NationStates Jolt Archive

You haven't a clue once again of what you're talking about right? Have you read the list of resolutions against Israel? I have, in fact I can post them if you like. Show me where one resolution was not some thing Israel didn't do!

I don't have a clue? I know what is going on over there! I know that the Arabs hate having a state of Israel as a neighbor. I know that Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Aqsa Marters Brigade and others have tried to end that state. It hasn't worked yet. Israel has been the victim of more terror attacks than the US has and Israel is fighting a passive war against them. Yea I don't agree with that wall but I call it self-preservation. If the Palestinians and the terrorists stop trying to kill jews, then maybe, just maybe, we'll have a Palestinian state. That won't happen till these murders are under control. And that responsibility falls to Syria (Yea right) and Mahmood Abbas (possibility) I have read the list against them. I know that some of them are deserved and others that aren't.

don't know the list (the most broken resolutions in the UN's history) I'll be happy to post it.

Don't have too Stephistan. We all know that you hate Israel. We all know what atrocities the terrorists have inflicted on Israel and what Israel has done to defend themselves. Acts of Self Defense should not be sanctioned.

Only the USA & Israel are allowed to throw UN resolutions out the window? Heaven forbid Iraq broke a few, I guess that was reason to invade. Please, the double standard is more than a little sickening.

Since when I have said that? I haven't. Iraq broke more than a few and the UN STILL DID NOTHING!! We all know that the UN is the real paper tiger in this planet. Your right. I hate double standards too and the UN is full of them.

Either Stephistan believes that Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorist attack, or invasion by its neighbors, or she believes that it does not.

I would like to know which.

And if she believes Hamas and other terrorist organizations have the right to kill Israelis and Jews, then are they morally and legally allowed to do so - show me the UN resolution that makes it right if you believe that all actions are illegal without the UN's mandate.

And if self-defense is illegal, then the Canadian Army exists illegally. I should be able to walk up there with a small pistol and take the place over as I wish - any resistance should be illegal.

Acts of Self Defense should not be sanctioned.

Oh sorry, I forgot, it's Israel who is under occupation, oh wait... :rolleyes:

Oh sorry, I forgot, it's Israel who is under occupation, oh wait... :rolleyes:

You just proved that you applaud terrorist acts on Civilians. Congratulations.

Oh sorry, I forgot, it's Israel who is under occupation, oh wait... :rolleyes:


Well..if you want to be technically..then fine, lets give Jordan and Egypt their land back. Why have them be independent?

I've gotten one person on this forum to say directly that Poland's defense of itself against Germany was "warmongering" in WW II.

You did not. In fact, you are quite adept at arguing with strawmen.

Ein Deutscher']You did not. In fact, you are quite adept at arguing with strawmen.

You're a newbie..welcome to the General Forum..producer of strawman arguements for both sides since December 2002 :D

I think it's hard to find a Canadian who even believes that Israel should be a state, much less approve of any action it has ever taken, much less defend itself.
On what information do you base your belief? I believe this to be a false statement.

You're a newbie..welcome to the General Forum..producer of strawman arguements for both sides since December 2002 :D

LOL!!!!

On what information do you base your belief? I believe this to be a false statement.

judging by how canada speaks against israel... You can make a case for what he said.

You're a newbie..welcome to the General Forum..producer of strawman arguements for both sides since December 2002 :D
Nah I'm not a newbie. Just a new nation since my old one is gone :)

judging by how canada speaks against israel... You can make a case for what he said.

It's not just Canada, it's just about every country on the face of the planet EXCEPT the United States, so maybe, just maybe it's not us with the bias and or problem.

May be true, but for that logic, then the Brits never won a war without help either.

Has the USA ever won a war without any help? I think not.

Has the USA ever won a war without any help? I think not.

hmm Spanish American War?
The Mexican War?
Civil War?

Has the USA ever won a war without any help? I think not.

True.

Has the USA ever won a war without any help? I think not.
They even lost a war despite outside help (Vietnam).

judging by how canada speaks against israel... You can make a case for what he said.
Where do you get your information from? I live here and I don't here my country speaking out against Israel.

Ein Deutscher']They even lost a war despite outside help (Vietnam).

Technically that was a stalemate. South Vietnam lost, but only after the U.S. pulled out.

Do you know what Josh calls him? Grandma-Man.

Has the USA ever won a war without any help? I think not.

Mexican American War
Spanish American War
Panama
We practically fought the Pacific alone(not to belittle the ANZACs but the Australian navy wasnt doing much and New Guniea was pretty much their biggest Pacific Campaign).

There are other examples, but honestly lets not result to dribble. On both sides. Britain has a long history and I'm sure they have won without the help or other in past.

It's not just Canada, it's just about every country on the face of the planet EXCEPT the United States, so maybe, just maybe it's not us with the bias and or problem.

No, they just tolerate the fact that Israelis are getting blown up. Children getting killed. Civilian targets decimated. Israel retaliates by killing the leaders and what happens? They get ragged on and denounced. NO ONE but the US has denounced the terrorist attacks done by the terror groups Hezbullah, Al Aqsa Marters Brigrade, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas.

Panama

Hahaha surely you're joking! You call that a war?

Oh and for Corneliu *LOL* you can't count your own civil war..rotfl

Where do you get your information from? I live here and I don't here my country speaking out against Israel.

Most of the Canadians on the board who have denounced Israel's self defense measures.

Hahaha surely you're joking! You call that a war?

Oh and for Corneliu *LOL* you can't count your own civil war..rotfl

Why not? In reality, the Confederate States had their own Currency, Government and military. It wasn't recognized by anyone but in reality it was. It was still a war though fought by the Union Army so yes it does count.

As for Panama, I don't consider it a war either.

Too bad that the Palestinians have no standing army (afaik) thus terrorism is their way to fight against Israel, which is expansionist and no innocent. Considering that Israel's land was stolen from the people who lived there before them, the creation of Israel itself might have been a mistake.

Just cause the USA cant make music or fight a war with out help


Without help...what are you stupid.... our military makes up 90% of the military presence in Iraq, what the hell do you call that, the only other ones their are England, and Spain(I think), the rest of the world pussied out... the only time the u.s. needed help in fighting war was WWII only because we were up against a war machine.... can't fight a war with out help, Jesus H Christ. Hey our VCR's may suck, and we probably cant make a fuel efficient car... but at least we can kick your country's that’s the best thing we know how to do, considering we have the most well disciplined and well trained military in the world, and lets not forget the infamous Marine Corps ooo rah.

Hahaha surely you're joking! You call that a war?

Oh and for Corneliu *LOL* you can't count your own civil war..rotfl


Military action in another country..call it what you want. It was dont in 48 hours and was quicker than the ground campaign of Desert Storm. But its ashame..you agreed with Brits post I prove it wrong, and of all things you pick out Panama to make fun of? What is it with you? Ignore the strong hit the weak point?

Ein Deutscher']They even lost a war despite outside help (Vietnam).

Actually, Vietnam was in reality, a tie. We pulled out then South Vietnam got overruned. I don't know why people are trying to paint it as a loss when we won every single military engagement.

Hahaha surely you're joking! You call that a war?

Oh and for Corneliu *LOL* you can't count your own civil war..rotfl

But didn't Noriega declare war on the U.S.?

Do you know what Josh calls him? Grandma-Man.

Why not? In reality, the Confederate States had their own Currency, Government and military. It wasn't recognized by anyone but in reality it was. It was still a war though fought by the Union Army so yes it does count.

As for Panama, I don't consider it a war either.
The American civil war does not count among the wars fought without outside help, since it was a war fought among (US-)Americans. Naturally, the wars on the American continent, especially those against much, much weaker opponents such as Panama or Mexico, are neglectable and barely noticable as inner-American conflicts.

True.

False.

Actually, Vietnam was in reality, a tie. We pulled out then South Vietnam got overruned. I don't know why people are trying to paint it as a loss when we won every single military engagement.
Why would the US have pulled out, if not for the thousands of victims of that war, hm? Might it have been the massive peace movement during the 70s which eventually forced the politicians to change their mind?

Besides that, the jungle warfare was way too much for the GIs. So your statement that you won every military engagement, seems to be unbacked by reality.

Ein Deutscher']The American civil war does not count among the wars fought without outside help, since it was a war fought among (US-)Americans. Naturally, the wars on the American continent, especially those against much, much weaker opponents such as Panama or Mexico, are neglectable and barely noticable as inner-American conflicts.

Then maybe Britain and France shouldn't have offered help to the Confederate States of America. They did try to butt into the war you know. On the side of the Confederate states. SO yes you can include it.

Ein Deutscher']Why would the US have pulled out, if not for the thousands of victims of that war, hm? Might it have been the massive peace movement during the 70s which eventually forced the politicians to change their mind?

Besides that, the jungle warfare was way too much for the GIs. So your statement that you won every military engagement, seems to be unbacked by reality.

Too much? Is that why the U.S. lost about 60,000 men and the communists lost over a million?

Then maybe Britain and France shouldn't have offered help to the Confederate States of America. They did try to butt into the war you know. On the side of the Confederate states. SO yes you can include it.
France and Britian had direct interest in America since back then, the "US" were extensions of the respective empires. So no, the civil war does not even count as US American war, since the US didn't even exist back then.

Ein Deutscher']Why would the US have pulled out, if not for the thousands of victims of that war, hm? Might it have been the massive peace movement during the 70s which eventually forced the politicians to change their mind?

Besides that, the jungle warfare was way too much for the GIs. So your statement that you won every military engagement, seems to be unbacked by reality.

Actually, we did win every single military engagement. I suggest you read the History of Vietnam.

We pulled out because we didn't have the civilian will to fight. Hey, LBJ got us into Nam. Nixon signed a treaty to get us out. When we pulled out, the South Vietnamese got overruned by the North Vietnamese.

Too much? Is that why the U.S. lost about 60,000 men and the communists lost over a million?
Apparently 60,000 dead GIs is what it takes for the US American public to demand an end to an unneeded war.

Ein Deutscher']Why would the US have pulled out, if not for the thousands of victims of that war, hm? Might it have been the massive peace movement during the 70s which eventually forced the politicians to change their mind?

Besides that, the jungle warfare was way too much for the GIs. So your statement that you won every military engagement, seems to be unbacked by reality.

Victory was never the goal. As Johnson said himself, the goal was to bring the conflict to a negotiated settlement. In fact, on April 7, 1965, he even tried to bribe the communists to withdraw from the South in return for a billion dollars, but naturally, they refused.

Ein Deutscher']France and Britian had direct interest in America since back then, the "US" were extensions of the respective empires. So no, the civil war does not even count as US American war, since the US didn't even exist back then.

Then I guess the Trent Affair that nearly brought Britain into the war on the side of the Confederate States is lost on you. Dude, you know nothing of the US Civil War and the politics behind it. Learn it.

Actually, we did win every single military engagement. I suggest you read the History of Vietnam.

We pulled out because we didn't have the civilian will to fight. Hey, LBJ got us into Nam. Nixon signed a treaty to get us out. When we pulled out, the South Vietnamese got overruned by the North Vietnamese.
Of course. Revisionist history is a nice thing. Especially Americans are adept at it to convert their failures into successes.

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/worldhis/map27.gif

Hmm...

So...this is the source that we are resorting to now, is it? Stick to the professionals. The "stories" there are so full of holes... :sniper:

Ein Deutscher']Of course. Revisionist history is a nice thing. Especially Americans are adept at it to convert their failures into successes.

Shows how little Europeans know about the Vietnam War.

Ein Deutscher']Apparently 60,000 dead GIs is what it takes for the US American public to demand an end to an unneeded war.

And we lost over 400,000 in WWII. We didn't want that war either. It was forced upon us thanks to the Japanese.

Ein Deutscher'] Naturally, the wars on the American continent, especially those against much, much weaker opponents such as Panama or Mexico, are neglectable and barely noticable as inner-American conflicts.

Umm..at the time of the Mexican-American War, Mexico had a larger professional army than the US did. The US had better commanders and a more stable government. As far as pecking power went the Mexican-American War determined who would be the leader of the Western Hemisphere for decades to come. Calling it a neglectable and barely noticable conflict is being rather simplistic.

Mexican American War
Spanish American War
Panama
We practically fought the Pacific alone(not to belittle the ANZACs but the Australian navy wasnt doing much and New Guniea was pretty much their biggest Pacific Campaign).

There are other examples, but honestly lets not result to dribble. On both sides. Britain has a long history and I'm sure they have won without the help or other in past.

Thank you. Thats the sort of response I wanted. At least you can consider two sides of an argument.

To name a recent British engagement which we won without any help, the Falkland Isles. Surely not? Surely Britain's closest ally, the other partner in the special Anglo Saxon relationship, came to our aid? Oddly enough no.
The special relationship only exists when America wants it to. Its pretty much Britain doing all the giving. We sent the second largest number of troops into Iraq and our politicans are constantly defending American foreign policy. However British businesses were sadly neglected when it came to handing out reconstruction and oil contracts. Not too long ago, dear Uncle Sam (remember Britain's 'special' ally) chose to repay our kindness in supporting their foreign policy by slapping a tariff on iron exports. Nice. So as British blood drains away because of overly aggressive American foreign policy (and poor American peace plans) we British can say to ourselves at night "Well at least America our still are best friends". Alas I fear Amercian politicans are cuddling up to their wives and saying "Don't worry, we can always pick up and use Britain as our expendable European pawn".

The sooner British politicans wake up, the better. I rarely agree with Europe but on this I do. The next time the US asks Britain to join it on one of its crazy foreign jaunts (to Iran probably) I hope Britain pushes them away and gives them the diplomatic finger. And lets face it thats going to happen because there is no way in hell that Blair (or anyother British politican) will risk a repeat of the bad PR caused by Iraq. The 'Special Relationship' must end and then perhaps the US will no longer take a friendly voice in Europe for granted.

Ein Deutscher']Of course. Revisionist history is a nice thing. Especially Americans are adept at it to convert their failures into successes.

Your lack of knowledge is getting on my nerves.

Then I guess the Trent Affair that nearly brought Britain into the war on the side of the Confederate States is lost on you. Dude, you know nothing of the US Civil War and the politics behind it. Learn it.
I'm not overly interested in the history of the US. I'm sure some Hollywood movie will eventually depict it in great detail and bring the glorious American history to the peoples of the planet.

Your lack of knowledge is getting on my nerves.

Same here.

Shows how little Europeans know about the Vietnam War.
It wasn't us who lost that war (for once ;))

Actually, Vietnam was in reality, a tie. We pulled out then South Vietnam got overruned. I don't know why people are trying to paint it as a loss when we won every single military engagement.

Did you know Britain won the majority of set piece military battles in the American Revolutionary War?

Does that mean we won it?

Ein Deutscher']It wasn't us who lost that war (for once ;))

It wasn't us, either. ;)

Ein Deutscher']I'm not overly interested in the history of the US. I'm sure some Hollywood movie will eventually depict it in great detail and bring the glorious American history to the peoples of the planet.

Is that how your getting your info on the US? HAHAHAHA!!! No wonder I'm killing you. Cya!

Ein Deutscher']It wasn't us who lost that war (for once ;))

what war did we lose?

Your lack of knowledge is getting on my nerves.
You mean, my lack of accepting American revisionist history?

Did you know Britain won the majority of set piece military battles in the American Revolutionary War?

Does that mean we won it?

hmmm no! If you won it, we wouldn't be independent would we? No, you actually lost the Revolutionary War. France helped and I thank them for it. That is as far as I go.

what war did we lose?
Vietnam. Among the more than 100 you fought since 1945, of course. It's no secret that the US Americans never got over that war and stating that you lost it seems to conflict with your country's propaganda ;)

Ein Deutscher']You mean, my lack of accepting American revisionist history?

It's funny how Europeans call any history that doesn't demonize the U.S. or promote Marxism 'revisionist.'

It wasn't us, either. ;)

lol

Ein Deutscher']You mean, my lack of accepting American revisionist history?

Prove that it was revisionist!

If the US is wrong, why hasn't it been stopped yet? Also, if you were (metaphorically) acting as the US, what is there to stop you from doing what the US has already done? Nothing. It's quite simple. People do what's in their own best interests.

Greetings,
Snackwell

Ein Deutscher']Vietnam. Among the more than 100 you fought since 1945, of course. It's no secret that the US Americans never got over that war and stating that you lost it seems to conflict with your country's propaganda ;)

We never lost the war in Vietnam. We won every major battle we fought. As long as the U.S. was in South Vietnam, the communists had no hope of winning. If we had gone on the offensive, we would have won in as little as six weeks.

Thank you. Thats the sort of response I wanted. At least you can consider two sides of an argument.

To name a recent British engagement which we won without any help, the Falkland Isles. Surely not? Surely Britain's closest ally, the other partner in the special Anglo Saxon relationship, came to our aid? Oddly enough no.
The special relationship only exists when America wants it to. Its pretty much Britain doing all the giving. We sent the second largest number of troops into Iraq and our politicans are constantly defending American foreign policy. However British businesses were sadly neglected when it came to handing out reconstruction and oil contracts. Not too long ago, dear Uncle Sam (remember Britain's 'special' ally) chose to repay our kindness in supporting their foreign policy by slapping a tariff on iron exports. Nice. So as British blood drains away because of overly aggressive American foreign policy (and poor American peace plans) we British can say to ourselves at night "Well at least America our still are best friends". Alas I fear Amercian politicans are cuddling up to their wives and saying "Don't worry, we can always pick up and use Britain as our expendable European pawn".

The sooner British politicans wake up, the better. I rarely agree with Europe but on this I do. The next time the US asks Britain to join it on one of its crazy foreign jaunts (to Iran probably) I hope Britain pushes them away and gives them the diplomatic finger. And lets face it thats going to happen because there is no way in hell that Blair (or anyother British politican) will risk a repeat of the bad PR caused by Iraq. The 'Special Relationship' must end and then perhaps the US will no longer take a friendly voice in Europe for granted.

-sigh-
I do try and see both sides of the arguement and this is what I get. Someone who is not willing to see how it is on this side of the pond. Did Britain really need help with Argentina? There are plenty of times when the US and the UK have disagreed and times when the UK hasnt come to the US's aid. But beyond that crazy foreign jaunt into Iran? Well when they get nuclear weapons then you Euros can keep talking them to death. How much more empowered do you think a nuclear equipped Iran would be? Sure there is the moderates who want greater reform,but that single moment Iran develops a nuclear weapon then those moderates may as well never have existed. It'll galvinize the people and Shiites in the entire region to follow the fundamentalist government. But whatever, the US tried talking with North Korea, and what did it get us? Them with the bomb anyway.

It's funny how Europeans call any history that doesn't demonize the U.S. or promote Marxism 'revisionist.'

I agree. I get a headache because of it.

-sigh-
I do try and see both sides of the arguement and this is what I get. Someone who is not willing to see how it is on this side of the pond. Did Britain really need help with Argentina? There are plenty of times when the US and the UK have disagreed and times when the UK hasnt come to the US's aid. But beyond that crazy foreign jaunt into Iran? Well when they get nuclear weapons then you Euros can keep talking them to death. How much more empowered do you think a nuclear equipped Iran would be? Sure there is the moderates who want greater reform,but that single moment Iran develops a nuclear weapon then those moderates may as well never have existed. It'll galvinize the people and Shiites in the entire region to follow the fundamentalist government. But whatever, the US tried talking with North Korea, and what did it get us? Them with the bomb anyway.

Ah yes but you neglect the theory of MAD (Mutally Assured Destruction).
The Soviets (who had far more than one nuclear bomb) were unwilling to risk nuclear war because of MAD. I doubt Iran with a singular nuclear bomb will risk being blown up by about 10,000 nuclear bombs fired in retalliation by the Europeans and the Americans. The only difference it will make is that Iran will become a slightly enhanced player on the international scene.

And even if they did develop the bomb, where on earth would get the technology to launch a strike at Europe or America? A nuke is easy to make - a jet engine that can take a nuke half way around the world is not. The recent WMDs debate in Iraq was ridiculous because even if they had had WMDs they wouldnt have had any method of firing them further than their own borders.

Prove that it was revisionist!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#The_end_of_the_war

Another useful source:

http://www.vietnam-war.info/summary/

So to quote:


The American military was not defeated in Vietnam. The American military did not lose a battle of any consequence. From a military standpoint, it was almost an unprecedented performance. (Westmoreland quoting Douglas Pike, a professor at the University of California, Berkley a renowned expert on the Vietnam War) [Westmoreland] This included Tet 68, which was a major military defeat for the VC and NVA.

However not finishing the war in a success, does count as a loss in my opinion.

It's funny how Europeans call any history that doesn't demonize the U.S. or promote Marxism 'revisionist.'

Or perhaps it because the rest of the world actually think you lost the war in Vietnam?

Just because the global propaganda centre of Hollywood makes movies depicting an American victory, doesn't make it true.

To be frank American and Vietmese historians can't be trusted on this issue because they are both likely to show bias. Europeans had very little involvement and as such are likely to present it in a more realistic way than bombastic Hollywood producers or overly patriotic American historians.

Or perhaps it because the rest of the world actually think you lost the war in Vietnam?

Well, if they're stupid enough to believe it, good for them.

Ah yes but you neglect the theory of MAD (Mutally Assured Destruction).
The Soviets (who had far more than one nuclear bomb) were unwilling to risk nuclear war because of MAD. I doubt Iran with a singular nuclear bomb will risk being blown up by about 10,000 nuclear bombs fired in retalliation by the Europeans and the Americans. The only difference it will make is that Iran will become a slightly enhanced player on the international scene.

And even if they did develop the bomb, where on earth would get the technology to launch a strike at Europe or America? A nuke is easy to make - a jet engine that can take a nuke half way around the world is not. The recent WMDs debate in Iraq was ridiculous because even if they had had WMDs they wouldnt have had any method of firing them further than their own borders.

The Iranians already have a theater capable missiles. Shahab series of missiles. http://fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/index.html

As for M.A.D. I know what it is..and I doubt a nation who dabs in suicide bomber usage, and other terrorist subversive means will actually care about it. Especially if you get an unstable leader or someone who sympathizes with terrorists. The Russiansand the US knew clear hearted that if they hit each other they'd wipe themselves out. I'm not sure the Iranian government cares that much.

There is a diffence between the US and past war nations. The US is stomping around the world in some kind of propoganda-high manifest destiny trip believing itself to be running the world. Its not.

Of course the United States isn't in charge of the world...........until some ingrate needs money..........then watch how sweet these dirtbag nations become..........trying to buddy up to the good ol' USA.

As long as we finance 'em, we ought to own 'em too!

Of course the United States isn't in charge of the world...........until some ingrate needs money..........then watch how sweet these dirtbag nations become..........trying to buddy up to the good ol' USA.

As long as we finance 'em, we ought to own 'em too!
You don't finance them. You loan them money and make sure the dollar stays currency #1 in the world. Just wait until more people have figured out that the dollar is worthless paper and the Euro is the currency of the future.

Take your euro and stick it up your arse. The sovereign pound sterling for me (which is currently more valuable than either the Euro or the dollar which means get more dollars/Euro for your pound)

Most of the Canadians on the board who have denounced Israel's self defense measures.
So the Canadians on here speak for Canada as a whole? I also do not believe that most Canadians on this forum "denounce Israel's self defense measures".
Personally, I believe that both sides have committed atrocities and have acted irresponsibly, but I do not think that your generalization applies.

What I do know, is that most Canadians are against the US invasion of Iraq, and are very concerned over recent US foreign policy regarding Iran and NK.

Most of the world was easing into a comfort zone with the end of Cold War and the destruction of nuclear weapons, when Bush came along kicking up sand in the Middle East. Now it appears that the arms race is heating up again due to this faulty US foreign policy, and all we can do is sit back and says thanks for nothing Georgy boy.

It's funny how Europeans call any history that doesn't demonize the U.S. or promote Marxism 'revisionist.'

Yeah ALL of us Europeans are filthy Commies.... :rolleyes:

Ein Deutscher']You don't finance them. You loan them money and make sure the dollar stays currency #1 in the world. Just wait until more people have figured out that the dollar is worthless paper and the Euro is the currency of the future.


....Oh and here we go now with the pissing contest. Cut it out now. Or this thread will end in a five page pissing contest on who has the bigger economic dick. I'm tired of hearing the US is better than the EU and vice versa thing. One, the Dollar, ,the Pound, the Yen and the Euro will ALWAYS be top currencies. It will not matter who is at the top because that will ALWAYS change with the times and who's economy is doing better at the time.

Of course the United States isn't in charge of the world...........until some ingrate needs money..........then watch how sweet these dirtbag nations become..........trying to buddy up to the good ol' USA.

As long as we finance 'em, we ought to own 'em too!
Were you aware that much of the US foreign debt is owned by China.....should they own you outright when you go broke?

Ein Deutscher']You don't finance them. You loan them money and make sure the dollar stays currency #1 in the world. Just wait until more people have figured out that the dollar is worthless paper and the Euro is the currency of the future.

Dream on pal.......but set the alarm. You need to wake up! LOAN!!! How many nations still have not paid back their WWII debt?? Not that we ever get repaid. Don't forget, Germany is one of those ingrate nations who took all the money they could from us under the Marshall Plan to rebuild your sorry country. It's American dollars keeping your economy running now........

Wake up! Live on!! USA uber alles!!

What I do know, is that most Canadians are against the US invasion of Iraq, and are very concerned over recent US foreign policy regarding Iran and NK.


This is my main sticking point with the entirety of the planet and those who dont like George Bush..recent foreign policy regarding Iran and NK sure as hell isnt recent. We've been in talks and stalemate and possible war with NK since 1994 over the nuclear issue. With Iran, we dont even have diplomatic relations with them anymore.

Yeah ALL of us Europeans are filthy Commies.... :rolleyes:

According to American republicans because we in Europe have some basic social welfare that makes us Marxists. I mean only Communists wouldn't charge pregnant women $25000 to use the hospital to give birth, right?

Dream on pal.......but set the alarm. You need to wake up! LOAN!!! How many nations still have not paid back their WWII debt?? Not that we ever get repaid. Don't forget, Germany is one of those ingrate nations who took all the money they could from us under the Marshall Plan to rebuild your sorry country. It's American dollars keeping your economy running now........

Wake up! Live on!! USA uber alles!!

Take your dollar and stick it up your arse. The sovereign pound sterling for me (which is currently more valuable than either the Euro or the dollar which means get more dollars/Euro for your pound)

Take your dollar and stick it up your arse. The sovereign pound sterling for me (which is currently more valuable than either the Euro or the dollar which means get more dollars/Euro for your pound)

Can't you play another tune? I've already heard this one.

Were you aware that much of the US foreign debt is owned by China.....should they own you outright when you go broke?

How much has Canada repaid on it's debt to America? Don't know?
Let me be of some assistance..........the answer........**drumroll please**

ZERO; what a shock.
But then, the Canadians........neighbors so they are, can't even keep hockey running efficiently. Why should Americans expect support from Canada?
Annex Canada should be our motto!

This is my main sticking point with the entirety of the planet and those who dont like George Bush..recent foreign policy regarding Iran and NK sure as hell isnt recent. We've been in talks and stalemate and possible war with NK since 1994 over the nuclear issue. With Iran, we dont even have diplomatic relations with them anymore.
NK has asked for bi-lateral discussions and Bush continues to deny the process. In the meantime, the war of words = MORE nukes for NK.

How much has Canada repaid on it's debt to America? Don't know?
Let me be of some assistance..........the answer........**drumroll please**

ZERO; what a shock.
But then, the Canadians........neighbors so they are, can't even keep hockey running efficiently. Why should Americans expect support from Canada?
Annex Canada should be our motto!

How does Canada owe the US money? Maybe we do, but it certainly comes as news to me?

I am serious here. The United States, since its creation, has always been a war nation. Like the states we have replaced(such as Britain, Germany, France, Russia), our nation revolves around our ability to wage war. It is even evident in our National Anthem!

Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.

Chorus
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

II.
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream

Chorus
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

III.
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out of their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight and the gloom of the grave

Chorus
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

IV.
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Bles't with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

Chorus
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

(I highlighed the parts I thought showed my point)


Now, what I don't get is why you people can't come to terms with that! Just because it's a new millenia doesn't mean everything has to change! Do you think then it went from 3001 B.C.E. to 3000 B.C.E. everything changed? Hell no! When it changed from 1 B.C.E. to 1 C.E.? No! So why should it now? Sure, the world is different than it was 2,000 years ago, but that's no reason for the entire world to change in a blink of an eye. The sooner you accept that the U.S. is a war nation, and always will be, the better.

I's trying like mad to figure out what the hell you're trying to say......So, the US is a war nation. Good! So be it! Don't mess around, and you'll have no trouble.

NK has asked for bi-lateral discussions and Bush continues to deny the process. In the meantime, the war of words = MORE nukes for NK.

Clinton negotiated a settlement with NK in bilateral talks and the North Koreans continued on in secret. Why should Bush do the same? Keep in mind North Korea has said it will not start talks six way until the US removed troops from South Korea. I also fail to see whats wrong with the multilateral talks..do the North Korean want to make promises in secret they can break later on?

How does Canada owe the US money? Maybe we do, but it certainly comes as news to me?

I'd still like this one answered?

Clinton negotiated a settlement with NK in bilateral talks and the North Koreans continued on in secret. Why should Bush do the same? Keep in mind North Korea has said it will not start talks six way until the US removed troops from South Korea. I also fail to see whats wrong with the multilateral talks..do the North Korean want to make promises in secret they can break later on?

Cause it was working till Bush put his foot in his mouth and put them in his state of the union speech and included them in "the axis of evil" then all bets were off. Just a guess.

How much has Canada repaid on it's debt to America? Don't know?
Let me be of some assistance..........the answer........**drumroll please**

ZERO; what a shock.
But then, the Canadians........neighbors so they are, can't even keep hockey running efficiently. Why should Americans expect support from Canada?
Annex Canada should be our motto!
What has Canada's foreign debt got to do with the price of tea in China?

Canadians are responsible for the running of the NHL? That is news to me, or was there a power shift recently that wasn't reported?

What has Canada's foreign debt got to do with the price of tea in China?

Canadians are responsible for the running of the NHL? That is news to me, or was there a power shift recently that wasn't reported?
Didn't you know that the entire world better be grateful and on it's knees prostrating before the mighty US-Americans?

Cause it was working till Bush put his foot in his mouth and put them in his state of the union speech and included them in "the axis of evil" then all bets were off. Just a guess.

No..it wasnt working. Before Bush made his Axis of Evil remark the North Koreans admitted they kept going. They did it in secret and during the Clinton admin there were several times when both sides came at impasses over the North Koreans getting caught openly doing stuff they promised not to. The learned from being caught and moved facilities deeper under cover and here we are 11 years later with them admitting they have the bomb.

Its a nice guess, but you cant blame Bush or even Clinton for this. The North Koreans just arent a nation you can trust.

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/worldhis/map27.gif

Hmm...
Ice. Burn.

No..it wasnt working. Before Bush made his Axis of Evil remark the North Koreans admitted they kept going. They did it in secret and during the Clinton admin there were several times when both sides came at impasses over the North Koreans getting caught openly doing stuff they promised not to. The learned from being caught and moved facilities deeper under cover and here we are 11 years later with them admitting they have the bomb.

Its a nice guess, but you cant blame Bush or even Clinton for this. The North Koreans just arent a nation you can trust.

Well that's odd. Because it wasn't until after the "Axis of Evil" speech that NK kicked out all the inspectors, took the seals off of every thing and shut down the videos. So, how exactly again did it have nothing to do with the speech? Which of course made no sense any way, or at least to those of us who know what the "Axis of Evil" was "Germany, Italy and Japan" which have nothing in common with Iran, NK or Iraq. But hey, what the hell does Bush know about history.

This is my main sticking point with the entirety of the planet and those who dont like George Bush..recent foreign policy regarding Iran and NK sure as hell isnt recent. We've been in talks and stalemate and possible war with NK since 1994 over the nuclear issue. With Iran, we dont even have diplomatic relations with them anymore.

We're still legally AT WAR with North Korea. UN Resolution 90 anyone?

Well that's odd. Because it wasn't until after the "Axis of Evil" speech that NK kicked out all the inspectors, took the seals off of every thing and shut down the videos. So, how exactly again did it have nothing to do with the speech? Which of course made no sense any way, or at least to those of us who know what the "Axis of Evil" was "Germany, Italy and Japan" which have nothing in common with Iran, NK or Iraq. But hey, what the hell does Bush know about history.

Well aside from the fact they continued to purchase equipment through outside means before the axis of evil remark? The DPRK wasnt included out of the blue. They were doing stuff which landed them square in the middle of that remark. They went public with it and it no longer became mere speculation.

NK has asked for bi-lateral discussions and Bush continues to deny the process. In the meantime, the war of words = MORE nukes for NK.

*Thanks Bill Clinton and Carter for the NK Nukes*

Because there is more at stake than the US CH! All the nations involved in the 6 way talks have something at stake. Besides, there have been talks between NK and the US only. They take place on the sideline when the 6 people aren't talking.

Cause it was working till Bush put his foot in his mouth and put them in his state of the union speech and included them in "the axis of evil" then all bets were off. Just a guess.

HAHAHA!!!! Oh stephi! You out did your self here. The North Koreans have broken Bi-lateral agreement long before Bush took office. Nice of you to blame everything on bush.

We're still legally AT WAR with North Korea. UN Resolution 90 anyone?

South Korea, the US, Netherlands, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, etc etc are all still legally at war with North Korea. The matter has never been settled but everyone thinks that US sabre rattling is something new.

South Korea, the US, Netherlands, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, etc etc are all still legally at war with North Korea. The matter has never been settled but everyone thinks that US sabre rattling is something new.

Sabre rattling has been going on since, oh say, 1953?

*Thanks Bill Clinton and Carter for the NK Nukes*

Because there is more at stake than the US CH! All the nations involved in the 6 way talks have something at stake. Besides, there have been talks between NK and the US only. They take place on the sideline when the 6 people aren't talking.
Yeah that is what you do all the time....blame Clinton. :rolleyes:

Try getting some facts to back up your statements.

Ein Deutscher']Didn't you know that the entire world better be grateful and on it's knees prostrating before the mighty US-Americans?
*Canuckheaven* gets out the knee pads. :eek:

Yeah that is what you do all the time....blame Clinton. :rolleyes:

Try getting some facts to back up your statements.

Well he brokered an agreement that was broken and he did nothing so yea I can blame him for that.

HAHAHA!!!! Oh stephi! You out did your self here. The North Koreans have broken Bi-lateral agreement long before Bush took office. Nice of you to blame everything on bush.
Your statement as normal is false. :eek:

Well he brokered an agreement that was broken and he did nothing so yea I can blame him for that.
Those are your words...as you so are inclined to do to others, I am asking you to prove it.

Your statement as normal is false. :eek:

How is my statement that North Korea has broken an agreement in Bi-lateral talks false?

It isn't. They have.

Those are your words...as you so are inclined to do to others, I am asking you to prove it.

Look it up. Google it. 1994!

the US has defeated European imperialism, fascism and communism. So you better thank God the US is a "war nation". Would you have preferred us telling mr Hitler to please please stop the war because all the bleeding heart libs were against war? No we got in and did the job. The whining Euro nations couldn't even stop the Yugo civil war, the US did. And what thanks do we get?

How is my statement that North Korea has broken an agreement in Bi-lateral talks false?

It isn't. They have.
You say that NK broke the agreement and you are blaming Clinton....now back up your statement. You can't?

Look it up. Google it. 1994!
You made a statement earlier saying that you don't respect information off the Internet and you ask me to Google it....cute!! :rolleyes:

You say that NK broke the agreement and you are blaming Clinton....now back up your statement. You can't?

Your repeating yourself. Its a known FACT! F-A-C-T FACT, that North Korea violated the terms of the 1994 BI LATERAL AGREEMENT between the USA and North Korea.

Because of this violation, Bush has full right NOT to enter into Bi-lateral talks. Would you go into negotiations with a nation that broke an agreement?

*Thanks Bill Clinton and Carter for the NK Nukes*

Because there is more at stake than the US CH! All the nations involved in the 6 way talks have something at stake. Besides, there have been talks between NK and the US only. They take place on the sideline when the 6 people aren't talking.

Yes and thank Clinton for selling China our nuclear secrets and missile technology. Oh and giving NK nuclear material. Almost as smart as how Kerry wanted to give Iran material, then see if we could trust them to be honest in how they use it.

But what would you expect when those two guys hate America?

You made a statement earlier saying that you don't respect information off the Internet and you ask me to Google it....cute!! :rolleyes:

You seem to trust it too much. I gave you something to see if you can prove me wrong. I guess you can't because North Korea did break the 1994 Agreement.

*Canuckheaven* envisages Cornlieu pouring through his own personal reference library, looking for proof.

*Canuckheaven* envisages Cornlieu pouring through his own personal reference library, looking for proof.

Problem is, I'm away from my proof. Besides, its been all over the news for the last few years. Leave it to Canada to ignore it.

Your repeating yourself. Its a known FACT! F-A-C-T FACT, that North Korea violated the terms of the 1994 BI LATERAL AGREEMENT between the USA and North Korea.

Because of this violation, Bush has full right NOT to enter into Bi-lateral talks. Would you go into negotiations with a nation that broke an agreement?
If it is a "FACT" as you say, then you should be able to direct me to where I can read these "FACTS"?

If it is a "FACT" as you say, then you should be able to direct me to where I can read these "FACTS"?

Ok Fine!

Go to CNN.com, foxnews.com, msnbc.com, any major newspaper (it was in both of mine that I got while I was home), even look at reuters.

There is a diffence between the US and past war nations. The US is stomping around the world in some kind of propoganda-high manifest destiny trip believing itself to be running the world. Its not.

Actually the US is running the world, whether thats a good thing or not Ill let you deside.

If it is a "FACT" as you say, then you should be able to direct me to where I can read these "FACTS"?

What does it matter proof anymore..no one listens..I wonder why I even venture into this forum anymore. You could prove something happened and yet you, or someone else on your side of the fence, or on the other side will ignore it, and refute it and find some way to blame Bush or Clinton. No one looks objectively at the history of North Korea and see that they are historically untrust worthy. But people dont listen. They dont care. And I'm tired of backing up my facts. You want proof? You go friggen look it up.

www.globalsecurity.org Enjoy.

You...you had to get it...from a SONG???!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?


Im A American, a Right Winged American. And I say this now. We are a Military loveing nation. But its only because we want to be that way. Democracy has allowed us to be are gun loveing selfs.

We will not invade North Korea anytime soon since we can let China handle it. Ive stated that before.

Iran and Syria will get bombed to high heaven from either Israel and or US and a select few allies.



Has anyone seen Bush lately? Hes being rather nice to Europe. Haveing dinner with Chirac. Talking to NATO.

What does it matter proof anymore..no one listens..I wonder why I even venture into this forum anymore. You could prove something happened and yet you, or someone else on your side of the fence, or on the other side will ignore it, and refute it and find some way to blame Bush or Clinton. No one looks objectively at the history of North Korea and see that they are historically untrust worthy. But people dont listen. They dont care. And I'm tired of backing up my facts. You want proof? You go friggen look it up.

www.globalsecurity.org Enjoy.

That website is un-biased too.


What do you expect brother?

Actually the US is running the world, whether thats a good thing or not Ill let you deside.
The US are not running the world. Heck, they cant even run Iraq on their own. However it seems that the neo-con elite would very much like the US to run the world in pax americana fashion.

Problem is, I'm away from my proof. Besides, its been all over the news for the last few years. Leave it to Canada to ignore it.
Yeah you are away from your proof alright. :rolleyes:

So it has been all over the news the last few years.....ahhhh you mean during Bush's watch?

Ein Deutscher']The US are not running the world. Heck, they cant even run Iraq on their own. However it seems that the neo-con elite would very much like the US to run the world in pax americana fashion.


IF the rest of you would get off are backs it would be a hell of alot less of a problem to do so...

Yeah you are away from your proof alright. :rolleyes:

So it has been all over the news the last few years.....ahhhh you mean during Bush's watch?

Shouldint you be watching Al-Jazier? :rolleyes:

IF the rest of you would get off are backs it would be a hell of alot less of a problem to do so...
Ruling the world requires a bit more than a big military and an endless pocket of (worthless) dollars. With the current US image in the world, you'll not rule much. Did you already forget how Rome ended? They also overestimated their own importance and power. Even the German tribes back then managed to defeat them. Don't assume that the US is anything special in the history of Human empires.

What does it matter proof anymore..no one listens..I wonder why I even venture into this forum anymore. You could prove something happened and yet you, or someone else on your side of the fence, or on the other side will ignore it, and refute it and find some way to blame Bush or Clinton. No one looks objectively at the history of North Korea and see that they are historically untrust worthy. But people dont listen. They dont care. And I'm tired of backing up my facts. You want proof? You go friggen look it up.

www.globalsecurity.org Enjoy.
I hear you on that one. However, to have an honest debate, one must consider presenting some kind of facts to back up their arguments, otherwise it is hollow rhetoric?

I have looked it up in the case of Cornlieu way to often and he always wants to refute the findings but never posts his own proof. I do not like onesided debates where the onus is on me and only me to support an argument.

This has been an ongoing thing with Cornlieu and I know others find the same problem with his debating style. So I am gonna call him everytime from here on it.

I find it hard to say that Iraq had "the crap bombed out of it".

Total airdropped ordnance was far less than the total dropped on either Germany in WW II or Vietnam in the Vietnam War.

Also, since nearly all bombs were GPS or laser guided, nearly all of them hit their intended targets. Although there was collateral damage and civilian casualties, compared to any previous war in history this number is very low in proportion to the number of sorties, number of bombs dropped, or number of desired targets eliminated.

Saying that Iraq had "the crap bombed out of it" implies a random carpet bombing of the place.

Germany, in WW II, had the crap bombed out of it. Both in gross tonnage and in terms of collateral damage and missed targets, it was by modern standards, a terrible thing.

Iraqis, during both this war and the first Gulf War, were treated by and large to scenes of destruction of their conventional military forces and Saddam's power structure, while still being able to go to the central market. Yes, there were casualties - and if you were in the conventional Iraqi military and you resisted, you died.

But I can't say that the US "bombed the crap" out of Iraq.

Now, as for those two divisions that rolled out of Baghdad right near the end of the war, and disappeared into Valhalla as death rained from three B-52s overhead dropping cluster bombs with guided bomblets - well, we bombed the crap out of them. If you can imagine three planes so high that when the bombs opened to release their bomblets at several thousand feet, the bombs were already falling faster than the speed of sound (so no one could see the planes or hear the bombs falling), and then the bomblets each homed in on vehicles and warm bodies in the two divisional formations, and detonated in the space of 30 seconds, killing 32,000 Iraqi soldiers and destroying 2000 vehicles (tanks, APCs, trucks), then that's "bombing the crap" out of someone.

But I don't believe that we did that sort of thing to civilians - at least not on purpose.


THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!

There is intelligence and reason on the forums!! As much as you may hate the US, we DO NOT I REPEAT DO NOT use our military to intentionally slaughter civilians.

Ein Deutscher']Ruling the world requires a bit more than a big military and an endless pocket of (worthless) dollars. With the current US image in the world, you'll not rule much. Did you already forget how Rome ended? They also overestimated their own importance and power. Even the German tribes back then managed to defeat them. Don't assume that the US is anything special in the history of Human empires.

And dont under estimate US history. The US rose faster than the Romans and reached Pax Americana long before Rome reached its golden age.

And stop fucking over simplifying history. The Roman Empire fell for a multitude of reasons. Stop bending history to suit your needs. And for the love of god stop calling the dollar worthless. A strong Euro isnt exactly good for your economy. It means it becomes more expensive for exports to leave from Europe. But low and behold..imports from the US suddenly become cheaper..but whatever. Simple economics.

Shouldint you be watching Al-Jazier? :rolleyes:
Why is that?

Ein Deutscher']The Vietnam War and Gulf War 2 were not UN wars, but US wars with a "coalition of the willing" or a "coalition of the coerced" or a "coalition of the bought". You bear the brunt of the work in wars which directly serve your own imperialistic aims of i.e. securing resources or opening up markets for American products.


Thats right. Look at all the resources secured and markets opened up in Vietnam. Verrry imperialist.

We went to Vietnam because JFK made a commitment to defend the South's democracy even though South Vietnam was horribly corrupt and collapsing.

And dont under estimate US history. The US rose faster than the Romans and reached Pax Americana long before Rome reached its golden age.

And stop fucking over simplifying history. The Roman Empire fell for a multitude of reasons. Stop bending history to suit your needs. And for the love of god stop calling the dollar worthless. A strong Euro isnt exactly good for your economy. It means it becomes more expensive for exports to leave from Europe. But low and behold..imports from the US suddenly become cheaper..but whatever. Simple economics.
The dollar is worthless. Not just because of the stronger Euro but mainly because the amount of dollars in the world has no substantial backup in the US. The debt the US piles up is financed by printing new dollars at lightning speed, without having any backup for it. Once the inflation starts up and we have the next great depression, those who now hold dollars will watch as their value (and the US American debt) melts away and the Americans are the victors of their disastrous economic policies.

The Roman empire indeed fell for a number of reasons. But it shows that even a big empire as the Romans used to be, is not undefeatable. The British empire collapsed aswell, as did all other empires before them. Apparently, you Americans are victim of your self-induced "American exceptionalism" which makes you think that you're something special on this planet. Rest assured, this is not the case.

A timeline on nuclear weapons development in North Korea
1993
North Korea shocks the world by quitting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty amid suspicions that it is developing nuclear weapons.
1994
North Korea and U.S. sign nuclear agreement in Geneva. North Korea pledges to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for international aid to build two power-producing nuclear reactors.
August 31, 1998
North Korea fires a multistage rocket that flies over Japan and lands in the Pacific Ocean, proving the Koreans can strike any part of Japan's territory.
November 17, 1998
The United States and North Korea hold the first round of high-level talks in Pyongyang over North Korea's suspected construction of an underground nuclear facility. The United States demands inspections.
February 27-March 16, 1999
During a fourth round of talks, North Korea allows U.S. access to the site in exchange for promises of food. U.S. inspectors find no evidence of any nuclear activity during visit to site in May.
May 25-28, 1999
Former Defense Secretary William Perry visits North Korea and delivers a U.S. disarmament proposal during four days of talks.
September 13, 1999
North Korea pledges to freeze testing of long-range missiles for the duration of negotiations to improve relations.
September 17, 1999
President Clinton agrees to the first significant easing of economic sanctions against North Korea since the Korean War ended in 1953.
December, 1999
A U.S.-led international consortium signs a $4.6 billion contract to build two nuclear reactors in North Korea.
July, 2000
North Korea renews its threat to restart its nuclear program if Washington does not compensate for the loss of electricity caused by delays in building nuclear power plants.

Bush as President:

June 2001
North Korea warns it will reconsider its moratorium on missile tests if the Bush administration doesn't resume contacts aimed at normalizing relations.
July, 2001
State Department reports North Korea is going ahead with development of its long-range missile. A senior Bush administration official says North Korea has conducted an engine test of the Taepodong-1 missile.
December, 2001
President Bush warns Iraq and North Korea that they would be "held accountable" if they developed weapons of mass destruction "that will be used to terrorize nations."
April 6, 2002
North Korea agrees to revive stalled dialogue with Washington and South Korea and is willing to hold talks with an American envoy.
August 14, 2002
South and North Korea agree to hold family reunions and resume contacts on a range of issues, signaling the resumption of their reconciliation process after months of tension.
January 29, 2002
Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address. "By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger," he says.
September 25, 2002
President Bush plans to send an envoy to North Korea, reopening security talks with the country for the first time in almost two years.
October 7, 2002
A senior Pentagon official presses the North Korean military for access to four Americans who defected from the U.S. Army in the 1960s and are living in Pyongyang.
October 13, 2002
North Korea warns that the United States' "hostile policy" toward the country was hurting efforts to recover the remains of U.S. soldiers missing from the 1950-53 Korean War.
October 16, 2002
North Korea tells U.S. officials it has developed a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 agreement.
December 4, 2002
North Korea rejects the IAEA call to allow inspections, saying the U.N. nuclear watchdog was abetting U.S. policy toward the North.
December 12, 2002
North Korea announces it plans to immediately restart the Yongbyon reactor to generate electricity to make up for the cutoff of fuel oil shipments.
December 21, 2002
The IAEA says North Korea has disabled surveillance devices the agency had placed at the five-megawatt Yongbyon research reactor.
December 22, 2002
North Korea says it has begun removing IAEA monitoring equipment from Yongbyon, drawing condemnation from the United States, South Korea, Japan and France.
December 27, 2002
North Korea tells the IAEA its inspectors are no longer needed at Yongbyon and orders their expulsion.
December 31, 2002
U.N. nuclear inspectors leave North Korea.
January 3, 2003
North Korea blames United States for nuclear standoff but says it is willing to hold talks.
January 6, 2003
IAEA gives North Korea one last chance to readmit inspectors or be reported to the U.N. Security Council for breaching nuclear safeguards. Bush says dialogue with North will happen.
January 7, 2003
North Korea says economic sanctions would mean war and urges United States to sit down to talks.
January 10, 2003
North Korea announces it will withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
February 5, 2003
North Korea announces that it had reactivated its nuclear facilities and is going ahead with their operation "on a normal footing."
February 12, 2003
IAEA holds emergency meeting to refer standoff to the UN Security Council.
February 27, 2003
The United States says North Korea has reactivated its five-megawatt nuclear reactor at Yongbyon.
April 16, 2003
The United States will talk with North Korea as early as next week in a meeting hosted by China about ending North Korea’s suspected nuclear weapons program.
April 24, 2003
Nuclear talks in Beijing ended Friday after U.S. officials said North Korea claimed to have nuclear weapons and might test, export or use them
May 12, 2003
North Korea backs out of the only remaining legal obligation blocking its nuclear ambitions, a 1992 pact with South Korea to keep the peninsula free of nuclear weapons. The North's official news agency cites a "sinister" U.S. agenda as the reason.
June 9, 2003
North Korea says publicly that it will build a nuclear deterrent, "unless the US gives up its hostile policy".
August 27-29, 2003
Six-nation talks in Beijing on North Korea's nuclear programme. The meeting fails to bridge the gap between Washington and Pyongyang. Delegates agree to meet again.
October 2, 2003
North Korea announces publicly it has reprocessed the spent fuel rods.
December 9, 2003
North Korea offers to "freeze" its nuclear programme in return for a list of concessions from the US. It says that unless Washington agrees, it will not take part in further talks.
The US rejects North Korea's offer. President George W Bush says Pyongyang must dismantle the programme altogether.
December 27, 2003
North Korea says it will take part in a new round of six-party talks on its nuclear program in early 2004.
January 10, 2004
The unofficial US team visits what the North calls its "nuclear deterrent" facility at Yongbyon.
January 22, 2004
US nuclear scientist Siegfried Hecker tells Congress that the delegates visiting Yongbyon were shown what appeared to be weapons-grade plutonium, but he did not see any evidence of a nuclear bomb.
February 25, 2004
Second round of six nation talks end without breakthrough in Beijing.
May 23, 2004
The UN atomic agency is reported to be investigating allegations that North Korea secretly sent uranium to Libya when Tripoli was trying to develop nuclear weapons.
June 23, 2004
Third round of six nation talks held in Beijing, with the US making a new offer to allow North Korea fuel aid if it freezes then dismantles its nuclear program.
July 24,2004
North Korea rejects US suggestions that it follow Libya's lead and give up its nuclear ambitions, calling the US proposal a "daydream".
August 16, 2004
North Korea says it will not attend a working meeting ahead of the next round of six-party talks on its controversial nuclear program, saying the US was "not interested in making the dialogue fruitful".
September 28, 2004
North Korea says it has turned plutonium from 8,000 spent fuel rods into nuclear weapons. Speaking at the UN General Assembly, Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su-hon said the weapons were needed for "self-defence" against "US nuclear threat".
February 10, 2005
Pyongyang officially said for the first time that it possesses nuclear weapons and suspends any further six-party talks.

Yeah you are away from your proof alright. :rolleyes:

So it has been all over the news the last few years.....ahhhh you mean during Bush's watch?

And the agreement was broken prior to Bush's watch. NY&NJ provided a source. Look at it.

Thats right. Look at all the resources secured and markets opened up in Vietnam. Verrry imperialist.

We went to Vietnam because JFK made a commitment to defend the South's democracy even though South Vietnam was horribly corrupt and collapsing.
Vietnam is among the few wars which did not open up new markets for American products.

Not to mention being attacked in international waters by North Vietnamese patrol boats. Or did that little fact escape your history class?



Gotta call you on this one. Some of the attacks (in the Gulf of Tonkin) actually never took place, but were false alarms reported as attacks by PT boats in the confusion, and lied about afterward.

Well he brokered an agreement that was broken and he did nothing so yea I can blame him for that.
Yet you say Clinton did nothing huh?

Who has fanned the fires most recently? BUSH!!

And the agreement was broken prior to Bush's watch. NY&NJ provided a source. Look at it.
Once again you want me to use an Internet source? I thought you didn't trust the Internet?

How are they guilty? Guilty of trying to defend themselves? Seems to me that the Palestinian terrorists do more damage than the Israelis do.

Both sides bash each other up pretty good. Palestinians blow up civilians and fire rockets into suburbs, Israelis bulldoze homes and restrict Palestinian freedoms. Doesn't matter who started it anymore.

Once again you want me to use an Internet source? I thought you didn't trust the Internet?

I only pointed to what NY&NJ put out. Did you look at it?

Ein Deutscher']The dollar is worthless. Not just because of the stronger Euro but mainly because the amount of dollars in the world has no substantial backup in the US. The debt the US piles up is financed by printing new dollars at lightning speed, without having any backup for it. Once the inflation starts up and we have the next great depression, those who now hold dollars will watch as their value (and the US American debt) melts away and the Americans are the victors of their disastrous economic policies.

You are completely amazing. Please, stop now. You have no understanding of how the monetary system in the US is run do you? And how the US regulates money do you? Apparently not.

And for your information, all currencies float. No currency is backed up by anything anymore. Gold standard is out of the window. Has been for decades.

Yet you say Clinton did nothing huh?

Who has fanned the fires most recently? BUSH!!

Because Bush wouldn't agree to bi-lateral talks, your saying he's fanned them? Thank God I don't drink whatever it is you drink.

I'm going to dinner.

There is a diffence between the US and past war nations. The US is stomping around the world in some kind of propoganda-high manifest destiny trip believing itself to be running the world. Its not.

Ok the USA does NOT think its ruling the world. its more like the spearhead for international coalitions with the exception of the Iraq war and Vietnam. Eg: Gulf War, war on Terror, and other milti-national efforts conducted during the 90s. Although it is not an economic leader anymore, it still has one of the best militaries in the world

Why not? In reality, the Confederate States had their own Currency, Government and military. It wasn't recognized by anyone but in reality it was. It was still a war though fought by the Union Army so yes it does count.

Winning the Civil War (completely on our own) should count not only as a war, but a MAJOR MILITARY ACHIEVEMENT for two reasons:

1. A good chunk of the US Military (including by far the best generals: Lee, Jackson, Longstreet) quit and took up arms against the USA.

2. Rather than have foreign help, we nearly had foreign opposition from Britain!

Yet you say Clinton did nothing huh?

Who has fanned the fires most recently? BUSH!!


And this is nothing new. Clinton did do nothing. Clinton had a chance and yet, here we go:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/1994/index.html

Unfortunately the reference I wished to use McCain isnt online anymore. I'll have to look that up directly from the Senate website when I get home from the market.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/un/dprk-021017-iaea01.htm

IAEA Worry over not having access from 1994 onward to sites.

Ein Deutscher']The American civil war does not count among the wars fought without outside help, since it was a war fought among (US-)Americans. Naturally, the wars on the American continent, especially those against much, much weaker opponents such as Panama or Mexico, are neglectable and barely noticable as inner-American conflicts.


By that logic, the dozens and dozens of instances of small-scale US Military action that we keep arguing out should be even more "neglectable and barely noticable". But of course they are shouted out and held high as examples of the Great Imperialist Satan!

Because Bush wouldn't agree to bi-lateral talks, your saying he's fanned them?
Not only disagreeing with bi-lateral talks, but threatening NK as well. This bodes well for global security.....NOT!!

Thank God I don't drink whatever it is you drink.
The water here is fresh and I really do enjoy my coffee. :)

I'm going to dinner.
Perhaps you will find the strength to do some solid research? :rolleyes:

Ein Deutscher']Why would the US have pulled out, if not for the thousands of victims of that war, hm? Might it have been the massive peace movement during the 70s which eventually forced the politicians to change their mind?

Besides that, the jungle warfare was way too much for the GIs. So your statement that you won every military engagement, seems to be unbacked by reality.

I have to agree. We lost Vietnam.

However, we lost for political reasons, not military ones. Our leaders chose not to escalate the conflict, because we would have ended up fighting China and the USSR. We didn't want to start another world war. Funny thing for a "War Nation" to do, don't you think??

A story in the New York Times on July 20, 2003 reported that US intelligence officials believe that North Korea may have a second facility that could produce weapons-grade plutonium. The second facility is believed to be buried underground at an unknown location. The story, "North Korea Hides New Nuclear Site, Evidence Suggests" by David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker New York Times reported that sensors on North Korea's borders have begun to detect elevated levels of krypton-85, a gas emitted as spent fuel is converted into plutonium. The report says the issue that most concerns American and Asian officials, though, is analysis showing that the gas is not coming from North Korea's main nuclear plant, Yongbyon. Instead, the experts believe the gas may be coming from another hidden facility, buried deep in the mountains. North Korea is believed to have 11-15,000 underground military-industrial facilities.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke-plutonium.htm

It takes years to build an underground facility, and even more time to equip it with the material needed to start conversions of fuel into weapons grade anything...you can draw your own conclusions as to this.

It's funny how Europeans call any history that doesn't demonize the U.S. or promote Marxism 'revisionist.'

Well said. Except for the Marxism bit.

I heared that children in Swiss schools were taught that the FBI or Israel destroyed the WTC on 9/11. Revisionist? I think so.

And this is nothing new. Clinton did do nothing. Clinton had a chance and yet, here we go:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/1994/index.html

Unfortunately the reference I wished to use McCain isnt online anymore. I'll have to look that up directly from the Senate website when I get home from the market.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/un/dprk-021017-iaea01.htm

IAEA Worry over not having access from 1994 onward to sites.
From the same web site that you listed:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/1994/941021-D415.htm

Agreed Framework between the United States of America and
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(October 21, 1994)

It is not like Clinton did nothing. Maybe not perfection but a start?

From the same web site that you listed:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/1994/941021-D415.htm

Agreed Framework between the United States of America and
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(October 21, 1994)

It is not like Clinton did nothing. Maybe not perfection but a start?

Clinton was an idealist. I never said he did nothing. I said he did the wrong thing.

I have to agree. We lost Vietnam.

However, we lost for political reasons, not military ones. Our leaders chose not to escalate the conflict, because we would have ended up fighting China and the USSR. We didn't want to start another world war. Funny thing for a "War Nation" to do, don't you think??

Militarily, we could have won Vietnam, but politicaly we lost because of domestic issues going on that made us pull out. If Vietnam was suppoerted like WWII was by the american citizens (we also needed a better reason than just stopping the spread of communism), maybee the war could have gone smoothly without all the political quagmire that took place

Also, not only would it be a world war, but a nuclear haulocaust so that was a no win situation.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/un/dprk-021017-iaea01.htm

IAEA Worry over not having access from 1994 onward to sites.
You will notice that this occurs after Bush declares NK as part of the "Axis of Evil"?

No wonder that the IAEA got worried, especially when they got ejected from the country. Politics by confrontation is not necessarily the best way to deal with this country, unless of course you have got your nuclear weapon cather's mitt on?

From the same web site that you listed:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/dprk/1994/941021-D415.htm

Agreed Framework between the United States of America and
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(October 21, 1994)

It is not like Clinton did nothing. Maybe not perfection but a start?

And that was the agreement North Korea broke your honor.

Clinton was an idealist. I never said he did nothing. I said he did the wrong thing.
well you did say he did nothing, but you have modified that stance. If Clinton did the wrong thing, is Bush doing the right thing?

Here here.

I heared that children in Swiss schools were taught that the FBI or Israel destroyed the WTC on 9/11. Revisionist? I think so.

Thats bad, but its worse that people think that Bush himself destroyed the WTC buildings. :rolleyes: Idiots

Ein Deutscher']

The Roman empire indeed fell for a number of reasons. But it shows that even a big empire as the Romans used to be, is not undefeatable. The British empire collapsed aswell, as did all other empires before them. Apparently, you Americans are victim of your self-induced "American exceptionalism" which makes you think that you're something special on this planet. Rest assured, this is not the case.\

the only problem with your theory is, the US is not an expansionist empire and did not take over other peoples land in order to exploit for riches, like France, Britain, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Portugal all did, all of them.

And that was the agreement North Korea broke your honor.
Unfortunately, there is no International Court that the US could appeal to? Oh wait...there is an International Court but the US wants no part of it.

And what year did NK break this agreement?

Unfortunately, there is no International Court that the US could appeal to? Oh wait...there is an International Court but the US wants no part of it.

And what year did NK break this agreement?

What years did they didn't break it?

honor.

Must your kind wrecked every thing? Including the English language. "Honour"

Must your kind wrecked every thing? Including the English language. "Honour"

there are different dialects in engilsh, as there are for almost every other language, thank you :mad:

Must your kind wrecked every thing? Including the English language. "Honour"

Go stuff it up your arse Stephistan. That is how we spell honor and I shall spell it like that.

What are you racist? "Must your kind..." Sounds like a racist comment to me.

Ein Deutscher']You don't finance them. You loan them money and make sure the dollar stays currency #1 in the world. Just wait until more people have figured out that the dollar is worthless paper and the Euro is the currency of the future.

Actually, the dollar is made of a special kind of cloth.

Freedom is a wonderful thing. Choose your preferred international currency, and let everyone else choose theirs.

there are different dialects in engilsh, as there are for almost every other language, thank you :mad:

No, English is pretty much spelled the same way, for those of us who use proper English. How it is spoken as in "dialects" may vary, but the spelling is not different. Americans were so gosh darn lazy they couldn't even add the "u" , now that's lazy..lol

No, English is pretty much spelled the same way, for those of us who use proper English. How it is spoken as in "dialects" may vary, but the spelling is not different. Americans were so gosh darn lazy they couldn't even add the "u" , now that's lazy..lol

Oh brother!

Go stuff it up your arse Stephistan. That is how we spell honor and I shall spell it like that.

What are you racist? "Must your kind..." Sounds like a racist comment to me.

Now, now, no flaming Corny, might have to get the mods to swoop down on you. Although even when I was a mod I usually put up with you, so I wouldn't worry. You seriously should stop the flaming though. The mods might notice any way.

No, English is pretty much spelled the same way, for those of us who use proper English. How it is spoken as in "dialects" may vary, but the spelling is not different. Americans were so gosh darn lazy they couldn't even add the "u" , now that's lazy..lol

Ok and many other languages with different dialects are basically the same thing, with a few exceptions, and dont start talking all that shit about how americans are lazy you colorful bastard :p

Now, now, no flaming Conry, might have to get the mods to swoop down on you. Although even when I was a mod I usually put up with you, so I wouldn't worry. You seriously should stop the flaming though. The mods might notice any way.

Stop thinking of yourself as high and mighty! Your not!

There's the, I guess its the Queens English now? And American English. We use American English. Get used to it.

What years did they didn't break it?
Do you always answer a question with a question? Should be good for zero marks in school?

You once again evade the direct question....what year? Pick one?

Actually, the dollar is made of a special kind of cloth.

Freedom is a wonderful thing. Choose your preferred international currency, and let everyone else choose theirs.that and the ink is specially made... cannot be duplicated.

even the most sophisticated color reproduction machine cannot print that shade of Green.

colorful

*colourful* ;)

Do you always answer a question with a question? Should be good for zero marks in school?

Only in debates. Its called turning the tables.

You once again evade the direct question....what year? Pick one?

I'm asking you. According to about every link I look it says they've been doing this for years since 1994. So I have to ask you, what year didn't they break it.

*colourful* ;)

thats exactly why i underlined it

There's the, I guess its the Queens English now? And American English. We use American English. Get used to it.

Well, just as long as you know America didn't event English, you only bastardized it. ;)

Well, just as long as you know America didn't event English, you only bastardized it. ;)

Ok thats messed up :mad: You really dont like america do you?

Well, just as long as you know America didn't event English, you only bastardized it. ;)

event? don't you mean INVENT!!

Only in debates. Its called turning the tables.
Ummm in debates, you cannot turn the table by not answering a direct question.

I'm asking you. According to about every link I look it says they've been doing this for years since 1994. So I have to ask you, what year didn't they break it.
What links are you looking at? Are those Internet links? I bet you are regretting what you stated about the Internet earlier?

So, what year did NK violate the treaty again? BTW, every year is the wrong answer.

Well, just as long as you know America didn't event English, you only bastardized it. ;)


Event? is that some form of English English? Should we lazy ass americans replace the i with an e?

event? don't you mean INVENT!!

Why yes, I did. Not bad coming from some one who can't spell the English language. Perhaps there is hope for you yet. :D

Ummm in debates, you cannot turn the table by not answering a direct question.

By turning the question around and direct it at your opponet to answer yea you can. I did this all through my American Presidency class until my professor put an end to one on one debates. The girl I challenged didn't have a clue. It was a slaughter when there was a debate.

What links are you looking at? Are those Internet links? I bet you are regretting what you stated about the Internet earlier?

The links posted on here since right now they are my only source of info.

So, what year did NK violate the treaty again? BTW, every year is the wrong answer.

Then what is the answer then? Please enlighten me ol wise sage

Event? is that some form of English English? Should we lazy ass americans replace the i with an e?

And perhaps add an n

Why yes, I did. Not bad coming from some one who can't spell the English language. Perhaps there is hope for you yet. :D

I can spell the English Language. Just not the Queens English.

Ok thats messed up :mad: You really dont like america do you?

Nah, have tons of American friends. Not fussy on their current administration, but hey, join the rest of the world. We just like razzing Corny cause he always gets pawned by my husband..lol

I have no problem with America or her citizens. Just don't like her president at the moment. :)

Nah, have tons of American friends. Not fussy on their current administration, but hey, join the rest of the world. We just like razzing Corny cause he always gets pawned by my husband..lol

I have no problem with America or her citizens. Just don't like her president at the moment. :)

Just like I don't like your Prime Minister!

As for "pawning" me (I won't say what I'm thinking at the moment because it would've been a flame), come see me in my Intro to Global Politics Class when we get a debate going.

*colourful* ;)
Alright, we'll make a deal-

You all start pronouncing the u's in words like 'about' and 'out' (instead of saying 'aboot' and 'oot') and will start adding your superfluous u's to color and honor.....:)

I can spell the English Language. Just not the Queens English.

Ok, Corny, even in American English there was no need for an upper case "L" in language..lol :D

Just like I don't like your Prime Minister!

As for "pawning" me (I won't say what I'm thinking at the moment because it would've been a flame), come see me in my Intro to Global Politics Class when we get a debate going.

Ok now people, lets stay on the topic about the US being a war nation...

:)

I agree that the United States can be a nation of war, but then again all modern Western nation-states have been nations-at-arms. France under Napoleon all but conquered Europe, the sun never set over the British Empire, Spain wreaked havoc on the Aztecs and Incas and the modern Nation-States of Germany, Austria and Turkey fought numerous wars agianst each other in the industrial nineteenth century. The United States's emphasis on military superiority isn't an original idea at all, rather learned from our European relatives. :sniper:

Ok, Corny, even in American English there was no need for an upper case "L" in language..lol :D

Shut up Spelling Nazi!

I Don't Care!!

Alright, we'll make a deal-

You all start pronouncing the u's in words like 'about' and 'out' (instead of saying 'aboot' and 'oot')

You know that's a myth right?

You know that's a myth right?

Hmmm no it isn't. I've heard Canadians say Aboot on TV all the time as well as oot.

Hmmm no it isn't. I've heard Canadians say Aboot on TV all the time as well as oot.

You must be only getting your Canadian TV from Newfoundland then..lol

the US has defeated European imperialism, fascism and communism. So you better thank God the US is a "war nation". Would you have preferred us telling mr Hitler to please please stop the war because all the bleeding heart libs were against war? No we got in and did the job. The whining Euro nations couldn't even stop the Yugo civil war, the US did. And what thanks do we get?

Thanks for further inflaming relations with our allies.

Well, just as long as you know America didn't event English, you only bastardized it. ;)
We know. Annnd-we stuck to modifying just one language, not english and french....unlike a friendly northern nieghbor I can think of.....

We know. Annnd-we stuck to modifying just one language, not english and french....unlike a friendly northern nieghbor I can think of.....

C'est la vie! :fluffle:

You know that's a myth right?
Yeah right....I've seen DeGrassi High, you can't fool me. Besides, I live in tourist towns, we get Canadians.

You must be only getting your Canadian TV from Newfoundland then..lol

No actually. They are guests on the TV shows that I watch and I believe on a show that aires on either ABC, CBS, or NBC. I can't keep them all straight.

By turning the question around and direct it at your opponet to answer yea you can. I did this all through my American Presidency class until my professor put an end to one on one debates. The girl I challenged didn't have a clue. It was a slaughter when there was a debate.
I can see why the debates were ended. To debate effectively one must present thier "evidence".

"In debate, complete source citations of evidence must be presented on request by the opposing team or judge in a round for each source used."

In other words, the onus is on you to state your case and then prove it.

Since you cannot back up your "evidence", then your case is forfeit. No surprise here.

C'est la vie! :fluffle:
I should mention, just in case, that I have nothing but love for Canada. But one mongeralized version of a lanuage picking on another was too much to resist.

Ein Deutscher']The US are not running the world. Heck, they cant even run Iraq on their own. However it seems that the neo-con elite would very much like the US to run the world in pax americana fashion.

I'm stumped. You're not one to run around shouting "IMPERIALISM OF THE GREAT SATAN AMERICA"???

Thanks for further inflaming relations with our allies.

the truth hurts sometimes, and our socalled allies, who cares about them. They (Russia, Germany and France) let themselves be bribed by Saddam to vote against the resolution. That alone deserves contempt. Furthermore, Chirac and Annan are the biggest crooks in government alive (in western nations/institutions).

No actually. They are guests on the TV shows that I watch and I believe on a show that aires on either ABC, CBS, or NBC. I can't keep them all straight.

Wow, you must be watching way too much TV if you can't keep track of three channels. Although it would explain a lot. Zeppistan send his luv!

I should mention, just in case, that I have nothing but love for Canada. But one mongeralized version of a lanuage picking on another was too much to resist.

We love you too.. well, MOST of you! ;)

The value of this thread can probably be summed up in one picture :
http://www.shifting-gears.com/graph-down.jpg

Ah, Kwangistar, always the voice of reason. :) (unless he's talking about politics) lol

I can see why the debates were ended. To debate effectively one must present thier "evidence".

No! He ended it because it was getting out of hand. Besides, she didn't have evidence for 90% of the crap she was spouting. I, however, proved her wrong on many occassions and when she did try to back up her claims, there was more proof against what she was stating.

"In debate, complete source citations of evidence must be presented on request by the opposing team or judge in a round for each source used."

This WAS NOT a debating society.

In other words, the onus is on you to state your case and then prove it.

I didn't have too. NY&J proved it to you. You've ignored it.

Since you cannot back up your "evidence", then your case is forfeit. No surprise here.

No surprise that you've ignored the evidence presented because I didn't post it. Brave of you. Its been proven. Its been in the news. You just didn't care.

Wow, you must be watching way too much TV if you can't keep track of three channels. Although it would explain a lot. Zeppistan send his luv!

whatever

You will notice that this occurs after Bush declares NK as part of the "Axis of Evil"?

No wonder that the IAEA got worried, especially when they got ejected from the country. Politics by confrontation is not necessarily the best way to deal with this country, unless of course you have got your nuclear weapon cather's mitt on?

Now wait a minute. Bush was elected in 2000. They were worried about not getting access to sites since 1994. Why is it Bush's fault that they were not granted access prior to his presidency?

The United States is not militaristic in any real sense of the word. Let's also be honest here. The only reason why people are saying this is because of the war in Iraq. I'm sure there were others saying that the U.S. was a militaristic nation prior to 9/11, but their view did not gain credence until the U.S. responded militarily to the attacks of 9/11 in Afghanistan. People should be incredibly happy that in this world, the U.S. has chosen not to use its power to subjugate other people's. Unlike the great powers of the world such as the Roman Empire, the Islamic Caliphate, the British Empire, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union , the United States, as a superpower, has not done what normal "imperial" powers have done. We have not sold millions into slavery, we have not killed half of the population of lands that our military has conquered, we have not forced the natives to work in our factories, we have not exploited the wealth of those who have been conquered. In fact, whenever the United States has invaded another country, the invasion and the post-war situation have been models of decent human rights. Think of post-war Germany and Japan. Instead of stripping the country of its resources and forcing its people to work for us, we rebuilt their countries and provided a system whereby these enemies of ours could get back onto their feet. Similarly, during and after the Korean War, we provided assistance to get the war-torn nation to its feet. Even today, we are rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan after the cruelty it suffered at the behest of the despotic rulers who ruled the two countries. Yet, people are so in love with the concept of hating America. There is little besides utter contempt for history and an undying jealousy which is evident throughout the anti-Americanism found in Europe. More so, the anti-Americanism found within many leftists in the United States is based primarily off of a flawed assumption as to how America was founded and how it has operated since its founding.

snip

Corny, don't make me get Zeppistan in here. :eek:

The value of this thread can probably be summed up in one picture :
http://www.shifting-gears.com/graph-down.jpg

I agree.

The North Koreans have been building weapons all along. Even after they signed the agreement in 1994, they continued to builed nukes. So to blame Bush for that is silly and immature.

Must your kind wrecked every thing? Including the English language. "Honour"

Perhaps you need a lesson in grammar?

"Must your kind wreck" not "Must your kind wrecked"

The English language is great. Don't wreck it, please.

The North Koreans have been building weapons all along. Even after they signed the agreement in 1994, they continued to builed nukes. So to blame Bush for that is silly and immature.

Oh, I don't doubt it. Silly to blame Clinton too. They just weren't screaming it from the roof tops until after the "Axis of Evil" speech. See now they have a bone to pick.

the US's economy now depends on our oil wars and exploitation of 3rd world countries. once the world stands up to the big bully that is the states, its not gonna be pretty. f--k world trade!

Perhaps you need a lesson in grammar?

"Must your kind wreck" not "Must your kind wrecked"

The English language is great. Don't wreck it, please.

See, now that's the spirit! :)

Well, just as long as you know America didn't event English, you only bastardized it. ;)

I believe the language that became English originated in the Netherlands.

Corny, don't make me get Zeppistan in here. :eek:

Do so. I won't be here. Going to write a paper that do tomorrow! :D

I believe the language that became English originated in the Netherlands.

It's kewl, I was just razzing Corny, I put the obvious in, but it seems only two people caught it. Good for you.

the US's economy now depends on our oil wars and exploitation of 3rd world countries. once the world stands up to the big bully that is the states, its not gonna be pretty. f--k world trade!

Oil wars? Stop dribbling in Democrat BS!

Do so. I won't be here. Going to write a paper that do tomorrow! :D

Corny's ph33r of Zeppistan chases him off again..lmao (It always works) :D

Corny's ph33r of Zeppistan chases him off again..lmao (It always works) :D

I don't fear (not ph33r) anyone. I really do have a paper due tomorrow. cya!

I don't fear (not ph33r) anyone. I really do have a paper due tomorrow. cya!

*Giggles* later Corny, say hi to your sister for me .. :)

Good luck with your paper!

*Giggles* later Corny, say hi to your sister for me .. :)

If I talk to her I will.

Good luck with your paper!

I need it!

*leaves the forums*

Agh...I leave for 20 minutes and return to three more pages, and only one of them has any worth :headbang: . CH, being you're pretty much the only one I can tolerate at the moment lemme answer your question:

Is Bush doing the right thing? That depends on what you feel is right in terms of the North Korea situation. I frankly feel he is damned either way. Events have progressed to the point of no return already when it comes to Korea. By some fault of Clinton for refusing any sort of action in Korea. Both Bush and Clinton fall under the same category of mediocore but Bush has been more proactive. Bush did what Clinton wouldnt have done because Bush ignores poll numbers(this being painfully obvious with only a 50% approval rating amongst the public in the US).

Now Bush went into Iraq with a small coalition and he was berated for not including every last nation on the planet. Fine. Bush wants to include all the major players in Asia in six way talks and now instead of that we have to negotiate with them directly one on one...why? What benefit does a direct one on one summit bring? Unfortunatly history determines who is right and right and that wont happen for years to come.

Oh..and Stephistan, stop flamebaiting. Leave Corneliu alone and stop mentioning your husband. God honest you're like a child screaming they're going to get their parent. :p

Oh..and Stephistan, stop flamebaiting. Leave Corneliu alone and stop mentioning your husband. God honest you're like a child screaming they're going to get their parent. :p

Flamebait? huh? It's a running joke between him and I. No sweat.

A "war nation"? I wish. If so we could get to slaughtering all these damn Leftists and be done with it.

Truly, the U.S. is a war-waging nation. People are DUMB enough to go and say that war's okay. REally, war isn't okay! Even when this nation was founded, it was all about the war, $, power, etc. I'm tired of being brainwashed into American thinking, into which "we had reason to fight in the war." A great myriad will never fully comprehend that too many people, including the combatants, are being slaughtered to death for a rich, gay fucker sitting on the throne with the pencil in his hand on what he'll agree or disagree with. As long as this nation is powerful and doesn't collapse, the U.S. will always be the agressor, never even figuring out what "peace" and "peacemaking" and any other synonym going along w/ "peace."

The U.S. Is a War Nation: Get Over It.

Wow. How insightful.

The U.S. is a war nation, that's just the way it is....so we should just get over it and stop having opinions over weather it is correct or not. Nice.

Flamebait? huh? It's a running joke between him and I. No sweat.

It is a joke NY! Don't worry!

Truly, the U.S. is a war-waging nation. People are DUMB enough to go and say that war's okay. REally, war isn't okay! Even when this nation was founded, it was all about the war, $, power, etc. I'm tired of being brainwashed into American thinking, into which "we had reason to fight in the war." A great myriad will never fully comprehend that too many people, including the combatants, are being slaughtered to death for a rich, gay fucker sitting on the throne with the pencil in his hand on what he'll agree or disagree with. As long as this nation is powerful and doesn't collapse, the U.S. will always be the agressor, never even figuring out what "peace" and "peacemaking" and any other synonym going along w/ "peace."

Thats why we helped make the UN. Obviously. Not to mention that we have been working for Mideast peace off and on for 30 years.

Thats why we have been diplomatically (not militarily) trying to bring peace to Darfur and the rest of Sudan. And yes, Sudan has plenty of oil. Gee, if they have oil, why haven't we invaded them to steal it? We even have a good excuse: genocide or almost genocide. Oh wait... we must not be a "war nation" or an imperialist nation.

Now wait a minute. Bush was elected in 2000. They were worried about not getting access to sites since 1994. Why is it Bush's fault that they were not granted access prior to his presidency?
The US was in fact allowed access to the sites prior to the election of Bush:

November 17, 1998

The United States and North Korea hold the first round of high-level talks in Pyongyang over North Korea's suspected construction of an underground nuclear facility. The United States demands inspections.

February 27-March 16, 1999

During a fourth round of talks, North Korea allows U.S. access to the site in exchange for promises of food. U.S. inspectors find no evidence of any nuclear activity during visit to site in May.

May 25-28, 1999

Former Defense Secretary William Perry visits North Korea and delivers a U.S. disarmament proposal during four days of talks.

September 13, 1999

North Korea pledges to freeze testing of long-range missiles for the duration of negotiations to improve relations.

September 17, 1999

President Clinton agrees to the first significant easing of economic sanctions against North Korea since the Korean War ended in 1953.

December, 1999

A U.S.-led international consortium signs a $4.6 billion contract to build two nuclear reactors in North Korea.

From all of these interactions with the Clinton administration, there was some semblance of co-operation and a modicum of respect.

It appears that once Bush was elected and started trash talking NK, that NK threw up her defences, kicked out the nuclear inspectors and started serious work towards a nuclear weapon. Why no one else sees this is beyond me.

Another consideration, is the fact that Bush referred to NK as being part of the "Axis of Evil", and that really got NK on the defensive, I am sure that the US invasion of Iraq was also another warning sign for NK to prepare herself for a US onslaught.

For Bush to outright refuse bi-lateral discussions as requested by NK is also beyond me. It appears that Bush's style is one of confrontation rather that diplomacy. I guess that is okay if the US is willing to have one of her cities nuked?

Agh...I leave for 20 minutes and return to three more pages, and only one of them has any worth :headbang: . CH, being you're pretty much the only one I can tolerate at the moment lemme answer your question:

Is Bush doing the right thing? That depends on what you feel is right in terms of the North Korea situation. I frankly feel he is damned either way. Events have progressed to the point of no return already when it comes to Korea. By some fault of Clinton for refusing any sort of action in Korea. Both Bush and Clinton fall under the same category of mediocore but Bush has been more proactive. Bush did what Clinton wouldnt have done because Bush ignores poll numbers(this being painfully obvious with only a 50% approval rating amongst the public in the US).
With all due respect, I find that shouting threats at a country that has the potential of producing nuclear weapons is certainly not proactive.

Since Bush is looking for international help in future relations with troublesome countries, he is less likely to garner that support if he is unable or unwilling to accept any outside advice. I personally think that his bluster should be dulled down a bit if he truly wants to demonstrate that he is a "compassionate conservative".

Now Bush went into Iraq with a small coalition and he was berated for not including every last nation on the planet. Fine. Bush wants to include all the major players in Asia in six way talks and now instead of that we have to negotiate with them directly one on one...why? What benefit does a direct one on one summit bring? Unfortunatly history determines who is right and right and that wont happen for years to come.
Since the US is technically at war with NK, it only makes sense that NK wants bi-lateral talks with the US. What harm is there in sitting down and attempting to work out a deal that is in the best interests of both parties?

IF the talks fail, then the US can mount up again and I am sure the rest of the world would be more likely to mount up as well. In the meantime, the citizens of the world wait to see what will come about with the war of words. If the situation in Iraq is any hint of what the future may bring, I shudder to think how this whole nightmare is going to turn out. Naturally I fear the worst case scenario.

With all due respect, I find that shouting threats at a country that has the potential of producing nuclear weapons is certainly not proactive.

What about North Korea and Iran's steady streams of anti-American comments and propaganda? Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations' repeated ultimatums and threats? Remember Saddam's hostile rhetoric?

Since Bush is looking for international help in future relations with troublesome countries, he is less likely to garner that support if he is unable or unwilling to accept any outside advice. I personally think that his bluster should be dulled down a bit if he truly wants to demonstrate that he is a "compassionate conservative".

He is "dulling it down a bit". He has said so, and has gone to great lengths to show that his second term will focus much more on diplomacy. For example, his present trip to Europe.

Assistant Secretary James A. Kelly and his delegation advised the North Koreans that we had recently acquired information that indicates that North Korea has a program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons in violation of the Agreed Framework and other agreements. North Korean officials acknowledged that they have such a program.
North Korea acknowledges that they have a program that violates the Agreement.

From http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaDprk/us_statement.shtml


In conclusion, the Agency has never been able to verify the completeness and correctness of the initial report of the DPRK under the NPT Safeguards Agreement. Since 1993 it has drawn the conclusion that the DPRK is in non-compliance with its obligations under the Agreement.
The IAEA is of the opinion that North Korea has been in non-compliance since 1993.

From http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2002/med-advise_052.shtml


Any questions?

With all due respect, I find that shouting threats at a country that has the potential of producing nuclear weapons is certainly not proactive.

Since Bush is looking for international help in future relations with troublesome countries, he is less likely to garner that support if he is unable or unwilling to accept any outside advice. I personally think that his bluster should be dulled down a bit if he truly wants to demonstrate that he is a "compassionate conservative".

Since the US is technically at war with NK, it only makes sense that NK wants bi-lateral talks with the US. What harm is there in sitting down and attempting to work out a deal that is in the best interests of both parties?

IF the talks fail, then the US can mount up again and I am sure the rest of the world would be more likely to mount up as well. In the meantime, the citizens of the world wait to see what will come about with the war of words. If the situation in Iraq is any hint of what the future may bring, I shudder to think how this whole nightmare is going to turn out. Naturally I fear the worst case scenario.

Well several points:

1) As mentioned earlier the North Koreans have shouted threats in our direction, in the direction of South Korea and Japan for nearly 50 years. This isnt something new. They wish to play the role of Hermit Kingdom and the US is fully content in isolating them as long as they keep a million something troops on the DMZ and repeat incursions into the RoK.

2) Unwilling to accept outside advice? China and Russia WANT to be included in on any talks with North Korea. So how is Bush not listening to outside advice?

3) Multiple nations are still technically at war with North Korea. Hell South Korea's defense hasnt been resolved as a state of war stilll exists and thus this is a UN matter, so why should the US go at it alone? Isnt that the chief complaint of the planet? The US doing things alone?

4)Talks HAVE failed. The North Koreans have ended multilateral talks and refuse to go into any new talks until the US withdraws troops from South Korea. I have yet to see the world come behind us over the issue as the DPRK breaks talks. Only "grave concern" given by multiple nations. If this is how talks with Iran are going to end up then I have serious doubts to the future.

4)Talks HAVE failed. The North Koreans have ended multilateral talks and refuse to go into any new talks until the US withdraws troops from South Korea. I have yet to see the world come behind us over the issue as the DPRK breaks talks. Only "grave concern" given by multiple nations. If this is how talks with Iran are going to end up then I have serious doubts to the future.

Can someone say radiation?

Well several points:

1) As mentioned earlier the North Koreans have shouted threats in our direction, in the direction of South Korea and Japan for nearly 50 years. This isnt something new. They wish to play the role of Hermit Kingdom and the US is fully content in isolating them as long as they keep a million something troops on the DMZ and repeat incursions into the RoK.

2) Unwilling to accept outside advice? China and Russia WANT to be included in on any talks with North Korea. So how is Bush not listening to outside advice?

3) Multiple nations are still technically at war with North Korea. Hell South Korea's defense hasnt been resolved as a state of war stilll exists and thus this is a UN matter, so why should the US go at it alone? Isnt that the chief complaint of the planet? The US doing things alone?

4)Talks HAVE failed. The North Koreans have ended multilateral talks and refuse to go into any new talks until the US withdraws troops from South Korea. I have yet to see the world come behind us over the issue as the DPRK breaks talks. Only "grave concern" given by multiple nations. If this is how talks with Iran are going to end up then I have serious doubts to the future.
Well I don't know about you, but I lived during the Cold War years and watched the Bay of Pigs episode play out. The collective world was on the edge of their seats. Kennedy and Kruschev bantering back and forth with Russia finally backing down. The fear of nuclear war was ever present. How many people built fallout shelters....lots.

When the Berlin Wall came crashing down, the Cold War was over.

Now what do we have? Same situation and perhaps worse?

Well I don't know about you, but I lived during the Cold War years and watched the Bay of Pigs episode play out. The collective world was on the edge of their seats. Kennedy and Kruschev bantering back and forth with Russia finally backing down. The fear of nuclear war was ever present. How many people built fallout shelters....lots.

When the Berlin Wall came crashing down, the Cold War was over.

Now what do we have? Same situation and perhaps worse?


We have the same situation because of our "Friends" the Russians. These ass clowns have been selling equipment and exporting nuclear know how to these pariah countries. I dont hear Europe blaiming the Russians for anything. Lets drop the blame where it belongs. Its like giving a gang banger a gun. Then saying he will use it for peaceful purposes. Drop one on Tehran, Pyonyang and Moscow. Take care of this crap once and for all.
:upyours:

Well I don't know about you, but I lived during the Cold War years and watched the Bay of Pigs episode play out. The collective world was on the edge of their seats. Kennedy and Kruschev bantering back and forth with Russia finally backing down. The fear of nuclear war was ever present. How many people built fallout shelters....lots.

When the Berlin Wall came crashing down, the Cold War was over.

Now what do we have? Same situation and perhaps worse?


Did I miss something? How the heck is the Cold War relevant to what we're talking about?

The USSR posessed the nuclear capacity to destroy the world. North Korea has maybe 10 nukes tops. Granted, Kim Jong-Il has nothing to lose, but we have Patriot missiles now. Different situation, much better.

Did I miss something? How the heck is the Cold War relevant to what we're talking about?

The USSR posessed the nuclear capacity to destroy the world. North Korea has maybe 10 nukes tops. Granted, Kim Jong-Il has nothing to lose, but we have Patriot missiles now. Different situation, much better.

You actually believe the propaganda about Patriot missiles being able to hit anything ?
I don't believe anything coming from washington especially when they are the ones with nuclear bunkers to hide in.... they don't give a $hit about us !

Did I miss something? How the heck is the Cold War relevant to what we're talking about?

The USSR posessed the nuclear capacity to destroy the world. North Korea has maybe 10 nukes tops. Granted, Kim Jong-Il has nothing to lose, but we have Patriot missiles now. Different situation, much better.
I borrow my simple answer from a web site:

The threat of a full-scale retaliatory response kept the U.S. and Soviets out of nuclear war for decades; however, we live in a new era of terrorism. Deterrence is no longer an effective strategy. We're dealing with a new level of hate and fanaticism that seeks more to destroy than gain power. Does anyone doubt that Osama bin Laden would have launched a nuclear weapon if he had it, even if we threatened to retaliate in kind? North Korea, a communist nation desperately on the brink of starvation, already has a couple of nukes. Iran, ran by fanatical anti-American clerics is actively developing nuclear weapons. Who knows what other groups or countries are out there developing these weapons?

We have the same situation because of our "Friends" the Russians. These ass clowns have been selling equipment and exporting nuclear know how to these pariah countries. I dont hear Europe blaiming the Russians for anything. Lets drop the blame where it belongs. Its like giving a gang banger a gun. Then saying he will use it for peaceful purposes. Drop one on Tehran, Pyonyang and Moscow. Take care of this crap once and for all.
:upyours:
So you want to die huh? :eek:

Thank God that you are not poised with your finger on the trigger.

Well I don't know about you, but I lived during the Cold War years and watched the Bay of Pigs episode play out. The collective world was on the edge of their seats. Kennedy and Kruschev bantering back and forth with Russia finally backing down. The fear of nuclear war was ever present. How many people built fallout shelters....lots.

When the Berlin Wall came crashing down, the Cold War was over.

Now what do we have? Same situation and perhaps worse?

So you offer up no other alternative other than more doom and gloom? Talks have failed, and it isnt the US's fault. The IAEA believes the North Koreans to have not ever been in compliance with the Agreement. This same agency is now trying to handle Iran. Do you have a point?

I borrow my simple answer from a web site:

The threat of a full-scale retaliatory response kept the U.S. and Soviets out of nuclear war for decades; however, we live in a new era of terrorism. Deterrence is no longer an effective strategy. We're dealing with a new level of hate and fanaticism that seeks more to destroy than gain power. Does anyone doubt that Osama bin Laden would have launched a nuclear weapon if he had it, even if we threatened to retaliate in kind? North Korea, a communist nation desperately on the brink of starvation, already has a couple of nukes. Iran, ran by fanatical anti-American clerics is actively developing nuclear weapons. Who knows what other groups or countries are out there developing these weapons?

Again..whats your point...you're stressing talks and yet talks have failed with North Korea..what is the US supposed to do? Surrender to North Korea?

Again..whats your point...you're stressing talks and yet talks have failed with North Korea..what is the US supposed to do? Surrender to North Korea?
Multi lateral talks have failed......try the bi-lateral approach? Or just wait it out while NK builds more weapons?

Multi lateral talks have failed......try the bi-lateral approach? Or just wait it out while NK builds more weapons?


And what makes you think if Korea went back on direct talks before..they wont do it again? Is it okay for them to lie and say they arent doing anything in secret or admitting in public the are doing it?

Multi lateral talks have failed......try the bi-lateral approach? Or just wait it out while NK builds more weapons?

Bi-Lateral talks don't work either. Now what?

You actually believe the propaganda about Patriot missiles being able to hit anything ?
I don't believe anything coming from washington especially when they are the ones with nuclear bunkers to hide in.... they don't give a $hit about us !

The PAC-3 has demonstrated the capability to actually hit incoming missiles many times. Of the various systems currently in service, it is one of the most reliable.

The SM-3 Standard has also demonstrated the same capability fired from an Aegis cruiser. This system also has the capability for mid-course intercept. It has been extremely reliable in tests.

The only system that is currently "in doubt" is the set of missiles to be based at Ft. Greeley. These missiles in and of themselves work (the underlying technology is sound). The problem they have is that the network infrastructure and software linking the radars to the firing site isn't completely reliable (software errors). But that is to be expected, as the software is in the testing phase for that system. So, for a system in test, it's doing rather well. Testing of the "hit to kill" mechanism and the mechanism for distinguishing decoys from warheads has already passed all the tests.

Additionally, the Airborne Laser is on schedule to be operational by the end of the year. It has already demonstrated an incredible ability to hit, and last fall was tested at full power aboard an aircraft on the ground.

The PAC-3 has demonstrated the capability to actually hit incoming missiles many times. Of the various systems currently in service, it is one of the most reliable.

The SM-3 Standard has also demonstrated the same capability fired from an Aegis cruiser. This system also has the capability for mid-course intercept. It has been extremely reliable in tests.

The only system that is currently "in doubt" is the set of missiles to be based at Ft. Greeley. These missiles in and of themselves work (the underlying technology is sound). The problem they have is that the network infrastructure and software linking the radars to the firing site isn't completely reliable (software errors). But that is to be expected, as the software is in the testing phase for that system. So, for a system in test, it's doing rather well. Testing of the "hit to kill" mechanism and the mechanism for distinguishing decoys from warheads has already passed all the tests.

Additionally, the Airborne Laser is on schedule to be operational by the end of the year. It has already demonstrated an incredible ability to hit, and last fall was tested at full power aboard an aircraft on the ground.
I had an aunt that worked on the airborne laser. She said enough of these criss-crossing us airspace. A full scale nuclear attack could be stopped. Interesting concept. Hope they rush it into production..

I had an aunt that worked on the airborne laser. She said enough of these criss-crossing us airspace. A full scale nuclear attack could be stopped. Interesting concept. Hope they rush it into production..hope the circuity is well protected... would be stupid if they are taken out by a series of EMP's

You actually believe the propaganda about Patriot missiles being able to hit anything ?
I don't believe anything coming from washington especially when they are the ones with nuclear bunkers to hide in.... they don't give a $hit about us !oh yeah... the Propaganda... it was proven during the first Gulf War... or don't you remember the Scuds being destroyed by PATRIOT MISSILES? Couldn't have missed em... was shown on ALL OF THE NEWS BROADCASTS except Al Jazeria that is.