Well, we knew we could win the last one. . .
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Only really stupid people and young-earth creationists actually believe that all conditions are always constant. The differences in these two situations far outnumber the similarities.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Yeah, like the whole "One of them poses a threat, and the other doesn't" type deal.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Are there prizes for guessing which one is which?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
A bottle of 10-year old Laphroaig to the winner, yes, and big, dickshaped, armed tactical devices for the loser.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Since when was NK considered not a threat anyway?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: Since when was NK considered not a threat anyway?
That's just another thing the stupid people say.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Same time the Mafia wasn't....
Will the 'We have nukes and will sell them to the higest bidder.' ploy work to extort the rest of the world?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
The main reason for not attacking NK is China. China does NOT want a US puppet government on it's doorstep. It much rather has a nice old cruel dictatorial communist regime.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
So does Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
Not communist, but significantly dictatorial.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two:
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: Since when was NK considered not a threat anyway?
That's just another thing the stupid people say.
They will never take you seriously with answers like that one.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kosh:
quote:Originally posted by First of Two:
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: Since when was NK considered not a threat anyway?
That's just another thing the stupid people say.
They will never take you seriously with answers like that one.
I won't be losing sleep over not being taken seriously by people that stupid.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I'd like to know what you think about why NK isn't a threat. And don't say China. I wouldn't trust them to keep a lid on Lil' Kim at any time, since they oppose everything that the US says.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Everything. Indeed. How nice it must be to live in such a simplistic world. I envy you.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Let's see--North Korea has invaded a weaker country to the south. Same as Iraq. It has expelled UN inspectors. Same as Iraq. It was developing weapons of mass destruction--like Iraq--but did, in fact, make some. It has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them. They have repeatedly threatened the US and tried to capture a spy plane in early March. They have also threatened Japan. Are these things stupid people say, First of Two, or are these things the truth? If so, why is NK not a threat? Instead of saying things are stupid answers, why don't you back up your statements?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Let's see indeed.
Invaded a weaker country or three to the south: check. Keeps UN inspectors out: check. Developed weapons of mass destruction: check. Possesses nuclear weapons and a doctrine that calls for their use: check. Takes a dim view at spy planes: check.
Yet the US is not considered much of a threat even by its recently vocal ex-allies. So why should NK?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Ah, but the US has this rock-solid government, see, which is solely interested in promoting peace, freedom*, democracy and Jesus, see, so it is INCONCEIVABLE that anyone would consider them a threat, see.
*Pinochet-style
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Argh. I'm so frustrated by the crap that comes out of the Bush administration that I can't even put it to words.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
The form of politics that has had success in dealing with the North Korean gov't has been one of calm rhetoric, if you'll do a little history checking, folks. Since the end of hostilities on the Korean Penninsuala, the NK's have rattled their saber plenty of times. However, they have yet to make good on any of their threats, tho they have sent the occasional bunches of spies south. They make threats, yet don't actually make good on them.
It's my opinion, after having spent some time in the Republic of (South) Korea (ROK), that what NK is doing is to get world attention, not unlike a child who seeks "bad" attention by doing things it knows it shouldn't do. Things are pretty bad there and they think that if they play the role of the Bad Ass that people will take them seriously and give in to their demands. It really is a shame that they can't get past this posturing and just reconcile w/the South. Things would be so much better for both sides if the North and South were to reunite and become one country again.
Now, do I think that NK is a threat to ROK and likely the Japanese? Hell yeah!
What a lot of Westerners don't understand is that most Asian countries have a completely different mindset. They don't think like we do, nor do we think like they do. It's probably the closest to an "alien" mindset as you can come across on the planet. This is especially true of NK, which has very little contact with Western countries. It is entirely possible that they could launch an attack - like a low-yield nuke - of some sort thinking that they could contain and minimize any "damages". They're a Very Powerful Country in their mind and people will listen.
People like this are like a guy who walks into a convenience store with a loaded gun and a wild look in his eyes. You don't scream and yell at him to put the gun down! You reason with him and try to get him to put the gun down on his own. All the while, you are allowing for the snipers to move in - just in case things go bad real quick-like.
I think we need to be more concerned about India and Pakistan, personally. I see those two countries popping the top on some Kilotonnage before NK....
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
The only thing I semi disagree with is the India/Pakistan thing. They may use nukes, but it will be against each other, not another neibghor just to make themselves feel better.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
I consider that article highly biased. To think that US fighters weren't alerted to what was going on - and possibly in the air heading that way - is ubsurd. I was stationed in ROK and can tell you that there are USAF, USN, ROKN and ROKAF aircraft in the air all the time. If you think that they'd allow a US aircraft to be shot down, you're very wrong.
Things in the real world are a lot different then you're going to find in most news sources. While I'm not saying - nor did I ever - that North Korea couldn't engage the ROK and US Forces in combat, they just don't have the technological advantage that we do. And while their ground forces have a great deal of training time with all the exercises that they run, the ROK and US forces in Korea don't exactly sit on their collective backsides and kick back a case of soju each and every day.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: Let's see--North Korea has invaded a weaker country to the south. Same as Iraq. It has expelled UN inspectors. Same as Iraq. It was developing weapons of mass destruction--like Iraq--but did, in fact, make some. It has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them. They have repeatedly threatened the US and tried to capture a spy plane in early March. They have also threatened Japan. Are these things stupid people say, First of Two, or are these things the truth? If so, why is NK not a threat? Instead of saying things are stupid answers, why don't you back up your statements?
Veers:
I never said NK was not a threat. Re-read the posts. Use your English-to-numbskull translator.
Tahna said: "Since when was NK considered not a threat anyway?"
I replied "That's just another thing the stupid people say."
Message: stupid people say that NK is not considered a threat.
"You are stupid! You are stupid! And don't forget... You are stupid!!!" - Dexter, "Dexter's Lab"
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac: But don't worry, the Nation under God is dedicated to making the world a safer place for all human beings:
Oh, good. More nukes. Just what we need.
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
China is the Next Big Threat.
They steal our jobs. They have nuclear/bio/chemical weapons. They steal our jobs. They have the means to deliver NCB weapons. They are wrecking our economic livelyhood by stealing all of our jobs. They also have oil.
What we need to do is take down China next. Possibly India too, for the same reasons.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Tahna said: "Since when was NK considered not a threat anyway?"
I replied "That's just another thing the stupid people say."
Message: stupid people say that NK is not considered a threat.
Now, I haven't got an IQ of 168, but my understanding of that conversation went as follows:
"Since when was NK considered not a threat anyway?"
"That just another thing stupid people say"
Message: Stupid people make comments highlighting the fact that NK really should be considered a threat.
But thanks for showing us all how English really works. We are in your debt.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
quote: "Since when was NK considered not a threat anyway?"
"That just another thing stupid people say"
Message: Stupid people make comments highlighting the fact that NK really should be considered a threat.
And I took it to mean that stupid people say that NK isn't a threat....
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Wow, some people actually backed me up. I waited a while to post a response to see if anyone else interpreted Fo2's comment as I did.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Whoops, double post... Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"They steal our jobs."
Fucking noodle niggers.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
"Wow, some people actually backed me up. I waited a while to post a response to see if anyone else interpreted Fo2's comment as I did."
I actually agree with Liam's analysis.
If negotiation is on the menu in this case, then we have a serious double standard here. It's obvious that Kim is resorting to blackmail and extortion to achieve his means. Which, to me, makes him worse than Saddam. And the bigger threat.
"North Korea is too risky, bomb Iraq."
BTW: I believe it was UM who implied that NK was not a threat.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I was most certainly implying the opposite.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yep, the quoation marks....
NK has been rattling their saber since the end of the conflict, so it is kind of a known thing, SH rattled his saber and gassed his own people, the Iranians before hand, and invaded Kuwait, making him the bigger threat to the oil supplies.
A semi side thought, would the UN be able to react to an invasion of SK in a timely manner, or would the whole thing continue being a sham?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Gee whiz, I'm confused--is this the UN that authorized us to fight in Korea in 1950? or authorized Bush I to launch Gulf War I? Is this the UN that's peacekeepers have helped to keep warring countries at bay? Is this the same one who's organizations has helped bring relief to poorer countries? But when they fail to authorize an exteremely unpopular war, they are called a sham. The UN is not a sham, and yes, it would condemn an invasion of SK as soon as it could.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
A case for invasion for NK would probably hold up to less scrutiny than Iraq. The only obstacle would be China.
"making him the bigger threat to the oil supplies."
So is that what really counts here? No wonder why we aren't giving NK the same treatment.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
In cases such as this I like heading off remarks before they occur is all.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote: UN that authorized us to fight in Korea in 1950? or authorized Bush I to launch Gulf War I? Is this the UN that's peacekeepers have helped to keep warring countries at bay? Is this the same one who's organizations has helped bring relief to poorer countries?
This is also the UN that dragged out the war in Korea, that didn't authorise the removal of Hussein in 1991 but authorized 12 years of ultimately-pointless sanctions, whose 'peacekeepers' performed so wonderfully in Rwanda, (and Somalia, and Yugoslavia). And who don't pay their parking tickets.
The UN has it's good points and its bad points, but it is NOT the nigh-infallible, unbiased, democratic, Round Table of nations some make it out to be.
It was the UN's fault that Hussein wasn't removed from power? Nothing to do with that Bush fellow, you know, not this Bush but that Bush, the one who being Republican could do no wrong?
Holy fucking myopia.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
It's Bush I's fault in that he made the mistake of building a "Coalition" for Gulf War I.
The biggest price paid for the creation of that Coalition was a compromise which watered down the goals of the military action to "merely" doing that, rather that effecting immediate regime change within Iraq.
Holy fucking amnesia.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
All I am saying is...the UN is not an organization that should be disbanded or disregarded because it failed to authorize this war. It could have prevented the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and could've stopped the Serbian ethnic cleansing, but who can say it should be disregarded now?
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Magnus: "They steal our jobs."
Fucking noodle niggers.
I like that. Might have to borrow that quote. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
It is like I've been stabbed in the eye with an irony shiv.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
I can feel my brain's being sucked out of my head, reading a lot of the responses to this thread. Some of ya'll don't seem to do more than catch the talking heads on FOX "News". "Fair and balanced" my sphincter....
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Who said anything about disbanding, or I missed a post....
I always got a kick out of the fair and balanced thing being stated just before and just after they slam a guy for his differing point of view, barely letting him get a word in edge ways.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Fox News is the sleaziest, most over-hyped news network. It's the closest thing we've got to state-run TV. Just wait until the elections, then it's Democrat bashing and Republican glorifying all the way to the end.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Thanks Veers, now I know my replacement for the comedy channel....
Yes, the political 'debates' here at flare are going to be interesting.....
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
That channel is about as fair and balanced as the spanish inquisition.
And they even have comfy chairs.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
On FOX, you hear a Dem give an opinion, and Rep slam him for it (Now that "slamming" = "disagreeing in other than a whisper"
This is opposed to most other networks, where you hear a Dem give an opinion, and two other Dems congratulate him on having that opinion. And every so often they have a Rep on, give him a couple moments to speak, so they can claim they're not biased anymore.
Or Bill Bennet's gambling will be a three-day headline story, but Jesse Jackson's adultery, illegitimate child, use of charity funds as hush money, and coverup of the fact will be "World in 60 seconds" copy, and gone in a day.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Ritten: I hope you mean Fox News will become your new comedy channel, because I certainly am not trying to be funny. Can anyone say, with a straight face, that Fox News is fair and balanced? And that it is not always waving a red, white and blue flag? It's like that comic Mallard Fillmore. But that's another rant.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
As a side-note, some of you might find this an interesting read.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yes, Veers, I was, I was mildly amazed at Fox's treatment of Ed Asner a week or two ago. Cutting him off everytime he opened his mouth, disagreed with him in tones that made clear the insinuation that she thought he was an ass, etc...
It gave the fair and balanced scheme a run for it's money...
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Ritten: That clears that up.
Harry: Very intersting, especially those pages on the DMZ. This shows how isolated North Korea is.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
And why I still maintain that NK will always be a bigger threat than Iraq will ever be.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
That travelogue was absolutely fascinating. Well done Harry for bringing it to our attention.
One note:
quote:Ever wonder why CNN seems to be the only Western news organization regularly allowed into North Korea? The next room perhaps offered a clue. In the 'Gifts from America' room a whole section of one wall is taken up by gifts from CNN. A few engraved plaques, a coffee cup (yeah, a freaking coffee cup!), a logo ashtray, etc. Probably at most a couple hundred bucks worth of crap that nonetheless get pride of place in the museum - for they reveal obvious signs of respect from a world famous news organization. The people at CNN are certainly using their heads and showing they know how to play the game. Though one wonders how that fits in with journalistic integrity . . .
Wasn't there something a couple of weeks ago from CNN about how they'd kept shut up about all sorts of dictatorial activity and human-rights violations in the name of keeping in the authorities concerned's good books and thus being able to maintain a journalistic presence in the specific country?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)