North Korea: A Danger to The World?

[Red]

[QUOTE=Sandy][B]Popquiz:[/B] What country is the [I]only one[/I] in the history of Earth to ever use a nuclear weapon against another nation?

Pot calling the kettle black here...[/QUOTE]

What in the world was the point in that statement? Yeah, America dropped nukes, during [i]World War II[/i]. It was a strategic decision during a time of war by a democratic government. That's not to justify it - but consider the facts of the time and what options were available.

[quote=Retribution][size=1]
Perhaps you're right. On the other hand, N. Korea would collapse without provisions, no matter who Kim blames.[/size][/quote]

You might kill a lot of people, but you can't be assured that N. Korea will collapse in that sense. Kim has been blaming nigh on anything going wrong internally on external sources for a long time, with a healthy amount of spin from the various departments that control media outlets, etc. A good number of the people turn [i]to[/i] Kim when things go wrong, not away from him.

[quote][size=1]You can't shut your ears to the possibility of a nuclear attack, no matter how unlikely.[/size][/quote]

No, you can't - but you can look at the facts. How can they attack when they have nothing close to viable delivery method? Nobody is even sure they're capable of creating working nuclear weapons, for crying out loud!

[quote][size=1]He cares, which is why he fabricates that information. If he wants to bolster his popularity, he can have the press write whatever he asks them to, with or without outside action. The public is being forcefed whatever information Kim wants them to consume.[/size][/quote]

Aye, that's what I meant. Probably should've put it better, but can't help being brain dead ;)

[Dodeca]

[quote name='Red']What in the world was the point in that statement?[/quote]
[SIZE=1]I believe that it was to point out that the only country to ever use nuclear weapons outside of testing is the United States, regardless of the situation. And whatever you might say, I personally believe there [i]must[/i] have been a more humane option than nuking two cities, but that might just be me.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Red']No, you can't - but you can look at the facts. How can they attack when they have nothing close to viable delivery method? Nobody is even sure they're capable of creating working nuclear weapons, for crying out loud![/quote]
[SIZE=1]I'm going to side with Retribution here. Unless we had someone who knew firsthand at what stage of development the North Koreans are, we can't assume anything about their nuclear capabilities. Fact is, we don't really know if their delivery methods are 'nothing close to viable' as we've only seen [i]one[/i] test. It could've been a dud, it could be one of several prototypes - we just don't know.[/SIZE]

[Zidargh]

We should be more concerned with the fact NK people have been institutionalised into believing that 'Kimmy' invented electricity, the lightbulb, helicopters, etc. So what if Kim's removed? To many it won't be a liberation, it'll cause even more hostility.

I for one am not concerned about this 'nuclear' crisis. I'm thankful and suspicious of China's intentions for they are in my opinion, the next superpower that will be able to fend for itself just like Germany did. Maybe they're tactically holding North Korea back, maybe Mao woke up on the right side of the bed.

Personally, why don't we send Kim some platform boots a couple of inches larger so he won't have to make as much effort to feel more adequate? There's something about midgets with military might. Him, Napoleon, I assume Mao's not very tall, neither was Hitler(Even if he was of average height, he had one atrocity of a moustache.)

;)

[Not the most mature response but I laugh about this crisis. The only people we need to worry about with nukes is those who do not give a damn about their own life. Imagine a 'martyr' riding a nuke across the world.]

[Sandy]

[quote name='Dodeca][SIZE=1]I believe that it was to point out that the only country to ever use nuclear weapons outside of testing is the United States, regardless of the situation. And whatever you might say, I personally believe there [i]must[/i'] have been a more humane option than nuking two cities, but that might just be me.[/SIZE][/quote]

My thougths [I]exactly[/I]. Thanks Dodeca.

There's always an option for war. It's called "peace". Yes, I'm naïve that way.

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Dodeca][SIZE=1]I personally believe there [i]must[/i'] have been a more humane option than nuking two cities, but that might just be me.[/SIZE][/quote]

[color=crimson]Like what?

If you can provide me with [b]something[/b] more than idealistic statements about a total war I'd appreciate it. [/color]

[quote name='Sandy']There's always an option for war. It's called "peace". Yes, I'm naïve that way.[/quote]

[color=crimson]Yes, you are naive that way. It's not a good thing.[/color]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Dodeca][SIZE=1]I believe that it was to point out that the only country to ever use nuclear weapons outside of testing is the United States, regardless of the situation. And whatever you might say, I personally believe there [i]must[/i] have been a more humane option than nuking two cities, but that might just be me.[/SIZE'][/SIZE][/quote]
The plan was to invade Japan from the South. They dropped the nukes so that there would be no need for the invasion, which would have cost more lives.

The fact of the matter is, The United States dropped the bombs to end a war. North Korea has been trying to start a war for over fifty years, and now that they have or are near the technology, they are threatening to use them. Any attempts to allude to the US using the Bomb during war against a country that attacked and waged war against them is evading the point of this discussion.

[Domon]

[SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]Okay, to all those who are griping about us using the nukes in WW II... YOu all need to brush up on your history. I mean honestly, I'm not trying to start flamming but seriously. The fact that the US used Nukes was in essence to prevent the massive slaughtering of our marines and army members. Trust me, Trueman and his staff members went over every single possible scenario that would avoid having to use the nuclear weapons. All of them were extremely grim and had a horrible turnout for our troops. So the nuclear weapon was the [B]only[/B] choice that would save a majority of our troops. My question though to those who are dredging up this event is this. What other possible way would you have dealt with the Japanese when they were basically wiping out our troops? They were not up for talking and they refused to surrender. They were given the option to surrender or face serious consequences.

Now I'm sure some people are going to say, oh well the US walked out of the Kyoto treaty because we felt we were too good for that. Thing is, I think our government was slightly stupid in that action, but I'm sure that Russia has a bunch of nukes still stockpiled from the fifties hidden . I mean who knows how many of those things they have hidden?

Now that I've finished that rant. If N.Korea were to start any crap, I mean seriously. They'd have not only the US, but Japan, China, Russia, and I'm sure some other countries.

Anyways, there is my rant so blarg.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Sandy]

[quote name='Domon][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]Trust me, Trueman and his staff members went over every single possible scenario that would avoid having to use the nuclear weapons. All of them were extremely grim and had a horrible turnout for our troops. So the nuclear weapon was the [B]only[/B] choice that would save a majority of our troops.[/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]

I'm sorry, I didn't know you had that much first-hand intel from inside Truman's government so that you actually know what they thought at that moment. You seem to know their motives and the fact that they were cornered with the decision. Were you a good friend of Truman & the other boys?

To cut the sarcasm, there can be no justification for slaughtering innocent civilians and destroying whole cities. It's barbaric, inhumane and against the laws of every nation in the world. It's insane that some of you people actually thought [I]your nation[/I] had/has the right to do that, and [I]your nation[/I] alone. Talking about American arrogancy...

My point here is that if the US wants a nuclear arms free world, they will have to start with themselves and not point fingers. It's not like the country can afford to go into yet another war.

[Domon]

[SIZE=1]No Sandy, I wasn't a "good friend" of Trueman's and I was not trying to be arrogant. The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a massive slaughter of inoccent people. So I guess that probably makes us just as bad as Hitler when he murdered the jewish people just because of who they were?

But the fact remains, the US used two nuclear weapons on Japan to bring about a swifter end to the war.

Yeah, we have to live with the fact that nuclear weaopns were dropped on Japan. Just like Germany has to live with the fact that they were controlled by a homocidal maniac who killed thousands of people just because of his maniacal ideals. So please don't think that all Americans are comeplete arrogant jerks.[/SIZE]

EDIT-

[SIZE=1]If we are to be put at the same level as Germany, then why aren't we seeing people pointing at Germany and saying, "Hey, you guys don't have a lot of room to talk because look at what you did to a lot of inoccent people!" I mean come on. If it's because everyone seems to hate us because of our president, then jeez. I guess you really haven't gotten to know any american civilian. Most of the people I know are really nice, I mean heck, not everyone here is a dumb person who closely resembles a chimpanzee.[/SIZE]

[DeadSeraphim]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][quote name='Sandy]To cut the sarcasm, there can be no justification for slaughtering innocent civilians and destroying whole cities. It's barbaric, inhumane and against the laws of every nation in the world. It's insane that some of you people actually thought [I]your nation[/I] had/has the right to do that, and [I]your nation[/I'] alone. Talking about American arrogancy...[/quote]
It was a war, and there was no laws or precedents surrounding nuclear missiles. Japan wasn't going to back down unless someone - anyone - conclusively made them [i]***** their pants[/i], and America, whose involvement in the Pacific War was one of the better things to occur, did what had to be done. Would Japan have responded to anything less? Who knows. But they responded to and backed down because of the A-Bombs, and their stranglehold on the Pacific, and by extension the war, ended as a result.

Stop crucifying Americans for what was done in the past, and what was done in vastly different circumstances. America acted to stop a war and to stop a country that wasn't going to stop unless it controlled the entire Pacific. If North Korea struck with any nuclear missiles, it would be to start conflict, and that's all the difference.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[StrikeGundam]

[quote name='Sandy']I'm sorry, I didn't know you had that much first-hand intel from inside Truman's government so that you actually know what they thought at that moment. You seem to know their motives and the fact that they were cornered with the decision. Were you a good friend of Truman & the other boys?[/quote][font=Book Antiqua][color=navy]You speak almost as if this happened last week and not several [b]decades [/b]ago. There have been enough books and eyewitness accounts written about that descision between then and now to wallpaper Cleavland, so it's safe to say that the "What were they thinking?" ship has sailed. Dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities was inhumane, most definitly, but a last resort is just that. I for one am happy that since then the world has taken steps to make sure that no other nation is pushed there. Kim Jong Il isn't being pushed to that descision, he's skipping there with his fingers in his ears. The Wait and See approach doesn't have all that great if a track record so something has to be done. Sanctions may not do much to sway him, but they'd do a hell of a lot more than absolutely nothing.[/color][/font]
[quote name='Sandy]To cut the sarcasm, there can be no justification for slaughtering innocent civilians and destroying whole cities. It's barbaric, inhumane and against the laws of every nation in the world. It's insane that some of you people actually thought [i]your nation[/i] had/has the right to do that, and [i]your nation[/i'] alone. Talking about American arrogancy...[/quote] [font=Book Antiqua][color=navy]The dropping of the atomic bombs was definitly inhumane, no question, but simply do nothing wasn't a viable option. Despite the fact that the war was all but over, Japan showed no signs of ceasing. Dropping atomic bombs wasn't the best or the first option, it was the one that saved the lives of the most troops and end the war the fastest. How inhumane would it have been to continue marching people over to a place where you knew that they would die, or to keep fighting a fight that you know that you can end? Responsiblity for the aftermath be damned, should everyone be allowed to drop a nuke, just to be fair? Talk about baseless idealism...[/color][/font]

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Sandy']To cut the sarcasm, there can be no justification for slaughtering innocent civilians and destroying whole cities.[/quote]

[color=crimson]The lesser of two evils, not a good in lieu of an evil. Pay attention to the phrases used.

World War 2 isn't something you approach morally, rationally or trying to justify what happened. It was a tragedy, the entire thing was a tragedy. From every single side it was just tragic.[/color]

[quote name='Sandy']It's barbaric, inhumane and against the laws of every nation in the world.[/quote]

[color=crimson]What do you think total war is exactly? Some kind of fun, happy war? The lighter kind of war? Maybe the more humane, less barbaric kind of war? Diet War, perhaps? New and improved war, now 99 percent more lawful and acceptable? It's not going to be humane or lawful or proper, it's war. Thousands of people are going to die in bloody heaps, thousands of soldiers are going to be shot or burned or blown to pieces. They are going to lose pieces of their body, they are going to die in horrible little nightmarish mudholes wishing they had one more chance to see their loved ones. Generals are going to break the laws of war, soldiers are going to kill civilians, massacres are going to happen. In this one, in the end, a decision was made to nuke two cities to destroy whatever willpower they thought the Japanese had and avoid having to amphibiously assault the home islands.

One more event in the nightmare that was World War 2.[/color]

[quote name='Sandy]It's insane that some of you people actually thought [I]your nation[/I] had/has the right to do that, and [I]your nation[/I'] alone.[/quote]

[color=crimson]What the hell do you want me to do? Go back in time and start some **** with Truman? Fight him man on man, knock some sense into him?

I can't do jack about what America has done in the past or what they did all throughout the Cold War. All I can try to do is affect where things are going now. Was it right? Was any part of World War 2 even remotely "right" or "just" or "humane" or "acceptable" or any of that crap you're spitting out trying to crucify the rest of us for not being as dumbly idealistic as you are? The entire thing is case after case of civilians and POWs being slaughtered by every major power involved.

The entire thing is a nightmare of war crimes that include the United States and the United Kingdom as guilty parties.

[quote name='Sandy']Talking about American arrogancy...[/quote]

You can't be so simple minded, so blatantly ignorant to really think that, lol.

I mean, really. Think about how stupid that is.[/color]

[quote name='Sandy']It's not like the country can afford to go into yet another war.[/quote]

[color=crimson]Presume what you want.[/color]

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson]In this one, in the end, a decision was made to nuke two cities to destroy whatever willpower they thought the Japanese had and avoid having to amphibiously assault the home islands.

One more event in the nightmare that was World War 2.[/color][/QUOTE]
[size=1]Yeah, I've really struggled with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The reason I see those actions as a necessary evil is because the Japanese had no intention of giving up. They were willing to fight us door to door, every man, woman, and child until there were none living.

So despite our warning of "Seriously guys, just give up," they insisted they would continue to fight. And they got seriously crippled as a result. It's truly tragic to think that thousands of people died and suffered because of this, but in the end I think it was the right choice.

Basically, it's not fair to compare the US' use of nuclear arms against Japan during WWII to N. Korea arbitrarily attacking others.

Although I do acknowledge how it is rather two-faced of us. We get the weapons and others don't. The reality of the situation is that those with the weapons make the rules, and I'm grateful N. Korea doesn't have (or probably doesn't have) nuclear weaponry.[/size]

[Sandy]

[B]Deathknight[/B], I really don't appreciate the fact that you take my words out of context and then get insulted by them.

Let's review what I said in my previous post:

[quote name='me]It's insane that [B]SOME[/B] of you people actually thought your nation had/has the right to do that, and [B]your nation alone[/B] [COLOR=DimGray][has the right to use nuclear weapons][/COLOR]. Talking about American arrogancy...[COLOR=DimGray][referring to the last sentence'][/COLOR][/quote]

I'm really not talking about giving everybody nukes so they can bomb each other away, [B]Strike Gundam[/B]. As a pacifist, I believe that [B]no[/B] nation should have these kinds of weapons. It's just ludicrous that the US government is on some (pretended?) weapons-of-mass-destruction hunt, when in fact the US is the country in possession of most of those. And although I'm naïve, I'm not blue-eyed enough to believe that US won't ever use them. Who knows when the next "lesser of two evils" situations comes up? :P

[B]Domon[/B], you brought the Nazi comparation up yourself, I wouldn't go that far with my train of thought. And like I'm not condemning Germans about their past, I'm not condemning the Americans either. I'm just really worried that the whole "world police" thinking has gotten too deep into everybody's heads on the other side of the Atlantic. You should focus on getting your internal matters fixed before you rush to save the whole world.

Which leads me to my last point. [B]DeathKnight[/B], you think your country can afford to go into yet another war (with a country that only poses a theoretic threat, like Iraq did), but if you haven't noticed, all the money spent into wars, soldiers and weaponry is taken from the well-being of the common American people. News from the USA claim that poverty is on a huge rise, health care is in serious problems, and crime is intensifying in the streets, and yet your government (who no doubt aren't facing the aforementioned problems personally) is only concerned about "terrorists". Anything wrong with this picture?

[Domon]

[quote name='Sandy] [B]Strike Gundam[/B]. As a pacifist, I believe that [B]no[/B'] nation should have these kinds of weapons. It's just ludicrous that the US government is on some (pretended?) weapons-of-mass-destruction hunt, when in fact the US is the country in possession of most of those. And although I'm naïve, I'm not blue-eyed enough to believe that US won't ever use them. Who knows when the next "lesser of two evils" situations comes up? :P[/quote]

[SIZE=1]Yet it never has been used has it? We never used Nuclear weapons on Korea originally or Vietnam or the first Gulf war. People were hollering after 9/11 to drop nukes on Irag and Afghanistan. Its pointless, the nuclear capabilities are so disasterous compared to the 1945 ones. If we were to drop one right now, right now at this very moment in time. The affects of it would be felt around the world for the next ten to twenty years I'm sure. I was watching a special on TV awhile back ago. If the US or Russia were to launch just twenty nuclear warheads. We would wipe out the entire population of the earth, period. That means that in this worse case scenario (god forbid) that if the US were to accidentally launch a nuke and then Russia returns fire and you do that ninteen more times total. [B]EVERY[/B] single being on the face of the earth, including you Sandy, would be dead. Dead dead dead dead.

Now back onto what I was originally trying to say. During the first Korean war, General McArthur clamored and pleaded for us to drop a nuke on North Korea to end the war period. He was then dishonorably discharged for his conduct by Trueman. The very person who decicded to drop a nuke on Japan. It was not right to use it. Dropping nukes all willy nilly is not a smart thing. If our government were to drop a nuke anywhere. Do you know what would happen? Impeachment and the person I'm sure would be tried for what he did, especially if there were alternatives.

So what I'm trying to say is that yes the US does have nuclear capability, as does Russia and I'm sure several other countries too. And as I stated before, who knows how many nukes Russia has left over from the fifties.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Sandy][B]Domon[/B'], you brought the Nazi comparation up yourself, I wouldn't go that far with my train of thought. And like I'm not condemning Germans about their past, I'm not condemning the Americans either. I'm just really worried that the whole "world police" thinking has gotten too deep into everybody's heads on the other side of the Atlantic. You should focus on getting your internal matters fixed before you rush to save the whole world.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]No offense, but it sure as heck in your previous posts seem like you are condemning us. And as stated by both Deathknight and Retribution. Total war is not a pretty thing. We can't go back in time to the forties and say "Don't do that! We'll get scoffed at in the future for what you did." I'm sure that President Trueman and his chiefs of staff went over every single possibility before deciding to drop the nukes.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Sandy]Which leads me to my last point. [B]DeathKnight[/B'], you think your country can afford to go into yet another war (with a country that only poses a theoretic threat, like Iraq did), but if you haven't noticed, all the money spent into wars, soldiers and weaponry is taken from the well-being of the common American people. News from the USA claim that poverty is on a huge rise, health care is in serious problems, and crime is intensifying in the streets, and yet your government (who no doubt aren't facing the aforementioned problems personally) is only concerned about "terrorists". Anything wrong with this picture?[/quote]

[SIZE=1]I doubt DeathKnight was trying to say that the US is going to go to war with N. Korea. But the fact of the matter is this. How many times in the past had Irag scoffed at everything the UN did? How many times had people clamored to get the Taliban out of Afghanistan? The fact of the matter remains, the [b]entire world[/b] sat on their hands and did nothing to address these situations and now look what happened. over three thousand people were murdered by people from one of the countries the world had been worried about. So the US fought back, have we dropped nukes? No. Is it going to happen? Doubtful. But once we started fighting the two countries every other single nation in the world just decided to look at us like "eww... They're rather stupid for going to war." And granted there are going to be some hard times ahead and there are now. But what do you expect? Everything to be peachy keen? Its not, its war. People are going to die, people have been dying and who knows how many more will die. Its time to face the facts. War is war, you can say you're a pacifist and that's fine. But don't crucify things that other nations did over sixty years ago and then say that we should have done something else when there really wasn't an alternative.[/SIZE]

EDIT-

If I said anything too overly offensive or offensive at all. I apologize in advance. I'm just stating an opinion.

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR=DarkOrchid]Well this debate has certainly derailed a bit. We?ve gone from wondering if North Korea is a problem to slashing countries for things that happened in the past. o_O I really don?t see the relevance in bringing up past deeds when most of us weren?t even born when they happened. We can argue all we want that this or that was inhumane, but others have already pointed out that war is anything but humane. And though I like the idea of being a pacifist, there are those out there who are not interested in peace unless they are in charge and are calling the shots. If being a pacifist and getting peace was really that easy, we would never have any wars. [I]You can?t make someone else play nice or form a peace treaty if they don?t want to. [/I]

And now for my opinion on the actual topic? Like others have already mentioned, I really don?t see North Korea as a threat, at least not to the point that we need to be preparing for war or anything like that.

Obviously the tests means that on some level they intend to do as they please, but considering how they are a long ways away from being a more real threat, using sanctions or talks is still an option. I don?t think we?ve reached the no options left point and preparing for war at this stage would be rushing things in my opinion. [/COLOR]

[Sandy]

[quote name='Domon][SIZE=1]If the US or Russia were to launch just twenty nuclear warheads. We would wipe out the entire population of the earth, period. That means that in this worse case scenario (god forbid) that if the US were to accidentally launch a nuke and then Russia returns fire and you do that ninteen more times total. [B]EVERY[/B'] single being on the face of the earth, including you Sandy, would be dead. Dead dead dead dead.[/size][/quote]

I'm very aware of that. It's exactly why I, a mere individual in this human population of six billion, refuse to support killing other humans in any form. In a grander scale, my opinion is worth a fly's crap, but it matters to me.

[quote name='Domon][SIZE=1']So what I'm trying to say is that yes the US does have nuclear capability, as does Russia and I'm sure several other countries too. And as I stated before, who knows how many nukes Russia has left over from the fifties.[/SIZE][/quote]

Yes, and because the puny Finland I live in is located right at the side of Russia, and we have been in war with Russia in the past, I'm very aware of the danger that lies to the east of us. However, at this very moment, the presidents of Russia and Finland are having a nice dinner in this very city I'm living now (Lahti) because of this great big conference, which is a great example of what diplomacy can do. Enemies fifty years ago, friends now.

[quote name='Domon][SIZE=1']No offense, but it sure as heck in your previous posts seem like you are condemning us.[/SIZE][/quote]

I'm condemning the act, not the person. Or in this case, the [I]thought[/I] of an act. However, if you Americans make yourselves look like a bunch of warmongers as a [I]nation[/I], can you blame [I]me[/I] for it?

Seriously, although American culture has it's own quirks, I'm above seeing you all as a big lump of christian conservative zealousness. There's good people and there's bad people in USA, just like there's good people and there's bad people here.

[quote][SIZE=1]The fact of the matter remains, the [b]entire world[/b] sat on their hands and did nothing to address these situations and now look what happened. over three thousand people were murdered by people from one of the countries the world had been worried about. [/SIZE][/quote]

Except, most of the Al Qaida involved in 9/11 were [I]Saudi-Arabians[/I] (including Osama Bin Laden), not Iraqis or Afghans. But of course the US couldn't attack the Saudis, because that's were all Bush's partners in oil business are. :P

Instead, the US attacked Afghanistan and Iraq (because, surprise, bad people also live there) , throwing their whole culture upside down, destroying homes, killing thousands and torturing at least dozens of innocent people, all in the name of FREEDOM (and there were oil too!).

What does North Korea has to do with any of this? Well, it could be next, just because there are bad people there, too. Perhaps oil as well.

If you say I'm condemning a whole nation for the acts of few, then remember that your nation is destroying entire civilizations for the acts of few.

[Aaryanna_Mom]

I really don?t see a current threat. I see a potential threat, but not one that needs immediate attention. And from their standpoint other countries asking them to stop developing nuclear capabilities are the threat.

I don?t think we are at the point where such drastic measures of preparing to go to war are necessary. There are still avenues to be taken and I?d rather wait and see if any success comes out of that before I start lobbying for attacking North Korea. [QUOTE=Sandy]Honestly, I'm many times more worried about the amount of nuclear weapons that USA has in stock than whatever North Korea has.

[B]Popquiz:[/B] What country is the [I]only one[/I] in the history of Earth to ever use a nuclear weapon against another nation?

Pot calling the kettle black here...[/QUOTE]And I?m honestly surprised you are making the USA out to be this horrible monster that will use a nuclear weapon anytime something doesn?t go the way they want. Of course people are concerned about a nuclear bomb being used because from that incident of the US bombing another country, it has shown just how terrible and destructive weapons of war really are.

The people of that time did, after much deliberation, made a decision that they felt would end the war and the pointless killing going on as a result. It?s easy to claim they were wrong or they were monsters, when you and I were not around and were not experiencing the terrible problems caused by the senseless war.

Before you start slinging stones in our direction, stop and take a look at history and realize how many conflicts there has been where nuclear weapons were not used when they could have been used. A nuclear bomb has not been used on another country for over sixty years. If the USA was really so power hungry as you seem to be implying, we would have been using such methods on a regular basis.

Also you are forgetting that both the United Kingdom and Canada assisted the United States when it came to designing and actually building the first atomic bombs. It was not some secret thing the US was doing by itself. Other countries knew of it and actively supported developing the weapons in question. If they really felt so strongly against them, they would have never assisted with their development in the first place.

[Ol' Fighter]

Goodness...this little talk has slowley walked away from the "little demon child" that was on the top of our tongues to a little stupid *** scuffle between TWO individuals. You both have some extremly powerful beliefs to back you up but Sandy, Domon cut it out...please for the love of humanity, kiss already :love2: .

To get back on topic I too think we should tread towards this little situation with caution and rationallity to prevent it from becoming a catastrophic situation. I think the U.N. and others should continue to do whatever ther'er trying or hope to do and on a personal point of view(and to quote what someone else said)Kim needs a political "PIMP SLAP" and for someone to say "no, no" :nono: .

[Sandy]

[B]Aaryanna_Mom[/B], please read my other posts following the one you quoted. They'll give you more insight on what I think and why.

[B]Lonley Fighter[/B], for your information, me and Domon aren't scuffling, we are having a [I]debate[/I]. Not a very heated one, either. Neither one of us has gone into personal level, we are just exchanging our opinions. And it's not even just the two of us.

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']Although I do acknowledge how it is rather two-faced of us. We get the weapons and others don't.[/size][/quote]

[color=crimson]Of course it is two-faced of us. Should every nation have a "right" to such destructive weapons just because we have them?

It's bad to be two-faced but the alternative sounds pretty bad too. [/color]

[quote name='Sandy][B]Deathknight[/B'], I really don't appreciate the fact that you take my words out of context and then get insulted by them.[/quote]

[color=crimson]I don't really need your appreciation or want it [b]Sandy[/b].[/color]

[quote name='Sandy']It's just ludicrous that the US government is on some (pretended?) weapons-of-mass-destruction hunt, when in fact the US is the country in possession of most of those.[/quote]

[color=crimson]More than ludicrous, it's just propaganda most of the time. They make it so dramatically personal that some people buy into this crap. "[u]Your[/u] livelihood is at stake, [u]your[/u] security is at stake."

Putting it like that some people can condone unnecessary invasions.[/color]

[quote name='Sandy']I'm just really worried that the whole "world police" thinking has gotten too deep into everybody's heads on the other side of the Atlantic. You should focus on getting your internal matters fixed before you rush to save the whole world.[/quote]

[color=crimson]I don't think many of the Americans here buy into that crap let alone most of my peers outside of here. We disagree with this crapheap in the White House more than the rest of the world since it's our crapheap.

"Everybody's heads" on this side of the Atlantic are not of one mind, one thought or one ideology. This country is a mess of cultures, opinions, religions and ideas. Rarely do we all agree on anything at all.[/color]

[quote name='Sandy']Who knows when the next "lesser of two evils" situations comes up? :P[/quote]

[color=crimson]I don't know. Perhaps, you know, when we're faced with two evils maybe?

That's what I'd keep an eye out for.[/color]

[quote name='Sandy]Which leads me to my last point. [B]DeathKnight[/B'], you think your country can afford to go into yet another war (with a country that only poses a theoretic threat, like Iraq did), but if you haven't noticed, all the money spent into wars, soldiers and weaponry is taken from the well-being of the common American people. [/quote]

[color=crimson]The United States isn't even fully dedicating itself to these wars. The administration is doing it as half-assedly as it can with the volunteer forces they have. If they really wanted to clean Iraq up they'd at least double the number of people on the ground they have there and stop paying American companies to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure, buildings and otherwise.

Haha, dude. Trust me, us "Americans" have our money being spent on the most worthless crap beyond just defense you don't even want to hear about half the worthless crap our politicians are doing. If you know (you being the blue-eyed, naive pacifist in this thread) then we (the people living in this country and dealing with it everyday) might be aware of that too, yeah?[/color]

[quote name='Sandy']News from the USA claim that poverty is on a huge rise, health care is in serious problems, and crime is intensifying in the streets, and yet your government (who no doubt aren't facing the aforementioned problems personally) is only concerned about "terrorists".[/quote]

[color=crimson]The economy is doing well enough. Any poverty that is on the rise isn't around here as the local economy here is surging higher. Our health care system has always been ******- this isn't Canada, it's America. When hasn't it been blowful? Dunno about crime, all I hear about regionally is crime getting lower and lower except for in Houston/East Texas where violent crimes increased from Katrina refugees.

I'm not really concerned about terrorists either. I doubt any other half-smart people are either.

Basically, it's not as grim as all that. It's normal- some bad, some good. Same old ****.[/color]

[quote name='Sandy']Anything wrong with this picture?[/quote]

[color=crimson]Duh.[/color]

[quote name='Sandy]However, if you Americans make yourselves look like a bunch of warmongers as a [I]nation[/I], can you blame [I]me[/I'] for it?[/quote]

[color=crimson]**** yeah I can and have been.

I mean, if I read you right you're saying "I know you guys aren't this but I'm going to call you this anyway just because!" [/color]

[quote name='Sandy']What does North Korea has to do with any of this? Well, it could be next, just because there are bad people there, too. Perhaps oil as well.[/quote]

[color=crimson]Hell yes. I can smell the oil in all those mountain ranges from here and it really wakes up my American bloodlust.[/color]

[quote name='Sandy']Yes, and because the puny Finland I live in is located right at the side of Russia, and we have been in war with Russia in the past, I'm very aware of the danger that lies to the east of us.[/quote]

[color=crimson]Not that puny. Finland is one of the few European countries (out of 2-3) in World War 2 that survived an invasion without being annexed or turned into a puppet of a major power.

I mean, Finnish fighters invented the molotov cocktail. You have to be pretty badass to invent that.[/color]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Sandy][B]Aaryanna_Mom[/B], please read my other posts following the one you quoted. They'll give you more insight on what I think and why.[/QUOTE] I did read your posts. And in most of them you keep coming back to the same point of Americans are warmongers and arrogant or something along those lines. This quote here:[QUOTE=Sandy']There's always an option for war. It's called "peace". Yes, I'm naïve that way.[/quote] Seems to imply that we have no interest in peace where I?m trying to say that peace isn?t always a solution. My daughter already pointed this out, but you can?t make someone else play nice and form a peace treaty if they don?t want to. And I for one have no interest in expecting my government to back down just because the solution turns out to not be peaceful. [QUOTE=Sandy]To cut the sarcasm, there can be no justification for slaughtering innocent civilians and destroying whole cities. It's barbaric, inhumane and against the laws of every nation in the world. It's insane that some of you people actually thought [I]your nation[/I] had/has the right to do that, and [I]your nation[/I] alone. Talking about American arrogancy...

My point here is that if the US wants a nuclear arms free world, they will have to start with themselves and not point fingers. It's not like the country can afford to go into yet another war.[/QUOTE]No justification? This is part of why I gave you a hard time. No one is blameless when it comes to these conflicts. There are people on both sides of the fence who are wrong, so trying to claim it?s American arrogance is itself a form of arrogance as you are implying that we are solely to blame for the problems caused by some of the more recent conflicts. [QUOTE=Sandy]I'm condemning the act, not the person. Or in this case, the [I]thought[/I] of an act. However, if you Americans make yourselves look like a bunch of warmongers as a [I]nation[/I], can you blame [I]me[/I] for it?

[I]//snip//[/I]

If you say I'm condemning a whole nation for the acts of few, then remember that your nation is destroying entire civilizations for the acts of few.[/QUOTE]See what I mean? You keep coming back to blaming America for the events that happened. It?s not as clear-cut as that and that?s why I was giving you a hard time. Even the so-called war on terrorism isn?t as easy to define.

I can understand that you find the actions of America frustrating, believe me, many of us do as well as many decisions regarding the issues in Iraq and other things were made without giving the local citizen a voice in the decision process.

Maybe it?s not your intent, but you are coming across as if you are angry at America as if we are to blame for all the problems going on. I may not understand you correctly, and if that is so I?m sorry.

Anyway, I still think people are worrying over North Korea too much.

[Morpheus]

I just thought that I would put this out there:

[SIZE=4]The problem with being a pacifist is for your beliefs to work in practice, everyone must be a pacifist. This is obviously not the case.[/SIZE]

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=Sandy]Except, most of the Al Qaida involved in 9/11 were [I]Saudi-Arabians[/I] (including Osama Bin Laden), not Iraqis or Afghans. But of course the US couldn't attack the Saudis, because that's were all Bush's partners in oil business are. :P

Instead, the US attacked Afghanistan and Iraq (because, surprise, bad people also live there) , throwing their whole culture upside down, destroying homes, killing thousands and torturing at least dozens of innocent people, all in the name of FREEDOM (and there were oil too!).[/QUOTE]
[size=1]...No. Al-Qaeda has been in Afghanistan since the Cold War, and we definitely invaded the right country after 9/11. They were based in Afghanistan at that point (as well as Osama), and attacking their stronghold was the best we could do; we know how hard it is to fight an insurgent force.

To insinuate that the US was in Afghanistan for oil is absolutely stupid. If the Saudis actually were responsible, why not go after them? They produce and export MUCH more oil than Afghanistan could even hope for. And here's a bit of background info: we went there immediately after 9/11 -- of course it wasn't a retaliatory attack, it was for the oil, because that's what was first and foremost in everyone's minds then!

[QUOTE]What does North Korea has to do with any of this? Well, it could be next, just because there are bad people there, too. Perhaps oil as well.[/QUOTE]
Here's why were not going to invade N. Korea:
- They could deal serious damage to S. Korea if we attacked.
- Kim isn't dumb enough to do anything crazy enough to make the US invade.
- We don't have enough people (see: [i]Iraq[/i]).

[QUOTE]If you say I'm condemning a whole nation for the acts of few, then remember that your nation is destroying entire civilizations for the acts of few.[/QUOTE]
Iraq, granted. Afghanistan, no. Read up on what was going on before the US invaded.[/size]

[Red]

[quote name='Dodeca][SIZE=1]I believe that it was to point out that the only country to ever use nuclear weapons outside of testing is the United States, regardless of the situation. And whatever you might say, I personally believe there [i]must[/i'] have been a more humane option than nuking two cities, but that might just be me.[/SIZE][/quote]

Then I'd recommend looking at some of the reasons why Hitler never went through with the invasion of England as an initial example, and then the rest of America/Japan's WWII history in general - paying careful attention to the casualty figures. It was clear what the statement pointed out but the situation at the time did play an enormous part in why those bombs were dropped, and it is a situation none of us is close to facing today.

And don't listen to what I've said - grab some history books. If you're going to have those personal beliefs, you need to take a look at the facts and at least partially understand why they couldn't be considered during that time. There's also the fact that during war, there are an incredible number of factors to weigh up before making a decision.

[quote][SIZE=1]I'm going to side with Retribution here. Unless we had someone who knew firsthand at what stage of development the North Koreans are, we can't assume anything about their nuclear capabilities. Fact is, we don't really know if their delivery methods are 'nothing close to viable' as we've only seen [i]one[/i] test. It could've been a dud, it could be one of several prototypes - we just don't know.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

We've seen two tests - one that had the explosive power equivalent of a cod farting in the ocean, and the other being an awful display of ballistics research. It speaks volumes. There's also that lovely little nugget called mutually assured destruction - so we do know their delivery methods are nothing close to viable. Nuclear war is[i]not[/i] just about getting the things to their targets.

Again, it seems all he's done is use the western world's boogeyman image against them. Very effectively, too.