The Great Irony

[G.K Zhukov]

How come its so bad that North-Korea and Iran is trying to get nuclear arms?

Have they invaded anyone the last 30 years? Is it likely that they are going to use those nukes offensivly? No.

But the U.S, who have invaded several countries during the last 30 years, and is the only country witch has used a nuclear bomb, they are allowed to have nukes. Plenty of em too.

Its not like the more inteligent of you people have already figured this out, and maybe even realised its becouse the US wants to be able to attack other countries without fear of getting payback.

But who's in charge in US? And who are the people backing him.
I read this on bbc's website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3981669.stm

First I laughed at all the ignorent americans and their "slighly twisted views".
Then I became a bit scared.

We have a huge country, the worlds only superpower, where a large section of the population is a christian fundamentalists. And they got nukes. Imagine Osama Bin Laden having nukes..
Why is it that American fundamentalists with nukes makes us less afraid that a single islamic fundamentalist on the run, WITHOUT nukes ??

It doesnt make any sense.

P.S When I was fininshed reading what the americans had written, I was thinking like "Maybe, just maybe someone should nuke the whole shit..". Like a pre-emptive strike.

[Burbank]

america is a nation built upon fear.

and according the the NPA, your country shouldnt have nukes.
but your country doesnt care about international laws unless some weak nation breaks one, and it wasnt under US supervision of course

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

How come its so bad that North-Korea and Iran is trying to get nuclear arms?

Have they invaded anyone the last 30 years? Is it likely that they are going to use those nukes offensivly? No.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/2340405.stm

Its not like the more inteligent of you people have already figured this out, and maybe even realised its becouse the US wants to be able to attack other countries without fear of getting payback[...]

P.S When I was fininshed reading what the americans had written, I was thinking like "Maybe, just maybe someone should nuke the whole shit..". Like a pre-emptive strike.

Are you inebriated?

It doesnt make any sense.

How right you are.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

How come its so bad that North-Korea and Iran is trying to get nuclear arms?

You mean besides the fact that both North Korea and Iran both signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty pledging not to develop nuclear weapons?

P.S When I was fininshed reading what the americans had written, I was thinking like "Maybe, just maybe someone should nuke the whole shit..". Like a pre-emptive strike.

I love how you segued from Nukes for Everyone to Nuke 'em. You should be the poster child for nuclear non-proliferation.

[Sunday8pm]

I'm pretty sure North Korea has spent these last 5 years goading Japan by launching Ballistic missles into the Sea of Japan and beyond their islands in 'missle testing' procedures.

Let's not mention the constant skirmishes with south korean boats, the fact they are only in a CEASEFIRE at the moment with South Korea who they have been trying to retake for the last x amount of years.

You really seem informed.

Likewise if Iran got a hold of Nuclear arms they have a lot of fatwa's and old scores that they would love to settle... the very nature of some of their laws indicates that they never let go of a grudge and many many countries have begrudged them.

[Burbank]

perhaps iran has a right to settle these scores if america can invade legally any nation it wants.
does anyone remember the legitimatly elected capitalist democracy being overthrown by the cia backed coup and replaced with a madman shah?

i say lets leave iran alone, they wont nuke anyone, only america has ever used them on another nation, and only america has said they will use them offensivley if they feel like it

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Burbank

i say lets leave iran alone, they wont nuke anyone, only america has ever used them on another nation, and only america has said they will use them offensivley if they feel like it

Now there's a fantastic idea. Accept everything that every national government says at face value.



Except for America. Bunch of lying imperialists

[Burbank]

heh. exactly

[JonnyBGood]

I'm praying fervently that was a sarcastic response to my sarcastic post.

[Burbank]

pray all you want little man, it wasn't*





















*it was

well, it was not a sarcastic responce to the second bit of teh post, it was more a, you made me laugh, good for you

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

I'm pretty sure North Korea has spent these last 5 years goading Japan by launching Ballistic missles into the Sea of Japan and beyond their islands in 'missle testing' procedures.

Let's not mention the constant skirmishes with south korean boats, the fact they are only in a CEASEFIRE at the moment with South Korea who they have been trying to retake for the last x amount of years.

You really seem informed.

Likewise if Iran got a hold of Nuclear arms they have a lot of fatwa's and old scores that they would love to settle... the very nature of some of their laws indicates that they never let go of a grudge and many many countries have begrudged them.

So what? Its not like India and Pakistan hasnt done exactly the same.
Both regarding skirmishes and testing of missiles.

They have had a ceasefire since the war ended. So whats your argument really?
(India and Pakistand has also been in the exact same postion)

What a fatwa (f.x against Rushdie) has to do with nuclear arms is beyond me.
Or do you serious think they are gonna nuke london becouse of one man?

P.S I digg how many of you who didnt get my ironic little use of the word "pre-emptive strike".

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Isn't there also the little issue of missile range?
How is N.Korea gonna fire a nuke halfway round the world?

[G.K Zhukov]

They can reach Japan, maybe westcoast (like Los Angeles) U.S.

[mist]

america DOES worry me more than osama...

the odds of me, or anyone i actually know, being terroristed are fairly low, whereas bush's policies are more likely to have an effect on my life.

[Zar]

The elite in America worry me more than any islamic fundamentalist.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by mist

america DOES worry me more than osama...

the odds of me, or anyone i actually know, being terroristed are fairly low, whereas bush's policies are more likely to have an effect on my life.

Terroristed? Does that mean being turned into a terrorist? And even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume by "effect" you meant "negative effect," I still can't quite figure out what you're attempting to assert.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

So what? Its not like India and Pakistan hasnt done exactly the same.
Both regarding skirmishes and testing of missiles.

They have had a ceasefire since the war ended. So whats your argument really?
(India and Pakistand has also been in the exact same postion)

What a fatwa (f.x against Rushdie) has to do with nuclear arms is beyond me.
Or do you serious think they are gonna nuke london becouse of one man?

P.S I digg how many of you who didnt get my ironic little use of the word "pre-emptive strike".

Japan and South Korea don't have Nuclear Warheads nor the Ballistic Technology that North Korea have developed.

India and Pakistan have a situation of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Neither can use their best weapons on each other as it'll gurantee that they'll be doing the same damage to themselves in retaliation.

North Korea don't have to worry about MAD and are certainly more extreme right than pakistan or India with regards to war, While India and Pakistan are merely warring over contested territory between them, North Korean seeks to conquer nations.

How you can compare the two and debunk my argument with that just goes to prove that you are indeed imbecelic.

p.s. There's a small matter of the Contra war back when Iraq and Iran warred and the US supplied Iraq with arms to defeat Iran with, I'm pretty sure Iran wouldn't think twice and furthermore the Middle East wouldn't blink at Iran wiping out Iraq and any occupying forces there.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Terroristed? Does that mean being turned into a terrorist? And even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume by "effect" you meant "negative effect," I still can't quite figure out what you're attempting to assert.

I think the point is that the direct effects of terrorism are felt by far fewer people than the reaction (even if we accept that "the terrorists" are the ones who "started it").

This is not because Bush is more evil than Osama - merely the nature of state power compared to private militias. Even the most determined terrorist generally can only kill a fraction of even a small scale state leader.

[LHC]

North Korea is pretty shit, and I'm not even kidding.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think the point is that the direct effects of terrorism are felt by far fewer people than the reaction (even if we accept that "the terrorists" are the ones who "started it").

Well what do you define as "the direct effects of terrorism"?

Beyond the immediate lives lost and the buildings and planes destroyed, there are the families of those who died. The businesses that were hurt, or failed altogether. The recession. How about long delays at airport terminals? That one alone has affected millions of people and has cost many thousands of hours of people's time. I think these all could be considered direct effects and I suspect most of us have experienced at least some of them--I know I have.

This is not because Bush is more evil than Osama - merely the nature of state power compared to private militias. Even the most determined terrorist generally can only kill a fraction of even a small scale state leader.

I thought the aim of terrorists was to spread terror (hence the name) and, thereby, change policies. Certainly the terror and the ways it causes people to change their lives (if not their policies) are direct effects.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Well what do you define as "the direct effects of terrorism"?

Deaths/injuries caused by their actions. But let's not get into semantics.

The airport stuff is a reaction - by the state. The original posts point was that GWB's policies are more likely to affect him than Osama's. Bush COULD have not extended airport security if he chose.

I'm not really sure what your point is about the "definition" of terrorism. It's not like they call themselves terrorists (I think).

[mist]

obviously with no figures to back it up, i'd be surprised if the effects of terrorism on britan's economy were significantly different to america's refusal to sign up to kyoto. that said, i'd be interested to know how large america's budget defasit is, compared to the damage done by 9/11.

that asside, i know noone who's related to anyone who died in 9/11, and havn't wanted to fly anywhere since.

on the flipside, i worry that bush's attempts to integrate religion in to politics will spread accross the pond and infringe on my personal freedoms, i worry that america is effectivly holding the world to ransom on climate change - my home is more likely to be flooded than bombed by terrorists. also, bush seems to be getting our servicemen (i think they've all been men so far?) killed, in a war which i strongly suspect we wouldn't be in were it not for him.

furthermore, while i GWB has a point in that terrorism can't be tollerated, i think his gung ho approach is doing more harm than good in that area. somehow, i can't see his invading anyone who annoys him resulting in a great love for america and less terrorist attacks. so, were i particularly worried about terrorism before, i'm more worried now as he's busy making it more likely.

therefore, overall bush's actions are far more likely to have a detrimental effect on my life than osama and his ilk, leading me to be far more worried about bush's actions.

-mist

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Japan and South Korea don't have Nuclear Warheads nor the Ballistic Technology that North Korea have developed.

India and Pakistan have a situation of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Neither can use their best weapons on each other as it'll gurantee that they'll be doing the same damage to themselves in retaliation.

North Korea don't have to worry about MAD and are certainly more extreme right than pakistan or India with regards to war, While India and Pakistan are merely warring over contested territory between them, North Korean seeks to conquer nations.

How you can compare the two and debunk my argument with that just goes to prove that you are indeed imbecelic.

p.s. There's a small matter of the Contra war back when Iraq and Iran warred and the US supplied Iraq with arms to defeat Iran with, I'm pretty sure Iran wouldn't think twice and furthermore the Middle East wouldn't blink at Iran wiping out Iraq and any occupying forces there.

Both South-Korea and Japan can get nukes and missiles within 2 years, quite simply becouse of their huge industrial base and level of education. They also have nuclear powerplants.

Its formally correct that North-Korea's "opponents" (S-K and J) doesnt have MAD.
In reality the situasion on the korean pennisula has been MAD for a decades.
This doesnt have to do with the military capabilites of the two korean states, but of those who are backing them, Bejing and Washington.

North-Korea seeking to conquer nations? Watching to much BBC lately? Both North- and South-Korea claims to be "the" Korean nation...
Hopefully, if the US doesnt **** up, we will see a unified Korean State within 15 years.

The small thing with Contras.. oh yes, such a small thing.
The US supplied Iraq&Saddam with nerve-gas (also used on the kurds), military hardware, inteligence, and money (forcing other gulf-states like Kuwait to lend Saddam money so Saddam could purcase weapons) when it attacked Iran.
Then CIA sold Iran some military hardware in order to gain money so it could terrorize the nicaraguan population and kill the soscialist experiment in Nicaragua.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Deaths/injuries caused by their actions. But let's not get into semantics.

That's just silly. Even bin Laden (in his latest tape) quotes a report that puts the "cost" of the attacks for his organization at $500K and the cost to the US at $500M. He goes on to boast that his plan (now) is to bankrupt us ( ). Clearly, he doesn't consider the deaths/injuries to be the most important effect.

The airport stuff is a reaction - by the state. The original posts point was that GWB's policies are more likely to affect him than Osama's. Bush COULD have not extended airport security if he chose.

Well sort of. The enhanced airport security was done to try to reassure the flying public. If nothing had been done to increase security then I think a lot fewer people would be flying (with even more loss of income for the airlines, lost productivity, loss of tourism, etc). If the government hadn't stepped in then maybe the airlines would have, or maybe not. In any case there would still be costs.

I'm not really sure what your point is about the "definition" of terrorism. It's not like they call themselves terrorists (I think).

I was referring to their tactics. I doubt anyone thinks the deaths/injuries caused by terrorist attacks are themselves sufficient to change any policies. Osama sure doesn't seem to.

[G.K Zhukov]

It seems to me that Tactitus has a theory that 9/11/01 caused the recession, witch is totally incorrect.

The destruction of the twin towers, 3000 dead people and 4 airplanes doesnt represent a huge enough destruction of capital to have any impact. Besides, destruction of capital is good for capitalism, so it should go the other way.
A recession is caused by "over-productivity" to put it simple. This means that there has been invested to much capital into to much production centres (factories, shops), but the demand isnt strong enough to buy those goods and services. This is due to the fact that productivy rises far higher than the average workers real pay.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

It seems to me that Tactitus has a theory that 9/11/01 caused the recession, witch is totally incorrect.

It certainly triggered it and probably worsened it (certainly for the airlines and some other selected industries), but there would have been a recession of some sort eventually. None of which is really relevant to my point though.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

It certainly triggered it and probably worsened it (certainly for the airlines and some other selected industries), but there would have been a recession of some sort eventually. None of which is really relevant to my point though.

It maybe have "triggered it". But its not like those money who were not spent on travelling were trown out of the window, they were spent on something else.
Besides, the airline companies in USA had already lost big heaps of money seveal years in the row before 9/11/01. There were alot of people who stopped flying, but then they also got state aid and the staff took paycuts.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

That's just silly. Even bin Laden (in his latest tape) quotes a report that puts the "cost" of the attacks for his organization at $500K and the cost to the US at $500M. He goes on to boast that his plan (now) is to bankrupt us ( ). Clearly, he doesn't consider the deaths/injuries to be the most important effect.

The figures for damages are generally unnecessarily collectivist. "This cost America $x billion" or something similar. They always do the same here with IRA attacks in Britain. The IRA blowing up a building in London is said to have cost us all some token amount of money. I always find this slightly strange. Sure, some tax money will be spent (although it's not like that wouldn't be spent anyway) and insurance premiums may tend to rise slightly overall to absorb the companies losses (if these companies aren't bailed out by government). But damages are always given as a total which is misleading as a net effect on a random individual. It costs certain individuals a lot more than others.

Yes, there could have been some costs to the Airline industry if Bush had done nothing. We don't really know what the long term effects would have been. Either way, the type of policies adopted as a reaction (e.g. stringent controls vs weak controls, vast retaliation vs moderate approach, etc) is highly dependent on who is in power in the United States. As such the leader of the United States (who leads a nation with a vast financial and military force behind him) is likely to have more of an effect than the leader of a band of militants. This seems relatively uncontroversial.

[xtrasyn]

Irony, when noted, is like a desert after supper if you know how this world works. I would not want to live without it.

[G.K Zhukov]

Notice how all media buys into "Zarqawi is in Falluja", without the US giving out any evidence that he has ever been.

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Both South-Korea and Japan can get nukes and missiles within 2 years, quite simply becouse of their huge industrial base and level of education. They also have nuclear powerplants.

Do you have a point to make with this?

Being able to make nukes 2 years after you've been reduced to radioactive dust doesn't mean much.

Do you have any sort of evidence to show that Japan or S.K actually have that kind of tech ans the facilities to utilise it?

North-Korea seeking to conquer nations? Watching to much BBC lately? Both North- and South-Korea claims to be "the" Korean nation...
Hopefully, if the US doesnt **** up, we will see a unified Korean State within 15 years.

I assume that you missed the Korean war where NK invaded SK with no provocation beyond their leaderships desire to impose a communist ideology on the south, to secure industrial/mineral resources and the fact that they felt they had a military edge over them.

Kim-il will not give up power in north korea willingly and has stated that he will use military force to obtain food,oil and other resources if he is no longer given them as 'aid' .

[lokken]

Allowing Nuclear weapons in iran merely places them in the back yard of terrorists to steal them.

It makes lots of sense to prevent Iran from developing them.