North Korea admits it has secret nuclear weapons programme
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Dem's only believe in one admendment - the 14th Repub's only believe in one amendment, the 2nd - all other amendments are for communists. and they all dress like it's still 1982. and every single one of them has an IQ below 80. and they eat their young. -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
Chris Losinger wrote: Repub's only believe in one amendment, the 2nd - all other amendments are for communists. and they all dress like it's still 1982. and every single one of them has an IQ below 80. and they eat their young. Yeah, so what? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Worse things could happen. I doubt it, considering last time you guys had a squabble with NK, China was backing it up. China *is* a nuclear power.
I doubt it, considering last time you guys had a squabble with NK, China was backing it up. China *is* a nuclear power. (grin) You realize that the US wasn't the only one fighting for South Korea, don't you, Londo? Australia (among others) also had troops fighting for South Korea. ( Link ) ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
(from the Google News site). Hmmm. Was Bush right about the "axis of evil" (god, where did he come up with that phrase anyways)? Are we Americans gulligble fools to believe the treaty that Clinton administration signed in 1994? Are we going to war with NK next? What does it all mean??? Marc
It may be right , or it may be wrong , different sources give it differing interpretations. However it is only a matter of time before all countries of the world either have nuclear weapons or have the knowledge needed in order to do so. What then ? Do you stamp on each and every one ? Do we face a future of a continual stream of potential threats of mass destruction ? It would appear to be reality in the short term . In the longer term only a world consensus or government will work , we are a long way off that . Am I the only one forever playing catch up with technology , while all the juicy opportunites keep rolling by ?
-
Paul Riley wrote: All-in-all he's being backed into a corner. The question is, will he fight his way out, talk his way out or simply lie down and play dead (another cold war)? Bets? Here's another thought to consider: Russia, in violation of UN agreements, sells weaponry to Iraq and votes against any action in Iraq owing to billions in outstanding collectibles which will be sunk cost if weaponry discovered. France, ditto. The 1st result, no new resolution and no inspections. The 2nd result, America and small group of countries go it alone. The 3rd result, America resigns from UN membership and demands rent for prime NYC real estate. The 4th result, Kofi Annan says, "whats up with that" as UN moves to Geneva to pick the reins from League of Nations.
Mike Gaskey wrote: Russia, in violation of UN agreements, sells weaponry to Iraq and votes against any action in Iraq owing to billions in outstanding collectibles which will be sunk cost if weaponry discovered. France, ditto. Your sources, please ? Some of those that work forces Are the same that burn crosses ! Killing In The Name/Rage Against The Machine
-
It may be right , or it may be wrong , different sources give it differing interpretations. However it is only a matter of time before all countries of the world either have nuclear weapons or have the knowledge needed in order to do so. What then ? Do you stamp on each and every one ? Do we face a future of a continual stream of potential threats of mass destruction ? It would appear to be reality in the short term . In the longer term only a world consensus or government will work , we are a long way off that . Am I the only one forever playing catch up with technology , while all the juicy opportunites keep rolling by ?
Do we face a future of a continual stream of potential threats of mass destruction ? Exactly. It would appear to be reality in the short term . In the longer term only a world consensus or government will work , we are a long way off that . World consensus cannot and will not work when the actors don't want them to. Even a third-world country like Iraq has defied the UN (which represents the world's consensus) to pursue its own selfish aims. And it looks like the UN is going to just roll over in the face of Iraqi pressure. World politics is essentially like a bunch of people living in a village with no recognised authority (i.e. no police). You want everyone to behave themselves, but if one person gets out of line, all you can do is say, "Please don't do that. Please???" That's exactly whats happening with the UN and Iraq. Further, take actors like OBL who's goal is an Islamic worldwide government. If that's not okay with everyone else, that's just too bad, because his vision isn't going to be disuaded by the opinions of other people. You simply cannot ever keep the world's countries in line without the plausible threat of force unless you remove everyone's brain. Saying that you could do this without the threat of force is like saying you could have a city where everyone obeys the law even though there are no police. To make matters worse, the spread of nuclear weapons means a reduction in the plausible use of force. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
I doubt it, considering last time you guys had a squabble with NK, China was backing it up. China *is* a nuclear power. (grin) You realize that the US wasn't the only one fighting for South Korea, don't you, Londo? Australia (among others) also had troops fighting for South Korea. ( Link ) ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Christian Graus wrote: This does not prove they are going to aim the first one they get to fly at Hollywood and let 'er rip. Yeah, I seriously doubt they would be willing to do us that *big* of a favor.:laugh: "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Just a reminiscence "Calling J-Man Kink. Calling J-Man Kink. Hash missile sighted, target Los Angeles. Disregard personal feelings about city and intercept." Some of those that work forces Are the same that burn crosses ! Killing In The Name/Rage Against The Machine
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Russia, in violation of UN agreements, sells weaponry to Iraq and votes against any action in Iraq owing to billions in outstanding collectibles which will be sunk cost if weaponry discovered. France, ditto. Your sources, please ? Some of those that work forces Are the same that burn crosses ! Killing In The Name/Rage Against The Machine
KaЯl wrote: Your sources, please ? 1. A reported fact, regarding 7 billion due from Iraq. 2. Logic Logic: Given that the previous UN resolutions (all 16) have been ignored by Iraq and both Russia and France have thus far refused to support a new resolution that would actually allow inspections to work this is the only interpretation I vcould make. I would also include Germany, because of their stance and reported trade with Iraq, and, Ukraine, which just publically doing something similar. But these don't have Security Council votes, so I didn't bother. Mike
-
KaЯl wrote: Your sources, please ? 1. A reported fact, regarding 7 billion due from Iraq. 2. Logic Logic: Given that the previous UN resolutions (all 16) have been ignored by Iraq and both Russia and France have thus far refused to support a new resolution that would actually allow inspections to work this is the only interpretation I vcould make. I would also include Germany, because of their stance and reported trade with Iraq, and, Ukraine, which just publically doing something similar. But these don't have Security Council votes, so I didn't bother. Mike
-
I doubt it, considering last time you guys had a squabble with NK, China was backing it up. China *is* a nuclear power. (grin) You realize that the US wasn't the only one fighting for South Korea, don't you, Londo? Australia (among others) also had troops fighting for South Korea. ( Link ) ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Do we face a future of a continual stream of potential threats of mass destruction ? Exactly. It would appear to be reality in the short term . In the longer term only a world consensus or government will work , we are a long way off that . World consensus cannot and will not work when the actors don't want them to. Even a third-world country like Iraq has defied the UN (which represents the world's consensus) to pursue its own selfish aims. And it looks like the UN is going to just roll over in the face of Iraqi pressure. World politics is essentially like a bunch of people living in a village with no recognised authority (i.e. no police). You want everyone to behave themselves, but if one person gets out of line, all you can do is say, "Please don't do that. Please???" That's exactly whats happening with the UN and Iraq. Further, take actors like OBL who's goal is an Islamic worldwide government. If that's not okay with everyone else, that's just too bad, because his vision isn't going to be disuaded by the opinions of other people. You simply cannot ever keep the world's countries in line without the plausible threat of force unless you remove everyone's brain. Saying that you could do this without the threat of force is like saying you could have a city where everyone obeys the law even though there are no police. To make matters worse, the spread of nuclear weapons means a reduction in the plausible use of force. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
I never said force would not be needed . What happens when a country poses a threat but it is a close ally of an existing nuclear country , say China,Ukraine or France , what then ? Using the big stick is not always an option . I am not looking at the current problem with Iraq , I am looking at the general trend . The general trend is for a unified trading world , with consensus over international action. This is why there has not been a major war for 50 years , the last one was probably Korea , although there are reports of a Russia/China Border war which was of similar size and unreported in the West. I agree with the current action against Iraq , simply because it will lead to long term stability in the oil supply , the nonsense about breaking UN resolutions or poseesing weapons of mass destruction is simply a cover for that, otherwise why not attack Isreal who has defied the UN for many years and is known to posses nuclear weapons ? I am not advocatiing that Isreal should be attacked , simply that the current claims for the reason for the attack are tenuous , the reason being that most people do not appreciate how reliant we are on oil imports. But give the masses an ogre to hate and they will support you . The man is a nutter and a destabalising force in the region , that is why he must go . The Isrealis knew this many years ago when they bombed his nuclear power station before it could be switched on . So now force is the best option , but what of 50 or a hundred years time when somalia have people who know how to make a bomb , what then ? Am I the only one forever playing catch up with technology , while all the juicy opportunites keep rolling by ?
-
I never said force would not be needed . What happens when a country poses a threat but it is a close ally of an existing nuclear country , say China,Ukraine or France , what then ? Using the big stick is not always an option . I am not looking at the current problem with Iraq , I am looking at the general trend . The general trend is for a unified trading world , with consensus over international action. This is why there has not been a major war for 50 years , the last one was probably Korea , although there are reports of a Russia/China Border war which was of similar size and unreported in the West. I agree with the current action against Iraq , simply because it will lead to long term stability in the oil supply , the nonsense about breaking UN resolutions or poseesing weapons of mass destruction is simply a cover for that, otherwise why not attack Isreal who has defied the UN for many years and is known to posses nuclear weapons ? I am not advocatiing that Isreal should be attacked , simply that the current claims for the reason for the attack are tenuous , the reason being that most people do not appreciate how reliant we are on oil imports. But give the masses an ogre to hate and they will support you . The man is a nutter and a destabalising force in the region , that is why he must go . The Isrealis knew this many years ago when they bombed his nuclear power station before it could be switched on . So now force is the best option , but what of 50 or a hundred years time when somalia have people who know how to make a bomb , what then ? Am I the only one forever playing catch up with technology , while all the juicy opportunites keep rolling by ?
why not attack Isreal who has defied the UN for many years and is known to posses nuclear weapons ? Actually, the PLO (speaking as the authority on the Palestinian position) has been evasive on whether or not it would support UN resolution 242 as well. Hence, it's a situation where Israel can't really rely on the Palestinians upholding their side of 242 even if Israel does. (It's also important to remember that the PLO wrote into its charter that it will never support the existence of an Israeli state - hence the PLO charter is in direct conflict with resolution 242.) Resolution 242 -------------- Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: - Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; - Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; There are, of course, many differences between Israel and Iraq. Even if we ignore the differences in leadership and history, I could argue that the US is taking a hardline on Iraq (but not Israel) because it would feel threatened by Iraqi nuclear weapons in a way that it is not threatened by Israeli nuclear weapons. Further, at least Israel's nuclear weapons have a plausible deterent effect (since most of its neighbors would rather wipe the nation off the face of the earth than maintain diplomatic ties). Iraq wants nuclear weapons for other reasons. (It's not using them as a deterent to keep Kuwait from invading them, right?) So now force is the best option , but what of 50 or a hundred years time when somalia have people who know how to make a bomb , what then ? International anarchy and containment. At the same time, given the forces at work, it seems like attacking Iraq is merely postponing an inevitable change in international politics. Given the situation in North Korea as an example of this trend, it seems futile - as futile as trying to hold back the ocean tides. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion