.You people scare the crap out of me at the moment.

Terri

Just a quick question--do you like the ANC?

JK

[Aquila_ka_Hecate]

hammegk:
Gee Terry, at least we don't equip our cars with flamethrowers to keep the carjacking mooks at bay.

I trust by the use of that :) that you realise the urban legend element in that.

There are things you can do about crime-with the added benefit that most of the population are on your side.

Not so the situation in the states at the mo-teetering dangerously on the verge of a theocracy.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Aquila_ka_Hecate
There are things you can do about crime-with the added benefit that most of the population are on your side.

Oh really? It doesn't seem like South Africa has the cooperation of its people regarding crime. South Africa has the highest number of rapes per person, per population in the civilized world. These rapes occur on babies because there is a myth that the 60% South African HIV population believes they can be cured by raping babies. I can't recall reading a single article in the United States about an HIV infected person here raping a baby.

So how do you handle that to "keep the population on your side"? Does South Africa allow baby rapes to keep the population on "everyone's side"?

Almost all valued foreign corporations have fled the country. The Communist ANC is running the country into the ground. I guess my next question is this--since you claimed "to make so much more money" then men, what do you do for it lol. Seriously. Are you like living in unreality--a gated community with private body-guards?

Take your rose colored glasses off and go outside into the streets and look at the nightmare your country has become. Have you ever read any articles by one of your countrymen, Anthony C. Labaido (sic?)? His articles tell a completely different story of South Africa. Maybe he just gets it from another part of Johannesburg than you do.

I am trying to think of some good things about South Africa, but remarkably there is nothing good. Just as you listed.

JK

[Aquila_ka_Hecate]

excuse me a minute.. (http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/)



oh, and no, jk, I don't 'like' the ANC particlarly. I detest all politicians equally

[shuize]

If by "winning" the North Koreans mean being the first county to be turned into one giant parking lot of melted glass, they just might be right.

Why we are still supplying North Korea with any assistance is beyond me. It certainly does not go to help the civilians.

[Roadtoad]

We're not asking Saddam to prove a negative. We're asking him to demonstrate a willingness to comply with agreements he's made to destroy the weapons we know he has.

Funny, we keep finding evidence of WMDs...

(Did like your link, AkH...)