NationStates Jolt Archive

"Japan said Monday it was considering whether a pre-emptive strike on the North's missile bases would violate its constitution... Japan was badly rattled by North Korea's missile tests last week and several government officials openly discussed whether the country ought to take steps to better defend itself, including setting up the legal framework to allow Tokyo to launch a pre-emptive strike against Northern missile sites..."

The full story can be found here: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060710/D8IP4UC81.html

------------------

So my question is... do you think Japan should build up a striking military? Currently, they only have a small defensive military, and apparently nothing that can reach N. Korea. They also say they have nothing that can intercept such missiles as N. Korea was testing. Do you blame them for being nervous? Would it make YOU nervous if Japan rebuilt a military again?

IMO, Japan has 2 choices. Either they can rely on the US for protection, or they can take steps to protect themselves. I know which I would prefer if I were Japanese.

If Japan does that, they're fucking South Korea

What do they want to strike them with? I thought the JDF only has defensive capabilities.

What do they want to strike them with? I thought the JDF only has defensive capabilities.
Defensive capability with a standing array of military divisions.

I am with Japan, bomb the crap out of NK!

Defensive capability with a standing array of military divisions.
Meaning what?

Meaning what?

Eh, basically they have some crappy missile and some people who are serving the NK militatry probably against their will.

Eh, basically they have some crappy missile and some people who are serving the NK militatry probably against their will.
You fail.

Meaning what?
There are, or were I forget, Japanese "defensive" forces in Iraq, maybe Afghanistan.

It wouldn't make me nervous if Japan bulit up a military again. I mean, c'mon, we kicked their ass in WWII, I think they've learned their lesson. (Geeze, I sound like typical dumbass American) But anyways, we've always had good releations with Japan (excluding WWII; I remember seeing an ad in TIME by the goverment pressing our good releations of a 150 years.)

However, I don't think China will be too happy, if they do strike North Korea. But anyways, what the heck does Japan have. I mean it'd take them at least a decade to build a cruise missile to strike back. (Yes, I know it's Japan, the technological marvel, but like any military weapon, it takes a couple years of planning and R&D and then testing before you can enter a cruise missile into mass production.)

You fail.

I guess no one feels like presenting a valid argument today...

There are, or were I forget, Japanese "defensive" forces in Iraq, maybe Afghanistan.
Iraq. But a small group of peacekeepers abroad still doesn't explain how and with what they intend to stroke N-Korea pre-emptivly.

There are, or were I forget, Japanese "defensive" forces in Iraq, maybe Afghanistan.

Meh, medics and engineers, not capable of starting or retaliating with deadly force, in Iraq.

Not anymore, although

However, I don't think China will be too happy, if they do strike North Korea. But anyways, what the heck does Japan have. I mean it'd take them at least a decade to build a cruise missile to strike back. (Yes, I know it's Japan, the technological marvel, but like any military weapon, it takes a couple years of planning and R&D and then testing before you can enter a cruise missile into mass production.)

All the more reason for them to start working on it now.

"Japan said Monday it was considering whether a pre-emptive strike on the North's missile bases would violate its constitution... Japan was badly rattled by North Korea's missile tests last week and several government officials openly discussed whether the country ought to take steps to better defend itself, including setting up the legal framework to allow Tokyo to launch a pre-emptive strike against Northern missile sites..."

The full story can be found here: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060710/D8IP4UC81.html

------------------

So my question is... do you think Japan should build up a striking military? Currently, they only have a small defensive military, and apparently nothing that can reach N. Korea. They also say they have nothing that can intercept such missiles as N. Korea was testing. Do you blame them for being nervous? Would it make YOU nervous if Japan rebuilt a military again?

Japanese unilateralism?! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Iraq. But a small group of peacekeepers abroad still doesn't explain how and with what they intend to stroke N-Korea pre-emptivly.
Yo-yos and nerf guns.
What the fuck do you think? Why don't you do your own research instead of asking dumb questions?

So my question is... do you think Japan should build up a striking military? Currently, they only have a small defensive military, and apparently nothing that can reach N. Korea. They also say they have nothing that can intercept such missiles as N. Korea was testing. Do you blame them for being nervous? Would it make YOU nervous if Japan rebuilt a military again?

Actually, the SDF is a huge force. The only real difference is that soldiers are treated as civil servants, not as a traditional military member, as far as I kinow. So, to answer your question, it wouldn't worry me at all. They already have one.

North Korea thought they would bow, instead the Japanese are talking about "knuckling up". If anyone is tech savvy and in the right location to nix NK missles, it is the Japanese.

Yo-yos and nerf guns.
What the fuck do you think? Why don't you do your own research instead of asking dumb questions?
Why don't you just shut the fuck up if you don't plan on beeing at least polite? Since you obviously have no idea either.

Japan want to build up their military? Meh. I they want to, that's their right.

Pre-emptive strike: No. Hell no. The North Korean response would be unpredictable, but could well include an order to set the artilary cannons off, which would NOT be fun to watch.

It wouldn't make me nervous if Japan bulit up a military again. I mean, c'mon, we kicked their ass in WWII, I think they've learned their lesson. (Geeze, I sound like typical dumbass American) But anyways, we've always had good releations with Japan (excluding WWII; I remember seeing an ad in TIME by the goverment pressing our good releations of a 150 years.)

However, I don't think China will be too happy, if they do strike North Korea. But anyways, what the heck does Japan have. I mean it'd take them at least a decade to build a cruise missile to strike back. (Yes, I know it's Japan, the technological marvel, but like any military weapon, it takes a couple years of planning and R&D and then testing before you can enter a cruise missile into mass production.)

You are ignoring the World Wide arms trade. I'm sure Her Majesties Government would sell Japan many weapons to assist the lumbering British ecconomy.

I don't think Japan should do a pre-emptive strike, but they should develop the ability to do so.

Japan want to build up their military? Meh. I they want to, that's their right.

Pre-emptive strike: No. Hell no. The North Korean response would be unpredictable, but could well include an order to set the artilary cannons off, which would NOT be fun to watch.

Correct. It hasn't reached the point where we're sure Kim will use his weapons offensively. No need to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Japan should concentrate on economic deterrence.

If Japan does that, they're fucking South Korea
That's a worry. I doubt the North Koreans will distinguish between their opponents here. If Japan attacks, South Korea and the US will likely be considered just as much to blame...and considering the fact that a missile strike would probably represent a failure of the others to stop Japan, whether intentionally or not, they actually might be.

Why don't you just shut the fuck up if you don't plan on beeing at least polite? Since you obviously have no idea either.
Well they have to have something to defend with that is in line with the capabilities of the average military and level of technology. So thus they have something that can be used offensively.

Pre-emptive strike: No. Hell no. The North Korean response would be unpredictable, but could well include an order to set the artilary cannons off, which would NOT be fun to watch.
IIRC, isn't Seoul within artillery range of the border? I don't know enoguh about military hardware to be sure, but I think I read that recently.

You are ignoring the World Wide arms trade. I'm sure Her Majesties Government would sell Japan many weapons to assist the lumbering British ecconomy.

Don't forget the Russians. They'll sell weapons to anyone. ^_^

Well they have to have something to defend with that is in line with the capabilities of the average military and level of technology. So thus they have something that can be used offensively.
From the article. Have you read it?
A Defense Agency spokeswoman, however, said Japan has no attacking weapons such as ballistic missiles that could reach North Korea. Its forces only have ground-to-air missiles and ground-to-vessel missiles, she said on condition of anonymity due to official policy.

Japan apparently has the ability to produce an atomic bomb in 1 year (starting from scratch), and their latest space-exploration rocket is basically a copy of the American Peacekeeper ICBM.

The Self-Defence Force is a formidable defence force, and probably the biggest naval power in the region (Not including America :) ). The only problem is that they aren't allowed to do anything by their constitution, which is basically because after WW2 everyone hoped that War was over for good.

I reckon it's time that Japan began building bombers, ICBMs, aircraft-carriers, and a nuclear deterrent. That'd keep China in it's place.

There is nothing wrong with the self-defense clause in the Japanese Constitution. The SDF is a big enough force, and Japan can, and should, create some way to DEFEND itself against missiles, rather than attack NK, which has atomic weapons. Pre-emptively attack an opponent that's able and willing to use WMDs against Japan while Japan itself is neither able nor (probably) willing to use them against said opponent would be stupidity to say the least. That sounds like a wonderful idea: "Oh, he's a nutcase that has military weapons and might use them! I know! I'll provoke him and hence MAKE HIM USE THEM!".

As a friend of mine said earlier in the week: "Why don't we give then a demonstration of our missile capabilities and give them something to aim for."

North Korea + Iran = What we accused Iraq of doing, only moreso.

North Korea + Iran = What we accused Iraq of doing, only moreso.

North Korea + Iran = What you accused Iraq of doing, only for real.

And let Seoul burn to the ground as a consequence....
Yes!!! Avenge the puppies!!!

Yes!!! Avenge the puppies!!!

???

Let's see. Japan hits NK. NK fires artillery at Seoul. Seoul gets burned down, killing millions. And you want to avenge them....

How much is 2+2?

Japan should be able to defend themselves which their "defensive" forces really aren't capable of doing. If they feel threatened by North Korea, then allow them to build up their military. I highly doubt we'll ever see the grand Japanese Empire that stretches over the Pacific if we allow them to build up. Times have changed.

All is bluf 'till the war comes

???

Let's see. Japan hits NK. NK fires artillery at Seoul. Seoul gets burned down, killing millions. And you want to avenge them....

How much is 2+2?
It would only be just. They eat DOGGIES!!!! :mad: I like doggies.



EDIT: And 2 and 2 is 22.

It would only be just. They eat DOGGIES!!!! :mad: I like doggies.

Nah, that's just a myth. They used to eat it as a medicine, but never as a food and now it's pretty much gone.

It would only be just. They eat DOGGIES!!!! :mad: I like doggies.

Me too, especially with some coca-cola. :D

Japan has heavy industry, technology, capital, population, trading partners, and allies far exceeding those of North Korea. If Kim's actions scare the Japanese people into a political attitude condicive to military buildup/war then I pity the North Koreans.

Defensive capability with a standing array of military divisions.Meaning what?

Meaning 7 fighter wings.
http://www.jda.go.jp/jasdf/en/index.html
To take out Koreas's missile program, asuming Japan could even muster the political will to do so, would require better capacity.

Japan has heavy industry, technology, capital, population, trading partners, and allies far exceeding those of North Korea. If Kim's actions scare the Japanese people into a political attitude condicive to military buildup/war then I pity the North Koreans.

And I also pity whoever lives in whatever city NK decides to attack with atomic weapons. See my point here?

And I also pity whoever lives in whatever city NK decides to attack with atomic weapons. See my point here?
no it has been vitrified,right in front of my "screen";)

Japan has heavy industry, technology, capital, population, trading partners, and allies far exceeding those of North Korea. If Kim's actions scare the Japanese people into a political attitude condicive to military buildup/war then I pity the North Koreans.

Well, having the ears and eyes on the steet here, no Japan's general populace is not ready to do so.

And I also pity whoever lives in whatever city NK decides to attack with atomic weapons. See my point here?

Yes. I never implied this was going to be anything like a win win situation for Japan. I dont think it possibly could be.
I also see how the fact that Kim is running as fast as he can towards the ability to nuke a city in Japan or environs at will might cause the political attitude of Japan to swing more towards militarism.

The problem is, in order to defend yourself in the modern world you have to be able to hit the other guy. Defensive systems are so totally outclassed by offensive systems that they might as well not exist.

So, in order to have the capacity to defend itself, Japan has to be able to destroy her neighbours. Which is what the self-defence clause was supposed to prevent.

Still, I kind of hope Japan sticks to her guns and doesn't militarize. It would be nice to see one country stick to it's beliefs. No one else does.

Well, having the ears and eyes on the steet here, no Japan's general populace is not ready to do so.

I am thankful for this.

It must suck being held hostage by an Elvis clone with bad missiles and nukes.

And I also pity whoever lives in whatever city NK decides to attack with atomic weapons. See my point here?no it has been vitrified,right in front of my "screen";)

As a resident of a city that is in the cross-hairs, :upyours:

Well, having the ears and eyes on the steet here, no Japan's general populace is not ready to do so.

Out of curiosity, what does the ordinary Japanese man/woman on the street think about this plan for preemptive strikes?

I am thankful for this.

Me +100,000,000,000,000,000

It must suck being held hostage by an Elvis clone with bad missiles and nukes.
You take that back!

Elvis NEVER wore hats that were five sizes too big!

As a resident of a city that is in the cross-hairs, :upyours:
well it was coming from the NHK,:fluffle:

Yes. I never implied this was going to be anything like a win win situation for Japan. I dont think it possibly could be.
I also see how the fact that Kim is running as fast as he can towards the ability to nuke a city in Japan or environs at will might cause the political attitude of Japan to swing more towards militarism.

Mmm. Let's just hope the Japanese are smarter than that.

Elvis NEVER wore hats that were five sizes too big!

I have to admit, I wish I ruled a country where I could wear my pajamas to a state function...

Mmm. Let's just hope the Japanese are smarter than that.

I fear that this partly depends upon how smart Kim's decisions are.

As a resident of a city that is in the cross-hairs, :upyours:

Chotto...

Osaka wa Hiroshima to Nagasaki no chikaku desu ka? o_O

I fear that this partly depends upon how smart Kim's decisions are.

My god, we're screwed...

I fear that this partly depends upon how smart Kim's decisions are.

Two words: Ryugyong Hotel

Two words: Ryugyong Hotel

A failed pyramid scheme.

A failed pyramid scheme.

This pun was soooooo bad... :p

China could ...and should spank the Elvis clone and be done with it. they cant want the US to do it..it would make them lose a tremedouse amount of face . But they must also know that the US MUST spank Elvis if he threatens Japan or SK. I can only suspect that china hopes to gain as much as they can before they jerk their dogs chain...or they have lost controll of their puppet...playing with missiles is a VERY dangerouse game ... I cant be the only sane person who can see this..you cant take back a nuke once its luanched. And no sane person can trust the guy that has not met a treaty yet he has not boken to little pieces and pissed on .

yet Russia and China want the UN to send him another " your a bad boy " note.:p

Go figure .

A failed pyramid scheme.

Puns ftw.:p

Also, it's the only hotel ever to cost 1.2% of an entire nation's GDP; that would be the equivalent of $153 billion in the US or the entire state of Connecticut.

A failed pyramid scheme.


his hair cut...you would think the "ultimate ruler " could decide on some gel...or a better barber .

Out of curiosity, what does the ordinary Japanese man/woman on the street think about this plan for preemptive strikes?

I didn't even catch the preemption story til about an hour ago, so I don't really have a specific grasp on the street for this particular question. However, there really hasn't been much disscussion of the missile tests at all, as far as I can tell....

well it was coming from the NHK,

Say what? WTF are you on about?

And I also pity whoever lives in whatever city NK decides to attack with atomic weapons. See my point here?

I suspect, but it is only a suspicion, that any "nukes" North Korea had would be less effective than their missile tests.

Chotto...

Osaka wa Hiroshima to Nagasaki no chikaku desu ka? o_O

Osaka's could easily be #3, which is why Allers is very unfunny.

Osaka's could easily be #3, which is why Allers is very unfunny.

Fair enough...

Man, I could use practice in my Japanese.

Fair enough...

Man, I could use practice in my Japanese.
I think that everyone should leave Japan's response up to Japan.

It's pretty obvious that multilateralism isn't getting anywhere with North Korea.

As I recall, the US was soundly criticized for not taking a multilateral response to Iraq - now that we're doing the multilateral thing (for some time now), it is obviously not working.

But, I bet we'll wait until North Korea smokes South Korea like a cheap cigar, and nukes a few Japanese cities before the US does anything violent.

I think that everyone should leave Japan's response up to Japan.

It's pretty obvious that multilateralism isn't getting anywhere with North Korea.

As I recall, the US was soundly criticized for not taking a multilateral response to Iraq - now that we're doing the multilateral thing (for some time now), it is obviously not working.

But, I bet we'll wait until North Korea smokes South Korea like a cheap cigar, and nukes a few Japanese cities before the US does anything violent.

Well, the US really hasn't had the capacity to effectively take down the DPRK militarily in an acceptable (ie non-nuclear) fashion for some time now.

I think that everyone should leave Japan's response up to Japan.

It's pretty obvious that multilateralism isn't getting anywhere with North Korea.

As I recall, the US was soundly criticized for not taking a multilateral response to Iraq - now that we're doing the multilateral thing (for some time now), it is obviously not working.

But, I bet we'll wait until North Korea smokes South Korea like a cheap cigar, and nukes a few Japanese cities before the US does anything violent.

Because starting a war worked so well with Iraq?

Wake up, Kimchi. Unilateralism won't get further than Honolulu, Osaka and Seoul turned into glass. And the only reason multilateralism isn't working in Iraq now is you're asking for it as a result of your previous unilateralism, which didn't work.

Because starting a war worked so well with Iraq?

Wake up, Kimchi. Unilateralism won't get further than Honolulu, Osaka and Seoul turned into glass. And the only reason multilateralism isn't working in Iraq now is you're asking for it as a result of your previous unilateralism, which didn't work.

The US has never pursued a unilateral policy with North Korea.

Read your history books.

The US has never pursued a unilateral policy with North Korea.

Read your history books.

I never said it did, I said pursuing it wouldn't work.

Because starting a war worked so well with Iraq?

Wake up, Kimchi. Unilateralism won't get further than Honolulu, Osaka and Seoul turned into glass. And the only reason multilateralism isn't working in Iraq now is you're asking for it as a result of your previous unilateralism, which didn't work.

I think those places and more will be turned into glass even if we follow the multilateral route.

I heard an estimate on the radio today that the DPRK has at least 17 nuclear warheads.

What we should be discussing is minimizing the number of cities blasted into rubble. The number will not be zero in any case.

Koizumi should stop dicking around and just send some ninjas to turn the honorable north Korean leader into a cheap rug. A ninja will always beat a nuke...
Ninjas...'nuff said.

Osaka's could easily be #3, which is why Allers is very unfunny.
since all of us will be telling how bad will be to be the 4th one.permit me to push on my piece.l5
Didn't i said it was bluf?

I think those places and more will be turned into glass even if we follow the multilateral route.

I heard an estimate on the radio today that the DPRK has at least 17 nuclear warheads.

What we should be discussing is minimizing the number of cities blasted into rubble. The number will not be zero in any case.

You do realize that it all began with the US calling NK a member of the "axis of evil" and unilaterally attacking Iraq, which led to the NK wanting more and more a nuclear deterrent in order to prevent the same fate, right?

You also do realize that, if the US goes unilateral, most of the cities attacked will be American ones, right?

Koizumi should stop dicking around and just send some ninjas to turn the honorable north Korean leader into a cheap rug. A ninja will always beat a nuke...
Ninjas...'nuff said.

Is this Fass reborn as a... (I won't finish that on the grounds that it might garner a well deserved warning. I'm going to bed before the ombination of drink and overly casual references of nuking my home get the better of my tounge...)

You do realize that it all began with the US calling NK a member of the "axis of evil" and unilaterally attacking Iraq, which led to the NK wanting more and more a nuclear deterrent in order to prevent the same fate, right?

You also do realize that, if the US goes unilateral, most of the cities attacked will be American ones, right?

You do recall the nuclear issue being raised many times to a critical level during the Clinton Administration, including the irresponsible firing of NK missiles over Japan.

Long, long before the "axis of evil" thing.

You do recall the nuclear issue being raised many times to a critical level during the Clinton Administration, including the irresponsible firing of NK missiles over Japan.

Long, long before the "axis of evil" thing.

My other point remains. And most of my first one does as well: If Bush hadn't attacked Iraq, don't you think NK would be in less of a rush for trying to prevent the same fate?

My other point remains. And most of my first one does as well: If Bush hadn't attacked Iraq, don't you think NK would be in less of a rush for trying to prevent the same fate?

No. They've waited eight years since the last round of missile tests. And you know who was President then.

That's pretty patient, eight years.

No. They've waited eight years since the last round of missile tests. And you know who was President then.

That's pretty patient, eight years.

So, the fact that they restarted these tests now, with an administration that proved itself as willing to attack unprovoked, wouldn't mean anything?

So, the fact that they restarted these tests now, with an administration that proved itself as willing to attack unprovoked, wouldn't mean anything?
It means that the generals who want the missiles ready have pressed to have them tested, after having sat on their hands for eight long years.

That, and Kim Jong-il is an attention seeker. Right now, we're literally ignoring him, and telling him we'll only talk to him with six other nations at the same time.

Meanwhile, the press is full of Iraq and Iran.

So he's rattling the cage because we're following the world's advice on multilateralism. He wants us to be unilateral, so he can be the focus of attention.

Very much like a spoiled brat.

It means that the generals who want the missiles ready have pressed to have them tested, after having sat on their hands for eight long years.

That, and Kim Jong-il is an attention seeker. Right now, we're literally ignoring him, and telling him we'll only talk to him with six other nations at the same time.

Meanwhile, the press is full of Iraq and Iran.

So he's rattling the cage because we're following the world's advice on multilateralism. He wants us to be unilateral, so he can be the focus of attention.

Very much like a spoiled brat.

So, you're saying that he wants to get NK attacked so he'll get the attention he wants (and he'll get to turn several cities into glass as well), thus, you propose giving him what he wants - and allowing NK to turn several populated areas into glass?

He wants violence so he can fight back, so you'd give him violence for him to fight back against?

Think.

So, the fact that they restarted these tests now, with an administration that proved itself as willing to attack unprovoked, wouldn't mean anything?
Fox and the us policy come to my mind:headbang:

Fox and the us policy come to my mind:headbang:

And well they should.

So, you're saying that he wants to get NK attacked so he'll get the attention he wants (and he'll get to turn several cities into glass as well), thus, you propose giving him what he wants - and allowing NK to turn several populated areas into glass?

He wants violence so he can fight back, so you'd give him violence for him to fight back against?

Think.

No, he wants brinksmanship.

I think that the US has done very well in policy towards NK.

We stay multilateral, no matter what they demand.

And we build a three-layer antimissile system just in case. That way, if he fires any that really look like they're going to land somewhere, we stop them.

The only problem is that if his missiles prove ineffective (and his long range missile certainly was), he will have to raise the stakes.

He's playing poker, and not very well. One would like to fold and leave the table, but he has a gun under the table, and no one can stop playing.

You do realize that it all began with the US calling NK a member of the "axis of evil" and unilaterally attacking Iraq, which led to the NK wanting more and more a nuclear deterrent in order to prevent the same fate, right?

You also do realize that, if the US goes unilateral, most of the cities attacked will be American ones, right?


No ....but I realise that NK is one of the most evil regimes on the planet and will destroy seoul and most of Japan with nukes before it is wiped off the face of the earth by the US response if we llet them strike first .

And when the rest of the world grows some balls and stops dicking around with assholes like Kim il elvis ..the US wont have to keep carrying their load .
I sure as hell realise that .

NK attacking American cities...you are delusional. they were lucky to hit the sea of Japan . even if they were aiming for the Indian ocean .

No, he wants brinksmanship.

I think that the US has done very well in policy towards NK.

We stay multilateral, no matter what they demand.

And we build a three-layer antimissile system just in case. That way, if he fires any that really look like they're going to land somewhere, we stop them.

The only problem is that if his missiles prove ineffective (and his long range missile certainly was), he will have to raise the stakes.

He's playing poker, and not very well. One would like to fold and leave the table, but he has a gun under the table, and no one can stop playing.

What's brinksmanship? (Not a native).

And, if you said it'd be better to be unilateral, why do you say now that it's good that the US is being multilateral?

What's brinksmanship? (Not a native).

And, if you said it'd be better to be unilateral, why do you say now that it's good that the US is being multilateral?

I never said it was better. I'm just saying we were criticized for it, and now that we're being multilateral, that's not really working either.

Brinksmanship is like playing the game of chicken. We're driving cars towards each other at 280 kph, and the first one to turn away or stop is the loser.

As the cars hurtle towards one another, we see Kim Jong-il throw the brake pedal and the steering wheel out the window.

That's brinksmanship.

No ....but I realise that NK is one of the most evil regimes on the planet and will destroy seoul and most of Japan with nukes before it is wiped off the face of the earth by the US response if we llet them strike first .

And when the rest of the world grows some balls and stops dicking around with assholes like Kim il elvis ..the US wont have to keep carrying their load .
I sure as hell realise that .

NK attacking American cities...you are delusional. they were lucky to hit the sea of Japan . even if they were aiming for the Indian ocean .

You strike them first, and the same thing happens (or worse), for sure. You pressure him diplomatically and you have a shot at him sustaining his regime by accepting foreign aid and so on. In purely probability-linked terms, diplomacy does better here.

Edit: Furthermore, you buy time to build something like a defense if the rest fails.

NK attacking American cities...you are delusional. they were lucky to hit the sea of Japan . even if they were aiming for the Indian ocean .

Taepodong-2 went wrong once, but North Korean scientists are not stupid. For starters, we don't know even if it failed because they didn't fuel it to 100%. If it went wrong, the probably know what part went wrong, and if they don't know why, they soon will.

These guys built Taepodong-1, there's no reason why they won't get 2 working.

I never said it was better. I'm just saying we were criticized for it, and now that we're being multilateral, that's not really working either.

Brinksmanship is like playing the game of chicken. We're driving cars towards each other at 280 kph, and the first one to turn away or stop is the loser.

As the cars hurtle towards one another, we see Kim Jong-il throw the brake pedal and the steering wheel out the window.

That's brinksmanship.

(You use kilometers?)

Well, I believe that, if the six parts managed to create an effective anti-missile system that covers them all, it'd all but solve the problem.

(You use kilometers?)

Well, I believe that, if the six parts managed to create an effective anti-missile system that covers them all, it'd all but solve the problem.

The PAC-3 is deployed in South Korea, and was proven in combat against multiple incoming ballistic missiles during the most recent invasion of Iraq. Unlike the Patriot predecessor, it doesn't use explosives - it collides directly and the impact is the mechanism that destroys the target.

The SM-3 uses the same technology, and is based on the eight US cruisers in the area. It has been successful against real ballistic missiles (Minuteman III) and can discern the difference between decoys and real warheads.

The GBI, or Ground Based Interceptor, is based in Alaska. It is the only program that is questionable.

The US took a three-way approach to building anti-missile systems, in the hopes that at least one or two will bear fruit. And they have.

Later this year, the Airborne Laser goes online - 400% more powerful than it was designed. In static ground tests, it is far more accurate than designed.

This year they are doing tests against boost-phase targets.

Because starting a war worked so well with Iraq?

Wake up, Kimchi. Unilateralism won't get further than Honolulu, Osaka and Seoul turned into glass. And the only reason multilateralism isn't working in Iraq now is you're asking for it as a result of your previous unilateralism, which didn't work.


actually its working great in Iraq...could be better but what war couldnt ?

And in case you have NOT been paying attention the US refuses to talk to NK unless China ..and South Korea...and Japan..and Russia are at the table .

Whats more non unilateral than that ?

The UNILATERAL response comes when North Korea attacks someone with anything..then they get unilaterally anhilated .

I am with Japan, bomb the crap out of NK!

HAHAHAHA! I like you, you're crazy.

Taepodong-2 went wrong once, but North Korean scientists are not stupid. For starters, we don't know even if it failed because they didn't fuel it to 100%. If it went wrong, the probably know what part went wrong, and if they don't know why, they soon will.

These guys built Taepodong-1, there's no reason why they won't get 2 working.
You do know its a renamed scud missile...not much further removed from the german V2 from WW II...please tell me again how " smart " these fellows are..how many were shot when the missile fell over ?:D

At any rate if they are so smart why cant they produce enough food to feed themselves ?:rolleyes:

And if we thought they were really that " smart ' why would we let them live considering the threats they have made and the 1994 treaty they tore up and pissed on ?:p

The PAC-3 is deployed in South Korea, and was proven in combat against multiple incoming ballistic missiles during the most recent invasion of Iraq. Unlike the Patriot predecessor, it doesn't use explosives - it collides directly and the impact is the mechanism that destroys the target.

The SM-3 uses the same technology, and is based on the eight US cruisers in the area. It has been successful against real ballistic missiles (Minuteman III) and can discern the difference between decoys and real warheads.

The GBI, or Ground Based Interceptor, is based in Alaska. It is the only program that is questionable.

The US took a three-way approach to building anti-missile systems, in the hopes that at least one or two will bear fruit. And they have.

Later this year, the Airborne Laser goes online - 400% more powerful than it was designed. In static ground tests, it is far more accurate than designed.

This year they are doing tests against boost-phase targets.

Maybe they can get NK to offer up some targets ?:D

IMO, Japan has 2 choices. Either they can rely on the US for protection, or they can take steps to protect themselves. I know which I would prefer if I were Japanese.


I am Japanese...real japanese and I want the 2nd one. I have been saying for years that Japan needs to stop relying on the US for protection and take steps to protect itself. I am hoping this NK thing will wake the japanese people up....I doubt it.

actually its working great in Iraq...could be better but what war couldnt ?

And in case you have NOT been paying attention the US refuses to talk to NK unless China ..and South Korea...and Japan..and Russia are at the table .

Whats more non unilateral than that ?

The UNILATERAL response comes when North Korea attacks someone with anything..then they get unilaterally anhilated .

I'm going against unilateralism, not against what the US is doing right now.

And it's working so great in Iraq that it got, so far, 2,900 soldiers in bodybags, hundreds of thousands of dead or wounder Iraqis, and no WMDs, all the while getting the other two threats of Iran and NK riled up and wasting all of the world's sympathy and respect in the process. If that's your definition of doing well, you were educated pretty "well"...

I am Japanese...real japanese and I want the 2nd one. I have been saying for years that Japan needs to stop relying on the US for protection and take steps to protect itself. I am hoping this NK thing will wake the japanese people up....I doubt it.

Because you can whip up an atomic deterrent in one day, as opposed to merely giving NK an excuse for "why Japan is a threat" if you take away the 9th?

Kawaisoo na... :rolleyes:

don't do it. it might mean nuclear war.

You strike them first, and the same thing happens (or worse), for sure. You pressure him diplomatically and you have a shot at him sustaining his regime by accepting foreign aid and so on. In purely probability-linked terms, diplomacy does better here.

Edit: Furthermore, you buy time to build something like a defense if the rest fails.

The ONLY way a sane person or country strikes first is when all other alternatives are useless and the oponent is considered a greater danger than the results of a pre-emptive strike. you cannot let an opponent arm themselves further and become a greater threat by HIDING behind diplomacy..JUST like North Korea is doing NOW and just like they did in 1994.
They DO NOT nor have NOT respected a treaty they have signed .

So what do you do with them ? I wouldnt wait for them to be strong enough to attack me . I would destroy them first . I dont want to have to lose a city to them before I wipe them off the planet . Thats STUPID .
What city do you pick for them to nuke BEFORE we respond ..who do YOU condemn to death ?

negotiate..until its useless..then issue an ultimatum..then if thats not working..WAR is just diplomacy by other methods.. Kim Il Elvis must go .

Because you can whip up an atomic deterrent in one day, as opposed to merely giving NK an excuse for "why Japan is a threat" if you take away the 9th?

Kawaisoo na... :rolleyes:


NK already wants to attack Japan, I doubt removing that worthless amendment that cripples Japan would make NK any more or less Likely to attack Japan. Japan as every country has a right to defend itself against an outside threat, thats what NK is.

don't do it. it might mean nuclear war.


With who? Japan doesn't have nukes and despite what some say neither does NK.

I'm going against unilateralism, not against what the US is doing right now.

And it's working so great in Iraq that it got, so far, 2,900 soldiers in bodybags, hundreds of thousands of dead or wounder Iraqis, and no WMDs, all the while getting the other two threats of Iran and NK riled up and wasting all of the world's sympathy and respect in the process. If that's your definition of doing well, you were educated pretty "well"...



I guess you ignored the results of a Democraticly elected Government a constitution and an army and police force thats working to earn its pay .

Get your propaganda from better sources...there is NO denying that a Demcratic Iraq is the best thing for that region and the world ..so why are so many against IT or why do they IGNORE IT ..like you..and not throw one hundred percent support behind it ?

Is it too liberal to support Democracy ?

With who? Japan doesn't have nukes and despite what some say neither does NK.
finaly somebody.

The ONLY way a sane person or country strikes first is when all other alternatives are useless and the oponent is considered a greater danger than the results of a pre-emptive strike. you cannot let an opponent arm themselves further and become a greater threat by HIDING behind diplomacy..JUST like North Korea is doing NOW and just like they did in 1994.
They DO NOT nor have NOT respected a treaty they have signed .

Bush did not exhaust all alternatives in Iraq. And there are alternatives in the case of NK as well. Diplomacy is allowing, right now, the six nations to come up with effective defenses. Or you think an economically depleted country like NK advances faster technologically than several economically well countries together?

So what do you do with them ? I wouldnt wait for them to be strong enough to attack me . I would destroy them first . I dont want to have to lose a city to them before I wipe them off the planet . Thats STUPID .
What city do you pick for them to nuke BEFORE we respond ..who do YOU condemn to death ?

Considering you'd sentence cities to death by starting a war right now, it's you that should be the target of this appeal to emotion you just did.

negotiate..until its useless..then issue an ultimatum..then if thats not working..WAR is just diplomacy by other methods.. Kim Il Elvis must go .

War is not diplomacy with different methods anymore than australopithecus is a philosopher with different thoughts.

I guess you ignored the results of a Democraticly elected Government a constitution and an army and police force thats working to earn its pay .

Get your propaganda from better sources...there is NO denying that a Demcratic Iraq is the best thing for that region and the world ..so why are so many against IT or why do they IGNORE IT ..like you..and not throw one hundred percent support behind it ?

Is it too liberal to support Democracy ?

Appeal to emotion will not get you a victory as long as I'm here to call you on it. Iraq was not a threat to the US. You found no evidence to say it ever was. And several other countries have it far worse than Iraq ever had in terms of human rights, so that's obviously not the issue here, only one more step in the ever-lasting rationale change festival Bush is doing. I should not, and will not support war as the first response to whatever annoys Dubya. What will you do about that?

With who? Japan doesn't have nukes and despite what some say neither does NK.

You're right in that Japan doesn't have nukes.

You're right in that Japan doesn't have nukes.


And NK does?

NK already wants to attack Japan, I doubt removing that worthless amendment that cripples Japan would make NK any more or less Likely to attack Japan. Japan as every country has a right to defend itself against an outside threat, thats what NK is.

Actually, while you MIGHT be right about NK (dewa, kore wa OOKII "might"), abolishing the 9th would not only generate tensions with China, it would also mean zilch considering that NK has nukes, while Japan doesn't. There's no way a sane Japanese leader would attack NK preemptively.

The Japanese Defense Force has the most up to date Armed Forces, it is restricted to go over 230,000 approximately enlisted troops. It is only allowed to respond in Defensive matters, in which it has all the Offensive goodies to it's disposal. I study on this issue a lot.

Article 9 does NOT restrict them from having the capabilities of offensively fucking up even America, it only restricts them from doing so.

Japan, by all means, can do a lot of fucking damage.

If Japan does that, they're fucking South Korea
Their attitude towards Koreans is similar to the average redneck’s attitude towards Arabs.

I’m just glad that Japan doesn’t hold sway over the US the way Israel does.

And NK does?

I heard numbers spanning from 6 to 17... From sources spanning from the CIA to the NK government. So...

Actually, while you MIGHT be right about NK (dewa, kore wa OOKII "might"), abolishing the 9th would not only generate tensions with China, it would also mean zilch considering that NK has nukes, while Japan doesn't. There's no way a sane Japanese leader would attack NK preemptively.

Japan has Nuclear Capabilities. As it has no Nuclear Weapons, it may develope one way sooner than Kim's little fledgling kidnapped Japanese/South Korean Scientists.

The Japanese Defense Force has the most up to date Armed Forces, it is restricted to go over 230,000 approximately enlisted troops. It is only allowed to respond in Defensive matters, in which it has all the Offensive goodies to it's disposal. I study on this issue a lot.

Article 9 does NOT restrict them from having the capabilities of offensively fucking up even America, it only restricts them from doing so.

Japan, by all means, can do a lot of fucking damage.

Which proves Suiko wrong in this matter.

Japan has Nuclear Capabilities. As it has no Nuclear Weapons, it may develope one way sooner than Kim's little fledgling kidnapped Japanese/South Korean Scientists.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't NK ALREADY have nukes, as per described by just about everyone?

Appeal to emotion will not get you a victory as long as I'm here to call you on it. Iraq was not a threat to the US. You found no evidence to say it ever was. And several other countries have it far worse than Iraq ever had in terms of human rights, so that's obviously not the issue here, only one more step in the ever-lasting rationale change festival Bush is doing. I should not, and will not support war as the first response to whatever annoys Dubya. What will you do about that?


its not an appeal to emotion...you do not have to support the war or why it was waged to SUPPORT the results..DEMOCRACY in Iraq.

Argue endlessly why it took ten years for someone to finally run Saddam out of power...I could care less.

Saddam is gone ..and Iraqi's have voted and formed a national government and a constitution. Support the IRAQI paople who voted and who risk their lives to KEEP their new Democracy .

Or is that too much to ask ? While you worry about munchkin land slinginging missiles all over Asia .


And BTW ...I couldnt give a rats ass about a "victory " on this forum in anything..it has about as much meaning as North korea's signiture on a treaty .

Who says NK's Nukes really work that well?

We all know that one of their larger missiles fell apart in the air after being launched.

As well, Japan wouldn't need any Nuclear weapons. As Japan is too smart to provoke such nations as China to get involved if they were to produce a Nuclear Weapon, however China would get involved basically no matter what.

Japan could create a Nuclear Missile in a much shorter time span than it does for Kim to count to 12.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't NK ALREADY have nukes, as per described by just about everyone?


NK does not, they are trying to get nukes. Japan on the other hand while not having Nukes does have the technology to get them rather fast. Japan was researching Nukes during world war 2.

Who says NK's Nukes really work that well?

We all know that one of their larger missiles fell apart in the air after being launched.

As well, Japan wouldn't need any Nuclear weapons. As Japan is too smart to provoke such nations as China to get involved if they were to produce a Nuclear Weapon, however China would get involved basically no matter what.

Japan could create a Nuclear Missile in a much shorter time span than it does for Kim to count to 12.


Japan won't make a nuke, there are laws against that. There is no good reason to repeal those laws.

Japan won't make a nuke, there are laws against that. There is no good reason to repeal those laws.


The US could loan them a few if they need them . They can pay us back in PS3's .

NK does not, they are trying to get nukes. Japan on the other hand while not having Nukes does have the technology to get them rather fast. Japan was researching Nukes during world war 2.

They have all it takes to construct one.

I remember reading an article when the Imperial Japanese Government at the end of it all forked up the blue prints of a Nuclear Bomb that Japan was constructing. As per the 'alliance' between America and Japan, they got all such documents back. Not to mention, there wasn't enough documents taken to conclude that they could build a nuke. This hints that they stashed away the important parts of the bomb's blue prints, or that they burned them but kept the knowledge as a verbal secret.

As well, the Japanese are a very intelligent people and very industrial/productive as well. If they truely wanted to, they could have an array of Nuclear ICBMs that could sink the Korean Peninsula. As stated before ,they are too smart for that. I'm sure if they are pressured, they will throw out a nuke.

its not an appeal to emotion...you do not have to support the war or why it was waged to SUPPORT the results..DEMOCRACY in Iraq.

Argue endlessly why it took ten years for someone to finally run Saddam out of power...I could care less.

Saddam is gone ..and Iraqi's have voted and formed a national government and a constitution. Support the IRAQI paople who voted and who risk their lives to KEEP their new Democracy .

Or is that too much to ask ? While you worry about munchkin land slinginging missiles all over Asia .

Supporting democracy in Iraq? Yes, that I do. Supporting the way that democracy was brought about? No. Furthermore, supporting the fact that that same democracy is riddled by human rights abuses by the soldiers that claim such great a moral high ground? Not a chance in all of the creation.

Japan won't make a nuke, there are laws against that. There is no good reason to repeal those laws.

Yes, you are right. But Japan has capabilities, and Japan will if they need too. As well, Japan has NEVER obeyed those laws fully. They ran a Nuclear Power Plant for a few months, and then shut it down to appease to America and so America could prevent the UN from sanctioning it. As well, Japan's military CONSTANTLY breaks Article 9.

I do not know what makes people think it, but Japan is still very capable and willing to go all out Militarily.

The US could loan them a few if they need them . They can pay us back in PS3's .



Or Hentai.;)

Yes, you are right. But Japan has capabilities, and Japan will if they need too. As well, Japan has NEVER obeyed those laws fully. They ran a Nuclear Power Plant for a few months, and then shut it down to appease to America and so America could prevent the UN from sanctioning it. As well, Japan's military CONSTANTLY breaks Article 9.

I do not know what makes people think it, but Japan is still very capable and willing to go all out Militarily.


The nuclear reactor is for energy only, not for weapons. Japan doesn't make much oil so it needs alternatives to it.

Or Hentai.;)

Well, after the Oil-for-food program, we can see the Tentacles-for-nukes program... :p

I'm going against unilateralism, not against what the US is doing right now.

And it's working so great in Iraq that it got, so far, 2,900 soldiers in bodybags, hundreds of thousands of dead or wounder Iraqis, and no WMDs, all the while getting the other two threats of Iran and NK riled up and wasting all of the world's sympathy and respect in the process. If that's your definition of doing well, you were educated pretty "well"...
wrong, technically we found some, they were leftovers from Iran-Iraq

The nuclear reactor is for energy only, not for weapons. Japan doesn't make much oil so it needs alternatives to it.

However, Japan gets oil out of Indonesia through a trade agreement enforced by other nations such as Australia.

As well, with a Nuclear Reactor comes Uranium. With Uranium and Scientists and the plants with-in such a Reactor comes high oppurtunity for Enriched Uranium. Take that and Japan's highly sophisticated, yet 'restricted', military and you have the very reasonable and feasible idea of Japanese Nuclear Weapons.

Not that they DO have them, I am only stating that if they HAD too then they could have it done in not just a year...but possibly even in months.

Why should it be the USA's job to defend Japan? Or for that matter, the rest of the world. If in the end, some country DOES start another war, we'll be in trouble if we don't have lots of strong allies. And allies who say "take a diplomatic approcah" and "don't act unilaterally" without helping or DOING anything, aren't allies at all. We'll all need each other to be strong and able to move. I dont' see why Japan shouldn't be part of the "us" who are strong instead of just the USA being "us".

Well, after the Oil-for-food program, we can see the Tentacles-for-nukes program... :p


Ewww. How about just her?

http://www.supersentai.com/database/2004_dekaranger/images/deka-rg-jasmine.jpg

wrong, technically we found some, they were leftovers from Iran-Iraq

You claimed Saddam had "stockpiles" that he could use to attack the US.

He didn't. He had vintage weapons that could be used to hold doors open.

Why should it be the USA's job to defend Japan? Or for that matter, the rest of the world. If in the end, some country DOES start another war, we'll be in trouble if we don't have lots of strong allies. And allies who say "take a diplomatic approcah" and "don't act unilaterally" without helping or DOING anything, aren't allies at all. We'll all need each other to be strong and able to move. I dont' see why Japan shouldn't be part of the "us" who are strong instead of just the USA being "us".

Considering that North Korea was created by the US and Russia, I think it's pretty much their problem.

Considering that North Korea was created by the US and Russia, I think it's pretty much their problem.

N. Korea and S. Korea are the spawns of the post-Japanese occupied Korea.

You [some US intel officer] claimed Saddam had "stockpiles" that he could use to attack the US.

He didn't. He had vintage weapons that could be used to hold doors open.
i never said thet we found "stockpiles" i just pointed out that we didn't come up completly empty handed

btw i fixed ur earlier comment

N. Korea and S. Korea are the spawns of the post-Japanese occupied Korea.

At the end of World War II, American and Soviet troops occupied the southern and northern halves of Korea, respectively, dividing the peninsula at the 38th parallel. Despite promises of an independent and unified Korea in the 1943 Cairo Declaration, the United States and Soviet Union helped establish two separate governments in 1948; the communist North and the capitalist South.

I love Wikipedia. Don't you?

At the end of World War II, American and Soviet troops occupied the southern and northern halves of Korea, respectively, dividing the peninsula at the 38th parallel. Despite promises of an independent and unified Korea in the 1943 Cairo Declaration, the United States and Soviet Union helped establish two separate governments in 1948; the communist North and the capitalist South.

I love Wikipedia. Don't you?
so now that the US has steped up for the south, russia should be the ones taking the heat for Elvis? Sounds good to me except for the fact that russia wont help

i never said thet we found "stockpiles" i just pointed out that we didn't come up completly empty handed

btw i fixed ur earlier comment

You as in the US. But, regardless, it was said that he had stockpiles, that he could hit the US with them and other tripe. And the war won't magically become justified with a technicality...

You as in the US. But, regardless, it was said that he had stockpiles, that he could hit the US with them and other tripe. And the war won't magically become justified with a technicality...
once again i never said this justified anything i just pointed out a little known fact with revelency to this thread

At the end of World War II, American and Soviet troops occupied the southern and northern halves of Korea, respectively, dividing the peninsula at the 38th parallel. Despite promises of an independent and unified Korea in the 1943 Cairo Declaration, the United States and Soviet Union helped establish two separate governments in 1948; the communist North and the capitalist South.

I love Wikipedia. Don't you?

Wikipedia - Open Sourced Free For All Edit Articles Even As A Guest.

Yea, I love it.

As well, neither side want a Unified Korea being either way. America wanted Korea to be whole, the Soviets only cared if they had even a small portion to be Communistic.

Soviets more than Americans, fault wise, but really it lies with Japan.

so now that the US has steped up for the south, russia should be the ones taking the heat for Elvis? Sounds good to me except for the fact that russia wont help

Actually, both were in this together. So, as partners in crime, the US should at least try to get Russia to act...

i never said thet we found "stockpiles" i just pointed out that we didn't come up completly empty handed

btw i fixed ur earlier comment

So it was worth how many lives/dollars to find weapons that are now only good as ant killer?

once again i never said this justified anything i just pointed out a little known fact with revelency to this thread

I know, I'm not refuting you, but adding to your points.

Actually, both were in this together. So, as partners in crime, the US should at least try to get Russia to act...
not much we can do that isnt unilateral to get them to the table, maybe other nations could help out by making it a multinational effort instead of big bad USA doing what it wants to

You strike them first, and the same thing happens (or worse), for sure.


Not really, if the US went after North Korea's missiles I doubt many would escape a seriously thought out attack, and if North Korea nuked one or two Japanese or South Korean cities then the US would pretty much turn all of North Korea into glass.

Lesser Albion']Not really, if the US went after North Korea's missiles I doubt many would escape a seriously thought out attack, and if North Korea nuked one or two Japanese or South Korean cities then the US would pretty much turn all of North Korea into glass.

Because, so far, the US has been so successful under this administration at thinking things through, finding WMDs and capturing the right people?

Lesser Albion']Not really, if the US went after North Korea's missiles I doubt many would escape a seriously thought out attack, and if North Korea nuked one or two Japanese or South Korean cities then the US would pretty much turn all of North Korea into glass.
IF america wanted to NK would be completly leveled w/conventional weapons and no one would know until ponyang was a crater and the B-2's were on their way back to Missouri

Because, so far, the US has been so successful under this administration at thinking things through, finding WMDs and capturing the right people?
maybe not but they sure as hell know how to blow stuff up i.e. NK

not much we can do that isnt unilateral to get them to the table, maybe other nations could help out by making it a multinational effort instead of big bad USA doing what it wants to

Fair enough - Japan, which occupated Korea, should try and help as well, but my point was more an answer to the "oh, let Japan handle it alone if it doesn't agree with OUR (or, "my") way to deal with it" idea proposed by the other guy. North Korea isn't only a Japanese responsibility.

maybe not but they sure as hell know how to blow stuff up i.e. NK

Which means my point remains: You could blow up all the stuff you want, but NK would, likely, have time to strike back god knows where.

Fair enough - Japan, which occupated Korea, should try and help as well, but my point was more an answer to the "oh, let Japan handle it alone if it doesn't agree with OUR (or, "my") way to deal with it" idea proposed by the other guy. North Korea isn't only a Japanese responsibility.
thats right not their sole responsibility but it is definatly a problem that they have to deal with since they are the ones having missles shot in their direction

Which means my point remains: You could blow up all the stuff you want, but NK would, likely, have time to strike back god knows where.
as far as i know they can't "see" our stealth bombers/fighters so they cant respond until after they are leveled

side note. I believe the 6 pheonix missles carried by the F-14 tomcat can shoot down missles

You claimed Saddam had "stockpiles" that he could use to attack the US.

He didn't. He had vintage weapons that could be used to hold doors open.

Not true ....a deliberate misquote and a myth put out to make the findings seem less seriouse than they were and debunked and shown to be bullshit by hundreds of sources.


Also ignores the fact that he lied about them and hid them from arms inspectors . All these door stops that could not harm a fly...:D

"Vintage 1989-1991-" a good year for saddamms arsenal ":D

The fact that the world intelligence community believed he had wmds...the fact SADDAM said he had them and would USE them if attacked..is all ignored...by the head in the sand crowd...along with the fact he ACTUALLY had a track record of USING the things in war against his own people and the Iranians ...:D

BTW..Explain how it took the UN TEN YEARS to get Saddam to live up to the terms of the cease fire from the WAR he lost in Kuwaiit ?
And explain why you feel the US should have waited even two minutes longer for saddam to comply ? Should we have waited for Russia and France to get the big fat checks they were skimming from the oil for food scandal to run out ? Otherwise HOW do you explain why it took TEN years to get a DEFEATED country to meet cease fire terms..the only actually met them after Saddam was driven into a spyder hole by the coalition .

Ohhh no WMD's.....saddam wasnt that bad.....:D :D :D

The UN is a bunch of shmucks with no balls . They had ten years to do their job and PREVENT a war with Iraq...I guess the money was more important !

Two days before the US invaded...why didnt the UN place ENFORCABLE ULTIMATUMS in front of Saddam ? The US couldnt have moved an inch if they grew a couple onions....:D

Explain the TOTAL and absolute failure that the UN is directly responsible for in IRAQ .

thats right not their sole responsibility but it is definatly a problem that they have to deal with since they are the ones having missles shot in their direction

True, and Japan is trying to deal with it in the way they see fit.

Not true ....a deliberate misquote and a myth put out to make the findings seem less seriouse than they were and debunked and shown to be bullshit by hundreds of sources.


Also ignores the fact that he lied about them and hid them from arms inspectors . All these door stops that could not harm a fly...:D

"Vintage 1989-1991-" a good year for saddamms arsenal ":D

The fact that the world intelligence community believed he had wmds...the fact SADDAM said he had them and would USE them if attacked..is all ignored...by the head in the sand crowd...along with the fact he ACTUALLY had a track record of USING the things in war against his own people and the Iranians ...:D

BTW..Explain how it took the UN TEN YEARS to get Saddam to live up to the terms of the cease fire from the WAR he lost in Kuwaiit ?
And explain why you feel the US should have waited even two minutes longer for saddam to comply ? Should we have waited for Russia and France to get the big fat checks they were skimming from the oil for food scandal to run out ? Otherwise HOW do you explain why it took TEN years to get a DEFEATED country to meet cease fire terms..the only actually met them after Saddam was driven into a spyder hole by the coalition .

Ohhh no WMD's.....saddam wasnt that bad.....:D :D :D

The UN is a bunch of shmucks with no balls . They had ten years to do their job and PREVENT a war with Iraq...I guess the money was more important !

Two days before the US invaded...why didnt the UN place ENFORCABLE ULTIMATUMS in front of Saddam ? The US couldnt have moved an inch if they grew a couple onions....:D

Explain the TOTAL and absolute failure that the UN is directly responsible for in IRAQ .
big +1

Explain the TOTAL and absolute failure that the UN is directly responsible for in IRAQ .

The inspectors asked for more time, the UN asked for more time, and the US, which is part of it, not Saddam, didn't want to give the inspectors more time. Should I draw you a picture?

The inspectors asked for more time, the UN asked for more time, and the US, which is part of it, not Saddam, didn't want to give the inspectors more time. Should I draw you a picture?
after 10 years u dont get "more time".
put ur penciles down, the exam is OVER

after 10 years u dont get "more time".
put ur penciles down, the exam is OVER

And the US failed, because, guess what, Saddam had nothing he could hit further than his doorstep with. All the while the whole world was asking, "what if you don't find anything?", to which we know the answer now: "We shift our rationale and act like fucking Linus Van Pelt waiting for the Great Pumpkin!".

And the US failed, because, guess what, Saddam had nothing he could hit further than his doorstep with. All the while the whole world was asking, "what if you don't find anything?", to which we know the answer now: "We shift our rationale and act like fucking Linus Van Pelt waiting for the Great Pumpkin!".
no we say "ok we fucked up" and do what we can other than just pull out to make thing better

The inspectors asked for more time, the UN asked for more time, and the US, which is part of it, not Saddam, didn't want to give the inspectors more time. Should I draw you a picture?


If you could not be a success in ten years why do you think you deserve more time ? YOU DESERVE TO BE FIRED and maybe even TRIED FOR GROSS STUPIDITY.

Can you COUNT to TEN ? TEN years of the spineless crooks at the UNpleading with a defeated country to be a good boy..


The UN got what it deserved a BIG " Fuck You " by the US and the Coalition.

IT took them WEEKS what the UN failed to do in TEN years .

So cut that spinless crap out ..it doesnt work .


Lesse two weeks vs. ten years ?

Despot vs Democracy ?

And the US found the biggest weapon of mass destruction in Iraq when they pulled Saddam out of his shithole he was hidding in and stuck him in a cage to get deloused . They just happen to kill the other two with extreme predudice .

The world needs to grow some balls so my son does'nt have to go shoot your assholes and idiots for you .

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't NK ALREADY have nukes, as per described by just about everyone?

It may have nuclear weapons, but does it have the means to deliver them? Of course, sticking one into a sub and sailing into Tokyo Bay would always work.

no we say "ok we fucked up" and do what we can other than just pull out to make thing better

Trying to make things better became your duty the moment you invaded Iraq and made things worse. As for the "ok, we fucked up", I'l still waiting.

If you could not be a success in ten years why do you think you deserve more time ? YOU DESERVE TO BE FIRED and maybe even TRIED FOR GROSS STUPIDITY.

Can you COUNT to TEN ? TEN years of the spineless crooks at the UNpleading with a defeated country to be a good boy..


The UN got what it deserved a BIG " Fuck You " by the US and the Coalition.

IT took them WEEKS what the UN failed to do in TEN years .

So cut that spinless crap out ..it doesnt work .


Lesse two weeks vs. ten years ?

Despot vs Democracy ?

And the US found the biggest weapon of mass destruction in Iraq when they pulled Saddam out of his shithole he was hidding in and stuck him in a cage to get deloused . They just happen to kill the other two with extreme predudice .

The world needs to grow some balls so my son does'nt have to go shoot your assholes and idiots for you .

Oh, by all means, I agree that the world needs to grow some balls to fight the next threats, of former democracies rapidly declining into dictatorships with measures such as the so-called "patriot act" that curb rights, and acting as if they were the only thing that mattered in the world... Yes, maybe we should attack this place and find some WMDs there, as well as liberate its people...

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, do you like the idea of bloodshed you so adoringly embrace? Or it became less of a turn-on now?

Saddam was doing nothing that Burma or Belarus didn't do. And you did nothing that the UN hadn't done, either: UN hadn't found usable WMDs, neither did you. A lollipop goes to whoever can figure out why.

Oh, by all means, I agree that the world needs to grow some balls to fight the next threats, of former democracies rapidly declining into dictatorships with measures such as the so-called "patriot act" that curb rights, and acting as if they were the only thing that mattered in the world... Yes, maybe we should attack this place and find some WMDs there, as well as liberate its people...

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, do you like the idea of bloodshed you so adoringly embrace? Or it became less of a turn-on now?

Saddam was doing nothing that Burma or Belarus didn't do. And you did nothing that the UN hadn't done, either: UN hadn't found usable WMDs, neither did you. A lollipop goes to whoever can figure out why.

Thats one of the lamest and weakest responses I have ever recieved at this forum. and thats saying something .:rolleyes:

Thats one of the lamest and weakest responses I have ever recieved at this forum. and thats saying something .:rolleyes:

Ooo, so he lacks a point (otherwise he would post it) and decides to go "wahhh, your response is weak" instead of, you know, addressing the point.

Train arguing for a thousand years, and you might have a shot at beating me.

Thats one of the lamest and weakest responses I have ever recieved at this forum. and thats saying something .:rolleyes:
You have truly mastered the art of being utter crap at arguing.



Anyway, I just hope Japan knows what it's up against if it does attack. Because it's fucked, basically.

Trying to make things better became your duty the moment you invaded Iraq and made things worse. As for the "ok, we fucked up", I'l still waiting.
at least there are more than 1 box to check on the ballot.
as for making things worse, most of what we do right is overshadowed by what a few idiots that have disgraced the uniform of a member of the US military have done. regarding the hundreds of thousands of other troops that know their job they have done nothing but help where they can and try to avoid the spinless terriorist attacks. If nothing else we've got them to decide to help themselves so that we'll leave.

Look At Japan's technology. I think they already have a secret army of Super-advanced robots as well as electro-magnetic resonance weapons that could wipe out all of NK's electronics. Or the World's for that matter.

I say go get 'em Japan. I want to stay on their good side.

at least there are more than 1 box to check on the ballot.
as for making things worse, most of what we do right is overshadowed by what a few idiots that have disgraced the uniform of a member of the US military have done. regarding the hundreds of thousands of other troops that know their job they have done nothing but help where they can and try to avoid the spinless terriorist attacks. If nothing else we've got them to decide to help themselves so that we'll leave.

So you made them able to "help themselves" under the crossfire of nutcases. And you call that a favor how?

Look At Japan's technology. I think they already have a secret army of Super-advanced robots as well as electro-magnetic resonance weapons that could wipe out all of NK's electronics. Or the World's for that matter.

I say go get 'em Japan. I want to stay on their good side.

Mirth, how I longed for you in this thread...

Should Japan re-arm... maybe. It would be another bar in the cage of the North, however it would also drastically increase problems in an already tense neighborhood. I have no doubt that China and South Korea would use the excuse of an fully armed and opertaional Death Star, er, I mean, Japan to really tear into the country about the actions of the Imperial Japanese military in and before WWII (It's their favorite passtime after all).

Will Japan re-arm, doubtful. The Japanese population while feeling something MUST be done about the North is still very, very skittish about article 9. The last time it was brought up a slim majority was for revising article 9 to allow Japan to have an actual honest to goodness military (as opposed to the poor SDF), but a large majority was against removing the war clause.

Japan still remembers and does not want to go back there again.

Japan still remembers and does not want to go back there again.
I can imagine.

Germany never really got much of a choice obviously...geopolitics made it for them. But even today there is a very big percentage of people in Germany who think that the country doesn't need an army. It's going down these days, with German soldiers actually overseas doing something useful, but still.

As for Japanese pre-emptive strikes...I have my doubts. First and foremost it's the South Koreans who have to make the decision how far they are willing to go, as they are the one's who'd get to feel the response the most. And the US already has the capabilities to do it, I'm sure if Japan and South Korea were really sure, they could secure some help from Washington.

Is it too liberal to support Democracy ?
No. But it's st00pid to support the US.

No. But it's st00pid to support the US.

Of course, "supporting democracy" means "as long as it's brought at gunpoint and as long as they elect a friend of Bush, otherwise, the guy is a dictator no matter how much support he has from his people, like Chavez for instance" in this case. But who am I to point out crass and stupid incoherencies?