PDA

View Full Version : And What About North Korea?



ketoprak
02-13-2003, 11:56 AM
OK, everybody is talking about Iraq, a country that certainly have one or two bad weapons, but that's not a real threat.

And what about North Korea? People are just starving there, their leader is a psychotic, and they have thousands of mass destruction weapons. I read in my favorite newspaper that an official there claimed that "Pyongyang had the capacity to strike US targets anywhere in the world". And it's probably true. If that's not a real threat?

Clinton had very good diplomacy with N Korea. Bush doesn't do a thing, except focusing on Iraq, a very weak and insignificant country.

I guess the reason is that being a real threat it's not possible to attack North Korea. They'd have to use the diplomatic way, and Bush the cow-boy don't understand diplomacy!


(edited grammar)

MagicNakor
02-14-2003, 12:26 AM
The "diplomatic" tactics employed for Iraq and North Korea are different because of one reason.

North Korea has nuclear weapons.

jetje
02-14-2003, 12:37 AM
I say "just fry them" - No not really. Diplomatics, diplomatics and relax. War is no solution, just start stimulating their economics. Happy people don't want war B)

don't think it the a-bomb, it's the oil B)

kAb
02-14-2003, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by ketoprak@13 February 2003 - 12:56
OK, everybody is talking about Iraq, a country that certainly have one or two bad weapons, but that's not a real threat.

And what about North Korea? People are just starving there, their leader is a psychotic, and they have thousands of mass destruction weapons. I read in my favorite newspaper that an official there claimed that "Pyongyang had the capacity to strike US targets anywhere in the world". And it's probably true. If that's not a real threat?

Clinton had very good diplomacy with N Korea. Bush doesn't do a thing, except focusing on Iraq, a very weak and insignificant country.

I guess the reason is that being a real threat it's not possible to attack North Korea. They'd have to use the diplomatic way, and Bush the cow-boy don't understand diplomacy!


(edited grammar)
not necessarily, it is believed that he has nukes that can reach the west coast of the U.S... not anywhere in the world :unsure:

El_Jefe
02-14-2003, 12:56 AM
Well, the major difference is that North Korea is on the borders of two out of the three largest nuclear powers in the world, the 2nd largest economy in Japan, and two of the fastest growing economies in South Korea and China.

Plus, considering the history of the area, it is also somewhat of a powder keg. So I think it's very unlikely that the use of force is an option in this particular case.

dingoBaby
02-14-2003, 01:04 AM
N. Korea is a scary situation. Nukes and the fifth largest armed force in the world. They may not be able to strike US targets anywhere in the world (as they claim) but they could do serious harm in their own backyard. (Seoul, Tokoyo, Manilla, etc).

Logan-Grimnar
02-14-2003, 01:10 AM
Seoul you say??
I'm living in Seoul as we speak... :D
Sure they might strike us...but with a nuke? I doubt it...the nuke will harm them too...
Tokyo in the other hand might be targeted..which is the problem...Bush gave the Japanese the authority to strik back with a nuke if they are hit with one...causing US South Koreans harm as well..

Their Nukes can reach U.S. and that's the reason why the U.S. should be afraid of them, though they don't seem to be planning opn striking U.S. right now at the moment.

I don't even think Bush should go to war againt Iraq, he should try to solve it by talking more instead of using force all the time...geeze...the Bush family loves war...

MagicNakor
02-14-2003, 01:33 AM
Of course he does. He wants to prove to the world that Daddy really was a good President. ;)

maximboy99
02-14-2003, 01:42 AM
"Clinton had very good diplomacy with N Korea. Bush doesn't do a thing, except focusing on Iraq, a very weak and insignificant country."

Thats just wrong on every point. First of all Clinton has a horrible foreign policy record, especially in North Korea. (Note: I dont think he was a bad president. I think domestically he was a great president, he brought unity on important issues like the economy and job creation) However, all he did was buy off North Korea by promising aid. This aid was only to be given as long as North Korea stopped building nuclear weapons. Guess what? They broke their side of the deal. Now America *must* stop giving them free aid (IE food because they cannot feed themselves), or else what is the point of any treaty? Incase you were confused, this is not the United States of free handouts to military dictatorships.

So why should we not focus on North Korea? Because as we speak food shortages are hurting the North's power. Its obvious that we cannot just resume aid (I mean come on, they ARE building nuclear weapons and agreed not to). So what to do? Wait them out, we lose nothing by waiting for Iraq to be resolved. The nuclear byproducts from North Korea's nuclear reactors will not be usable for another 3 months, and weapons unlikely to be created for atleast 6. We also know North Korea will not launch an unprovoked attack ( however, what is a provocation is in question. NK claims UN sanctions or any bombing is an act of war. Which presumably means, at the very worst they will use their nukes, or at the very least invade SK. Which is exactly my point for not threatening them, not yet anyway). This leaves the United States with two feasible options. 1. Buy time by not giving into the demands of NK (IE food) and let regional allies like China, Russia, and Japan commense talks. 2. Invade Iraq now, plan military action for NK after Iraq is dealt with.

Personally I support option 1. War with North Korea has a high probability of nuclear war, but it absolutely DOES mean millions of dead people, many innocent. Why cant big bad China handle this? What about Russia helping? Think of it this way: if Canada was taken over by a military dictatorship and began threatening the region with nuclear war, do you think the US would ask China to come over and take care of this problem? I'm not saying the US shouldn't be part of the solution either. The US has an important peace keeping role in the world. This is getting me off topic.

Now to Iraq. Ok, what dont you understand about war with Iraq? For 12 years Iraq has violated a PEACE TREATY WITH THE UN. See, when the US (and allies) defeated Iraq, the UN and some neighboring arab countries begged us not to ride into Baghdad. Instead they favored signing a peace treaty, which included disarming WMD within 15 days of signing. Now this was clearly worded to say that Iraq must SHOW compliance. Anyone who thinks Iraq IS complying has their head in the sand. Im not going to go into this too deeply, except that a second UN resolution was passed, and Saddam is still playing games. If you dont agree with me, than I guess you dont trust our government. That disheartens me quite a bit.

So where does this lead us? I guess to war. The UN passes resolutions which threaten dire consequences for failing to comply. Yet, compliance involved leading us to ANY violations. Saddam has not done that. He believes the UN wont inforce its resolutions. He's right, only the US will. Look its as simple as this: If we do not stop Sadam while he is weak, he will rebuild, he will aid anti-american sentiment (including terrorists). In essense, by saying no to war, you are saying yes to breaking international laws and treaties. It really couldnt be more clear cut.

Summary: Stopping Iraq now means only one nuclear rogue nation a year from now, not two. Waiting a few months (until Iraq is dealt with) does not significantly affect American safety. In fact, it hurts North Korea to wait. Bush is doing the right thing by waiting North Korea out a bit, giving in now to NK's demands will only feed kim chong's ambitions.

jetje
02-14-2003, 01:47 AM
If they start an attack on Iraq
N-korea will shoot you in the back.....

they won't wait. Why are there so many people in favor of a war. Just because it looks that it is far from their home????? :blink:

Logan-Grimnar
02-14-2003, 01:54 AM
Ok...I Myself DON'T want a war at any cause...against North Korea..
To tell you guys the truth North Korea has enough power to finish off South Korea in about an hour...
They use all their food and money on military which is why their people are starving to death...

Heck, if the war goes long enough I might be forced to go to war, cause in here, you don't choose to go to military services, you HAVE to for 2 years.

El_Jefe
02-14-2003, 02:02 AM
The US plans on beefing up forces here during any conflict with Iraq. Just as a deterent to any ideas by North Korea to take advantage of the situation. A Carrier is supposed to be parked off the coast soon, along with additional fighters and recon aircraft moved from Japan to bases here. B-52s and B-1 bombers are supposed to be stationed in Guam to support the forces in korea, as well.

However, strictly by the numbers, the US presence is strictly a deterent. I think the strength of an army of a million starving soldiers might be overrated, though. Remember Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world prior to the Gulf War, and their performance wasn't all that great.

Logan-Grimnar
02-14-2003, 02:06 AM
hmmm...all that moving forces by U.S. is alerting the North Koreans...
I don't know what to think anymore, if you do this this will happen, if you do that that will happen...

Will there ever be a world without war?

El_Jefe
02-14-2003, 02:14 AM
Another interesting note, the present plans are to have an overall decrease in the US presence in South Korea following any war with Iraq.

So either the Bush administration has faith in the lack of substance in North Korean threats. Or they're just willing to let South Korea handle any attack on their own. Or Bush and his administration just might be idiots and don't know what they're doing. Take your pick.

I_DONT_SHARE_PORN
02-14-2003, 02:38 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/tv/state_planet/picpops/images/prog1.jpg
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/maps/iz-map.gif

maximboy99
02-14-2003, 02:49 AM
I dont want war, but I dont want Iraq building WMD even more. Jetje you underestimate American willpower and how we are deadly serious about terrorism and regimes that support it in any way. Here let me pose to you a question this way: What should Americans do? Sit Idly by as another regime, which threatens peace in the world as we know it, grows in power? If you think a war with Iraq tomorrow is bad, think 100xs as bad a few years from now. Its time to stop backing down, or all of us are going to end up in whole new world, where the evil men threaten the peaceful ones, and the peaceful ones give in. You ever heard of appeasement? Thats the only solution you offer. It failed 50 years ago, its failing again.

Logan-Grimnar
02-14-2003, 02:50 AM
Well...U.S. is practically alone in this war against Iraq...no UN, no NATO....
I just hope Bush changes his mind, which I doubt...

Biggest problem over here in S Korea is that the Koreans are believing that the North Koreans won't strike their own blood brothers...which is a big mistake! The reason for their military training for 40 years was to take over S Korea, and now a lot of S Koreans don't believe they'll attack us...

SuperJude™
02-14-2003, 02:51 AM
Japan, Korea, vietnam. Hell we'll go back to the Phillipines even.

It is a widely held belief in these parts that Asians are the fiercest fighters in the world, and I do not think we are itching to get into another conflict in the far east.

Iraq (part 1) and Afghanistan pretty much just laid down, while every Asian conflict we have been in has amounted to severe casualties.

Just something to think about.

-SJ™

dingoBaby
02-14-2003, 03:01 AM
Afganistan hasn't quite laid down. I think we are just hearing less from the media. The Afgans are rather fierce in their own right (ask the former Soviet Union).

SuperJude™
02-14-2003, 03:16 AM
I am going to resist the temptation to make any snide comment about the Russians in battle.

Lemme ask something here, does EVERYBODY fell like they have to make a defensive statement? C'MON!! It is the truth that the hardest wars fought by the US were in Asia okay?

-SJ™

El_Jefe
02-14-2003, 03:22 AM
Just some idle rambling on my part.

The present Bush administration policy(from the time of his inauguration) toward North Korea has been one of isolation. The revelation of nuclear weapons developement, has just resulted in a stepping up of that policy. If one was to look back in history, you might see a comparable situation with disturbing results. The US emargo of oil to Japan, led the Japanese to conclude that their only solution was to go to war with the US. Now, from my pespective, there are a lot of differences between the Korean and Japanese cultures and their value systems, so that might not be a true indication of any tendency on North Korea's part. But it does make you wonder what they might do, if they feel their back is to the wall. They've already made threats that further sanctions as a response to their nuclear program would be considered an act of war.

But of course, the main problem behind the implementation of current US policy is the fact that we can't get our allies in the region to follow suit. Both Japan and South Korea have policies of reconcilliation with North Korea, and are completely unwilling to risk the chance of war by cooperating with current US policy. That might also be the reason for plans for an overall decrease in US forces, in South Korea, exist.

Another Cadaver
02-14-2003, 04:24 AM
Didn't you guys ever watch "The Princess Bride"?\

The number one rule for living is "never get into a land war in Asia"

Bush might have gotten straight C's in college, but he probably saw that movie

MagicNakor
02-14-2003, 07:29 AM
Inconceivable!

Logan-Grimnar
02-14-2003, 10:26 AM
I agree with you all..Bush just can't go to war against North Korea...they are trained to kill...heck they were born to kill....

chloe_cc2002
02-14-2003, 10:30 AM
North Korea as they said and with some foundation will be dealt with by the US, according to their ever changing views, on the revival of their nuclear programs. They have flouted UN conventions and there have been some voices saying they should be brought up before the UN Security Council, but even the IAEA says that it would be unlikely to result in any direct action.

They have banned inspectors etc. Why would the US deal with them in secret talks??

jetje
02-14-2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by maximboy99@14 February 2003 - 02:49
I dont want war, but I dont want Iraq building WMD even more. Jetje you underestimate American willpower and how we are deadly serious about terrorism and regimes that support it in any way. Here let me pose to you a question this way: What should Americans do? Sit Idly by as another regime, which threatens peace in the world as we know it, grows in power? If you think a war with Iraq tomorrow is bad, think 100xs as bad a few years from now. Its time to stop backing down, or all of us are going to end up in whole new world, where the evil men threaten the peaceful ones, and the peaceful ones give in. You ever heard of appeasement? Thats the only solution you offer. It failed 50 years ago, its failing again.
i think the American policy threatens peace in the world, you turn things upside down.
Iraq and North Korea doesn't start the war, they are just trying to protect themselfes.
And honestly maybe they're right. If they don't scare the Superpowers enough, they get attacked.
You just going to attack them to keep them small, quiet and under the thumb. Why????
Just because they think different, why you think they are a threat to you? Or world civilization?
You seem to forget that we're talking about people, not countrie names, people, they laugh, cry, die, get born as well. They also like to live.
They don't want to use a-bombs. But they need them to scare imperialistic countries, just as the USA has them to show muscles. Why, because that's the only way we seem to take them serious.

You know what, if the attacks happens the terrorist you're all after are probably lying in bed watching CNN in New York, Paris, Rome, Amsterdam, Boston Washingto wherever. They smile, they have acomplished their missions, the world will be in fire then. Unstoppable

maximboy99
02-14-2003, 08:03 PM
"i think the American policy threatens peace in the world, you turn things upside down"

So according to you Jetje, America threatens world peace by getting involved in world? Well if you knew anything about Americans, you would understand most of us want a policy of isolation. Many Americans think the world is ungrateful for the sacrifices we make towards world order. The problem is, everytime we adopt isolation as a policy, somebody grows some huge testicles (IE Hitler, Bin Laden, Saddam, Kim Jong). They realise no one else will stand up to them. Just look at South Korea. Oh North Korea come play with us in our "sunshine policy". All thats accomplishing is signaling that South Korea is weak militarily, and weak willed (towards war, I dont mean it as a direct insult). South Korea is practically inviting an attack. I cant believe how niave your country is about North Korea's ambitions, you act like they dont want to attack South Korea.



"Iraq and North Korea doesn't start the war, they are just trying to protect themselfes"

Yes I suppose both countries like to have some of the biggest armies in the world, just "to protect themselves". I mean that logic fits perfectly with history. for instance Iraq was only "defending" itself against Iran. In the early 1990s, when Iraq had one of the worlds largest armies ( just for peace right?) they had to "defend" themselves against the bloodthirsty Kuwaities. I mean c'mon, are you trying to re-write history?



"And honestly maybe they're right. If they don't scare the Superpowers enough, they get attacked.
You just going to attack them to keep them small, quiet and under the thumb. Why????
Just because they think different, why you think they are a threat to you? Or world civilization?
You seem to forget that we're talking about people, not countrie names, people, they laugh, cry, die, get born as well. They also like to live.
They don't want to use a-bombs. But they need them to scare imperialistic countries, just as the USA has them to show muscles. Why, because that's the only way we seem to take them serious."

I tell you what, its your opinion, but your opinions are *not* biased by any facts. You suggest we let these countries, who simply "think different", control the world through fear. That is what North Korea is doing, incase you havent noticed. I mean if your not opposed to North Korea acting the way it is, couldn't the United States, China, France, Japan, and the UK all say "give us free handouts or its an act of war and we may use nukes". Thats the logic of your argument. You have no moral grounding other than "people, they laugh, cry, die, get born as well. They also like to live." Because you forget that the rest of the world also has people who want to do the same things, your response is: America is threatening, but infact it is protecting.



"They don't want to use a-bombs. But they need them to scare imperialistic countries, just as the USA has them to show muscles. Why, because that's the only way we seem to take them serious."

Your right on two points here. They need them to scare countries and they need them to be "taken seriously". I would like you to note I said countries, not imperialistic countries. In 2003 there is no single imperialistic country. Perhaps you need to go read the definition of imperialistic. ( http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/i/i0057600.html ) . Sorry, as much as the intelligencia would have you believe, America is not imperialistic. We do not conquerer nations, and make them fly the American flag, or pay taxes to our government. Name one place in the world that is a member of the United States, that wishes not to be. Further info: http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000017.html . But being right about them wanting to have nukes to be "taken seriously" does not mean its ok.



"You know what, if the attacks happens the terrorist you're all after are probably lying in bed watching CNN in New York, Paris, Rome, Amsterdam, Boston Washingto wherever. They smile, they have acomplished their missions, the world will be in fire then. Unstoppable"

Actually they were sitting in Afghanistan, thats why we attacked them. Yes some are able to get into various Western countries but not the majority. According to you we should just give up in the name of peace. Terrorists cant be stopped, they are "unstoppable". But they have not accomplished their mission, because America will stand up to them. By telling the world that if your regime supports terrorism, and terrorists from within your country attack the US, expect us to respond in kind. The US cannot play defense, we will lose if we play defense. Their mission is to crush Western "infidels", destroy our culture, because Allah has promised them that Islam will succeed in the world. They wont stop if America falls, they wont stop until their religion is the only religion. If you want proof, read their fatwahs. They explicity state this. And be careful when reading this, Im talking about terrorists not every person who follows Islam. Again all you (Jetje) offer is appeasement. Appeasement shrugs off responsibilities, it can enable evil people, but I promise you this: appeasement is the attitude of conquered nations. History, facts, and logic support this.

ketoprak
02-14-2003, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by maximboy99@14 February 2003 - 21:03
I would like you to note I said countries, not imperialistic countries.  In 2003 there is no single imperialistic country.  Perhaps you need to go read the definition of imperialistic.  ( http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/i/i0057600.html ) .  Sorry, as much as the intelligencia would have you believe, America is not imperialistic.  We do not conquerer nations, and make them fly the American flag, or pay taxes to our government.  Name one place in the world that is a member of the United States, that wishes not to be.  Further info: http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000017.html .
I just wondered, maybe you Americans had a different definition from us, Europeans. So I checked on a reliable American dictionary, i.e. Webster's New Collegiate.


imperialism : the policy, practice or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation esp. by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas.

You must have been mixing-up imperialism and colonialism.

jetje
02-14-2003, 11:22 PM
thnx ketoprak someone knows what word means B)

@maximboy99 , i state. Yes The US A is threatining world peace, i never slept less becauase your so called threat of Iraq An Korea. I do on the way your countrie is provoke all the "terrorist" states. Your lightning a fire that's gonna backfire on your countrie and the rest of the world. Btw why i quoted terrorist states, there are none. There are evil men organized they are terrorist, but a state is millions of people who just try to survive live happy and in peace. Terrorist are every where even in your USA (oklahoma bomber/the Koresh sect). Don't be ashamed we have them over here too. But to handle them you don't bomb a countrie or start a war !


Many Americans think the world is ungrateful for the sacrifices we make towards world order.
Who's world order? i don't need world order i need world peace. We need to help the politicians have fair trades for their countries, take them serious. The only thing we all have to do is share the wealth we have with all in the world. A happy man is a peacefull man. Not a frightend one he wants war (look at the US governement it's fear driven, fear for terrorism)


We do not conquerer nations, and make them fly the American flag
No but if they don't follow your " world order" think different, you just say they're terrorist and gonna bomb the shit out of thousands of innocents.


America is threatening, but infact it is protecting. you mixed up, it's threatening AND protecting, their interest.


Actually they were sitting in Afghanistan, thats why we attacked them.
Did you get them? I mean OBL.... Bombed a countrie but missed the target, but wtf... nice attitude.


Terrorists cant be stopped, they are "unstoppable". But they have not accomplished their mission, because America will stand up to them. By telling the world that if your regime supports terrorism, and terrorists from within your country attack the US, expect us to respond in kind.
Nice reply; 1st they can't be stopped ,why your trying then? If your country respond, the terrorist have acomplished their mission, Their goal is to disturb world peace. Get more people behind their goal to destroy western civilization. By hitting innocents they will feed the need to retaliate. Because they don't have the military forces you have the need to thrown stones or the bravest will take part on the next suicide actions. As you say Unstoppable... And all this because your countrie let them provoke by a minority group.


The US cannot play defense, we will lose if we play defense. Their mission is to crush Western "infidels", destroy our culture, because Allah has promised them that Islam will succeed in the world. They wont stop if America falls, they wont stop until their religion is the only religion. If you want proof, read their fatwahs. They explicity state this. And be careful when reading this, Im talking about terrorists not every person who follows Islam.
Exactly a minority, please try to understand me for once, sit down and think about it. Wouldn't you live happy and in peace. A good world for you and your kids? ........ What do you think that a regular Abdullah in Baghdad wants... right. Just the same happy peacefull life as you. He doesn't bother you have another religion, he just wants food, a wife child and a job to support them. Really if your honest to yourself you understand what i'm trying to say here. We have to do something against terrorist, but bombing countries is not the right way, you just gonna hit our friend Abdullah or his family. Then he will have a reason to hate you.


Again all you (Jetje) offer is appeasement. Appeasement shrugs off responsibilities, it can enable evil people, but I promise you this: appeasement is the attitude of conquered nations. History, facts, and logic support this.

Had to look the word up in the dictionary but have to say i couldn't have found a better word.
Appeasement has nothing to do about conquered nations, appeasement is needed to keep innocents alive in a world where people think different. appeasement is not weak, it's strong. It's the only way to solve problems without one that loose. It's in my opinion the only way to stop a lot of problems like for instance the Palestinian problem. Who's right in that, who's countrie is it? If we can solve that problem think biggest part of terrorisme will be killed.

Believe me as i state all the people in the world want to live in peace without fear for war or terrorism.
No difference in that wherever you are. USA, Europe or ??? Iraq.
feel free to fill in any name were stands Russians B)

In Europe and America
There's a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mr. Khrushchev said we will bury you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too

How can I save my little boy
From Oppenheimer's deadly toy
There is no monopoly of common sense
On either side of the political fence
We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

There is no historical precedent
To put words in the mouth of the President
There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie we don't believe anymore
Mr. Reagan says we will protect you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
What might save us, me and you
Is if the Russians love their children too

Sting

khhora
02-15-2003, 02:06 AM
Great post, jetje :) We will show the world "leaders" tomorrow saturday 15th what we think.

jetje
02-15-2003, 02:17 AM
Yes hope there will be hundreds of thousands B)

Rat Faced
02-15-2003, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by SuperJude™@14 February 2003 - 02:51
Japan, Korea, vietnam. Hell we'll go back to the Phillipines even.

It is a widely held belief in these parts that Asians are the fiercest fighters in the world, and I do not think we are itching to get into another conflict in the far east.

Iraq (part 1) and Afghanistan pretty much just laid down, while every Asian conflict we have been in has amounted to severe casualties.

Just something to think about.

-SJ™
Instead of going over Jetje's points again, apart from agreeing and adding AGAIN...there is no link between Iraq and Al Queda, so i cant take any argument based on 'Terrorism' for attacking Iraq seriously...

There was a Venezuelan arrested at Heathrow the other day with a live grenade. By the logic your using about 'hitting the terrorists', we should look around and invade say Brazil.....because that country is in the right part of the world and has lots of Natural Resources we could do with.



I'll agree with SJ on his post i've quoted instead.

Apart from pointing out the obvious Japanese in WWII, there was also the Burmese 'resistance' at that time..The Vietnamese as mentioned etc etc.

But from personal experiance and admiration, i'll turn to the British Army....or rather part of it.

The Ghurkas are, in my opinion the best 'natural' soldiers in the British Army by far, and quite possibly the world. Im not talking 'specialist', such as Samuri or SAS etc...im talking natural "SOLDIER"

Their normal training puts them almost into the catagory of Special Forces, and Im proud to have them as part of the British Army.

I'll also add a short political statement, that will mean nothing except to the UK contingent....They are treat appalingly by the British Government, and should have EVERY RIGHT AND PRIVELAGE as any other British Soldier, including Full Pensions and all that goes with it. Because by god they earn it, compared to the normal British Squadie.


As to the post about throwing nukes about in South East Asia.....grow up. You really think China will sit still for that? Im in the UK....we got fallout from Chernabel for godsake and we are thousands of miles away, that wasnt even a bomb!

North Korea may well invade South Korea, i hope not but wont discount it. China is the only power that can stop this, not the USA.....and not Russia. In case you havent noticed, Russia has its own problems and wouldnt be able to do anything even if it was interested.

JunkBarMan
02-15-2003, 04:18 AM
jetje you are so wrong in your opinion that I am sick by your point of view. You live in a fog clouded world when you say "we provoke the terroist states", and the go on to say "Btw why i quoted terrorist states, there are none"...So what exactly are you trying to say with these two contradicting statements?


Next you go on to say "We need to help the politicians have fair trades for their countries, take them serious. The only thing we all have to do is share the wealth we have with all in the world. A happy man is a peacefull man. Not a frightend one he wants war (look at the US governement it's fear driven, fear for terrorism)" I ask you to look at yourselves (South Korea) and then let me know you have helped the world with your passive aggresive attitudes. Do you think the leader of North Korea is a happy man? if by what you say" a happy man is a peaceful man", then you would also say that he is peaceful then, right?

I really would like to go on and on and point how YOUR thoughts are so far off base, but you really wouldn't have anything good to come back with? Name one other country you would like to see on your side, in war time or peace.......and tell me why.

Rat Faced i dont know what cave you live in, But, "there is no link between Iraq and Al Queda, so i cant take any argument based on 'Terrorism' for attacking Iraq seriously..." Considering the CIA(central intelligence agency for you america haters) Just yesterday went in front of the world and point out 12 specific Al Queda groups operating in and around Iraq, so exactly where do you not see a connection?
If you thinks this is such Bs, then why is the Brits backing the USA on this one? I think i saw your PM standing next our president saying that these terrorists need to be taken care of.

I am so sick of America helping and aiding the rest of the world and then getting bit in the ass for doing it. But when the crap starts to fling around the next time, guess who everyone asks for help from? USA, thats who.....

Ardor
02-15-2003, 08:51 AM
There is something so idiotic about this post that I had to login and reply. Not that I'm sure that Jetje and Rat Face will have an adequate rebuke for what is clearly an insult.


Originally posted by JunkBarMan+15 February 2003 - 05:18--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JunkBarMan @ 15 February 2003 - 05:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>jetje you are so wrong in your opinion that I am sick by your point of view. You live in a fog clouded world when you say "we provoke the terroist states", and the go on to say "Btw why i quoted terrorist states, there are none"...So what exactly are you trying to say with these two contradicting statements?[/b]
Well actually the US does provoke states, just whether they are terrorist or fit that definition (who&#39;s), is up for debate. Many freedom-fighters, including Nelson Mandela have been labeled Terrorists at some time. Btw. don&#39;t confuse my words, with the fact that the WTC-distaster really was a terrorist act&#33; These are 2 seperate issues.


Originally posted by -JunkBarMan@15 February 2003 - 05:18
Next you go on to say "We need to help the politicians have fair trades for their countries, take them serious. The only thing we all have to do is share the wealth we have with all in the world. A happy man is a peacefull man. Not a frightend one he wants war (look at the US governement it&#39;s fear driven, fear for terrorism)" I ask you to look at yourselves (South Korea) and then let me know you have helped the world with your passive aggresive attitudes.
Jetje is Dutch, it&#39;s El Jefe that lives in S. Korea, but actually he&#39;s American&#33; Maybe he&#39;s a spy? :lol:

Originally posted by -JunkBarMan@15 February 2003 - 05:18
Do you think the leader of North Korea is a happy man? if by what you say" a happy man is a peaceful man", then you would also say that he is peaceful then, right?
Your statement does not provide a good argument, since N.Korea is under threat of war.


Originally posted by -JunkBarMan@15 February 2003 - 05:18
I really would like to go on and on and point how YOUR thoughts are so far off base, but you really wouldn&#39;t have anything good to come back with? Name one other country you would like to see on your side, in war time or peace.......and tell me why. In war, the side that wants peace, in peace, there are no sides.


Originally posted by -JunkBarMan@15 February 2003 - 05:18
Rat Faced i dont know what cave you in, But, "there is no link between Iraq and Al Queda, so i cant take any argument based on &#39;Terrorism&#39; for attaclive king Iraq seriously..." Considering the CIA(central intelligence agency for you america haters) Just yesterday went in front of the world and point out 12 specific Al Queda groups operating in and around Iraq, so exactly where do you not see a connection? Considering the US&#39;s and UK&#39;s governments&#39; rap-sheet in providing factual proof (show me&#33;), I&#39;m not at all convinced, sorry&#33; I find Iraq&#39;s public statement that they are not associated with Al Queda more convincing.


Originally posted by -JunkBarMan@15 February 2003 - 05:18
If you thinks this is such Bs, then why is the Brits backing the USA on this one? I think i saw your PM standing next our president saying that these terrorists need to be taken care of.Do your research, the majority of the "limeys&#39; are against a war, about 65% last time I checked. As a matter of fact, a few days ago Blair issued a statement that supporting a war has been damaging to his reputation Britain&#39;s prime minister (I agree).

In light of the last two quotes, please refrain from ever turning on a TV again and read a (non-american) history-book or two.

<!--QuoteBegin--JunkBarMan@15 February 2003 - 05:18
I am so sick of America helping and aiding the rest of the world and then getting bit in the ass for doing it. But when the crap starts to fling around the next time, guess who everyone asks for help from? USA, thats who.....[/quote] I&#39;m also sick of hearing that statement. There are very few times that America was asked to help, and when they did help, they did so if it served them well. Thank you so much for helping us in WWII, I sincerely hope that our (monetary) repayments have been sufficient in making the US even more powerful (and arrogant).

As my usual end-note I&#39;d like to add that this is a war of governements, ie. power-hungry people, not of actual citizens (mere tools of governments), like us here. Please try to remain objective about matters of the world, since there is no single side, no single logic, and no single race to take into account&#33;

One world = many people = many opinions.

ketoprak
02-15-2003, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by JunkBarMan@15 February 2003 - 05:18
Considering the CIA(central intelligence agency for you america haters) Just yesterday went in front of the world and point out 12 specific Al Queda groups operating in and around Iraq, so exactly where do you not see a connection?
Don&#39;t you see it&#39;s just manipulation. The US government & its agencies may be able to manipulate American minds, but they can&#39;t manipulate the world as they used to. And it seems that they don&#39;t understand it. See what&#39;s they&#39;ve done with the last so-called Bin Ladden voice message. Only Americans think it&#39;s real, but we all know it&#39;s a fake made by your &#39;great&#39; intelligence agency.

Btw, it seems that&#39;s there&#39;s no free press in the US : those who think different can&#39;t even access to the media, except via buying large advertisement space, and even that is not easy : some newspapers won&#39;t even sell them that space. Most US newspapers also don&#39;t report correctly the huge peace demonstrations held in Washington or NYC.

maximboy99
02-15-2003, 09:53 AM
Jetje, tomorrow I will sit down and try to figure out exactly what you *ARE* arguing for. Until than, I will give you something to think about. If you do not understand this argument (which I dont think you will) I beg you to research WWII. An important lesson: Appeasement lead to World War II.

The world made a mistake trying to conduct weapons inspections in Germany after WWI. At the time, it was believed as long as Germany was under international scruitany, they would dare not rebuild. The allies knew of Germany&#39;s failures to comply with inspectors. But popular thought dictated that militarily disarming Germany, would only further inflict wounds to a weak and DEFEATED country. We all know the course of Germany&#39;s actions in the following years. Several times the war weary Europeans favored appeasement. They allowed Germany to make small military victories, which eventually escalated to war in 1939. It still is amasing how simply enforcing their own rules, would have stopped WWII.

Yet here we are, half a century later, facing a remarkably similar situation. The UN has failed to enforce its own resolutions. Europe, having not learned its lesson, cries for appeasement. The rest of the world, unequipped to handle this situation. America, firm in its resolve, marches to war. Leaving many critics of American policy leaping on an anti-war bandwagon. But what do they truly offer as a solution? Nothing. More complexly put: they offer continued inspections, which have failed to stop WMD proliferation. Further, the inspections have also shown Iraq has failed to comply with resolution 1441. What is a serious consequence to 12 years of failure to comply? Resumption of the first gulf war, which only ceased after Saddam accepted a peace agreement, but Saddam has broken his own peace agreement. The stipulations of peace were infact: FULL AND COMPLETE COOPERATION IN DISARMING. Period.

Jetje, it just doesnt get more simple than this. When you lose a war, you sign a peace treaty. You follow that peace treaty or you get removed. Where is the confusion?

(below is directed at Jetje)
It must be that innocent people are going to die. I know it is sad. But life is sad for many people all over the world. It is sad that Iraqis will die in this war. But how many would die if the US waited? Do you not doubt Saddam will one day use WMD (he already has used chemical agents on his own people), one day obtain a nuclear missle? There are hundreds of ways in which allowing Saddam to continue evading inspections will lead to a much more dangerous world.

Let us suppose for a moment that Saddam allowed Isreal to be attacked (suitcase nuclear bomb or biological agent or Scud attacks with Ricin tips etc). This is not entirely a hypothetical situation. Saddam has shown his willingness to attack innocent Israeli citizens. The Israeli response, a Nagasaki and Hiroshima of modern day proportions. Israel would fire its nukes into Iraq and possibly ignite a worldwide reaction. How many more would die than? Are you prepared to shoulder the moral responsibility of a third world war? Of a nuclear or biological catastrophe? No, because you supported peace. You fail to see your actions have consequences. You(Jetje) are blinded by years of American protectionism. Your freedom to discuss this matter with me, is entirely reliant upon 37,000 American soldiers risking their life for your ingratitude. Thats your ignorance. Theres your so called peace.

ketoprak
02-15-2003, 10:03 AM
I&#39;ve read in the newspapers that the US army was planning to use forbidden chemcal "non lethal" weapons such as fentanyl in Irak. The US have ratified the convention on chemical weapons, so they&#39;re not allowed to use them.

And they want to attack Irak cause they think this country have chemical weapons.

Looks like a big paradoxe, don&#39;t you think ?

MagicNakor
02-15-2003, 10:31 AM
War is what happens when diplomacy fails.

If you really want to bring up WWII, America didn&#39;t enter it until she was forced to. America also sold munitions to both sides.

It&#39;s unlikely that Europe hasn&#39;t "learnt its lesson." Perhaps some of the "pacificts" have learnt from history. America didn&#39;t endure years of bloodshed on her soil. The war was already winding down by December 1941.

"...Of course, the people don&#39;t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don&#39;t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

-Hermann Goering and Gustave Gilbert

jetje
02-15-2003, 10:35 AM
What i can&#39;t believe in this debates is that there are in fact people who are in favor of war. It solves nothing. The situation in Afghanistan shows it again. "We" fought our battle over there an just left a out of control state with only feeding grounds for new terrorists. Instead of helping them to build a new state we go after the next one, which has nothing to do with terrorists. Here is the same thing as after WWI Germany had a feeding ground for rebuilding war cause the lack of help on the countrie. WWII prooved that if you help the countrie out economicly speaking, there won&#39;t be more feeding grounds. Germany isn&#39;t doing that bad at the moment no threat for world peace i think.

At all that are in favor, you all forgetting and overseeing the most important argument of not going to war.
It&#39;s not the countries you have to fear it&#39;s some people, with (political) power that are wrong (or that are after that). As i stated before every normal Abdullah is like every normal John Smith or the Jetjes of this world. All want a better world just live safe and in peace. It&#39;s the war hungry, powergreedy people like Saddam, George Bush etc we have to be afraid for.

I can go on replying all the accusations at my head but won&#39;t. I know people who have been in wars, even those oppose this war, war doesn&#39;t bring good to people. War is not civilized.

Just read the poem by Sting once more, fill in another name were stands Russians. Is that so hard to comprohend.

maximboy99
02-15-2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by ketoprak+14 February 2003 - 22:59--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ketoprak @ 14 February 2003 - 22:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--maximboy99@14 February 2003 - 21:03
I would like you to note I said countries, not imperialistic countries.* In 2003 there is no single imperialistic country.* Perhaps you need to go read the definition of imperialistic.* ( http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/i/i0057600.html ) .* Sorry, as much as the intelligencia would have you believe, America is not imperialistic.* We do not conquerer nations, and make them fly the American flag, or pay taxes to our government.* Name one place in the world that is a member of the United States, that wishes not to be.* Further info: http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000017.html .
I just wondered, maybe you Americans had a different definition from us, Europeans. So I checked on a reliable American dictionary, i.e. Webster&#39;s New Collegiate.


imperialism : the policy, practice or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation esp. by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas.

You must have been mixing-up imperialism and colonialism.[/b][/quote]
-----No, you must be confusing imperialism with hegemony.-------

definitions from Cambridge Dictionary,
Imperialism: "Imperialism is a system in which a country rules other countries, sometimes having used force to obtain power over them."
Hegemony: "the position of being the strongest and most powerful and therefore controlling others"


There is an important distinction. Imperialism is to be imperial. To be imperial, you need to wish to build an empire. Definition of imperial: "of an empire or the person who rules it." And if you read carefully in my argument I explain why the US is not an Empire, not Imperialistic. I stand by my arguments.

jetje
02-15-2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by maximboy99@15 February 2003 - 09:53
Jetje, it just doesnt get more simple than this. When you lose a war, you sign a peace treaty. You follow that peace treaty or you get removed. Where is the confusion?
You like to play Chess???? There you can win or lose, not in wars. Both sides loose.
Only the side who losses less thinks he can dictate the other, my guess "Should they be called Dictators"?

maximboy99
02-15-2003, 10:47 AM
Magic Nakor, so you believe diplomacy has not failed? When has diplomacy failed?

In 1941, WWII was not winding down. Thats just not true.

maximboy99
02-15-2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by jetje+15 February 2003 - 11:44--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jetje @ 15 February 2003 - 11:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--maximboy99@15 February 2003 - 09:53
Jetje, it just doesnt get more simple than this.&nbsp; When you lose a war, you sign a peace treaty.&nbsp; You follow that peace treaty or you get removed.&nbsp; Where is the confusion?
You like to play Chess???? There you can win or lose, not in wars. Both sides loose.
Only the side who losses less thinks he can dictate the other, my guess "Should they be called Dictators"? [/b][/quote]
If you aren&#39;t going to say anything based on any logic or fact, Im done replying. There is no substance to what you just said. I suspect you have no idea what my argument was, and that is why you cannot respond to it.

ketoprak
02-15-2003, 10:59 AM
imperialism : the policy, practice or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation esp. by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas.

You must have been mixing-up imperialism and colonialism.

-----No, you must be confusing imperialism with hegemony.-------

Eh, eh &#33; That&#39;s one of the consequences of cold war in your country. Imperialism is a marxist concept. It seems that you weren&#39;t taught anyting that was related to Karl Marx at school. :D



edited typo

jetje
02-15-2003, 11:05 AM
:blink: i thought i pretty much did in the post before the last one?
i just forgotten this one remark. English isn&#39;t my 1st language (too bad in these kinda debates), i just didn&#39;t like to go through your reply point to point. I couldn&#39;t get this one though. It showed me you think you won the previous gulf war, well the fact you need to start again shows you didn&#39;t. Now the Us tries to dictate again. They try to force their dictate by threatning with war. If you lose at chess, you can&#39;t make any moves cause whatever you do they take you. You can&#39;t add other pieces. Well in normal life you can change people unless you kill them all....

Is that more satisfying. Maybe i wass a bit to abstract in my reply, and had some anger in it cause i tought that was a stupid remark you made. It doesn&#39;t made any sence to me. Problably of that, made me make the harsh answer. But still think war is no solution, you just kill innocents.

Rat Faced
02-15-2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by JunkBarMan@15 February 2003 - 04:18
jetje you are so wrong in your opinion that I am sick by your point of view. You live in a fog clouded world when you say "we provoke the terroist states", and the go on to say "Btw why i quoted terrorist states, there are none"...So what exactly are you trying to say with these two contradicting statements?


Next you go on to say "We need to help the politicians have fair trades for their countries, take them serious. The only thing we all have to do is share the wealth we have with all in the world. A happy man is a peacefull man. Not a frightend one he wants war (look at the US governement it&#39;s fear driven, fear for terrorism)" I ask you to look at yourselves (South Korea) and then let me know you have helped the world with your passive aggresive attitudes. Do you think the leader of North Korea is a happy man? if by what you say" a happy man is a peaceful man", then you would also say that he is peaceful then, right?

I really would like to go on and on and point how YOUR thoughts are so far off base, but you really wouldn&#39;t have anything good to come back with? Name one other country you would like to see on your side, in war time or peace.......and tell me why.

Rat Faced i dont know what cave you live in, But, "there is no link between Iraq and Al Queda, so i cant take any argument based on &#39;Terrorism&#39; for attacking Iraq seriously..." Considering the CIA(central intelligence agency for you america haters) Just yesterday went in front of the world and point out 12 specific Al Queda groups operating in and around Iraq, so exactly where do you not see a connection?
If you thinks this is such Bs, then why is the Brits backing the USA on this one? I think i saw your PM standing next our president saying that these terrorists need to be taken care of.

I am so sick of America helping and aiding the rest of the world and then getting bit in the ass for doing it. But when the crap starts to fling around the next time, guess who everyone asks for help from? USA, thats who.....
I&#39;ll just answer those points aimed at me.


Black Propaganda is the art of the state turning public opinion their way.

The best example was the CIA stating that Iraq had no Nuclear capability last year in such terms as to scare the crap out of everyone. They said that Iraq was "GIVEN the FACILITIES and MATERIALS, were only 3 years away from producing Nuclear weapons"......as the HOW part is readily available, this is true of every high school in the USA. It is a way of saying &#39;they dont have any nuclear capability, and arent getting it&#39;.

To your point...
Just yesterday went in front of the world and point out 12 specific Al Queda groups operating in and around Iraq, so exactly where do you not see a connection?

There is MORE than 12 groups operating in and around USA...so are you linking USA with support for Al Queda? There is also a number of &#39;White Supremisist Groups...so does USA support this? Or how about the CHRISTIAN fundamentalists? You support them?

Iraq suffers from terrorism itself from Al Queda. It is a &#39;secular&#39; government, and Al Queda sees it as a &#39;traitor&#39; to Islam....you&#39;ll be doing it a favour by invading. I have no doubt there are more than 12 Al Queda groups operating in and around Iraq.....they are busy blowing things up, and if the Hussain catches them, they&#39;ll be executed.

Black Propaganda works by telling lies when you must, but half truths and spin when you can...just in case your caught out...like the UK Government last week. In this case its even more laughable, as the CIA last year proved there was no link between Al Queda and Iraq, when Mossad tried to link the two after WTC....bit of a contradiction there dont you think?



If you thinks this is such Bs, then why is the Brits backing the USA on this one? I think i saw your PM standing next our president saying that these terrorists need to be taken care of.

We arent, at the last Poll 80% of the &#39;Brits&#39; were against a war with Iraq......dropping to 61% against if there is a call from the UN for Military action. You have the support of Tony Blair....even his own cabinet is split, with many speaking out against.

Unfortunatly, Mr Blaire can use the &#39;Royal Perogative&#39;, and declare war in the Queens name, without the need for his Government or the People to support his actions.


I am so sick of America helping and aiding the rest of the world and then getting bit in the ass for doing it. But when the crap starts to fling around the next time, guess who everyone asks for help from? USA, thats who.....

No, America has done many good things (Peacecorps, Aid etc etc). But dont confuse &#39;helping and aiding&#39; with your Governments interests. There is a big difference.

The hate of the middle east fundamentalist Muslems for the USA was brought about by US foreign policy...and only that. They dislike your way of life etc etc but dont HATE you for that, or they would hate every other Western Nation....which they dont.

But Arabs consider themselves one people, immaterial of the false borders put there by the UK and the French. They see the US alone not condemning Israel when THEY commit attrociaties, but condemning the Palestinians when they do....a bit one sided. They see and hear the US preparing to attack Iraq....one of the few Islamic governments which is secular, and see it as an attack on them all.

The other Arab &#39;leaders&#39; support USA, or their support is withdrawn (like the Philipenes)....but the arab people? You create MORE fudamentalist every day with your policies...and when the attack on Iraq starts then the number of Islamic Terrorists in the world will multiply.

These people will see every Shopping Mall in the USA as a legitamate Target....because to most of them YOU started the Jahad...Holy War.

As to other possibilities? Pakistan is already influenced by Fundamentalist Musslims but the attack may give the Fundamentalist the power there......and they HAVE NBC capability (NBC=correct term for WMD). If that happens then India will be on a permanent war footing and they have NBC capability.....you may have missed how close these two nuclear powers came to war last year...as the press in the USA concentrated on trying to keep support for the attack on Iraq.

Rat Faced
02-15-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by maximboy99@15 February 2003 - 09:53
Jetje, tomorrow I will sit down and try to figure out exactly what you *ARE* arguing for. Until than, I will give you something to think about. If you do not understand this argument (which I dont think you will) I beg you to research WWII. An important lesson: Appeasement lead to World War II.

The world made a mistake trying to conduct weapons inspections in Germany after WWI. At the time, it was believed as long as Germany was under international scruitany, they would dare not rebuild. The allies knew of Germany&#39;s failures to comply with inspectors. But popular thought dictated that militarily disarming Germany, would only further inflict wounds to a weak and DEFEATED country. We all know the course of Germany&#39;s actions in the following years. Several times the war weary Europeans favored appeasement. They allowed Germany to make small military victories, which eventually escalated to war in 1939. It still is amasing how simply enforcing their own rules, would have stopped WWII.

Yet here we are, half a century later, facing a remarkably similar situation. The UN has failed to enforce its own resolutions. Europe, having not learned its lesson, cries for appeasement. The rest of the world, unequipped to handle this situation. America, firm in its resolve, marches to war. Leaving many critics of American policy leaping on an anti-war bandwagon. But what do they truly offer as a solution? Nothing. More complexly put: they offer continued inspections, which have failed to stop WMD proliferation. Further, the inspections have also shown Iraq has failed to comply with resolution 1441. What is a serious consequence to 12 years of failure to comply? Resumption of the first gulf war, which only ceased after Saddam accepted a peace agreement, but Saddam has broken his own peace agreement. The stipulations of peace were infact: FULL AND COMPLETE COOPERATION IN DISARMING. Period.

Jetje, it just doesnt get more simple than this. When you lose a war, you sign a peace treaty. You follow that peace treaty or you get removed. Where is the confusion?

(below is directed at Jetje)
It must be that innocent people are going to die. I know it is sad. But life is sad for many people all over the world. It is sad that Iraqis will die in this war. But how many would die if the US waited? Do you not doubt Saddam will one day use WMD (he already has used chemical agents on his own people), one day obtain a nuclear missle? There are hundreds of ways in which allowing Saddam to continue evading inspections will lead to a much more dangerous world.

Let us suppose for a moment that Saddam allowed Isreal to be attacked (suitcase nuclear bomb or biological agent or Scud attacks with Ricin tips etc). This is not entirely a hypothetical situation. Saddam has shown his willingness to attack innocent Israeli citizens. The Israeli response, a Nagasaki and Hiroshima of modern day proportions. Israel would fire its nukes into Iraq and possibly ignite a worldwide reaction. How many more would die than? Are you prepared to shoulder the moral responsibility of a third world war? Of a nuclear or biological catastrophe? No, because you supported peace. You fail to see your actions have consequences. You(Jetje) are blinded by years of American protectionism. Your freedom to discuss this matter with me, is entirely reliant upon 37,000 American soldiers risking their life for your ingratitude. Thats your ignorance. Theres your so called peace.
The situation that allowed hitler to rise are fundamentaly different in the world at large.

In the 1930&#39;s the whole world was in recession, and all governments were looking internally trying to control their economies.

Hitler was a charismatic leader, saying the right things at the right time to inspire his country behind him, after years of depression and starvation for his country...he retained power by making the country vibrant and the economy healthy....despite the rest of Europe and the USA being in a slump.


Agreed the French and English may have been able to stop him. The German army were under orders to turn around if the French objected to their training near the French Border...where the Treaty had forbade German Troops to enter..and neither the English nor French objected. This may well have gave a great boost to his ego and confidence.

As to other &#39;infringements&#39;........which ones?

They werent allowed to build war ships over a certain weight, and so invented the &#39;Pocket Battleship&#39;...stayed within the treaty to do it.

They created one of the best trained armies the world has ever seen, and weapons of greater ability than their enemies...all whilst staying within the terms of the treaty.

Just because the treaty was faulty and full of loopholes, and the French/UK governments didnt shout on the few infringements... is no way to claim they built their Armed Forces in contravention of the Treaty, they didnt.

So there wasnt a lot of &#39;Appeasement&#39; going on...or at least not as much as you claim.

The current situation is totaly different.

The world is NOT in an economic slump...although i&#39;ll grant USA is in recession. Hussain is not a charasmatic leader leading them into an economic miracle, he is a dictator that isnt loved by the ppl and is in economic ruin. He also happens to be sitting on the 2nd largest oil deposits in the world, and is not allowed to sell oil unless its under the USA&#39;s/UK&#39;s terms.

95% of his armed forces has been smashed to peices by 1st the War against Iran, followed by Desert Storm, and lastly by the illegal bombing by US and UK forces since Desert Storm.

He is desperate and a nutcase...that "possibly" has Biological and Chemical weapons. These weapons are such that they are easily transported and smuggled, which is the problem the inspectors have.

IF he is expecting an attack, and remember every country that has these has them as a last resort, do you think they will be hidden in Iraq, where they can only be used on protected troops? Or would he hide them outside Iraq...say at the point they woiuld be used, on the civilian, unprotected populations of the countries attacking him? One nice Chemical attack in Washington with the message &#39;withdraw or the rest of them go off&#39; perhaps.


Let us suppose for a moment that Saddam allowed Isreal to be attacked (suitcase nuclear bomb or biological agent or Scud attacks with Ricin tips etc).&nbsp; This is not entirely a hypothetical situation.&nbsp; Saddam has shown his willingness to attack innocent Israeli citizens.&nbsp; The Israeli response, a Nagasaki and Hiroshima of modern day proportions.&nbsp; Israel would fire its nukes into Iraq and possibly ignite a worldwide reaction.

Your point is?

Of course he will do that....he is desperate to get support of the Arabian people.

BUT has he thrown anything at Israel, when he wasnt being attacked?

He supports the Pallestinians.....wake up. So does EVERY muslim country, and quite a few non muslim.

He stays in power by very clever manipulation...eg giving money to the PLO, which appeases the Fundamentalists in the country. He doesnt give a monkeys about the politics of Pallestine/Israel, he does it to show he is &#39;religious&#39; (which he isnt). Attacking Israel would mean the death of his little &#39;empire&#39;....so he doesnt do it, unless its to get the help of the Arab ppl in his hour of need.


You fail to see your actions have consequences.&nbsp; You(Jetje) are blinded by years of American protectionism.&nbsp; Your freedom to discuss this matter with me, is entirely reliant upon 37,000 American soldiers risking their life for your ingratitude.&nbsp; Thats your ignorance.&nbsp; Theres your so called peace.


It is YOU that fails to see that actions have consequences. The conseqences being a huge rise in Islamic Fundamentalism and Terrorists. These will attack you and me in our homeland, and as said before...every shopping mall is a legitamate target to them. One sniper put Washington into a state of fear just a couple of months ago....what will you do with 20 terrorists in every major city? Planting bombs randomly, as well as shooting randomly?

The 37,000 &#39;American Soldiers&#39;....which ones? More than that in the Gulf...more than that many British Troops, i believe. But they are the safe ones.

&#39;The War&#39; will be over very quickly....he only has 5% of his armed forces intact, and most of these are conscripts that want US to win. Its the AFTERMATH that will take decades to clear up. As such, those &#39;37,000 American soldiers&#39; are putting us and our families at risk more than they are risking their own lives.

El_Jefe
02-15-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@15 February 2003 - 22:01


You fail to see your actions have consequences.* You(Jetje) are blinded by years of American protectionism.* Your freedom to discuss this matter with me, is entirely reliant upon 37,000 American soldiers risking their life for your ingratitude.* Thats your ignorance.* Theres your so called peace.




The 37,000 &#39;American Soldiers&#39;....which ones? More than that in the Gulf...more than that many British Troops, i believe. But they are the safe ones.


I think he&#39;s gotten jetje and myself mixed up. He quoted the approximate amount of US soldiers stationed here on the peninsula(South Korea, my location). Of course those same remarks applied to me, would make no sense whatsoever.

And as far as North Korea being a threat to the Netherlands(jetje&#39;s location), I don&#39;t think so. Not once have heard North Korea make threatening remarks about tulips, windmills, or wooden shoes. Rest assured, my wife and myself(as people affiliated with US Forces Korea) play no role in protecting the Netherlands from North Korean aggression. :lol:

maximboy99
02-15-2003, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by El_Jefe+15 February 2003 - 15:55--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El_Jefe @ 15 February 2003 - 15:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Rat Faced@15 February 2003 - 22:01


You fail to see your actions have consequences.* You(Jetje) are blinded by years of American protectionism.* Your freedom to discuss this matter with me, is entirely reliant upon 37,000 American soldiers risking their life for your ingratitude.* Thats your ignorance.* Theres your so called peace.




The 37,000 &#39;American Soldiers&#39;....which ones? More than that in the Gulf...more than that many British Troops, i believe. But they are the safe ones.


I think he&#39;s gotten jetje and myself mixed up. He quoted the approximate amount of US soldiers stationed here on the peninsula(South Korea, my location). Of course those same remarks applied to me, would make no sense whatsoever.

And as far as North Korea being a threat to the Netherlands(jetje&#39;s location), I don&#39;t think so. Not once have heard North Korea make threatening remarks about tulips, windmills, or wooden shoes. Rest assured, my wife and myself(as people affiliated with US Forces Korea) play no role in protecting the Netherlands from North Korean aggression. :lol:[/b][/quote]
El Jefe
Aye. I replied at 5:00 in the morning my time. Unfourtunately, I did confuse you two, thanks for pointing that out. I was of course, talking about the 37,000 stationed in South Korea as a deterent for North Korea&#39;s agression.



Jetje
You&#39;re right in that the english language has not been able to bridge our conversation. I honestly feel you have not addressed my points, and I feel like I have failed to let you see my point of view. However, the fact that you can speak and understand a second language, write it, (and I assume speak it) so well is a testament to your knowledge. I will give it one more shot later today. :)

Rat Faced
I really am not sure how you consider this "fundamentally" different. I agree that there are differences. For instance, I do understand the difference of the world recession&#39;s impact. But I dont think its much different than the regional oppression of the muslim world. The same kind of anti-american propaganda floats around which parallels the anti-semite Germany. Certainly this Anti-Americanism hasnt reached the levels of pre-WWII but its certainly on the rise. Now whose fault is this, directly and indirectly? It is a difficult question. Certainly, Americans must realise their actions in the world will not always be popular. Certainly America has allowed bad people to come to power (IE Saddam). Fighting communisms encroachment on the world lead to American support of questionable regimes, which has certainly come back to haunt us, especially in South/Central America and the Middleast. I would argue these actions have seeded anti-Americanism, and rightfully so. I would also argue, the world does not seem to appreciate that the US believes it was in an economical war with the Soviet Union which forced our hand. So the US is now owning up to the responsibility of a world power. There are many equally disturbing questions that are not addressed. Why are nations like Egypt, which recieves and accepts money every year from the US, spending money among other things, to TEACH anti-americanism. Certainly America&#39;s support of Israel began this, but why is it so pervasive? Why do France and Russia pretend like the reason they oppose the war is because they stand on the moral high ground. Yet, they stand to lose the most in oil contracts and debts, which is exactly what French protesters accuse the US of doing. NATO&#39;s refusal to aid Turkey in merely defensive capabilities shows alliances of the past may be useless because some European nations are expressing anti-Americansim. European anti-americanism is on the rise in the West, but on the fall in the East.

What is my point? I understand what you are saying Rat Faced, but I politely disagree. The idea that the arab street will rise up is flawed. Infact, there is unlikely to be much of any regional backlash. Why? Because they hate Saddam as much as they hate us, and when they see liberated Iraqis cheering as American tanks roll by, the arab street will not be able to claim Americans are in the wrong. Really, there is no question about Saddam&#39;s hampering of inspections to hide WMD. If you can admit that Saddam will use his chemical weapons, possibly on Israel or American troops, are you not admitting that the inspections failed? That Saddam failed to destroy prohibited weapons, per the peace agreement he signed. The peace agreement that the UN brokered as the solution to the gulf wars finality. Didn&#39;t the UN say "riding into bahgdad" was a bad idea. It certainly seems like the UN made a mistake it is unwilling to fix.

The world is at a turning point. The UN: an international body, claims to be a neutrality in international affairs. Yet, in many ways is an insult to international cooperation. What good is an organization that makes rules which it cannot enforce? What good is an organization that claims to support human rights, and than slaps the US in the face by chairing Libya on the human rights commission. And the people responsible for its failures, are infact the same ones who hamper US multilateral action. I might remind you of Bosnia. A human rights catastrophe in your backyard. The UN was so mucked up in politics it couldnt handle a simple, black and white affair. It took the US standing up to the UN to get the right thing done. This is not different in that respect. Iraq has broken resolutions of the peace agreement, and again the US has to stand up for an organization that doesnt appreciate itself. I must ask you, what is the point of the UN? There are indications that it is becoming an organization whose focus is to oppose American action worldwide. The humour lies in the fact that the US shoulders the majority of that bill.

Lastly, rat faced. I think your ideas about terrorism are a bit irrational. By this I mean, you believe they have the capability to do what you spoke of. 20 terrorists in every major city. Well, if they could do it, they would have done it. Al Qaeda has been hurt, it no longer has an openly supportive regime to supply it. The Taliban&#39;s power, shattered. Remember the international critisism of US plans to attack Afghanistan? How it would ignite the arab street, be a horribly long war, huge civilian casualties etc.? None of this happened. Those ideas are just tactics of fear mongering by irrelevant political bodies. If you cant understand what the defeat of the Taliban, what the defeat of the Iraq signals to American enemies, I question your ability to debate. No government wants to be associated with terrorism that attacks America. Why? Because it is guaranteed destruction, much like American and Russian nukes deterrence of all out war between two hostile nations. If your government doesnt support military action against terrorism. You (Western countries) really dont understand appeasement is your own peril. Because when september 11th comes to your country, those terrorists will not fear retribution. But they will fear a US reaction, because I promise you this: America will be there to help.

maximboy99
02-15-2003, 09:04 PM
I appreciate anyone whose taken the time to read and respond to my posts. It is extremely important to discuss matters as dire as these. I feel as though I am the only one who is making a case for what I believe. I can&#39;t help but feel some of you (ketoprak for example) are just nit picking my comments. I challenge you to write a comprehensive post which argues your opinion, based on fact and logic (and of course your opinion). I like to believe I am not entrenched in my positions, but I feel only one of you has challenged my position at all: Rat Faced. The rest of you are not responding to my arguments, but responding to a specific line, which is even slightly out of context. I am sure you guys can write a comprehensive argument against war. Rat certainly understands world history, and makes solid points based on facts and is what I am asking you to do in response to mine. Thanks.

Rat Faced
02-16-2003, 01:16 AM
What is my point? I understand what you are saying Rat Faced, but I politely disagree. The idea that the arab street will rise up is flawed. Infact, there is unlikely to be much of any regional backlash. Why? Because they hate Saddam as much as they hate us, and when they see liberated Iraqis cheering as American tanks roll by, the arab street will not be able to claim Americans are in the wrong. Really, there is no question about Saddam&#39;s hampering of inspections to hide WMD. If you can admit that Saddam will use his chemical weapons, possibly on Israel or American troops, are you not admitting that the inspections failed? That Saddam failed to destroy prohibited weapons, per the peace agreement he signed. The peace agreement that the UN brokered as the solution to the gulf wars finality. Didn&#39;t the UN say "riding into bahgdad" was a bad idea. It certainly seems like the UN made a mistake it is unwilling to fix.

The world is at a turning point. The UN: an international body, claims to be a neutrality in international affairs. Yet, in many ways is an insult to international cooperation. What good is an organization that makes rules which it cannot enforce? What good is an organization that claims to support human rights, and than slaps the US in the face by chairing Libya on the human rights commission. And the people responsible for its failures, are infact the same ones who hamper US multilateral action. I might remind you of Bosnia. A human rights catastrophe in your backyard. The UN was so mucked up in politics it couldnt handle a simple, black and white affair. It took the US standing up to the UN to get the right thing done. This is not different in that respect. Iraq has broken resolutions of the peace agreement, and again the US has to stand up for an organization that doesnt appreciate itself. I must ask you, what is the point of the UN? There are indications that it is becoming an organization whose focus is to oppose American action worldwide. The humour lies in the fact that the US shoulders the majority of that bill.

Lastly, rat faced. I think your ideas about terrorism are a bit irrational. By this I mean, you believe they have the capability to do what you spoke of. 20 terrorists in every major city. Well, if they could do it, they would have done it. Al Qaeda has been hurt, it no longer has an openly supportive regime to supply it. The Taliban&#39;s power, shattered. Remember the international critisism of US plans to attack Afghanistan? How it would ignite the arab street, be a horribly long war, huge civilian casualties etc.? None of this happened. Those ideas are just tactics of fear mongering by irrelevant political bodies. If you cant understand what the defeat of the Taliban, what the defeat of the Iraq signals to American enemies, I question your ability to debate. No government wants to be associated with terrorism that attacks America. Why? Because it is guaranteed destruction, much like American and Russian nukes deterrence of all out war between two hostile nations. If your government doesnt support military action against terrorism. You (Western countries) really dont understand appeasement is your own peril. Because when september 11th comes to your country, those terrorists will not fear retribution. But they will fear a US reaction, because I promise you this: America will be there to help.


I appreciate, and do try to understand your point.

But can i point out I said IF, Iraq does have NBC capability, and that the 20 terrorists in every city would be as a result of an attack....merely because it will, in my opinion, increase Fundamentalism, and the influence of this.

Islam, is not a bad religion...it has much in common with Christianity, they even acknowledge Christ as a prophet. I dont claim to be a christian, however if they acknowledge Christ as a prophet, they must agree, in general with his teachings etc.

Fundamentalism in ANY religion is dangerous...it just so happens that the situation today is a massive increase in Islamic Fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Islam preaches that it is okay to kill anyone that is not Islamic, if they are aware of Islam. In this world of hi tech communications, this can be interpretted as anyone.

I never claimed to be a passifist (its late, forgive my spelling)...but I believe wholeheartedly that this war is not in the best interests of any country. In fact I honestly believe the only ones to benefit (apart from the arms industry obviously) are the oil companies and their shareholders....and the ones that come to mind spend their time in the whitehouse.

Im not antiAmerican by any means and have pointed out a number of positives to come out of the USA in other threads, but living in a country that has lived with terrorism my entire life I honestly predict a huge increase in Terrorism on the US Mainland and here in the UK.

I dont claim to be clever, ambitious, bastard, desperate or a nutter...all of which Hussain is...but if i was him, IF i had NBC they would already be at their point of use and ready to use. And that point of use would NOT be in Iraq. As i said, Biological and Chemical Agents are very easy to smuggle and Transport. A few grams of Ricin (which is what was used in the Tokio Underground a few years ago) has already been discovered on UK soil....how much have we missed? Its not manufactured a few grams at a time.

maximboy99
02-16-2003, 02:12 AM
But can i point out I said IF, Iraq does have NBC capability, and that the 20 terrorists in every city would be as a result of an attack....merely because it will, in my opinion, increase Fundamentalism, and the influence of this.

Islam, is not a bad religion...it has much in common with Christianity, they even acknowledge Christ as a prophet. I dont claim to be a christian, however if they acknowledge Christ as a prophet, they must agree, in general with his teachings etc.

Fundamentalism in ANY religion is dangerous...it just so happens that the situation today is a massive increase in Islamic Fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Islam preaches that it is okay to kill anyone that is not Islamic, if they are aware of Islam. In this world of hi tech communications, this can be interpretted as anyone.

I completely agree that fundamentalism in any religion is dangerous. I&#39;m pretty sure I said that in a previous post. I also agree that Islam is not an evil religion as a whole.

However, I am not sure that I agree with your position on rise of fundamentalism due to an attack. There was very little protest to American action in Afghanistan as soon as Al Jazeera (sp?) released the footage of happy liberated Afghans. I don&#39;t believe Iraq will be any different. What is difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, that would significantly change the reaction of the muslims in the region?



I never claimed to be a passifist (its late, forgive my spelling)...but I believe wholeheartedly that this war is not in the best interests of any country. In fact I honestly believe the only ones to benefit (apart from the arms industry obviously) are the oil companies and their shareholders....and the ones that come to mind spend their time in the whitehouse.

Im not antiAmerican by any means and have pointed out a number of positives to come out of the USA in other threads, but living in a country that has lived with terrorism my entire life I honestly predict a huge increase in Terrorism on the US Mainland and here in the UK.

I dont claim to be clever, ambitious, bastard, desperate or a nutter...all of which Hussain is...but if i was him, IF i had NBC they would already be at their point of use and ready to use. And that point of use would NOT be in Iraq. As i said, Biological and Chemical Agents are very easy to smuggle and Transport. A few grams of Ricin (which is what was used in the Tokio Underground a few years ago) has already been discovered on UK soil....how much have we missed? Its not manufactured a few grams at a time.

I think its fine that your of this opinion, but can you explain yourself a bit more. When is it time to go to war? What is to be done about Iraq&#39;s failures to comply with UN resolutions? What does "Serious Consequences" mean to you? Why do you think Saddam is rational (in response to your thinking that he will only use his NBC as a last resort, IE defensively)? Can you answer those questions for me, Im just unclear as to where you are coming from.

I_DONT_SHARE_PORN
02-16-2003, 02:57 AM
What about north Korea??, i say blow them up too&#33;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/tv/state_planet/picpops/images/prog1.jpg
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapimages/north_east_asia/north_korea/north_korea.gif

Rat Faced
02-16-2003, 11:16 AM
However, I am not sure that I agree with your position on rise of fundamentalism due to an attack. There was very little protest to American action in Afghanistan as soon as Al Jazeera (sp?) released the footage of happy liberated Afghans. I don&#39;t believe Iraq will be any different. What is difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, that would significantly change the reaction of the muslims in the region?




Its actually very simply put. Islamic Law REQUIRES revenge...ie An eye for an eye.

As soon as the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, most of the Islamic world expected you to get him...with every right, in their eyes to do so. It is only the Fundamentalists that objected, and those that thought USA/UK used a sledgehammer to smash a nut. Im of the opinion that SF from US/UK could have done a better job without all the crap of an invasion, and Bin Laden wouldnt have got away if they&#39;d done that....but thats just my opinion. The basic premis...that you had THE RIGHT to an eye for an eye, holds true.

Iraq is different.

There is no evidence linking Al Queda with Hussain, indeed all evidence shows that they hate each other with a passion matched by Al Queda/USA. The only attempt to link the 2 (By Mossad, last year) was disproved out of hand by the CIA. Now the CIA is using half truths to try and link them in the minds of US citizens...ie 12 cells operating in and aound Iraq (without mentioning that they are blowing things up in that country, ie terrorists against Hussain)

That being the case...the &#39;eye fo an eye&#39; doesnt hold true.

We would have got away with it as a continuation of Desert Storm, but things change. He is now seen by most in the Middle East as the &#39;victim&#39;, due to the sanctions of US/UK, and bombing that we have both inflicted on him over the last decade. It makes it look like the USA/UK, in THEIR eyes, are attacking ISLAM...first Afganistan which they accept, now Iraq.

Added to this, they see the systematic withdrawal of aid from those countries that object...such as the Philephines, with its high proportion of Muslims. This may have happened anyway, i dont know. But it happening at the same time as they voice concern over an attack on Iraq is not seen as a co-incidence by the Islamic world.

I&#39;ve given you examples of Black Propaganda....you have to remember that these same techniques are used by the people that oppose you, so they too get a slanted view of the situation....but slanted the other way.


The war with Iraq will be over very quickly, I think....but the aftermath will take decades.

And I have yet to hear a workable solution to what you are going to put in Saddams place. Iraq&#39;s borders were an &#39;Administrative&#39; legacy of when the British were there, and has no bearing on the peoples within these borders....they HATE each other. The peoples are; politically speaking a various mix of Fundamentalist and secular factions.

The only &#39;solutions&#39; would be to either:

1/ Break the country up into its original component &#39;parts&#39;: Messopotamia etc...this would give the Kurds their own homeland (which they&#39;ve been after for years), however that will start a lot of trouble in Turkey...as the Kurdish &#39;Homeland&#39; is partly within that country (and have their own problems with Kurds at times)... I cant see Turkey accepting this option, or the USA as these new &#39;countries&#39; could be very Fundamentalist and anti-USA. That defeats the object.

2/ Install another &#39;strong&#39; leader ie Bastard, to rule with fear...this would be unacceptable to the world at large, given the reasons being used to attack in the first place.

3/ A &#39;Democracy&#39;. If this option is taken, I will give it 5 years tops, before an all out civil war. And a brutal regime of terrorism from the various factions until then...financed by the various &#39;Factions&#39; of the Fundamentalist Islamic countries, and terrorist organisations.


This being the result of the victory, I see any &#39;celibration of liberation&#39; being very short lived.


Personally, I think we should re-direct our efforts back into the hunting of Terrorists, which has world wide backing.

At the same time, the USA should critically examin its Foreign Policy (especially in the Middle East), as this is the main cause of anti-USA feeling in the area.....ie Israel can do no wrong, but Pallestinians are all killers/terrorists. An acknowledgement that BOTH side have caused attrociaties and forcing Israel to implement UN resolutions against it, would probably change sentiment to so Pro-USA that you could walk into Iraq with little or few repercussions (except: what do you do with the country now?)........but this isnt going to happen.

Rat Faced
02-17-2003, 11:27 AM
Just bringing this back to the top.....coz im not upto a nice long post on the &#39;I oppose this war thread&#39;, I feel shit today :(

Maybe later. :blink:

El_Jefe
02-19-2003, 01:19 AM
Just thought I&#39;d bring this topic back up as there have been further developements.

1.) North Korea threatens to leave the 1953 Armistice Agreement, which would return the US and North Korea to a state of war, essentially. Also, there&#39;s a strong possibility that North Korea will conduct a live fire missile test, similar to the one, 5 years ago, that flew over Japan.

2.) Debate has started in Japan on whether or not to start producing nuclear weapons. Japanese Self-Defense forces have begun deploying along the western coast, from their long held positions on Japan&#39;s northern main island. Japanese Special Forces have stepped up training exercises.
Japan will launch 2 spy satellites for the purpose of collecting intelligence on North Korea, next month. The Japanese Defense minister has stated that any missile launch toward Japan would entitle them to go to war.

Rat Faced
02-19-2003, 04:57 PM
@ El Jefe

I take it China is still staying out of it?

I wish they would take some responsibility for their neck of the woods, much as my posts seem to come out anti-american (im not)....The USA isnt the only ones to have played games all over the world.

Korea is, at least in part, the fault of China....and I think they are the only ones that can clear this house up.