Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Brandonf, Oct 16, 2002.
Who's more dangerous to the US, Iraq or N Korea? Aren't we building the $100 billion+ missle defense program to guard against such a launch from N Korea? Saddam can only dream about having such long range missles with nuclear warheads.
Remember W's remarks about, "the worlds most dangerous man with the most dangerous weapons"? That could describe alot of dictators around the world, not just Hussein.
I sincerely doubt that North Korea has nukes to use pre-emptively against the USA... the nukes are there primarily as a Stay Away Notice to the expansionist intentions of the US policymakers...
We must remember that it is the USA that has actually used nukes before on Hiroshima and Nagasaki... all countries have a right to nukes to defend themselves against being nuked by the USA or other aggressors...
On the issue of North Korea having violated "an agreement with the Clinton administration", it is clear that the USA must be subjected to the same degree of scrutiny.... firstly, an "agreement" between countries is not binding in international law... secondly a circumvention or violation of international law (an activity in which the USA is a leader in) should be viewed much more seriously than violation of a mere bilatarel agreement... the USA is not above the law, and yet it continues to behave like a global gangster both in intention and action... this phenomenon explains why the USA is viewed by the majority of the planet as the biggest threat to global peace... and when I say the majority of the planet has big problems with the USA, I am NOT just referring to the Muslims... I refer to Latin America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia... the US policymakers, in any event, don't want to partake in a popularity contest, so the global disdain for US policy is not exactly high up on their agenda... all that is on the agenda of the US policymakers is the maximisation of economic and geopolitical self-interest through creating pretexts for war, funding subversion, installing puppet regimes, sanctions policy, political assasinations, fixing elections overseas, international bribery etc etc
Unfortunately for the USA, the Islamic terrorists fail to differentiate between the US people and the US policymakers (in a similar way that the US fails to differentiate between foreign civilians and their regimes), and the result of this will, very sadly, be a continued spate of terrorism aimed specifically at the US and her global interests...
God bless the the planet... it surely needs to be blessed...
On the issue of North Korea having violated "an agreement with the Clinton administration", it is clear that the USA must be subjected to the same degree of scrutiny.... firstly, an "agreement" between countries is not binding in international law... secondly a circumvention or violation of international law (an activity in which the USA is a leader in) should be viewed much more seriously than violation of a mere bilatarel agreement... the USA is not above the law, and yet it continues to behave like a global gangster both in intention and action...
U.N. DISARMAMENT RESOLUTIONS
53rd GENERAL ASSEMBLY (1998)
.N. Resolution 53/77 Y: Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda,which was introduced by Ireland on behalf of seven sponsors, was adopted with a vote of 114 in favor - 18 opposed (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Hungary, India, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Monaco, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States)
Where is the democracy we preach? Have we disarmed? and yet we want to go after others.
There are numerous resolutions that we have violated, and so have other nations. Yet we want to go to war and attack others.
better clean up our own back yard first, and boy do we need to clean it up.
You think the US will adopt tough tactics against N. Korea? Or will they treat them with kid gloves unlike the hard line stance against Saddam? The world will now witness the double standard that is US foreign policy.
If the US is to remain loyal to its stated policy, it must attack North Korea before it attacks Iraq, since the WMD that North Korea has admitted too are an infinity worse than what the US is itself accusing Iraq of... but of course, the USA is NOT interested in weapons of mass destruction, it is only interested in stealing Iraq's oil (Iraq has the 2nd largest supply of reserves after Saudi Arabia, lest we forget), so the war plans (read 'piracy' plans) vis-a-via Iraq remain solidly intact... there is therefore no need to witness double standards after the fact... instead, we can predict US double standards with 100% certainty...
Our Administration new about N Korea way before the resolution against Iraq. No wonder they tried to push it through.
I wonder if the resolution would have still passed.
Surprise, surprise. North Korea didn't keep their agreement with p-whipped momma's boy Clit'n. So what and who cares. It doesn't change anything. Guys like him and people who think like him are the reason things are happening now. Fortunately many of us are not like him.
LOL this is the first time i've ever agreed with you on politics, rigel.
i admire your passionate hatred of willie. it reminds me of my own hate for duh-bya.
(the subject line is the kind of thing i can see clinton saying to intern)
No, actually the stated policy is to prevent states from achieving nuclear capability but not to interfere with those who already have it (otherwise we'd have to invade Russia, China, India, Pakistan, etc.)
Separate names with a comma.