Tendo City

North Korean Slave Labor Camps

http://www.msnbc.com/news/859191.asp


Read it for yourself folks. I don't want to dwell on it too much.

*runs for bathroom*

How much proof is really needed to show that North Korea is one of the worst countries in the world to live in? Its hardly new to see how awful it is there... the problem is, I don't see any easy way to solve the situation. The leadership of the nation clearly does not run by the same rules as the rest of the world. Just follow the news about them for the last several years to see that... they starve their people so they can support a massive army, refuse some aid for no reason I can think of, always start hugely ramping up the anti-American rhetoric every time just before talks might start, threaten war all the time (and just might be insane enough to actually follow up on that threat...). Hmm, somehow I think they are a bigger problem to the world at large right now than Iraq. Not that Bush cares, of course. All he wants is Iraq's oil... who cares for what is the real threat and should be dealt with more seriously (not war, though. War with North Korea would be disasterous...)...

Of course war with their millions of soldiers would be a disaster. Such a decision would result in heavy losses. However, even though there are millions of those soldiers there, they are tiny.

However, even though controlling oil is likely a reason indeed, it's hardly the only reason to declare war on Iraq. I think it's just a decision of which threat is the easier one to get rid of first. I mean, when you play an RTS game, you don't just go after the most heavily fortified base, no, you take out the weaker base, steal the resources they had to increase your army even more, and THEN go after the bigger threat. Well, that's what the good players tend to do. I tend to kinda flop around and dry up in the midday sun.

No, its not just oil. Bush also wants to make up for his father's mistake of leaving Sadaam alive.

Yes, war would be bad... North Korea has over a million men in their army, so any fight with them would devastate South Korea. Not a good idea. The problem is the regime doesn't really want to talk, either... they want concessions that no US government would give them... I don't see any easy way out of this. Its not good.

Then just get this sattelite over them and... Fire the "laser"!

That's exactly what we need: Orbital defense satelites that can shoot targets as small as 2 meters. All you gotta do is find Saddam or Kim Jong Il and *Brrrzzzzttt*.

Kim Jong Il has no intention of starting a war. He's making threats for no reason other than to get his hands on whatever concessions we might make for him to stop the nuclear weapons program President Clinton practically gave them a green light to restart. Even though war with them would hurt us quite a bit, he knows it would also inevitably end in his defeat.

I'm thinking of what war would do to South Korea, not to us... it would be absolutely devastating to them...

You think North Korea isn't going to go to war? Well, in the end, they probably won't. However, they are threatening it and are just crazy enough to make me think there is a chance they'd do it if we don't give them something... which is bad because there isn't much we can give them that doesn't help the reqime, which is a really, really awful government. I don't know, but diplomacy is the only way to do it. The problem is I don't see how they can get out of it relatively easily... without concessions that neither side is about to give...

And then I wouldn't be able to see any more great South Korean movies... :(

I think the real biggest threat to world peace at the moment is Bush
Would he be reacting in the same way if one of the US's NATO allies decided they too wanted nucular weapons
If the US wants all theses other countries to disarm then they too should be prepared to disarm

Quote:Originally posted by Dark Lord Neo
I think the real biggest threat to world peace at the moment is Bush
Would he be reacting in the same way if one of the US's NATO allies decided they too wanted nucular weapons
If the US wants all theses other countries to disarm then they too should be prepared to disarm

Why would we want to go to war with our allies if they wanted nukes? Disregarding the fact that most already have them? We don't want nations that are our enemies to have these weapons. What's wrong with that? Seriously, your anti-American rhetoric borders on the insane sometimes.

Only two of your allies have them,
That treaty that North Korea pulled out of says that the only countries that can posses weapons of mass destruction China, Russia, Britian, France and the United States
That means that the majority of the US's allies which have signed the treaty don't have them, Only 3 NATO members have weapons of mass destruction.
And if you don't want countries that are your enemis to have weapons of mass destruction don't you think your enemis feel the same way about their enemies having them?
The US has more known nucular weapons than the rest of the world combined, yet they are the first ones to protest when another country starts a nucular program

Haven't we argued this particular subject into the ground before?

Alright here's the deal: The U.S. doesn't want countries like Iraq and North Korea to have nukes becuase they would use them to take advantage of other countries [i.e. threaten to get what they want or even launch them]. Take this for example: Iraq during the Gulf War launched chemical weapons against Isreal. Now what do you suppose they would have done if they had had a nuclear missle or two? Saddam wouldn't mind blowing Isreal off the face of the earth.

The U.S. has nukes for defense only. We aren't likely to shoot them off against our neighbors.

It wouldn't be Tendo City if we weren't arguing about the same damn things over and over and over.

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
It wouldn't be Tendo City if we weren't arguing about the same damn things over and over and over.

That's part of the charm, one might say :amunk:

Quote:Originally posted by Dark Lord Neo
Only two of your allies have them,
That treaty that North Korea pulled out of says that the only countries that can posses weapons of mass destruction China, Russia, Britian, France and the United States
That means that the majority of the US's allies which have signed the treaty don't have them, Only 3 NATO members have weapons of mass destruction.
And if you don't want countries that are your enemis to have weapons of mass destruction don't you think your enemis feel the same way about their enemies having them?
The US has more known nucular weapons than the rest of the world combined, yet they are the first ones to protest when another country starts a nucular program

So let me ask you, if you could step off the pedestal of being politically correct for a moment, do YOU want North Korea or Iraq having weapons of mass destruction? Would that make you feel comfortable?

Quote:Originally posted by OB1
It wouldn't be Tendo City if we weren't arguing about the same damn things over and over and over.

]

Too true, too true! :D

I don't want anyone to have weapons of mass destruction

The world would defininitely be a better place with no weapons of mass destruction. However, they exist and once something is invented its pretty much impossible to un-invent it and pretend it never existed... so we do have to keep some nuclear weapons... as long as other nations have them too.
Oh, DLN, I don't think the US has more than the rest of the world combined. During the Cold War, anyway, the USSR had more nukes than we did... even though they have less now, they plus the others with nukes definitely outnumber the number we have.
Not that it is remotely relavant, given how if even a fraction of those were fired the world would be a cinder.

The Bush administration does scare me too... I'm not sure if they do as much as a Kim Jong Ill (thats his name, right?), but they do scare me... maybe more than North Korea because of how much more power Bush has than North Korea.
Iraq? They, at this point, are not much of a threat, it seems. The inspections should be let to continue, until/unless Sadaam kicks them out again or they really finish... it'd mean less chance of war, always a good thing.

As for nuclear proliferation, the US government doesn't want any more nations, friendly or not, to get them... I don't see why anyone with them would want that...

Right, but since that's not going to happen, do you like the idea of N. Korea or Iraq having them?

I said the US has more known nukes
I was at a site about the treaty thing and it listed the numbers of known nukes each country has.
But who knows how many old soviet nukes were disarmed and how many were belived to have been disarmed but were really just lost around the collapse of the USSR

Loosing nuclear warheads... Not the best thing in the world to do... Sure, they aren't going to explode, since it takes a very special way to actually detonate them, and fire and impacts aren't near enough to do it, but they could leak...

Or they could fall into the hands of someone who would actually use them.

That's another problem with some of these countries having nukes. Just because they won't use them doesn't mean they won't sell some to someone who would.