posted
And for those reasons, the UN isn't paying any attention to North Korea, and is instead demanding the US handle it.
A double standard so obvious Ray Charles could see it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
mostly because the Bush administration has been instigating the NK situation and the international community sees that..
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
How do you "instigate" something by requiring that a country hold itself to the treaty it agreed to?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
we set a great example by pulling out of the treaties we agreed to.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
By issuing a policy document from the State Department in September 2002 which tries to justify the principles of preemptive strikes. Now, if your country has been singled out by the most powerful country in the world, wouldn't you get worried?
I'm not justifying North Korea's actions, but at the same time, it really looks like the US was announcing that it would attack anyone it wants to. That would sure get ME worried...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
You'll have to point out the part of that that refers to North Korea.
You'll also have to try to make a valid comparison between withdrawing from a treaty, in which a country gives due notice of its intend long before the treaty is withdrawn from, (example: The US and the BMD agreement) and abrogating a treaty, wherein a country simply ignores the treaty it negotiated and does whatever the hell it wants to from the get-go (example: The North Koreans and the WMD/energy treaty.)
Of course, if you fail to see the difference, I don't hold out much hope for you.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: You'll have to point out the part of that that refers to North Korea.
Whoops, sorry. I was talking about the part on PDF page 19... which is where they start talking about preemptive strikes and other options.
quote:You'll also have to try to make a valid comparison between withdrawing from a treaty, in which a country gives due notice of its intend long before the treaty is withdrawn from, (example: The US and the BMD agreement) and abrogating a treaty, wherein a country simply ignores the treaty it negotiated and does whatever the hell it wants to from the get-go (example: The North Koreans and the WMD/energy treaty.)
Oh, I agree completely... as I said, I'm not approving of what they're doing at all. Just interpreting what they're probably thinking...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
