PDA

View Full Version : Iraq first, N. Korea next - threatens to destroy Earth!


peter2002
Dec 23, 2002, 10:35 PM
Merry freakin' Christmas! Next year, Armageddon is coming. Iraq will be destroyed, as well as half the middle east including "the Holy land".

North Korea will be next. They have reactivated their nuke program and will have nukes in 3 months. Today in their state run newspaper, the N. Korean government threatens to "destroy the Earth". Gosh, not even Sadam nor Osama didn't say something as stupid as this.

I hope you don't live in Hawaii or the west coast because you will be toast by next Christmas. N. Korea has missles that can reach as far as the west coast.

Merry X-Mas,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,865094,00.html

Pete

alex_ant
Dec 23, 2002, 10:59 PM
This will be a good thread. Merry Xmas!

Max72118
Dec 23, 2002, 11:25 PM
Which country will precipitate Armageddon?

Current odds:

United States 4:1
North Korea 6:1
Iraq 8:1
Russia 12:1
China 15:1
Great Britain 45:1
France 1500:1
Malta 1500000000:1

Please feel free to add your best guess.

You do not have to be present to win.

Oh, who am I kidding, we're all going to be present.

topicolo
Dec 24, 2002, 12:27 AM
what about Klingons? I'd give a 10:1 chance :)

job
Dec 24, 2002, 01:27 AM
What about the Borg? ;) :p

Steradian
Dec 24, 2002, 02:06 AM
"What about the Borg?"-Hitman
You mean mircosoft????

bill gates 1:15.7893

Backtothemac
Dec 24, 2002, 08:21 AM
Um, no. North Korea doesn't have weapons that can reach the west coast. They do, however have weapons that can reach Hawaii.

Here is another link.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/24/nkorea.us.nukes/index.html

Personally, I think it is time to just whip that ass over there. Bring them back to reality. Not the people, just the government. Then go in and keep those people over there from starving.

Megaquad
Dec 24, 2002, 08:35 AM
They will destroy earth. rotfl :D
I expected more dramatic, and faster end of the world... nuclear war is boring :D

Backtothemac
Dec 24, 2002, 08:41 AM
well,
All out nuclear exchange between the US and Russia, yea, that would do it for the world. Having to use a few tactical nukes on N. Korea. Na, just destory one country.

mcrain
Dec 24, 2002, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
well, All out nuclear exchange between the US and Russia, yea, that would do it for the world. Having to use a few tactical nukes on N. Korea. Na, just destory one country.

Destroy one country, not to mention all of our collective souls. I'm not a religious person at all, but if we go and nuke anyone, we'll all be damned to hell. There is just no reason I can think of that any rational person would believe that it was ok to nuke anyone else.

I'm sure there are circumstances where it is tactically or strategically necessary, but I certainly hope we never get to that point.

BTTM, I think the world of you and our disagreements, but talking so flippantly about using nukes is a little scary. :eek:

On a brighter note, this is my first Christmas/Holiday Season without my spouse. Bah Humbug.

agreenster
Dec 24, 2002, 09:12 AM
This is truly getting rediculous.

People dont want war, governments do. Human lives are like pawns to them.

Megaquad
Dec 24, 2002, 10:05 AM
I just hope you americans wont elect Bush another time.. If you do, ENTIRE PLANET will be destroyed!! That man is crazy, he just wants to bomb someone.
He has much bigger impact on world then US (except he screwed up your economy).

I liked Clinton a lot, he was always searching for peaceful solutions. He was a good man!

Backtothemac
Dec 24, 2002, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Megaquad
I just hope you americans wont elect Bush another time.. If you do, ENTIRE PLANET will be destroyed!! That man is crazy, he just wants to bomb someone.
He has much bigger impact on world then US (except he screwed up your economy).

I liked Clinton a lot, he was always searching for peaceful solutions. He was a good man!

Mcrain, a lot of that was tounge in cheek. I do not think lightly of it, but if they do it to us first, then wax them. Sorry, but I do feel that way.

As for Mega. Seriously, I love how you continue to pass judgement on our President from so far away. How you know the man so well, especially through the media of Eastern Europe. Bush wants to protect the welfare of the people of the US, and our allies. Like it or not, that is the first priority of government. To protect. As for Clinton. Searching for a peaceful solution? No, a lot of people view the way in which he conducted the military opperations of the country during his tenure to be cowardace. A good man, don't even get me started!

mcrain
Dec 24, 2002, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Mcrain, a lot of that was tounge in cheek. I do not think lightly of it, but if they do it to us first, then wax them. Sorry, but I do feel that way.

I know a lot of what you said was tongue in cheek, but you have to admit that the part that wasn't tongue in cheek was a bit scary.

As for Mega. Seriously, I love how you continue to pass judgement on our President from so far away. How you know the man so well, especially through the media of Eastern Europe.

Actually, most of us here don't know him, or what he is doing, very well. This has to be the most secretive administration ever. They refuse to answer questions, divulge information, and Bush Jr's advisors keep him on a really tight leash when it comes to newsconferences and interviews (he isn't the most gifted public speaker, and has a tendency to make gaffes that affect the economy, politics, national security).

Bush wants to protect the welfare of the people of the US, and our allies. Like it or not, that is the first priority of government. To protect. As for Clinton. Searching for a peaceful solution? No, a lot of people view the way in which he conducted the military opperations of the country during his tenure to be cowardace. A good man, don't even get me started!

What I think we need to do is start an investigation of President Reagan to see whether he boffed any of his interns. I wonder what we would see in the videotaped deposition of Reagan right now. Heck, he wasn't all there during his presidency, yet, conservatives love to say how wonderful he was. Clinton was mentally there, he cared, he tried, and the country was in pretty good shape. He wasn't a bad president. Yeah, he got a hummer, so what. The only thing I'm surprised about is that he wasn't having the Secret Service make the arrangements with some 'professionals.'

cubist
Dec 24, 2002, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Max72118
You do not have to be present to win.

Oh, who am I kidding, we're all going to be present.

Yes, but will we win?;)

elfin buddy
Dec 24, 2002, 11:29 AM
Regardless of what any North Korean official will tell you, North Korea doesn't present a major threat to Earth as they now stand. Right now, they are estimated to have about 3 or 4 nukes. The plutonium they aquire from their reactor will only be enough to allow them to build [at most] 3 more. If we look back to the United States at the beginning of it's nuclear age, it's atomic weapons weren't very powerful. I think they were somewhere in the range of 50 kilo-Tons. Since North Korea is at the beginning of it's nuclear age, it is reasonable to assume that North Korea's nukes are similar to the USA's early nukes.

Hundreds of thousands of lives may be in jeopardy, but that certainly doesn't present a threat to the entire world.

If I were an American, I would be more worried about a dirty bomb going off in my neighbourhood than I would be about getting hit by a nuclear missile from North Korea. I just don't think North Korea has the technology or financial resources to build such advanced weapons. Dirty bombs are easier to make, easier to smuggle, and cheaper than full-blown nuclear missiles. They also have much worse long-term effects.

Personally, I think Korea is bluffing about being able to "destroy the earth" and "mete out determined and merciless punishment to the U.S.". They just want more treaties, and want to be taken seriously.

However, if they were going to attack the U.S., they would most likely do it while the U.S. is distracted by a war in Iraq. It is the most logical and most devastating time to attack in the foreseeable future.

Also, don't expect the United States to launch a nuclear attack first. The international backlash would be far too great, especially if the Bush Administration keeps all the details about it secret.

Merry Christmas :rolleyes:

agreenster
Dec 24, 2002, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Megaquad
I just hope you americans wont elect Bush another time.. If you do, ENTIRE PLANET will be destroyed!! That man is crazy, he just wants to bomb someone.
He has much bigger impact on world then US (except he screwed up your economy).

I liked Clinton a lot, he was always searching for peaceful solutions. He was a good man!

I think it has more to do with Bush Sr. didnt finish the job, and W thinks he needs to wipe out his fathers enemies. Its simply a global family feud.

What a waste

Mr. Anderson
Dec 24, 2002, 11:32 AM
I'm thinking before we actually get to Amageddon - the Atlanteans will rize up out of the Atlantic and guide us all to peace on earth.....

What is up with these posts peter2002? :rolleyes:

Have to start calling you chiken little....

D

hotFusion
Dec 25, 2002, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by elfin buddy
Regardless of what any North Korean official will tell you, North Korea doesn't present a major threat to Earth as they now stand. Right now, they are estimated to have about 3 or 4 nukes. The plutonium they aquire from their reactor will only be enough to allow them to build [at most] 3 more. If we look back to the United States at the beginning of it's nuclear age, it's atomic weapons weren't very powerful. I think they were somewhere in the range of 50 kilo-Tons. Since North Korea is at the beginning of it's nuclear age, it is reasonable to assume that North Korea's nukes are similar to the USA's early nukes.

Hundreds of thousands of lives may be in jeopardy, but that certainly doesn't present a threat to the entire world.

If I were an American, I would be more worried about a dirty bomb going off in my neighbourhood than I would be about getting hit by a nuclear missile from North Korea. I just don't think North Korea has the technology or financial resources to build such advanced weapons. Dirty bombs are easier to make, easier to smuggle, and cheaper than full-blown nuclear missiles. They also have much worse long-term effects.

Personally, I think Korea is bluffing about being able to "destroy the earth" and "mete out determined and merciless punishment to the U.S.". They just want more treaties, and want to be taken seriously.

However, if they were going to attack the U.S., they would most likely do it while the U.S. is distracted by a war in Iraq. It is the most logical and most devastating time to attack in the foreseeable future.

Also, don't expect the United States to launch a nuclear attack first. The international backlash would be far too great, especially if the Bush Administration keeps all the details about it secret.

Merry Christmas :rolleyes:

I do not foresee North Korea Doing anything as stupid as using a Nuclear Weapon (via Missile or Terrorist) against the United States or U.S. Interests. If it were proven that they had done so, do you think any one (China, Russia OR the UN) would threaten war with the United States to stop a retaliatory response (One that could very well include low yield Nuclear Weapons)? They would not and North Korea knows this. Their Nuclear Weapons program has been made public for one reason and one reason only, to get press coverage of their small, collapsing government in hopes of somehow shoring it up.

wdlove
Dec 25, 2002, 03:26 PM
I agree with hotFusion, N. Korea is an economy in collapse. For the time being this is a very serious poker game for diplomats! Using fiery words to the US "will fight to the end." They end may be near, due to the state of theur economy!

Flickta
Dec 25, 2002, 03:33 PM
Korea? No... No means of delivery for nukes. No money.

They have more vital interests than to destroy the glorious USA, the pillar of world Democracy, the symbol of Freedom... Ghm...

Kim Chen Ir wants to stay the leader of the country, so he is shouting that kind of stuff -- to make it clear that others have to deal with him. At the same time, he desperately tries to make his country a participant in some economic projects.

Ridiculos threats. But I think that US government will take them seriously ...

elfin buddy
Dec 25, 2002, 03:47 PM
hotFusion:

Exactly! Although it is a possibility that they may intend to use nuclear weapons against the U.S., doing so would be an amazingly stupid mistake. If the communists want to stay in power in N. Korea, nuking the United States should be the last thing on their list of things to do.

gottfrid
Dec 25, 2002, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Max72118
Which country will precipitate Armageddon?

Current odds:

United States 4:1
North Korea 6:1
Iraq 8:1
.

Well Sweden wonīt. We have had peace for nearly 200 (two hundred) years. Much better than war, you know.

;)

And itīs not very "mac-ish" to think war. Think diffrent America, think diffrent

wdlove
Dec 25, 2002, 08:34 PM
The North Korean nuclear threat is increasing. They have a TD-2 missile program. Iran & libya also have similiar program. DOD is working on a missile defense system in Alaska to prevent their attacking the US, due to be completed by late 2004 or early 2005! North Korea is using it politcal pressure as a ploy

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021101-11616336.htm

Sec. Rumsfeld thinks the US could defends itself against both Iraq & North Korea!

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/25/international/asia/25KORE.html?todaysheadlines

skunk
Dec 31, 2002, 06:29 AM
Plenty of Americans in S Korea and Japan.

Chisholm
Jan 1, 2003, 02:38 PM
I think North Korea is just bluffing. However, they don't have to hit the US land with a nuke to destroy us. They could just send a few to Japan, destroying them, and in turn turning the world's market into a complete cluster *******. Destroying the American economy has been proven by 9-11 events to be FAR to easy. Or gosh, they could blow up Taiwan and destroy the electronics industry for a while. Man, could you imagine Dell going bankrupt within 6 months? Could provide quite a blow to MicroFlacid's cash reserves.

Anyway, bottom line is, its not so much the size of your nuke, its how you use it.;)

Ya' know what I mean?

cheers all, happy new year!

skunk
Jan 2, 2003, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by Chisholm
I think North Korea is just bluffing. However, they don't have to hit the US land with a nuke to destroy us. They could just send a few to Japan, destroying them, and in turn turning the world's market into a complete cluster *******. Destroying the American economy has been proven by 9-11 events to be FAR to easy. Or gosh, they could blow up Taiwan and destroy the electronics industry for a while. Man, could you imagine Dell going bankrupt within 6 months? Could provide quite a blow to MicroFlacid's cash reserves.
I can't believe this question has been reduced to the effect on the computer market....:confused:

Chisholm
Jan 3, 2003, 07:57 AM
The point is not the computer market. It is that the US economic system is fragile. It would be very easy for the US to be attacked financialy without even a single explosion of a bomb of any type on its own soil.:eek:

skunk
Jan 3, 2003, 08:44 AM
Might not even need anyone else to do it.....just leave it to the corporations! :rolleyes:

Chisholm
Jan 3, 2003, 01:26 PM
True, so true...:p

wink
Jan 3, 2003, 05:10 PM
There are some interesting websites that give an alternative view to the mainstream media, that I've come across. Some are conservative leaning and some are pro-Israel, but the articles and commentary are very interesting to read.


http://www.frontpagemag.com
http://www.debka.com
http://www.mediaresearch.org
http://www.worldnetdaily.com
http://www.intellectualconservatism.com
http://www.honestreporting.com
http://www.jewishworldreview.com

macfan
Jan 6, 2003, 02:23 AM
Megaquad said:
I just hope you americans wont elect Bush another time.. If you do, ENTIRE PLANET will be destroyed!! That man is crazy, he just wants to bomb someone.
He has much bigger impact on world then US (except he screwed up your economy).

I liked Clinton a lot, he was always searching for peaceful solutions. He was a good man!

Clinton said, after extensive bombing in Iraq:

Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish....

Am I missing something here, or is megaquad merely parroting the "Bush-is-bad-I-liked-Clinton" line du jour without any real knowledge about Clinton or Bush and their respective Iraq policies? Really, 1998 was a long time ago, but most of us are old enough to remember it!

skunk
Jan 6, 2003, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by macfan
Am I missing something here, or is megaquad merely parroting the "Bush-is-bad-I-liked-Clinton" line du jour without any real knowledge about Clinton or Bush and their respective Iraq policies? Really, 1998 was a long time ago, but most of us are old enough to remember it!
No, Clinton's foreign policy was as unethical as Bush's.

macfan
Jan 6, 2003, 01:05 PM
They are joined by British forces. --Bill Clinton

Thanks for the help. :)

It may be that Clinton's 1998 bombing in Iraq served to slow Saddam's weapons development, and, if that is the case, then his actions may well be justified, much as Israel made the right choice in bombing Saddam's nuclear weapons facility in the early 1980s. (Condemned by the Reagan admninistration at the time, but the world should be grateful for it today).

If Clinton's policy was unethical, it was unethical in that it did not go far enough to liberate the Iraqi people. That Saddam is in power at all is an indictment against everyone.

wdlove
Jan 6, 2003, 04:41 PM
North Korea will be able to produce 2 nuclear bombs on the plutonium they have now. With new fusion can produce an additional 4 - 8 bombs.

The Pentagon believes that North Korea is developing an intercontinental ballistic missile, the Taepo Dong-2, that could reach Alaska, Hawaii and possibly California. The North Koreans had pledged not to test-fire any long-range weapons until this year. If testing resumes, a U.S. military official says, Pyongyang may be able to target the continental U.S. with a nuclear warhead "within several years."

Should North Korea be forced to freeze their nuclear program?

Yes: 82.8% No: 17.2%

Total Votes Cast: 5037

NOTE: This is an unscientific, informal survey for the interest and enjoyment of TIME.com users and may not be indicative of popular opinion.

Article with information on N. Korea's program.

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/package.jsp?name=time/cover10603

skunk
Jan 6, 2003, 05:03 PM
What I dislike is anyone claiming to have an "ethical foreign policy". British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is the prime culprit here. I also believe that N Korea must be stopped, but GW's penchant for talking war-talk is feeding a vocal gung-ho faction at home.

macfan
Jan 6, 2003, 05:10 PM
skunk,
There's no gung ho war faction here in the States. There is the realization by many that a terrible decision may have to be taken and force may have to be used again in Iraq, but there's no significant faction who wouldn't rather see Saddam gone and Iraq free without a shot being fired.

wdlove
Jan 13, 2003, 07:07 PM
With Friends Like These<sum>

By Laura Ingraham

Hidden biological weapons in Iraq. Nukes in North Korea. Terror from al
Qaeda. These challenges combined would be overwhelming for any US
president. But then add France, South Korea, Russia, the EU, and the UN
to the mix and things get really dicey. "Our friends" continue to berate
US foreign policy, as they remain eager to trust the pledges of dictators.
The "world community" tells us to slow down in Iraq when Iraq is still
lying. We are lectured endlessly about the dangers of acting
unilaterally.

Yet this constant critique of US foreign policy should give way to a more
pressing question of our so-called friends: What have you done for the
free world lately? As long as the US willingly plays the whipping boy of
our so-called allies, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong II and terrorists around
the world are emboldened, while isolationists at home are already saying
"see, I told you so."

Let's take a step back to take an honest assessment of the landscape.
Many of our current foreign policy messes result from the fact that we are
getting no significant, practical support from any other advanced power to
contain and eliminate the world's most dangerous rulers. Would it really
be possible for two-bit countries like Iraq and North Korea to hold "the
world" hostage if "the world" would actually stand up to them? Europe's
"peace at any cost" mentality is partly the result of its resistance to
American urgings, and of course its addiction to the money that Middle
Eastern and Arab trade brings in. Plus, why do the heavy lifting when, in
the end, Europe knows America will? (read: the American taxpayers and
military).

The rules of 21st century foreign policy are getting simpler by the day:
If you want a
resolution passed-go to the UN. If you want the resolution enforced-go to
the US. The Security Council wouldn't have passed multiple resolutions
calling on Iraq to disarm if it did not believe Iraq's appetite for
weapons of mass destruction and its willingness to sell them endangered
the free world. Yet when Saddam Hussein failed to live up to the
requirements of Resolution 1441, when he refuses to provide an accurate
list of Iraqi scientists, the UN is unfazed. Hans Blix says they need
more time--months, maybe another year.

How smart is that? Time, plus undeserved trust, is exactly what gave
North Korea the opportunity to join the world's nukes club. As a result
we find ourselves forced to bargain with a brutal regime that threatens
world stability and 37,000 of our finest in South Korea. After years of
UN and Clinton Administration engagement (who can forget Madeline
Albright's champagne toast with Kim Jong Il?), we are at the brink of an
international crisis. North Korea only decided to 'fess up when it
realized that President Bush wasn't pussyfooting.

Iraq isn't North Korea--yet. With its recent history of invading its
neighbor Kuwait, and bombing the Kurds with chemicals, one can only
imagine what Saddam would demand as nuclear blackmail. That is where
following the Europeans now will take us. When is the last time the UN or
the Europeans came up with a workable, realistic approach to a major
foreign policy problem? In fact, to the regular guy out there in Fly-Over
Land, the more we do as a nation for the world's liberty and security, the
more resentment we get in return. Superpower envy is reaching epidemic
levels.

Today South Korea, for whose liberty 50,000 of our soldiers died, is more
worried about the policies of George Bush than Kim Jong Il. Our soldiers
report being spat upon and jeered in the streets of Seoul. Rather than
rally around the US in South Korea, our "friends" are telling us to play
nice. Requests to China for assistance with North Korea have fallen on
deaf ears. Japan and Russia don't want to get involved. No country other
than the US seems bothered by any of this.

With disturbing frequency, the US finds itself mocked, ridiculed, and
undermined by the very countries whose interests we are supposedly
protecting. The natural instinct of many is to say "to hell with them,
we'll go it alone." But as powerful as we are, we are not powerful enough
to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, or to overthrow madmen like
Hussein, in the face of passive (and in many cases, active) opposition
from every other major country on earth (with the exception of Britain).

In the future we should refrain from talking about how we share "common
values" with so many countries that plainly do not share our values. We
should continue diplomacy but not bang our heads against the wall, and
certainly not relinquish any more of our sovereignty along the way.
Instead we need to talk honestly about what sort of deals and payoffs
countries like China, Russia, France, Germany and South Korea require
before they will support us. This gives Americans some context when they
hear complaints that the US is acting "against the wishes of the
international community." This global village is made up of individual
countries all acting out of their own self-interests, but pretending
otherwise. The jig is up.