North Korea says talks or "a nuclear missile"

Originally posted by Astygia

So how many of those above questions apply to North Korea? How many apply to the rest of the world? And which history have you ignored for the last 40 years? 400 years?

- All those questions can apply to all nations to varying degrees. The thing is though, you only truly have a right to effect your nation, which is incidently the worst in recent memory. Not to say that we couldn't point fingers at other nations - but other nations are not acting like the world police, or have acted without international approval(Not a big deal, unless you wish to be lumped in with the likes of ol Kimmie), and has illegally invaded at least one nation in the last 4 years while making broad sweeping threats against the axis of evil which ol Kimmie is part of? If you beleive the US has the right to defend itself against the threats NK has made towards the US, then surely you can see that Bush started it with this axis of evil crap that he used to fool his nation into war. Note, I am not saying Kimmie is the good guy, merely that he is acting exactly how anyone would after being lumped in with two other countris one of which has been invaded and one is about too - really what would you do?

I don't think I have been missing any history, but if I have please share with me who - other than the US - has invaded a country in the last ten years? Or even the last 20? How about 30?

Originally posted by Astygia
If this is the logic you use to condone war with a country, you should be calling for the eradication of the planet.

- I don't condone war with anyone. If someone gets hit, it is expected that they will hit back. Generally I would think they would try to hit the person/nation that hit them, but once again the US has even failed this simple(IMO) and comman sense approach to conflicts. I do not either call for the eradication of the planet, I do however wish people would stop reacting and start to put this(and others) into perspective. NK is not a threat to the west. Period. They may, or may not, be a threat to the pacific rim, but before they would cause China to lose anything due to their destablizing the region I am positive China would lay the smack down on them. That way the US doesn't potentially make another massive bungle, nor do they create anymore annimosity towards them, nor will it cost them(AKA the tax payers) anything. How is this an unreasonable expectation?

Originally posted by Astygia

Politicians are dirty, and they use their position to play dirty games, nobody's debating that, W2A. But you seem to think that bringing up dirt from the past somehow makes a difference here.

- We can not do anything about the past. It is gone. All we have is the present, and it is that I wish we could focus on. I merely point out the illogical nature of saying we should attack someone because of something they may do in the future - that to me seems less than what our concept of law is about.

Originally posted by Astygia
All the history in the world doesn't change the fact that Kim is either crazy, or a megalomaniac, or both, and has nuclear materials with nuclear ambitions, and is beating the little red button with his face.

- No freaking doubt brother. However that still doesn't change the fact he is not a threat to the west. He "may" be a threat to that region, but if that is the case then it is up to that region(AKA China) to deal with it - not the west/UN/US or anyone that isn't affected by his childish, and juvenille actions.

He is a crazy loon no doubt, but that alone doesn't make NK a threat. Bush, has said his share of crazy nutso stuff, and has demonstrated he is willing to invade other countries. If there is a threat to the world, it isn't coming from some piss pot dictator with bad sunglasses.

At least in my opinion. Really who knows, but he simply can not reach the states. He can not reach Europe. He may be able to hit an outside country(BUt not without being hit back and China would demo them if they did it), he is a threat to his own people no doubt, and he is nutso. But he is no threat.

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
All those questions can apply to all nations to varying degrees. The thing is though... you only truly have a right to effect your nation, which is incidently the worst in recent memory.

Believe it or not, Saddam Hussein has killed more Iraqis than the Coalition. This 600,000 number, if you analyze the method used to find it, is highly inaccurate.

I don't think I have been missing any history, but if I have please share with me who - other than the US - has invaded a country in the last ten years? Or even the last 20? How about 30?

Ah, but invasion wasn't what was mentioned. The quote in question was:

By the same reasoning, Russia and CHina both have full rights to blast the US right off the map because America has shown much more disregard for international law and human-rights(At least internationally recently) than possibly any other nation in history.

To which you seemed to agree in your reply to Retinoid.

Please show me the last time a United States citizen was executed for trying to leave (a la North Korea), the last time Bush decided that all Christians must fight against all non-Christians (Iran), the last time any American national leader called for death to an Imaam for saying something bad about Christianity (Pope issue).

Find me the last American version of Darfur. No? How about an American Taliban, where American men aren't just allowed, but encouraged to beat their wives?

Hell, show me how awesome Iraq was before I spent two years there. Saddam abused the OFF program to build himself gold palaces, cars, and fancy assault rifles while half his population starved. Then he blamed it on US sanctions, which half of America seems to drink up for some reason, even though it was MILITARY goods which were restricted, not sustainment supplies.

None of these things I've mentioned make this war any less unlawful. It was based on intel that was weak at best, I am saying this now so your reply doesn't become an obfuscation.

The basis of this particular argument was that America is guilty of more human rights violations than anyone else. False, thanks for playing.

I don't condone war with anyone. If someone gets hit, it is expected that they will hit back....

There are a few things you must consider that are unique to this situation. The first is paramount: You DO NOT wait to get hit with a nuke before you hit back. Ever. Unless you consider waiting until millions are dead (I don't need shady polls for that number) an adequate go for a strike against nuclear targets. I don't believe anyone is seriously calling for nuclear eradication of NK; more like disabling nuclear targets.

The second issue is that this isn't a bungle; unlike the Iraq war, this situation isn't based on intelligence that is open to debate. NK detonated a nuclear device; whether it's weaponized or not, they did it, and are now engaging in less-than-subtle threats to extort money from the US.

Bush should have tried talks many months ago; talking in itself would have cost us nothing, and would have removed this argument from naysayers. I was the first to say this in the NK nuke thread. But this isn't months ago, this is now. We have to act in the now, not in what could have been.

We can not do anything about the past. It is gone. All we have is the present, and it is that I wish we could focus on. I merely point out the illogical nature of saying we should attack someone because of something they may do in the future - that to me seems less than what our concept of law is about.

I never said foreign policy was logical; only that it's necessary.

No freaking doubt brother. However that still doesn't change the fact he is not a threat to the west. He "may" be a threat to that region, but if that is the case then it is up to that region(AKA China) to deal with it - not the west/UN/US or anyone that isn't affected by his childish, and juvenille actions...

Childish and juvenile people in possession of nuclear material and threatening to use it are a threat to everyone, which is why China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and Thailand, to name a few, are experiencing the pucker factor along with America right now.

Given the man's mentality, it's highly likely that he'll share is technology and/or material with someone like Iran or Venezuela just because they're on the anti-America bandwagon. At that point, you have to ask yourself which is worse: destroying NK's nuclear program (not the country), or doing nothing? America wasn't founded on hopes and dreams, by the way.

Response to Waiting2Awake

Don't you mean "may possibly hurt" the US?

Yes they may hurt the USA, but since many of these countries and organizations have pleged to destroy the USA and her allies, it's a good asumption once they have the the weapons it will happen. they have already proven this with previous attacks.

And doesn't that ignore the huge amount of estimated nukes already on the black market?

We really don't know what is out there and I'm sure what is discovered, interecepted, and destroyed is hidden from public knowledge by our governments to prevent hysteria.

Also, doesn't your direction lead to more enemies of the states and give more reasons for your "enemies"?

No and no. We are talking about Korea here. A naval blockade will do nothing but irritate K.J. more. His limited trading is with countries that are already at odds with the USA.

Aren't you feeding the very thing you are worried about?

NO

As for whether there were shipments ofcourse, there are always shipments. How do you suppose anything gets anywhere? Besides, merely shipping weapons is not proof of wrong doing -

When ballistic missles are being shipped to your enemies and now the proliferation of nuclear weapons, then yes that is wrong. Just ask the UN since you hate the USA.

if it was then isn't the US and Isreal the largest weapons exporters?

ISRAEL is not one of the largest exporters there are many more countries trading more weapons than Israel. The USA ships mainly to allies, but of course there are always people that may illegally ship weapons to our enemies. But that is prominent in every country. In the case of N.K. the nuclear technology raises the stakes tremendously.

Seriously think about it. The US in it's illicit and illegal wars have, if not actually create the problem you are worried about, then certainly escalated it to the point where it is now.

WOW, I know you hate the USA but focus on N.K. Our involvement there was to support the UN against N.K. aggression. Not the other way around.

So why in G-d's name would you think that a continuation of the same flawed reactionary policies would you think it would solve it?

It is not reactionary but proactive thinking to prevent the murder of millions of our allies or our own citizens.

OBTW what do you think of China now saying they won't vote for any punitive actionagainst NK? This plays into my idea that China is using NK as a distractions for their own benefit. See previous posts.

Originally posted by on_yur_6

WOW, I know you hate the USA but focus on N.K. Our involvement there was to support the UN against N.K. aggression. Not the other way around.

Just as a point of interest, if you're going to quote someone, I think it would be in all the readers best interest to actually delineate where their conversation starts and ended, as well as yours.

Now, to the point...

HATING the USA would mean to NOT question authority, would mean to NOT question the decisions being made....up to this point, nothing WaitingtoAwake has said indicates that he HATES the USA...perhaps you should revise your own thinking about what HATE versus questioning is. Questioning the USA's leader's action's with respect to what is now going on in North Korea is very prudent and necessary...we ALL as countrymen have to decide that whatever decisions ARE being made as to how to handle the situation, that we ALL agree on...not just an elite few or the military machine who think they have all the answers.


AB1

Originally posted by Damocles

if the silly sob pulls the trigger on any country, then its time for a beat down. but again, if they dont attack the US directly, then i think we should be in a support role with a multinational force. if they attack japan or SK, let them take the lead and we'll get thier backs. if they attack us directly, then im not sure anyone would disagree with throwing them a beating.

i was in the army 12 years, i wanna see this go to a hot war less than anyone. my wife is still in the army and her job would guarantee her involvment in anything hot over there. so i have a vested interest in this being worked out at the table rather than the battlefield.

rofl or we could just let kimmy and W duke it out in a UFC style octagon

Exactly right....this is where we agree 100%

(especially about your wife, I can agree that clearly gives you a vested interest in anything that transpires in this situation and I PRAY that nothing comes of it, just for that reason alone)...but, yes a support role if they attack anyone else with emphasis on if they ATTACK anyone else, and if it's directed right here at home?? SCREW EM, then all bets are off.


AB1

Originally posted by alphabetaone

Originally posted by on_yur_6

WOW, I know you hate the USA but focus on N.K. Our involvement there was to support the UN against N.K. aggression. Not the other way around.

Just as a point of interest, if you're going to quote someone, I think it would be in all the readers best interest to actually delineate where their conversation starts and ended, as well as yours.

Now, to the point...

HATING the USA would mean to NOT question authority, would mean to NOT question the decisions being made....up to this point, nothing WaitingtoAwake has said indicates that he HATES the USA...perhaps you should revise your own thinking about what HATE versus questioning is. Questioning the USA's leader's action's with respect to what is now going on in North Korea is very prudent and necessary...we ALL as countrymen have to decide that whatever decisions ARE being made as to how to handle the situation, that we ALL agree on...not just an elite few or the military machine who think they have all the answers.


AB1

He has proven just on this thread his hate for the USA and for what the USA has contributed to the world. When he calls the wars fought by illegal and illicit, (which is so false) then it is quite telling. Let's list a few..

Revolutionary War- Independence from another Nation that had no claim to the New World.

Conquering the Indian Nations- This is one collection of battles, etc. where I would agree with Waiting2awake.

Spanish American War- Sinking of the Maine, Cuban's seeking independence from Spanish control.

WW1- Assiting the Europeans defeat an aggresive Germany...

WW2- Assisting the Europeans again against an aggressive Germany and Korea, China, Phillipines, against an aggressive Japanese force.

Korea- Assisting the UN, and South Korea against an aggressive North Korea.

Vietnam- Assisting the French, people of Vietnam, and the UN against a violent communist party in Vietnam.

Desert Storm- Defeating an aggressive Iraq and repeling them from Kuwait.

Afghanistan- Deafeating the co-conspirators of 9/11.

Iraq War- After losing the war Saddam continues to defy the world and the UN by ignoring the conditions of his surrender in Desert Storm. therefore he suffers the consequences. Now I'm one to disagree with how the Iraq mess has been handled since the defeat of their army but just ask the families of the million plus his dictatorship has tortured, raped, gassed, and buried if life is better with him gone. Terrorists funded by Iran are making life hell which could be handled but not while trying to appease everyone at once like the USA and allies are doing now.

Of course there are other engagements and battles in between but I tried to hit the major ones. So according to Waiting2awake, the millions upon millions of people liberated and freed from tyranny around the globe has been illegal and illicit.

Sorry about not formatting the original post in an easier to read format.

Originally posted by Astygia
Believe it or not, Saddam Hussein has killed more Iraqis than the Coalition. This 600,000 number, if you analyze the method used to find it, is highly inaccurate.

- I agree those numbers are on the high side. I have heard the actually extimates are between 30-40% of that number. However, Saddam is being accussed of genecide for 200K people - but at 35% of 600K is? I beleive I have made this point.

I don't think I have been missing any history, but if I have please share with me who - other than the US - has invaded a country in the last ten years? Or even the last 20? How about 30?

Ah, but invasion wasn't what was mentioned. The quote in question was:

By the same reasoning, Russia and CHina both have full rights to blast the US right off the map because America has shown much more disregard for international law and human-rights(At least internationally recently) than possibly any other nation in history.

- I beleive that is patently false. From my recelection(I haven't gone back and checked so maybe you are right?) is that I mentioned how the US was doing it's empire thing, and the answer to that was can't you say the same about any nation, to which I agreed overall(In an absolute historical context) but for recent memory(The 10, 20 and 30 years quoted above) only the US has invaded anyone. If I am wrong please elighten me. If I am not wrong, please don't twist my words.

Originally posted by Astygia
To which you seemed to agree in your reply to Retinoid.
Please show me the last time a United States citizen was executed for trying to leave (a la North Korea), the last time Bush decided that all Christians must fight against all non-Christians (Iran), the last time any American national leader called for death to an Imaam for saying something bad about Christianity (Pope issue).

- Do you really want me to rummage through the massive online examples of Bush calling anyone that critises his government as traitors, or terrorist sympathizers? How about calling Democrates - elected leaders the very same things? Case in point - Kimmie for all his craziness has kept the country the cesspool it has been for a long time now. Some even suggest he is more lienient than his predicessor if you can beleive that. In stark contrast is Bush and this Admin. Once again - not that overall history means a heck of a lot but recent history(In light of how other preceive you) does. In this light, the US recently has acted much more dispotic than NK in international terms, if clearly not domestic. I really thought I had made that clear.

Originally posted by Astygia
Find me the last American version of Darfur. No? How about an American Taliban, where American men aren't just allowed, but encouraged to beat their wives?

- Like the hanging of negro's in the south? Too far back(40years)? The mentality of the southern baptist over the Amish girls? Not the majority(Neither are the taliban, but we've seem to excluded that). However, this isn't about other nations either is it? You can not change other counries - you can only change your own. Stop trying to confuse the issue.

Pt one, due to too many characters. LOL! Prt two next post.

Hell, show me how awesome Iraq was before I spent two years there. Saddam abused the OFF program to build himself gold palaces, cars, and fancy assault rifles while half his population starved. Then he blamed it on US sanctions, which half of America seems to drink up for some reason, even though it was MILITARY goods which were restricted, not sustainment supplies.

- And so? What the heck does that have to do with the US invading them? Because he was a bad man? No doubt, as Kimmie is crazy - however that doesn't warrent the US invading. How can you not see this? There are bad people all over, but you have no right to go after any of them until they do something to you. Not that you fear they may do something to you. All the cars, and crap in your post is only to confuse the issue, please stop it. Whether a world leader is bad is irrelevent, only when they hit you do you have any right to hit them. They didn't, so the first strike was yours. Which makes you the bad guys. See?

None of these things I've mentioned make this war any less unlawful. It was based on intel that was weak at best, I am saying this now so your reply doesn't become an obfuscation.
The basis of this particular argument was that America is guilty of more human rights violations than anyone else. False, thanks for playing.

- Did I ever say that? I beleive I mentioned in recent times and if you would like we can get a number for how many prisoners are in those secret prisons. How about that? Lets get those numbers shall we? What do you mean they aren't public? Sorry dude, the only one playing here IMO is your assumption that recently there is anyone worse than the US(internationally speaking - before you get confused again). If you beleive so, then lets start a thread on it. Ofcourse, getting numbers over the cia prisons and such is impossible. Hey maybe that is the trick?

I don't condone war with anyone. If someone gets hit, it is expected that they will hit back....

There are a few things you must consider that are unique to this situation. The first is paramount: You DO NOT wait to get hit with a nuke before you hit back. Ever. Unless you consider waiting until millions are dead (I don't need shady polls for that number) an adequate go for a strike against nuclear targets. I don't believe anyone is seriously calling for nuclear eradication of NK; more like disabling nuclear targets.

- Lets see if I can explain this in a manner you'll understand and not think I hate the US or something stupid. OK, so you propose to hit NK because even though they haven't done anything to anyone outside their country yet, they have the possibility to. Is that it? Then once again how do you respond to other nations that are watching the US tromp through the ME and say - "Heck, the US has nukes. The US has used Nukes. The US is invaded people based on lies. Sooner or later they may attack us. Lets hit them first!". If that happened, I wonder if you would be so understanding? I am betting not, and nor should you be. It is a ridiculus arguement - either way.

The second issue is that this isn't a bungle; unlike the Iraq war, this situation isn't based on intelligence that is open to debate. NK detonated a nuclear device; whether it's weaponized or not, they did it, and are now engaging in less-than-subtle threats to extort money from the US.

- First point they can't extort anything because they are not a threat to you. As for a "bungle", maybe not in terms of intell(Unless it turns out the nuke was just tons and tons of TNT or the other rumours floating around), but one mistep, one shell fired at a chineese or russian ship thought to be NK, or gun happy servicemen(You are aware you have those as well right?) can turn something that, once again - is not a threat to you - into something much much much worse than some pisspot dictator having a bang stick.

Bush should have tried talks many months ago; talking in itself would have cost us nothing, and would have removed this argument from naysayers. I was the first to say this in the NK nuke thread. But this isn't months ago, this is now. We have to act in the now, not in what could have been.

-Agreed that we can't do anything about the past. But we can act today conciously for a better tomorrow. Once again, NK is not a threat to anyone other than NK citizens and as sad as that is it is not reason to go and bomb them, nor because Kimmie is crazy, or because he apparently likes white women, or because he eats little children.... He is not a threat to you, until he is you have no right to do squat, and if you do do something, recent history would say it is bound to backfire, and cost everyone more than some pisspot dictator is worth.

No freaking doubt brother. However that still doesn't change the fact he is not a threat to the west. He "may" be a threat to that region, but if that is the case then it is up to that region(AKA China) to deal with it - not the west/UN/US or anyone that isn't affected by his childish, and juvenille actions...

Childish and juvenile people in possession of nuclear material and threatening to use it are a threat to everyone, which is why China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and Thailand, to name a few, are experiencing the pucker factor along with America right now.

- Those other nations are possibly at risk from him in the not to distant future - which is why I have said(and you seem to disagree) that we pawn it off to China(being the area's superpower) and let them deal with it as they see fit. They are the ones it will effect and affect, and not America, who, as I have said enumerous times - is not threatened by this guy. He can't hit you.

Given the man's mentality, it's highly likely that he'll share is technology and/or material with someone like Iran or Venezuela just because they're on the anti-America bandwagon. At that point, you have to ask yourself which is worse: destroying NK's nuclear program (not the country), or doing nothing? America wasn't founded on hopes and dreams, by the way. [/quote
- Once again, since the fall of the USSR and Pakistan(and possibly india) joining the Nuke club anyone who wants nukes can get nukes without NK. This is a strawman issue designed to create fear - which is essentially what all this comes down to.

Originally posted by on_yur_6
He has proven just on this thread his hate for the USA and for what the USA has contributed to the world. When he calls the wars fought by illegal and illicit, (which is so false) then it is quite telling. Let's list a few..

- Huh? Did I not specifically(and more than once now) use the time frame 10, 20 and 30 years? If you can argue that point then do. If not, try not to confuse the issue. It is NK and the US - recent history.

Afghanistan- Deafeating the co-conspirators of 9/11.

- So when can we expect the US to go into Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? Both those countries had closer ties to 911 people than Afganistan did. Strawman issue, but if you notice no one was against the US then because at least there were some times to 911. Most were willing to even participate with you - until...

Iraq War- After losing the war Saddam continues to defy the world and the UN by ignoring the conditions of his surrender in Desert Storm. therefore he suffers the consequences. Now I'm one to disagree with how the Iraq mess has been handled since the defeat of their army but just ask the families of the million plus his dictatorship has tortured, raped, gassed, and buried if life is better with him gone. Terrorists funded by Iran are making life hell which could be handled but not while trying to appease everyone at once like the USA and allies are doing now.

- Iraq was tied down, and much like NK possed no threat to you. The war drums sounded though and all what is being said here about NK was said about iraq. How did that turn out? BTW - the only allies there are Britian, and their PM is on his way out no small reason because he swallowed this tripe you have posted above. He reacted, he didn't think for if he did he would have realised fear was being used on him , much like it is being used on you and you and trying to pass it off to others.

Of course there are other engagements and battles in between but I tried to hit the major ones. So according to Waiting2awake, the millions upon millions of people liberated and freed from tyranny around the globe has been illegal and illicit.

- Thats not according to me at all. However, if you really wanted to make that comparison and on a world time line(as oppossed to the 10-40year one I was refering too) then I am willing to do so(ALthough I fear it would be used to show how I "hate" the US and all) but it is a pointless venture as someone pointed out every nation given a long enough timeline has committed horrible things, but in recent memory it is hard to see anyone that has done more wrong things(Internationally) than the US currently.

SO to summerize yet again - This is not a threat to the west. Kimmie has no way of hitting the west. Before he has close to that ability he becomes a threat to the region. When he becomes a threat to that region then that regions superpower(China or even maybe Russia) will lay the smackdown on them. The notion that he may sell the technology to other bad people is also unfounded as nukes are already out on the black market for top dollar and therfore anyone who wanted one, could get one without the help of NK.

To hit any nation that has not hit you, opens a pandora's box of people hitting each other over what they may consider a potential threat down the line. This is utter madness and should be called such everytime it is used.

Originally posted by on_yur_6
Response to Waiting2Awake
Yes they may hurt the USA, but since many of these countries and organizations have pleged to destroy the USA and her allies, it's a good asumption once they have the the weapons it will happen. they have already proven this with previous attacks.

- I would make the usual comment about assuming, but I think you get the point. When has NK attack the US or it's allies in the last 50 years? BTW - why do you suppose so many nations have called for the US to be hit recently? Could it be this exact attitude?

Also, doesn't your direction lead to more enemies of the states and give more reasons for your "enemies"?

- I am not sure what you mean? Please explain.

No and no. We are talking about Korea here. A naval blockade will do nothing but irritate K.J. more. His limited trading is with countries that are already at odds with the USA.

- The blockade isn't what concerns me. it is the appearence of the American blockade and the potential for misinterpretation between China, Russia and the States that is a concern. As I said if everyone does what is right it isn't an issue, but in light of recent events it would take exactly one(1) misstep to cause the entire world to be divided. Over a pisspot dictator who is*sigh*not a threat to you. It is a risk that has a huge downside and obsolutely no upside.

Aren't you feeding the very thing you are worried about?

- I am not worried about anything. Worring is just a waste of my time(And not in a good way ) Other than that I am not sure what you mean again. What am I feeding by not going into NK?

When ballistic missles are being shipped to your enemies and now the proliferation of nuclear weapons, then yes that is wrong. Just ask the UN since you hate the USA.

- Wanna guess who is the largest arms exporter? Please refrain from assuming that I hate any country. I don't hate anything. Wanna guess who has helped more countries get Nukes? Sooner or later this facade that you have up regarding the US and it's actions will come down. Not that I am saying the US is horrible for doing it(Just as I am saying that NK is not horrible for doing it - that would make me the hypocrite instead of how it stands), merely that it is done, and it is done through international laws. No law was broken, you still have no leg to stand on.

ISRAEL is not one of the largest exporters there are many more countries trading more weapons than Israel. The USA ships mainly to allies, but of course there are always people that may illegally ship weapons to our enemies. But that is prominent in every country. In the case of N.K. the nuclear technology raises the stakes tremendously.

- Agreed it does. Then doesn't the same thing go for Isreal and the US? Don't their shipments of Nukes, missles, weapons and technology to produce the same which can and do fall into the hands of enemies of many nations allow them to do to the US what you are propossing on doing to NK? The same situation only the west has done it more.

WOW, I know you hate the USA but focus on N.K. Our involvement there was to support the UN against N.K. aggression. Not the other way around.

- I was refering to Afganistan and Iraq(possibly soon to be Iran) not NK which obviously fell outside of the 40 year mark that I put up at the top which started this.

It is not reactionary but proactive thinking to prevent the murder of millions of our allies or our own citizens.

-From whom? NK? They are not a threat to anyone other than their citizens at the moment and the region once they figure out how to make a missle that would collapse.

OBTW what do you think of China now saying they won't vote for any punitive actionagainst NK? This plays into my idea that China is using NK as a distractions for their own benefit. See previous posts.

- Agreed it is disapointing and you may be right about China using NK as a proxy, which only underlines my freaking point!! Stay out of NK, they are not a threat to you and if the regions superpower don't care about them why should you? If China is using NK as a proxy and allowing them to goad the US into something, then doing what you suggest is exactly what they want. Don't do it. Think instead of reat. If the west had done that after 911 instead of being filled with hatred and fear, the world would have already been better and those responsible would probably be in custedy(Due to not wasting time, energy, resources, in Iraq).

A bit of info from Wiki..

The top 7 arms exporters!! And boy was I shocked and disgusted!!

Country Current US dollars 1990 US dollars
United States $18,500,000,000 $5,400,000,000
Russia $4,600,000,000 $6,200,000,000
France $4,400,000,000 $2,100,000,000
United Kingdom $1,900,000,000 $985,000,000
Germany $900,000,000 $1,100,000,000
Canada $900,000,000 $543,000,000
China $700,000,000 $125,000,000
Israel $500,000,000 $283,000,000

Figures are in United States dollars.

Sources: CRS, SIPRIand the UN website
[edit]

WTF is Canada doing exporting 900Million bucks worth of weapons ? ? ? ? How the hell do our troops not have what they need, when we are exporting that amount of crap?

Originally posted by on_yur_6

OBTW what do you think of China now saying they won't vote for any punitive actionagainst NK? This plays into my idea that China is using NK as a distractions for their own benefit. See previous posts.

see the other post "china is building a fence", and you'll immediantly understand why china doesn't want NK to be heavily punished.