lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: North Korea says nuclear test successful.
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 10-11-2006, 11:34 AM   #41
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
It seem like this society of the world today has gotten soft since WW II, people today keep believing today that diplomatic solutions is going to work with every dictator.
Well, that IS the whole reason that the US was created.
But even in WW2 people tried diplomatic solutions. Almost all the european nations tried treaties and appeasment with the nazis.. and the US sat around not getting involved for 3 or 4 years... so i don't think things have changed as much as you think.

N.Korea and Iran have been collaborating on nuclear weapons research, so if NK truely does have them then Iran will do shortly.

Personally i'm undecided on whether they really have them, or they are trying a Saddam style bluff to try and stop the US moving against them.

-

I think your wrong on sanctions though.. NK is in a terrible economic state, its basically supported entirely by china. That means china has immense leverage over NK. If china cut off all aid then i'd imagine the country would collapse pretty sharpish.

Now that we are all friendly with china, THIS is their chance to improve their image with the world.

Thoguh since the UK and US have been selling nuclear tech to all these countries I'm a bit confused about why we are now upset that they are using it.

-

I also think a war with north korea would be a lot different to a war with iraq.

Iraq had an army of about 400,000.
NK has one of over 1million. (plus enough reservists that their army is actually theoretically about double the size of the US)

Iraq didn't have any WMDs because we made them destroy them.
NK definately has WMDs.

We knew a lot about the iraqi situation due to lots of cia involvement, no fly zones, weapons inspectors (and their cia spies), etc...
We know very little about NK due to it being such a closed country.

The iraqi population had a lot more access to external media, and saddam was already in a weak position of power and likely to fall. This made it easy for the cia to convince a lot of his troops not to fight.
The north korean population is poor and hungry, but they have no access to external media and won't be easy for the cia to influence. there is no evidence that KJI is about to fall. They will probably actually fight.

Iraq was an easy war, followed by a long insurgency. Korea on the other hand i'd imagine being a very hard, costly war - but probably with less long term problems IF we won.

The only real way to try and beat NK without HUGE casualties on our side would be to use long range weapons to try and take out all their military... and that is gonna cause huge civilian casualties, and pretty swiftly get the population behind KJI.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)

Last edited by toms; 10-11-2006 at 12:18 PM.
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2006, 11:39 AM   #42
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
The two biggest problems with Iraq was the way the war was fought and the controversy surrounding it. Bush may like the tanks and planes but that's not the way war is fought anymore. The insurgents proved this when they kicked the Coalition's ass. And the controversy ranges from defying the UN to those Abu Gharib butchers to doubts and hypocracy over weapons of mass destruction.
The insurgents may be a pain in the arse, but they certainly have not kicked the Coalition's arse. We have not surrendered or retreated. War is messy and is not a neat and clean package like it's portrayed in history books. There'll likely continue to be skirmishes for some time, but that doesn't mean we've lost the war.

Abu Ghraib--'butchers' implies to me 'killers'. There was torture, to be sure, and plenty of just really stupid crap going on there, but there was no evidence of mass murder to my knowledge.

WMDs--hard to tell on that. Since Saddam used nerve gas on the Kurds in the past, I imagine he's got something squirreled away somewhere. It's a big country to search. I don't think Powell would have put his reputation on the line to lie for Bush--I think they actually thought something more was there and they got a bunch of bad intel.

The point is moot, though. We're there now, and we need to finish the job stabilizing the country so the Iraqis can make the transition without having their fledgling government flushed down the toilet by a nasty little civil war. We made a mess, we need to accept the responsibility for it and finish the job of cleaning it up now.

North Korea--I'm still waiting to hear if it was a real blast, too, though with the zillion satellites we and other countries likely have trained on NK, I don't think we'll have to wait too long for an answer. Neither possibility would surprise me because of how unstable Kim is.
On a tangent, I was almost surprised that Venezuela condemned the test.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-11-2006, 10:30 PM   #43
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
There seem to be no one on this planet like the Exile, the possible ones are already dead or dying now.
The leaders are cowards and the heros are dead and dying.
The only one who would be better in my view than the Exile is Revan, or maybe some other hero from some other piece of fiction. When it comes to real heros I think it's more a case that those who are willing to do something are not in a position to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
The insurgents may be a pain in the arse, but they certainly have not kicked the Coalition's arse. We have not surrendered or retreated. War is messy and is not a neat and clean package like it's portrayed in history books. There'll likely continue to be skirmishes for some time, but that doesn't mean we've lost the war.
To say they were beaten is going a bit far. No question they were humbled and gives further fuel to the debate that Iraq's another Vietnam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Abu Ghraib--'butchers' implies to me 'killers'. There was torture, to be sure, and plenty of just really stupid crap going on there, but there was no evidence of mass murder to my knowledge.
The torture for fun **** perpetrated by Private England and her cohorts was exactly what I was referring to in the Abu Gharib butchery. No, there wasn't mass executions, but what they did was just as bad. It really shows how depraved they are and damages the American military as a whole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
The point is moot, though. We're there now, and we need to finish the job stabilizing the country so the Iraqis can make the transition without having their fledgling government flushed down the toilet by a nasty little civil war. We made a mess, we need to accept the responsibility for it and finish the job of cleaning it up now.
That's the real bitch of it, and it's something anti Americans can use against the war in Iraq, in that if we pull out like they want then they can say we should have fixed the situation there. The same story with whether or not to go to war with North Korea, the same with acting on terrorist plots after criticism for not being able to prevent 9/11, the ****ers make it so that no matter what is done there's criticism.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-12-2006, 02:01 AM   #44
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
To say they were beaten is going a bit far. No question they were humbled and gives further fuel to the debate that Iraq's another Vietnam.
My perspective comes from being a. a military wife and b. a history major (among other things) as an undergrad, so bear with me a bit....

We have a mop-up job to do in terms of fighting, and I don't want to minimize soldiers' lives on any side but this is small potatoes compared to what we did the first couple weeks we were there. The major battles are done. Hussein lost decisively. We're just trying to keep the Shi'a from beating the crap out of the Sunnis in retaliation for decades of oppression.

Iraq and Vietnam are _very_ different. The reason for war is different, the ideologies driving the decisions are different, the mindset of the people, terrain, psychology, climate, strategy, tactics, regional religion, all different. Even the support of the troops is different. Iraq is just Iraq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
The torture for fun **** perpetrated by Private England and her cohorts was exactly what I was referring to in the Abu Gharib butchery. No, there wasn't mass executions, but what they did was just as bad. It really shows how depraved they are and damages the American military as a whole.
I'm not trying to minimize that, either, because it was horrible to treat people that way. I just don't want to be inaccurate and accuse them of killing (which is what butchering is) when they did not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
That's the real bitch of it, and it's something anti Americans can use against the war in Iraq, in that if we pull out like they want then they can say we should have fixed the situation there. The same story with whether or not to go to war with North Korea, the same with acting on terrorist plots after criticism for not being able to prevent 9/11, the ****ers make it so that no matter what is done there's criticism.
Someone's _always_ going to gripe about any war, because it's not fun. If we were in the SW universe, someone would gripe about Palpatine not being around to Force Lightning people anymore.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-12-2006, 03:34 AM   #45
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
Well, that IS the whole reason that the US was created.
But even in WW2 people tried diplomatic solutions. Almost all the european nations tried treaties and appeasment with the nazis.. and the US sat around not getting involved for 3 or 4 years... so i don't think things have changed as much as you think.
Well we will all see what those cowards at the UN do about that tyrant and his regime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
N.Korea and Iran have been collaborating on nuclear weapons research, so if NK truely does have them then Iran will do shortly.
That's exactly what I have said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
Personally i'm undecided on whether they really have them, or they are trying a Saddam style bluff to try and stop the US moving against them.
Yes, there is always misdirection but I would'nt want the leaders of this world to take a chance with that nut.



Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
I think your wrong on sanctions though.. NK is in a terrible economic state, its basically supported entirely by china. That means china has immense leverage over NK. If china cut off all aid then i'd imagine the country would collapse pretty sharpish.
NK will take any sanctions as an act of war but we will see if North Korea is bluffing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
Now that we are all friendly with china, THIS is their chance to improve their image with the world.
We aren't that close with them, Tom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
Thoguh since the UK and US have been selling nuclear tech to all these countries I'm a bit confused about why we are now upset that they are using it.
If we don't get upset with that nut having a weapon of annihilation, then we will be dealing with a war of annihilation later.



Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
I also think a war with north korea would be a lot different to a war with iraq.

Iraq had an army of about 400,000.
NK has one of over 1million. (plus enough reservists that their army is actually theoretically about double the size of the US)
Yes it will be a real war; Iraq war II was a joke.
The war with the insurgence should be consider similar to the Vietnam War
So, you can say they are fighting two wars in Iraq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
We knew a lot about the iraqi situation due to lots of cia involvement, no fly zones, weapons inspectors (and their cia spies), etc...
We know very little about NK due to it being such a closed country.

The iraqi population had a lot more access to external media, and saddam was already in a weak position of power and likely to fall. This made it easy for the cia to convince a lot of his troops not to fight.
The north korean population is poor and hungry, but they have no access to external media and won't be easy for the cia to influence. there is no evidence that KJI is about to fall. They will probably actually fight.
Of course they will fight, they are brainwash by that nut.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
Iraq was an easy war, followed by a long insurgency. Korea on the other hand i'd imagine being a very hard, costly war - but probably with less long term problems IF we won.
That war was easy because that fool Saddam didn't update his military so his forces was no match to US and British militaries.
He wasted resourses on himself that could have went to a modern military force.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
The only real way to try and beat NK without HUGE casualties on our side would be to use long range weapons to try and take out all their military... and that is gonna cause huge civilian casualties, and pretty swiftly get the population behind KJI.
That will be a foolish option, they will have to invade that country.
It is about time for the UN to spill some blood for world peace.
The other choice will be a complete failure if they do it.

Last edited by windu6; 10-12-2006 at 03:46 AM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-12-2006, 12:06 PM   #46
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
The north korean population is poor and hungry, but they have no access to external media and won't be easy for the cia to influence. there is no evidence that KJI is about to fall. They will probably actually fight.
As utterly and totally strange as it may sound to us, the North Korean people actually appears to love Kim Jong-Il. They have no better source of information than their own propaganda, and they're told to blame their nation's problems on sanctions imposed by the USA and British.

A war with North Korea's as totally out of the question as a war with the USSR was during the Cuban missile crisis. North Korea has one Hell of an army despite their country being a Hell to live in.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-12-2006, 11:29 PM   #47
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Wait, arn't dissidents and those who speak out dealt with? Wait, don't tell me, American lies right?
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-13-2006, 06:03 AM   #48
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
A war with North Korea's as totally out of the question as a war with the USSR was during the Cuban missile crisis. North Korea has one Hell of an army despite their country being a Hell to live in.
So, the world should cower in fear. Huh?
So what the hell is the UN and the US army; a piece of s**t.
We should let this ******* get away with it and do nothing but useless negotiations, that won't go no damn where.

It is time to teach that ******* and his evil regime a lesson.
If the UN and the US does nothing to punish that f**ker severely; World War III will be right around the corner because of their complacency.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-13-2006, 06:10 AM   #49
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Then of course if we do invade then the same people who bitch and moan about not taking action will bitch and moan because we did. To reply to Jae Onasi's point, I think people try and sabotage the government in demanding one thing then saying they don't want it or saying it should have done something else. Case in point is how there was criticism over September 11, we should have acted. So when there's information of the terrorist hijackings in London action is taken. BAM! The same critics for not taking action now criticise action being taken. Really they need to just piss off because if we had listened to them a lot of people would have died.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-13-2006, 06:35 AM   #50
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Then of course if we do invade then the same people who bitch and moan about not taking action will bitch and moan because we did. To reply to Jae Onasi's point, I think people try and sabotage the government in demanding one thing then saying they don't want it or saying it should have done something else. Case in point is how there was criticism over September 11, we should have acted. So when there's information of the terrorist hijackings in London action is taken. BAM! The same critics for not taking action now criticise action being taken. Really they need to just piss off because if we had listened to them a lot of people would have died.
It is not time for politics this is a serious threat.
I am tired of hearing the two parties bitching in the government over who's fault it is, they have to deal with this nut. NOW!
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-13-2006, 01:39 PM   #51
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
It is time to teach that ******* and his evil regime a lesson.
We did. It's called the Korean War. We killed a hundred billion North Koreans and it "taught" them absolutely nothing.

It sounds like your problem lies with the United Nations itself. A much better idea to have them clean up their corruption, speed up their procedures, and become a useful organization when it comes to handling situations of this kind.

Quote:
We should let this ******* get away with it and do nothing but useless negotiations (...)
If this was the Cuban Missile Crisis, would you advocate bombing Cuba? Since "useless negotiations" don't do anything?

I say maybe it's time for us to give something. Like starting to negotiate with him. Dubya's usual cowboy-stance is what does absolutely nothing: Kim Jong-Il considers all threats challenges, so the louder Bush yells, the more nukes Kim builds.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-13-2006, 03:11 PM   #52
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
We did. It's called the Korean War. We killed a hundred billion North Koreans and it "taught" them absolutely nothing.
Well Dagobahn let me tell you something, to maintain peace on this planet plently of blood is going to have to be spilled in conflicts and wars.
It's fantasy to think that negotiations is always going to keep the peace now and in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
It sounds like your problem lies with the United Nations itself. A much better idea to have them clean up their corruption, speed up their procedures, and become a useful organization when it comes to handling situations of this kind.
You mean the, ''United Coward Nations''.The UN is useless.
If a "Independence Day" scenario would to have happen our ass is grass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
If this was the Cuban Missile Crisis, would you advocate bombing Cuba? Since "useless negotiations" don't do anything?
No, I will be preparing for annihilation, we was luckey back then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I say maybe it's time for us to give something. Like starting to negotiate with him. Dubya's usual cowboy-stance is what does absolutely nothing: Kim Jong-Il considers all threats challenges, so the louder Bush yells, the more nukes Kim builds.
You don't seem that worried about what this crisis will lead to.
He is a tyrant he will not agree to anything that will make him and his regime less powerful in that country.
He is also a criminal and need to be punish.

You know for example, if he was committing genocide in that country you would want the authorities to waste precious time negotiating while many people will die in that time.
He is a terrorist; he is terrorizing the world with his nuclear threats.

Last edited by windu6; 10-13-2006 at 03:59 PM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-13-2006, 03:39 PM   #53
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
If this was the Cuban Missile Crisis, would you advocate bombing Cuba? Since "useless negotiations" don't do anything?
A fine point. Only international pressure and time will tell if the regime in NK has as much common sense as the Soviets showed in 1962.
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-13-2006, 04:00 PM   #54
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Well Dagobahn let me tell you something, to maintain peace on this planet plently of blood is going to have to be spilled in conflicts and wars.
Believe it or not, but I'm one of those nave souls who believe world peace can be achieved.

Quote:
It's fantasy to think that negotiations is always going to keep the peace now and in the future.
And it's a strawman to say I claimed it would.

Quote:
You mean the, ''Coward Nations''.The UN is useless.
It assists elections in about 200 countries annualy, for one thing. To call it "useless" is a big leap.

Quote:
You don't seem that worried about what this crisis will lead to.
He is a tyrant he will not agree to anything that will make him and his regime less powerful in that country.
He is also a criminal and need to be punish.

You know for example, if he was committing genocide in that country you would want the authorities to waste precious time negotiating while many people will die in that time.
He is a terrorist; he is terrorizing the world with his nuclear threats.
That reads like you just copied the neo-con chant on Saddam Hussain pre-Operation Iraqi Screw-up and pasted it here. And look how well the invasion of Iraq turned out.

Quote:
So what the hell is the UN and the US army; a piece of s**t.
Are you drawing that from what I said?

I didn't say the US Armed Forces were "a piece of ****", I just said that a Third Korean War would cost a good deal of human lives and money and not be worth it the least.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-13-2006, 04:29 PM   #55
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Believe it or not, but I'm one of those nave souls who believe world peace can be achieved.
Well let me be more specific. I mean a reasonble peace.



Quote:
It assists elections in about 200 countries annualy, for one thing. To call it "useless" is a big leap.
What about fighting wars and stoping genocide? They have fail on a massive scale: Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo.
Possibily Darfur will be their next failure.
Also Kosovo would have been much more worst if Clinton didn't push for military action.

Quote:
That reads like you just copied the neo-con chant on Saddam Hussain pre-Operation Iraqi Screw-up and pasted it here. And look how well the invasion of Iraq turned out.
Let me make one damn thing clear, f**k Bush and his useless administration.The hell with neo-cons, got it.
Iraq war was a republican and some idiotic demorcrats mistake for, encouraging it.
I am not going to go into why it was, you already know that those threads already exist.

Last edited by windu6; 10-13-2006 at 04:43 PM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-13-2006, 06:11 PM   #56
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I say maybe it's time for us to give something. Like starting to negotiate with him. Dubya's usual cowboy-stance is what does absolutely nothing: Kim Jong-Il considers all threats challenges, so the louder Bush yells, the more nukes Kim builds.
We have, plenty of times. Here's some information, first April 23rd 2003.

Fox News reports: Three-Way Talks Begin on North Korea's Nuclear Program and North Korean Negotiators Known for Drama. Excerpt from latter article: Historically, North Korea, as a small nation, has tried to play larger players on the world stage against each other, he [Scott Snyder, an expert on the nation's negotiating style] said. "They did that for years in their dealings with the Chinese and the Soviet Union," he said. "They basically worked with the Chinese for a while and tried to make the Soviets jealous and then switched back all the while asking for benefits, primarily economic."

UPDATE APRIL 24: Fox News reports: North Korea Admits It Has Nukes. Excerpt: North Korea continued to try to ratchet up the pressure and is believed to want economic aid in exchange for concessions. Its leaders are outraged over U.S. moves to cut off oil shipments because of its suspected nuclear weapons program, and fears it is next on Washington's list for military action. ... The North's Korea People's Army vowed to "put all people under arms and turn the whole country into a fortress" and urged its soldiers to become "human bombs and fighters ready to blow up themselves" to protect leader Kim Jong Il.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84881,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84838,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85033,00.html

Remember when Kim Jong blackmailed America by threatening to turn it into a 'sea of fire'? This was reported on July 17th 2003, the link's gone but here's this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/260067.stm

These comments were on September 2 2003.

North Korea's hostile weekend reaction to last week's six-way talks on its nuclear program was an initial response and probably a negotiating ploy, South Korea said on Monday. [...]
It is not yet clear whether Pyongyang has officially reneged on that agreement or is using past tactics that mix bluster and brinkmanship with gradual steps forward.

"The North Koreans' post-conference verbal offensive was nothing but a stupid repeat of their habitual negotiating strategy," the Korea Herald said in an editorial.

Here's one time when aid was given to North Korea, January 26 2004.

The donation of 60,000 tons brings the total of U.S. contributions for the year to 100,000. The Bush administration has said it keeps consideration of North Korea's humanitarian needs separate from differences with the reclusive regime on its weapons programs. A second round of arms negotiations has been postponed with no date set.

From Capitalism Magazine.

This is a clear example of supporting our enemies and keeping them alive, even a purported member of the "Axis of Evil" such as North Korea. We'll never win against any of these countries if we keep them alive with 100,000 metric tons of food. They wanted Communism, let their workers paradise produce their own food.

Going back a year ago an article at the time noted: "North Korea continued to try to ratchet up the pressure and is believed to want economic aid in exchange for concessions." Unfortunately for us, such black mail is allowed to work. For it is the hostile dictatorship that ultimately benefits from such aid, not the millions being used as political pawns and slowly starved to death.

August 25th 2004.

North Korea hurled invective at President Bush for a second day Tuesday, calling him a political idiot and human trash, and said six-party talks on Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions appeared doomed.
A day earlier, a Foreign Ministry spokesman for the isolated communist state described Bush as a tyrannical imbecile who put Adolf Hitler in the shade and said Pyongyang could see no justification to negotiate with his administration.

My two cents? If North Korea seeks to harm people, either it's own or those in other countries, then it has to be stopped. How I don't know, I can see us being ****ed taking both the diplomatic and militaristic approach.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2006, 12:03 PM   #57
Mace MacLeod
Food-based rocker
 
Mace MacLeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Somewhere else. Probably.
Posts: 1,096
Current Game: World of Warcraft
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Okay, just how incredibly stupid do people think Kim Jong-il actually is? He may be a demagogue and a piss-poor leader, but he knows that if he actually uses nuclear weapons to attack his neighbors all Bush has to do is push a single button, and North Korea vanishes. Poof, gone. He's trying to become a Big Boy on the world block, and he clearly loves the attention. After all, North Korea is a pariah state that can't even feed its population without huge aid shipments from (mainly) China, and it wasn't that long ago that reports of mass starvation and even cannibalism in the rural areas began surfacing. The only thing North Korea does have is a huge military, due to Kim spending about half the country's GDP on it, and the entire population is the most brainwashed set of people ever seen. It's like Jonestown, only with artillery pieces and attack planes. But even Kim, like the guy in Iran, must know that any attack on US allies or the US itself using nukes will result in the complete and utter annihilation of their own country and population. You really think they're that foolish?


Be considerate to others or I will bite your torso and give you a disease!
Mace MacLeod is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2006, 01:00 PM   #58
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Well let me be more specific. I mean a reasonble peace.
As do I.

Mace: Agreed. The nukes are for self-defence. Part to deter attack, part to help project this image North Korea wants to have of itself as a rich, industrialized nation (my ass).

Google Video, as I said, has two videos on North Korea worth watching. Children of the Secret State is one, and it links to the other one (tagged North Korea Nuclear Documentary or something).

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2006, 03:50 PM   #59
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod
But even Kim, like the guy in Iran, must know that any attack on US allies or the US itself using nukes will result in the complete and utter annihilation of their own country and population. You really think they're that foolish?
If he was placed in a situation where he would lose power then my gear is he would do absolutely everything he possibly could, including the possibility of going out in a blaze of glory. Don't forget the threats this man's made, and sure they're just threats at this stage but if he's going to parade around with a nuke then he's going to use it, if not to bomb others then as a threat to bully countries into doing what he wants.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2006, 03:59 PM   #60
The Source
Rest In Peace
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,304
Contest winner - Modding 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
The insurgents may be a pain in the arse, but they certainly have not kicked the Coalition's arse. We have not surrendered or retreated. War is messy and is not a neat and clean package like it's portrayed in history books. There'll likely continue to be skirmishes for some time, but that doesn't mean we've lost the war.

Abu Ghraib--'butchers' implies to me 'killers'. There was torture, to be sure, and plenty of just really stupid crap going on there, but there was no evidence of mass murder to my knowledge.

WMDs--hard to tell on that. Since Saddam used nerve gas on the Kurds in the past, I imagine he's got something squirreled away somewhere. It's a big country to search. I don't think Powell would have put his reputation on the line to lie for Bush--I think they actually thought something more was there and they got a bunch of bad intel.

The point is moot, though. We're there now, and we need to finish the job stabilizing the country so the Iraqis can make the transition without having their fledgling government flushed down the toilet by a nasty little civil war. We made a mess, we need to accept the responsibility for it and finish the job of cleaning it up now.

North Korea--I'm still waiting to hear if it was a real blast, too, though with the zillion satellites we and other countries likely have trained on NK, I don't think we'll have to wait too long for an answer. Neither possibility would surprise me because of how unstable Kim is.
On a tangent, I was almost surprised that Venezuela condemned the test.
I agree.

She is so cool when she is right.



R.I.P. to 'The Source' and 'MacCorp'
2004-2008
The Source is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2006, 05:12 PM   #61
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Can anyone who understands this better than me answer me why everyone's condemning and not going "Prove it!"?

Is it more obvious that it was a nuclear blast than I thought?

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2006, 05:43 PM   #62
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Kim Jong whoring off North Korea seems to be a good start in terms of evidence. As for proving whether or not they actually are a nuclear power or had conducted nuclear testing, there is one possibility. North Korea has nuclear power plants right? it'd be interesting to see if these are what are call breeder reacters, if they produce more nuclear material and waste than they need. If they do then this could be a sign that North Korea are siphoning off the excess to be placed in weapons.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2006, 07:30 PM   #63
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Can anyone who understands this better than me answer me why everyone's condemning and not going "Prove it!"?

Is it more obvious that it was a nuclear blast than I thought?
This was the last that I'd heard on the subject of confirmation. They're still trying to tell for sure that it was a nuke, but the evidence seems to point to its being a "fizzle" - it went off, but something went wrong, so it wasn't as powerful as it was supposed to be.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2006, 08:05 PM   #64
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Well the UN has voted for sanctions.. and as china voted for them too then they should actually have an effect. We'll see exactly what that is though, and how long it takes.

Nuclear weapons are a weapon of last resort. NK havng nuclear weapons in no way represents a threat to the USA. UNLESS the USA decides to invade NK in some crazy attempt to prove something. And deciding to go up against an army twice your size, with nukes, is pretty crazy imho.

KJI wants nukes so that the US can't ever preeptively assault him like they did saddam. (NB: "that fool Saddam didn't update his military" because he wass busy complying with UN resolutions and destroying all his missiles.).
He also feels they will boost his standing and negotiating power within the asian region (mostly with south korea and japan).

Since the only chance of him using them (baring an acciednt that wipes out half of one of their cities) is attacking him.. it seems strange that your ideal response to him having them should be "attack!".



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2006, 08:15 PM   #65
The Source
Rest In Peace
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,304
Contest winner - Modding 
Truthfully, I would stop sending aide to N. Korea. I would cut them completely off, and let them fend for themselves. Lets see how far they get with their million men army under that type of stress.



R.I.P. to 'The Source' and 'MacCorp'
2004-2008
The Source is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-14-2006, 09:28 PM   #66
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Friend of mine had that idea, it's a good idea, then have the UN go in and deliver aid directly to the people.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-15-2006, 10:29 AM   #67
Mace MacLeod
Food-based rocker
 
Mace MacLeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Somewhere else. Probably.
Posts: 1,096
Current Game: World of Warcraft
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
IMHO, what Kim is trying to do is goad the US into attacking North Korea, thereby giving him a reason to actually use the few nukes that he possesses, and that's if he has the resources to even make more. North Korea is hitting a very crucial period--Kim knows at some instinctual level that even though North Koreans have become as close to fanatical androids as decades of brainwashing can make them, society will eventually break down if they can't eat. Even China and Russia are backing away slowly, and North Korea can't survive without their aid. The economy is in utter shambles, and only massive food aid shipments and diverting huge numbers of military troops to farming in the last ten years has saved North Korea from mass starvation.

This is a last-ditch attempt by that paranoid nutball Kim Jong-il to intimidate his neighbors into thinking they'd better cave in and grant North Korea international status above the current level of "Typhoid Mary". If the US or UN attacks North Korea, it's just playing right into Kim's hands. First of all, you've got a fanatically trained military that will be a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq's military, then you've got 25 million North Koreans who have never been told anything other then Kim Il-Sung or Kim Jong-il propaganda. Remember, one of the reasons the US decided to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that they estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 US casualties would result in trying to invade the Japanese home islands, because they knew the Japanese would resist to the last man, woman and child and were determined to take as many enemy lives with them as possible. That's exactly the way the North Koreans would respond to an invasion.

Just embargo the place. No trade, no aid. From anywhere. 2-3 years, starvation will have done a lot better job of eliminating North Korea as a threat than any invading army could.


Be considerate to others or I will bite your torso and give you a disease!
Mace MacLeod is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-15-2006, 04:38 PM   #68
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
I heard that an embargo was exactly what was unanimously agreed upon in the UN security council. Now, how long will such an embargo remain effective is anyone's guess. The only real upside is that NK has little to offer anyone to make it worth their while to cheat (unlike Iraq under Sadam). The Chinese need to tread carefully here b/c the prospect of a nuclear NK may be enough to send Japan, with it's 5kt of plutonium, into the nuclear camp. Especially given the natioanlist leanings of their new PM Shinzo Abe.

The whole question of diplomacy versus force is always a thorny one. In the case of dealing with dictators, diplomacy usually fails unless the dictator is faced with a united opposition that's ready to pound him into the dirt of he fails to come to terms. I've heard that between the two, Ahmaddinejad is more likely to use nukes first than KJI, who was described as more sociopathic, but w/ stronger self-preservation instinct. If you look at the Cuban missle crisis, it was arguably the Soviets who blinked in the face of US nuclear might. Kruschev's fate was sealed by his backing down. Hitler was clear of diplomatic failure and lack of military resolve on the part of stronger powers. Had the British, French and others confronted Germany earlier on (it wasn't exactly a secret he was violating the terms of Versailles, much like Sadam flouted his surrender for 11+ years after Desert Storm),there may never have been a second world war, or at least not in Europe.

The UN is mostly a joke and has only arguably been effective in either humanitarian efforts or trying to maintain a barrier between peoples too exhausted to continue their fight. Most UN "military" operations are utter failures. It is only when the US military guts sucked in(or even NATO) that those operations have any affect at all.

Israel's possession of nukes never seemed to be a concern to Iranians prior to the ayatollahs. It's unlikely that any nation that can develop a nuclear program in the first place can be prevented from weaponizing that resource in little time. You can't really depend on intelligence estimates for shedding any real light due to the lack of humint in the target countries. Then you have to deal with potentially destabilizing elements like AQ Khan, the father of the Isalmic bomb.

The idea that KJI would just let the UN come into his country and distribute aid is fanciful at best. It may be somewhat arguable as to how much his people revere him. If the prospects for surviving are basically nil for openly criticizing your leader, you tend to shut up or sing his praises to escape even suspicion.

As to how far the US would go in terms of putting boots on the ground, it's not very likely. The original presence of US troops in Korea was to serve as a tripwire for the escalation of the conflict into a potentially nuclear one, hence to serve as a sort of deterrent. Besides, Clinton severely reduced the military's ability to react to world crises, as Bush no doubt knows. Simply put, the reductions in force levels make it almost impossible for the US to have to fight a 1-1 1/2 front war, let alone the original post war 2-2 1/2 fronts. The same goes pretty much for Iran. About the only thing that could be done would be to preemptively strike Iran's military and provide support for an internal revolution, which would only succeed if we don't do what we did in Iraq
after the first Gulf War, which was to leave the opposition hanging in the wind.

Seems to me that if the governments that were seeking the bomb (eg Iran and NK) could be believed that it was only for self defense (if you really believe that, would you be interested in buying the Holland Tunnel or Brooklyn bridge...) one might have an argument. Given the realities of the world however, it's awfully naive to believe that these outfits wouldn't try to sell/give bombs to a third party bent on destruction.
It no longer becomes an issue of whether someone should be allowed to possess such a thing on general principle, but whether they could be trusted once they got their hands on it. That's where the worrisome policy of preemption come into play.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-15-2006, 07:22 PM   #69
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Kim Jong-Il has no incentive to start a war - unless you can provide me with one.

He wants nuclear weapons for self-defence, and so do, probably, the ayathollas. As for the monetary profit of selling nukes to parties that would use them, that's a different question.

Quote:
The idea that KJI would just let the UN come into his country and distribute aid is fanciful at best.
Yesh. He wants his horrific, starving villages to remain as secret as possible.

Quote:
It may be somewhat arguable as to how much his people revere him. If the prospects for surviving are basically nil for openly criticizing your leader, you tend to shut up or sing his praises to escape even suspicion.
There are people outside of North Korea who think the poverty is the US and UK's fault. Imagine, then, the people inside North Korea who've been subject to propaganda all their life and never given a second of dissenting opinion.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-15-2006, 09:32 PM   #70
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Yeah, most likely any NK would blame outsiders if they said anything publically. Still, no way to know for certain what they really believe. But it's really not relevant to addressing the question anyway. If it comes to combat, it's really only the "million man army" of KJI that you need worry about. KJI has bought their allegiance.

Don't know if that comment about KJI was aimed at me, so to speak, but I didn't say he actually did. He's more likely to continue rattling his saber to try to extort any concessions he can get from the west. He's much more likely to sell a nuke tipped scud to one of our (America's) nemeses than to actually launch one vs us instead. I don't buy, however, that Iran or NK are trying to develop nuke weapons for strictly defensive means. Unless the Iranians are using Ahmadinejad as a form of bad cop, one has to figure that they mean what they say about this 12th Imam biz. Like the Nazis before them, these guys look to start with the jews, not necessarily end with them.

I'll also reemphasize my earlier point. Preemption is not in and of itself immoral or even wrong. It is a tool, the intent behind it being the only question mark. It is not necessary to wait for someone to inflict great harm upon you before you act to prevent such a thing. Specifically, if the US had found the 19 highjackers prior to their getting their planes, and killed them.......that would have been a legitimate use of self defense. It may seem somehow more humanitarian to just lock them up, but wars are messy business and no time for squeamish people to be in positions of power.
Coddeling the opposition under those circumstances only encourages them to keep on trying to hit you, knowing your too weak to truly protect yourself.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-15-2006, 09:35 PM   #71
Mace MacLeod
Food-based rocker
 
Mace MacLeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Somewhere else. Probably.
Posts: 1,096
Current Game: World of Warcraft
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Ironic how North Korea's biggest ideological cornerstone is Juche or self-reliance as it translates. The civil horrors there are no one's fault but their inept cult-of-personality leaders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Yesh. He wants his horrific, starving villages to remain as secret as possible.
Wouldn't you? North Korea is one of the most paranoid and secretive regions on Earth. Area 51 is positively a tourist trap compared with Pyongyang.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Kim Jong-Il has no incentive to start a war - unless you can provide me with one.
Apart from desperation, no he doesn't. This is brinksmanship, and a direct challenge to the US's shiney new "shoot first and look for weapons of mass destruction later" foreign policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkoph
Israel's possession of nukes never seemed to be a concern to Iranians prior to the ayatollahs. It's unlikely that any nation that can develop a nuclear program in the first place can be prevented from weaponizing that resource in little time. You can't really depend on intelligence estimates for shedding any real light due to the lack of humint in the target countries. Then you have to deal with potentially destabilizing elements like AQ Khan, the father of the Isalmic bomb.
Interesting to note, just a little while after the toppling of Saddam's regime, Syria was accused by the US of helping foster terrorism and unrest in Iraq. Lots of saber-rattling went on for a while, then Syria actually called for the Middle East to be a WMD-free zone. No nukes, no chemical weapons, no WMDs for anyone. Suddenly, all the noise stopped. Funny, that.

Allow me to say finally, that I really do think that North Korea is now drawing a line in the sand with regards to Bushie's First Strike policy. They're saying; "Yeah, we pose a threat. We could come get you. What are you gonna do about it? Huh?" and they're trying to lead the US into a trap. The US attacks first, they lose the "Moral High Ground" and they risk China jumping in on North Korea's side. Plus, they have to fight the North Korean military, who aren't likely to start running backwards and blowing kisses like the Iraqi Republican Guard.

Oh, and one last thing: to the people who think the UN and US are being "cowardly" by not rushing in to blast North Korea away NOWRIGHTNOW: this "cowardice" consisting of not just assuming because someone might attack you means they must be attacked "before they get us" is the only thing that kept the US, USSR, China, Britain and France from wiping out the entire human race forty years ago.

And windu6, pick a goddamn text colour and stick with it.


Be considerate to others or I will bite your torso and give you a disease!
Mace MacLeod is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-16-2006, 06:03 AM   #72
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod

And windu6, pick a goddamn text colour and stick with it.
I am going to used whatever damn colors I want so deal with it.
If you don't like my use color tags then go color blind.
I like using colors tags and thats the end of this discussion on that, Mace MacLeod.

Well with the sanctions passed we will all see if North Korea is bluffing on their threats of a second Korean War.

Last edited by windu6; 10-21-2006 at 06:26 AM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-16-2006, 11:49 AM   #73
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Yesh. He wants his horrific, starving villages to remain as secret as possible.
Unfortunately, I think when the world truly finds out what's happening there, we're going to all be very ill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod
North Korea is one of the most paranoid and secretive regions on Earth. Area 51 is positively a tourist trap compared with Pyongyang.
However, very true, too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod
Apart from desperation, no he doesn't. This is brinksmanship, and a direct challenge to the US's shiney new "shoot first and look for weapons of mass destruction later" foreign policy.
I wonder how much of it is also a cultural 'save face' kind of thing. I agree he's playing chicken, though it's pretty stupid to do that when he has the equivalent of a tricycle up against the world's souped up drag-racer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod
Allow me to say finally, that I really do think that North Korea is now drawing a line in the sand with regards to Bushie's First Strike policy. They're saying; "Yeah, we pose a threat. We could come get you. What are you gonna do about it? Huh?" and they're trying to lead the US into a trap.
Since their missiles do not have the range to hit the US, it's less of an imperative for us, though I agree they're drawing a line in the sand. And then moving it around and making fun of everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod
The US attacks first, they lose the "Moral High Ground" and they risk China jumping in on North Korea's side.
I don't think we'd make a move in that region without both China's and Russias approval, since they both _do_ have missiles that can reach us....And I think we'd let China take the lead, since they share the border with NK and would have to deal with a far greater refugee problem than they already currently have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod
Plus, they have to fight the North Korean military, who aren't likely to start running backwards and blowing kisses like the Iraqi Republican Guard.
NK can't even light up their country at night. The soldiers are underfed (every picture I've seen of their military shows rather gaunt soldiers), and likely poorly equipped. They do not have equipment as modern as the US, nor do they have enough of it, nor do they have the infrastructure to crank out equipment and move around materiel in a timely manner. I think we'd see a fair number of surrenders, and a couple smart generals who would see the writing on the wall and decide that cooperating with outside governments to overthrow Kim could put them in power in NK.


And windu6, pick a goddamn text colour and stick with it.[/QUOTE]

I don't care if windu 6 changes things around, I just want him to pick the light colors that are easy to read against the dark background, because it's a b*tch to see black, red, dark green, dark grey, and purple against this dark grey. My multipley-29 year old eyes can't take it when the dark words disappear into the background.
Sometimes I just hit the 'reply to' button so I can read it as black text on white, which negates the purpose of color in the first place.
windu6--the best contrast is white on black. If you gotta do colors, at least pick the ones that are lighter and brighter, like yellow, orange, and pale green. Your point doesn't work well if some of us who are Auld Pharts can't read them because the low contrast makes it too hard.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-16-2006, 12:43 PM   #74
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
The UN is mostly a joke and has only arguably been effective in either humanitarian efforts or trying to maintain a barrier between peoples too exhausted to continue their fight. Most UN "military" operations are utter failures. It is only when the US military guts sucked in(or even NATO) that those operations have any affect at all.
To be fair, peacekeeping operations are insanely difficult. And of the 100 or so the UN has run a large number have been successful. But of course some aren't going to work out well.. and those tend to be the ones we hear about.

The problem with a lot of them is that the international support isn't there in terms of resources. (and contrary to what people in the US seem to think, the US is often way below it's share of troop contributions to UN peacekeeping. ) Most of the UN believe that having a standing Rapid Reaction Force would be the way to stop a lot of these problems before they start. Doesn't the US keep blocking that?

-

The problem with sanctions of course is that the last person they hurt is KJI. He'll be eating steak while all his people starve.
Still, i guess he won't care much as he seems to have achieved his main aim of facing down the US.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-17-2006, 02:02 AM   #75
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
This Telegraph article mentions a quite ingenious (in my view) way to deter Kim Jong-Il and his cronies. It hits the nail on the head so badly that it's amusing:
Quote:
The resolution also blocks [...] the export of luxury goods to the North.


Not going to affect the civilian population the least, while at the same time hurting the elite. Ingenious and hilarious.

How effective it's going to be, though, I have no idea. Probably not much.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-17-2006, 10:10 AM   #76
Mace MacLeod
Food-based rocker
 
Mace MacLeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Somewhere else. Probably.
Posts: 1,096
Current Game: World of Warcraft
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quoted from a letter to today's copy of the Irish Independant newspaper:

"America did nothing when Russia developed nuclear weapons. How could it? You can't bully a bully who has muscles as big and awesome as your own. And what about China? It has been a nuclear power for decades and its brutal, bloodthirsty, undemocratic regime and human rights records are not much better than those of North Korea.

But you won't hear talk from the corridors of power in the West of sanctions against the People's Republic. Why? Because China is strong enough militarily to tell the West to stuff its saber-rattling rhetoric. And it is considered a vital trading partner.

The mad, bad dictator Kim Jong-il is only doing what his American detractors, Chinese allies and former Russian allies have been getting away with for decades.

Kim Jong-il is just the bold boy who has learned some woefully bad habits from his elders if not betters."

John F.
Callan, Co. Kilkenny


Be considerate to others or I will bite your torso and give you a disease!
Mace MacLeod is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-17-2006, 11:26 AM   #77
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Were nukes a sanctionable offense at the time all 3 powers developed them, however? I honestly don't know if it was or not.
Besides, sanctions against Russia and China would be about as effective as using a thimble to bail out a basement flood--they have too many resources for it to do any good.

edit: the irony of the export of luxury good things is hilarious.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-17-2006, 11:59 AM   #78
Mace MacLeod
Food-based rocker
 
Mace MacLeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Somewhere else. Probably.
Posts: 1,096
Current Game: World of Warcraft
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
The ban on luxury goods is just something to piss off Kim directly. He's famous for living like a king; he's apparently the largest single consumer of Hennessy Cognac in the world.


Be considerate to others or I will bite your torso and give you a disease!
Mace MacLeod is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-17-2006, 03:28 PM   #79
sockerbit89
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod
Quoted from a letter to today's copy of the Irish Independant newspaper:

"America did nothing when Russia developed nuclear weapons. How could it? You can't bully a bully who has muscles as big and awesome as your own. And what about China? It has been a nuclear power for decades and its brutal, bloodthirsty, undemocratic regime and human rights records are not much better than those of North Korea.
That's a bunch of total bull****. They can by no means compare the political situation in China with the ones in NK. In that case I could just as well compare the US politics and respect to human rights as equal to Russia's.

You know you'd think that super powers such as the US would have learned something from Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and the Gulf war etc. But no nothing. People are still ranting about forcing countries into democrazy in exactly the same way.

FREEEEDOOOM!!!! *booom bang bang booom*.... a ****... didn't work out this time either.

Give aid and knowledge to the NK people and maybe they wouldn't hate you guts so hard. What would millitary sanctions provide?

Kim's death? Yeah maybe but what would the people of NK feel about the US invading their country and slayng their semi-god? This is not a good way to bring democrazy to a country. This is how you create new terrorists.
sockerbit89 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-17-2006, 04:19 PM   #80
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
^^^
I disagree. The political situations of NK and China are very similar. Same utter disregard for human rights. Same cult-of-personality surrounding heads of state. The main differences are that NK is even more hard-line, and that China figured out how to make themselves more valuable to the outside world by flooding it with a bunch of cheap products of reasonable quality produced by near-slave labor and using the proceeds to feed their military build-up.
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > North Korea says nuclear test successful.

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:20 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.