n. korea cites iraq invasion as reason for boosting nuke program

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Oct 2, 2003.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    CNN story

     
  2. Alte22a macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Location:
    back in London
    #2
    A strange country with with strange ideals and the biggest army in the world..
     
  3. dethl macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #3
    I though China has the biggest army in the world?
     
  4. Alte22a macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Location:
    back in London
    #4
    I've heard that N.Korea has the biggest Army in the world now. I cant remember where I've heard this information. I pretty sure of it. If there is a war the North does pose a big threat in terms of foot soliders invdaing into the south. Chinas much more interested these days in Making money not war. :D
     
  5. Inu macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    #5
    Sounds like a ****ed-up version of the sixties ;) "All we are say-ying, is give cash a chance!"-Chanting Chinese Yuppies....
     
  6. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #6
    If it weren't Iraq, NK would spout some other equivalent propaganda...

    "Sounds like a ****ed-up version of the sixties "All we are say-ying, is give cash a chance!"-Chanting Chinese Yuppies...."

    Taht sounds an awful lot like, "I've got all I want, but you can't have any."

    Denigrating China and a focus on cash? Yeah, it's just terrible for them to want to raise their standard of living...You ain't gonna support a billion people off of tourists looking at the Great Wall.

    But they're starting to do okay. Among other products, they're the world's leading manufacturer of refrigerators. And they're becoming able to afford their own automobiles. They're the world's largest customers for Gucci and Rolex.

    You might oughta think of learning Chinese...

    :), 'Rat
     
  7. Inu macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    #7
    Well, it should sound humorous. Guess it didnt.

    Being the worlds largest customers for Gucci and Rolex while slowly becoming to afford their own automobiles, and having large portions of the population not even able to afford the gas (there are people earnign 10 $ a month) isnt exactly the way i would call "doing ok" btw. There is alot amiss there if you can buy expensive useless trash while most of your workers cant buy the products they produce. Communism seems to have failed so hard by selling out to capitalism, it might have been better if they never put up a fight.
     
  8. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #8
    I dunno. Seems to me that going from squabbling over chicken poop to buying a Rolex is an improvement. Once they got rid of the idiocies of Mao's, et al, economic notions, and reverted back to the original capatilistic behavior endemic to the Chinese, life started improving for the overall society.

    Should those who have gotten ahead, somewhat, sit around and wait for economic perfection? Deny themselves out of self-spite? What I'm running across in various commentaries about China, about half or more of them are doing one helluva lot better than some 15 or 20 years back. Instead of focussing on those at the bottom and of whom many are moving up, I'd rather applaud that half a billion souls who are now doing pretty well.

    And it's a helluva lot better for private citizen Chinese to have Rolexes and Mercedes than have them limited only to the rulers.

    :D, 'Rat
     
  9. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #9
    well, i'll have you know that the Chinese Yardstick, Tape Measure and Rulers industries are seriously depressed right now.

    and many building projects are failing inspections as a result.

    ;-)
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    Just wait until NK announces a preemptive first strike policy to protect themselves against aggression. Gonna be hard to argue against that kind of logic.

    Or when either India or Pakistan decides they need to shoot first to avoid being destroyed. When they say they knew the other country had WMDs and was an imminent threat to them, what will the US say?

    I have a feeling it will be something to the effect that only we are allowed first strike rights. If anyone else claims first strike rights, we will have to go to war preemptively to stop them.
     
  11. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #11
    I tend toward the ancient "If a frog had wings..." thing about "What if?" in history.

    But what if the Chinese hadn't come into the Korean war? What if we hadn't done Desert Shield/Storm?

    I've read several alternate-history science fiction novels or series of novels. "What if" Harry Turtledove, et al, moved forward in time for the settings?

    :), 'Rat
     
  12. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #12
    I, for one, would be very interested in hearing what Harry Turtledove has to say. The guy's a great writer, and very imginative.

    mactastic has some valid points, though. We kinda lost the high ground there with the whole pre-emptive invasion thing, you know?
     
  13. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #13
    This is what I'm most afraid of. And the examples you used are quite plausible. By ultimately igrnoring the international community and the UN when we went to war against Iraq, we have set a horrible precedent.

    And as the days tick by with no evidence of Saddam's WMD, the justification we used to go to war must seem increasingly flimsy to the international community. Its only a matter of time until somebody employs the "US method of warmaking" and we all learn a valuable lesson.

    Taft
     
  14. JackStorm macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Location:
    Sweden
    #14
    Yeah, what Taft said. Going into Iraq without an "ok" from the security council and without the backing of the international community as a whole, is bound to backfire sooner or later.

    I just hope this doesn't turn into something ugly. After all, there are enough lunitics out there who might get the same idea of using preemptive strikes to *defend* themselfs.

    Oh well. We can only hope this goes well and that the Iraqi's get a goverment they can accept.
     
  15. Inu macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    #15
    Dont get me wrong here, but thats not really helping the issue with the first strike policy. Sure I wish the Iraqis a Government they can accept, but I fear it would be a sharia one. And that is not helping the case of the US in any way, so it wont happen.
     
  16. JackStorm macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Location:
    Sweden
    #16
    True, whatever happens in Iraq won't change the fact that the damage is already done, when it comes to preemptive strikes.

    But you have to remeber here, that the Iraqi's (the people) are the primary victems of the wars and santions that have plagued them for the past 15+ years.

    The Iraqi people should be the international communitys no.1 concern. Not some political statment or ideoligy. I've personaly become quite tired of the propagande from all sides(I'm talking about in general, not this forum). Be it pro or anti-War/Bush/whatever. The politicians (and people who support them) seem to be so busy trying to prove a point (you know, the I was right, you were wrong, mentality) that they forget that people are geting hurt, and it's geting quite tiresome.
     
  17. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #17
    Nations are frantically seeking WMD to defend against the US invading?

    Told ya so.
     
  18. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    Or using that excuse as a pretext. In the end, much the same thing.
     
  19. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #19
    That's what I was getting at, not in so many words.

    But still, I find it disturbing that many of the "worst-case scenarios" that the people opposed to war were warning of 8 months ago have become reality today.

    On most counts, they were right; Bush was and is wrong. His whole bloody term is a ****up. It's time for him to go.
     
  20. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #20
    that is why we have elections, i still think gore should have tried to win his home state! anyways we have this problem in N.Korea we cant let em blackmail us, nor do we want to Start a war but we should be prepared to finish it if that Crazy Korean does something wacko.
     
  21. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #21
    Well, Bush lost his home state too.

    But you're right. We have elections coming soon, and it's time for regime change. The US cannot afford another four years of Bush Jong Il's awful foreign diplomacy.
     
  22. yamabushi macrumors 65816

    yamabushi

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2003
    #22
    MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons both in Korea and in China. President Truman didn't think it was such a great idea.

    If the US declined to use nuclear weapons during active conflict, why would they decide to suddenly do so now? Only the buildup and use of WMD could possibly justify such a an extreme measure. That's what worries me.:(
     
  23. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #23
    i honestly believe it's because bush and rumsfeld are enamored of them. i've stated before, and maintain, that if bush gets a second term, he _will_ nuke someone.
     
  24. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #24
    well if he does lets hope its N.Korea, the so called pretend democratic govt of north korea lied to Clinton and they are doing the same to bush. they have their own agenda and making the bomb has been it. I dont care what they sign it means nothing. there words are hollow, Heck bush should just get it over and nuke the whole darn place and we wont have to worry about them anymore.
     
  25. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #25
    who else should we nuke?
     

Share This Page