N Korea may conduct 4 more tests; US elections possible trigger date

[Duddy]

Story Here...

Jesus!! Four more bombs!! Makes me wonder if their arsenal is bigger than we had previuosly thought!

 

[Pabster]

Just one more reason this election is so important.

The world is a dangerous place.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Just one more reason this election is so important.

The world is a dangerous place.

Exactly.. the more people we pre-emptively kill the safer the world will be

 

[dexvx]

Didn't Bush say it was a safer place during the 9-11 speech?

 

[ProfJohn]

"paranoidstate.com"?? Please use a little more mainstream new source in the future. We already have enough crazies on here with their "conspiracyplanet.com" type of posts.

And dahunan attacking North Korea BEFORE they get a working nuclear weapon could actually save lives in the long run. One nuke set off near Seoul could mean the deaths of over a million people. At what point do you take that into consideration when looking at taking military action against someone like Kim.

Personally, I don?t think that will happen and that China will take care of this problem before it gets that far. China has far more to lose via a war than we do. The cost to their economy via trade disruption and the flow of refuges entering China would be HUGE. Removing Kim via a limited military action for them would not be nearly as expensive.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Just one more reason this election is so important.

The world is a dangerous place.

LOL only BUSH and the Republican Party can protect you. This election should be fun to watch.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
And dahunan attacking North Korea BEFORE they get a working nuclear weapon could actually save lives in the long run. One nuke set off near Seoul could mean the deaths of over a million people. At what point do you take that into consideration when looking at taking military action against someone like Kim.

Excellent point. :thumbsup:

With so many here outraged over the loss of [insert figure here] Iraqi citizens in the current conflict, I find it amazing one could overlook all those innocents in South Korea.

 

[Mardeth]

And why exactly would they nuke Seoul? What could they possibly accomplish with that?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Mardeth
And why exactly would they nuke Seoul? What could they possibly accomplish with that?

Why do they want a nuclear weapon in the first place? Wouldn't they be better off trying to feed the millions of people who are dying of starvation?

The use a Nuke on Seoul if they get into a war with the south and they think they may lose. Could be a last ditch type of "screw you" response.

They could also try using a nuke on the battle field as our forces advance upon them.
But most likely any 'war' against them will be an air war. We can beat the living day lights out of them from the air and wait for their government to collapse. No need to fight out way north. In the 1950, we didn't have that ability, today we do.

Heck, we might have been better off in Iraq with just bombing Saddam out of power than going in with ground troops. The problem there is that what you get to replace him may have been worse. In North Korea you don't really have that problem, not sure how you get worse than what they have.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Mardeth
And why exactly would they nuke Seoul? What could they possibly accomplish with that?

Nuking Seoul would be a symbolic measure, given that NK artillery could almost certainly level the city on its own.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Mardeth
And why exactly would they nuke Seoul? What could they possibly accomplish with that?

Why do they want a nuclear weapon in the first place? Wouldn't they be better off trying to feed the millions of people who are dying of starvation?

The use a Nuke on Seoul if they get into a war with the south and they think they may lose. Could be a last ditch type of "screw you" response.

They could also try using a nuke on the battle field as our forces advance upon them.
But most likely any 'war' against them will be an air war. We can beat the living day lights out of them from the air and wait for their government to collapse. No need to fight out way north. In the 1950, we didn't have that ability, today we do.

Heck, we might have been better off in Iraq with just bombing Saddam out of power than going in with ground troops. The problem there is that what you get to replace him may have been worse. In North Korea you don't really have that problem, not sure how you get worse than what they have.

FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR

You right-wing neocons are a sad lot. Yes a lot of very ****** up ****** could happen in a lot of places around the world. It's not our job to police the entire world. Preemptively striking nations most often will have disastrous results, as witnessed by Iraq. This is especially true when we have no plan on what to do after we are done militarily. Do you even realize the huge humanitarian crisis that would occur if we toppled the NK gov't? Of course not, you see the world in black and white. There is good and there is bad, we gotta kill all the bad guys. Your not a professor, your an idiot.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Can someone in here answer this for me...seeing as I cant have my own thread about it

I keep hearing Kim Jon Il referred to as unstable. Are they just bashing him or does he truly have a mental handicap 'per se'.

-Kevin

 

[Lemon law]

While I agree that the world is a dangerous place-------I blame GWB&co. for upping the danger level to unprecidented levels.

I will feel much safer when GWB is out of office and better yet in a prison cell in the Hage---after all someone has to atone for the sins of the United States---whose actions have recently estranged it from the world community---who better than GWB&co. to pay that price than the sinner himself and all the neo-cons too.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Mardeth
And why exactly would they nuke Seoul? What could they possibly accomplish with that?

Why do they want a nuclear weapon in the first place? Wouldn't they be better off trying to feed the millions of people who are dying of starvation?

The use a Nuke on Seoul if they get into a war with the south and they think they may lose. Could be a last ditch type of "screw you" response.

They could also try using a nuke on the battle field as our forces advance upon them.
But most likely any 'war' against them will be an air war. We can beat the living day lights out of them from the air and wait for their government to collapse. No need to fight out way north. In the 1950, we didn't have that ability, today we do.

Heck, we might have been better off in Iraq with just bombing Saddam out of power than going in with ground troops. The problem there is that what you get to replace him may have been worse. In North Korea you don't really have that problem, not sure how you get worse than what they have.

FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR

You right-wing neocons are a sad lot. Yes a lot of very ****** up ****** could happen in a lot of places around the world. It's not our job to police the entire world. Preemptively striking nations most often will have disastrous results, as witnessed by Iraq. This is especially true when we have no plan on what to do after we are done militarily. Do you even realize the huge humanitarian crisis that would occur if we toppled the NK gov't? Of course not, you see the world in black and white. There is good and there is bad, we gotta kill all the bad guys. Your not a professor, your an idiot.

Wow no one has insulted anyone yet and you are already starting the mud-slinging.

A lot of stuff could happen. We have to find the careful balance between acting on what is probably and improbable.

Ask yourself this Sudheer, what if (However unlikely) NK launches a nuclear strike on a neighboring country. And then we go in. Can you imagine how many people would think "If only we had acted sooner". Of course that can go both ways (Perhaps nothing will happen), but you have to find that delicate balance.

As for us "policing" the world. Well we did kind of assume that responsibility. Being the most powerful nation in the world does have its downsides. Additionally, this is not policing. The international community is concerned with this as well, not just the US.

-Kevin

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
While I agree that the world is a dangerous place-------I blame GWB&co. for upping the danger level to unprecidented levels.

I will feel much safer when GWB is out of office and better yet in a prison cell in the Hage---after all someone has to atone for the sins of the United States---whose actions have recently estranged it from the world community---who better than GWB&co. to pay that price than the sinner himself and all the neo-cons too.

Where did you get sins out of what we have done? Certainly you may disagree with what we have done (and you are entitled to) but I'm 100% positive if there was a way dubya could have snapped his fingers and it all could have been solved without the loss of any lives he would have done it.

But then you are bold enough to say that conservatives are sinning too. I think liberals, by your definition of sin, have just as much sin as everyone else.

-Kevin (And btw: I strongly disagree with your use of the word sin)

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Mardeth
And why exactly would they nuke Seoul? What could they possibly accomplish with that?

Why do they want a nuclear weapon in the first place? Wouldn't they be better off trying to feed the millions of people who are dying of starvation?

The use a Nuke on Seoul if they get into a war with the south and they think they may lose. Could be a last ditch type of "screw you" response.

They could also try using a nuke on the battle field as our forces advance upon them.
But most likely any 'war' against them will be an air war. We can beat the living day lights out of them from the air and wait for their government to collapse. No need to fight out way north. In the 1950, we didn't have that ability, today we do.

Heck, we might have been better off in Iraq with just bombing Saddam out of power than going in with ground troops. The problem there is that what you get to replace him may have been worse. In North Korea you don't really have that problem, not sure how you get worse than what they have.

FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR

You right-wing neocons are a sad lot. Yes a lot of very ****** up ****** could happen in a lot of places around the world. It's not our job to police the entire world. Preemptively striking nations most often will have disastrous results, as witnessed by Iraq. This is especially true when we have no plan on what to do after we are done militarily. Do you even realize the huge humanitarian crisis that would occur if we toppled the NK gov't? Of course not, you see the world in black and white. There is good and there is bad, we gotta kill all the bad guys. Your not a professor, your an idiot.

Please explain to me if the million or so people that have starved to death in North Korea in the past 10 years counts as a "humanitarian crisis"?

Also, if you notice I have not advocating attacking North Korea at all. I have stated maybe a dozen times that I think China is the key and that they will most likely take action before we have too. (did so right in this thread actually)

Please tell us what your solution to the problem is?

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Can someone in here answer this for me...seeing as I cant have my own thread about it

I keep hearing Kim Jon Il referred to as unstable. Are they just bashing him or does he truly have a mental handicap 'per se'.

-Kevin

I would refer to anyone who starves his own people, forces every house to have pictures of himself with the caption "the great leader" etc. etc. to be mentally unstable. I have no idea if he is actually mentally impaired though.

I honestly can't blame the guy for wanting Nukes though. He's a terrible guy, and certainly one this world could do without, but from his standpoint, what he's doing is logical.

The most powerful country in the world listed North Korea as being part of the axis of evil, along with Iran and Iraq. Then that country invades Iraq with what turned out to be faulty intelligence. If I'm one of the two remaining countries, I'd be looking for means to defend myself as well.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
As for us "policing" the world. Well we did kind of assume that responsibility. Being the most powerful nation in the world does have its downsides. Additionally, this is not policing. The international community is concerned with this as well, not just the US.
-Kevin

Oh-uh.

Say, in sub-Sahara Africa, there are right now hundreds or even thousands of people killing/dying on a daily basis.

Or, look at many Latin-American countries with on-going civil wars between different political powers on a daily basis.

Or, let's take Sout Korea, which was under military jurisdiction up to late 80's. Believe it or not South Korea was kind of a mirror-image of North Korea until early 80's, when the military dictator got assasinated. Many South Koreans died fighting against military dictatorship and guess what, we'd been supporting the military government!

Why don't, or didn't we go there and be the judge? There are many more serious disasters happening around the glove everyday. I have yet to hear of a ONE casualty due to North Korea's 'threat'. Before we 'pre-empt' anything over stuff that are not bothering even people who actually live nearby, there are much bigger area where people are dying for our help.

We only go where we can 'get' something. We only go where things are interesting. We only go where the politicians take advantage of via various routes.

Now, do I think this is wrong? NO. Could it be not 'right' by what you learned in your childhood? Maybe. The world doesn't go by textbook and while I might defend the attack on Iraq because I don't want to pay 10 times the gas price, I don't pretend to be 'moral'. I don't expect our country to be 'moral' but expect it to represent our interest. Yes, this might be somewhat uncomfortable for people who live by the Bible. But I much more value integrity than morality. (I don't understand how a comment like "radical-Christianity is as dangerous as radical-Islam" can be an issue.)

 

[MikeO]

Originally posted by: Duddy
Story Here...

Jesus!! Four more bombs!!

Don't worry, the US has about 1000 tests on it's belt, it'll take years for NK to break your record.

Originally posted by: Pabster
The world is a dangerous place.

Sure is, but couple more years and it'll get better, Bush gets hauled to Hague for his crimes against humanity and the world rejoices.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
"paranoidstate.com"?? Please use a little more mainstream new source in the future. We already have enough crazies on here with their "conspiracyplanet.com" type of posts.

Hypocrite much, Mr. FreeRepublic.com?

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
And dahunan attacking North Korea BEFORE they get a working nuclear weapon could actually save lives in the long run.

Attacking the US government could save lives in the long run too, seeing as the US government seems to want to pre-emptively attack every country that looks at it funny. At what point do you take that into consideration when looking at taking military action against someone like Bush?

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why do they want a nuclear weapon in the first place?

I don't know, ask your own government, they have craploads of 'em.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
They could also try using a nuke on the battle field as our forces advance upon them.

Yeah, using a weapon against the enemy attacking your country... those bastards, only the US has that right!

Originally posted by: CellarDoor
He's a terrible guy, and certainly one this world could do without, but from his standpoint, what he's doing is logical.

The most powerful country in the world listed North Korea as being part of the axis of evil, along with Iran and Iraq. Then that country invades Iraq with what turned out to be faulty intelligence. If I'm one of the two remaining countries, I'd be looking for means to defend myself as well.

You are looking at this from the other guys POV, that is not allowed, only the American POV is allowed. Plus you make entirely too much sense, please tone down a bit or you'll brake ProfJohns brain.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
And dahunan attacking North Korea BEFORE they get a working nuclear weapon could actually save lives in the long run. One nuke set off near Seoul could mean the deaths of over a million people. At what point do you take that into consideration when looking at taking military action against someone like Kim.

Excellent point. :thumbsup:

With so many here outraged over the loss of [insert figure here] Iraqi citizens in the current conflict, I find it amazing one could overlook all those innocents in South Korea.

It's very simple, the Dem's platform on North Korea is another round of "Peace for our time". Apparently we can sacrifice millions of lives later to avoid a necessary war today. We have done it before, and while idolizing the same theory we?re determined to do it again today.

 

[piasabird]

George Bush is not forcing any country to make a Nuclear Bomb. Grow Up!

 

[boredhokie]

Now that NK, like Iran, is nuclear, they have nothing to worry about from America. The war in Iraq has shown that we only attack pussy nations that have no chance of fighting back. Get a nuke and you're home free because the fat, selfish, lazy baby boomers that run this country couldn't handle the sacrifice involved in fighting a real, just war.

 

[theeedude]

The only reason Kim Jong Il can do this with impunity is because we are bogged down in Iraq, so he knows he'll get away with it.