PDA

View Full Version : North Korea Conducts Successful nuclear test



Wahid
10-09-2006, 07:33 AM
North Korea claims nuclear test
South Koreans watch television in the wake of North Korea's reported nuclear test
There was concern among South Koreans at the news
North Korea says it has carried out its first test of a nuclear weapon, the state news agency (KCNA) has reported.

It said the underground test, carried out in defiance of international warnings, was a success and had not resulted in any leak of radiation.

The White House said South Korean and US intelligence had detected a seismic event at a suspected test site.

The White House said, if confirmed, the test would be a "provocative act", while China denounced it as "brazen".

In its strongest statement ever against its ally, China expressed its "resolute opposition" to the claimed test and said it "defied the universal opposition of international society".

Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said the test was "unpardonable".


We expect the UN Security Council to take immediate actions to respond to this unprovoked act


South Korea said it would "sternly respond".

President Roh Moo-hyun has called an emergency meeting of South Korea's National Security Council and put the armed forces on a heightened state of alert.

Seoul also suspended a scheduled aid shipment to North Korea, the state news agency reported.

US White House spokesman Tony Snow said: "We expect the UN Security Council to take immediate actions to respond to this unprovoked act."

'Historic event'

The US Geological Survey said it had detected a 4.2 magnitude quake in North Korea, while a South Korean official said a 3.5 magnitude seismic tremor had been detected in north Hamgyong province, in the north-east.

South Korea's Yonhap news agency is reporting that the test took place in Gilju in Hamgyong province at 1036 (0136 GMT).

A top Russian military officer said it was "100%" certain that an underground nuclear explosion had taken place.

When it announced the test, KCNA described it as an "historic event that brought happiness to our military and people".

"The nuclear test will contribute to maintaining peace and stability in the Korean peninsula and surrounding region," KCNA said.

The region has been on high alert since North Korea announced last week that it would conduct a nuclear test.

Shinzo Abe is in Seoul for a meeting with Mr Roh, a day after talks in Beijing.

Mr Abe said Japan wanted to co-ordinate its response with the South Koreans, and was also in contact with the US and China.

In Tokyo, ministers were called to an urgent meeting, and the government set up a special task force.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
AvarAllahNoor
10-09-2006, 09:24 AM
Well no oil in NK so no need for USA,UK to take in troops at all!
Reply

therebbe
10-09-2006, 10:59 AM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Well no oil in NK so no need for USA,UK to take in troops at all!
It is a threat to USA interests in Asia though, especially to strategic Allies the USA needs in South Korea, and Japan for retaliatory strike capability against China.
Reply

Woodrow
10-09-2006, 11:44 AM
At best it is fool hardy. Korea has a very fragile ecosystem and the water shed provides drinking water for nearly all of Korea and a lot of Southern China. I would suspect that an awful lot of water has now been contaminated.

The mountain ranges in the northern and eastern parts of North Korea form the watershed for most of its rivers, which run in a westerly direction and empty into the Yellow Sea and Korea Bay. The longest is the Yalu River, which is navigable for 678 of its 790 kilometers. The Tumen River, one of the few major rivers to flow into the Sea of Japan, is the second longest at 521 kilometers but is navigable for only 85 kilometers because of the mountainous
Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/geography-of-north-korea

It is very irresponsible and thoughtless for a country to subject it's peoples to the liklihood of Nuclear contamination. Korea has a very fragile environment and this could very likly poison many of it's residents.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Salmaan
10-09-2006, 02:14 PM
Is this the first time ever that a nuclear test has been conducted by any country :?
Reply

Keltoi
10-09-2006, 03:47 PM
One thing that could come from this is Japan building up militarily. I can see a change in the constitution in the face of this threat to Japanese security. Very stupid move, and will cause a shift in the dynamics of the region.
Reply

boomarang
10-09-2006, 08:13 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
One thing that could come from this is Japan building up militarily. I can see a change in the constitution in the face of this threat to Japanese security. Very stupid move, and will cause a shift in the dynamics of the region.
Posted on Wed, Oct. 04, 2006

North Korea announces plan for a nuclear test

Such a move would have dramatic implications. Rice said it would be "a very provocative act."

By Anthony Faiola and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post

TOKYO - North Korea declared yesterday that it would conduct a nuclear test to bolster its defenses against the United States, raising tensions in the region and marking the communist government's first unambiguous pledge to prove it has become a nuclear power.

Although North Korea has previously said it possesses nuclear bombs - U.S. intelligence officials have estimated it could have as many as 11 - a test detonation would dramatically change the region's power dynamics. Analysts have said the United States and area neighbors including China, Japan and South Korea would be forced to deal far more harshly with the North.

A test would be a "very provocative act," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said during a visit to Cairo, Egypt. It would create a "qualitatively different situation on the Korean peninsula" that would spill over into the entire region, she said. Rice declined to predict what the U.S. response might be.

In a statement issued through the official KCNA news service, North Korea's Foreign Ministry said the government would "conduct a nuclear test under conditions where safety is firmly guaranteed." The statement did not say when the test might occur but asserted that the North's "nuclear weapons will serve as reliable war deterrent for protecting the supreme interests of the state and the security of the Korean nation from the U.S. threat of aggression."

The declaration follows news reports in recent months, based on intelligence agency findings, that the secretive communist state might be preparing a test site in its barren northeast. Observers greeted the reports with some skepticism, partly because North Korea is widely known for brinkmanship.

High-level officials from the United States, Japan, South Korea and China immediately began exchanging calls yesterday to discuss a response, according to Asian diplomatic sources. These countries have been part of six-party talks attempting to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear program.

The reaction was particularly sharp in Japan, which sees itself as a primary target of North Korean aggression. "If they conduct a nuclear test, it will not be forgiven," Japan's new prime minister, Shinzo Abe, told reporters last night. "The international community will deal with the situation firmly."

Several analysts and diplomats said a test would in effect mean that North Korea's absolute ruler, Kim Jong Il, had played his last card in the standoff over the country's nuclear program. Observers suggested that the threat might be an attempt to force an easing of the economic pressure against the North, which has risen dramatically in recent months.

"North Korea's final goal is survival, and a test is their final option," said Ahn Yinhay, professor of international relations at Korea University in Seoul. "Given the current situation - the enormous pressure from the U.S.'s hard-line policy - the North Koreans may think they have no other means to try to get out of this deadlock. They may think they have nothing else to lose."

Many observers say there would be a great deal to lose. A nuclear test would make it far more difficult for the North's chief benefactors - China and South Korea - to continue to provide billions of dollars worth of economic aid and trade, money that has helped Kim prop up his government.

A major concern among U.S. officials is the potential reaction by Japan. U.S. nuclear analysts have worried for years that a North Korean nuclear test might lead Japan to break with decades of nonproliferation commitments and speed toward its own weapons capability. Japan's nuclear industry is highly advanced, giving the country the ability to make nuclear weapons within months if it chose to do so.

Associated Press


The Japanese can become 'highly motivated'. I wouldn't P@#$ them off, if I were the DNPK.:D
Reply

AHMED_GUREY
10-10-2006, 01:56 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
One thing that could come from this is Japan building up militarily. I can see a change in the constitution in the face of this threat to Japanese security. Very stupid move, and will cause a shift in the dynamics of the region.

i think deep down Japanese elites still hold a grudge against US for Hiroshima and Nagasaki

a military buildup of Japan would be very dangerous as we have seen in the past especially if it allies with China

but Japan and US have a booming trade so it's not likely to happen
Reply

Woodrow
10-10-2006, 02:31 PM
Originally Posted by Salmaan
Is this the first time ever that a nuclear test has been conducted by any country :?
No, the US started with testing in the 1940's. By the 1950's it was noted that the testing was too hazardous to be done on US soil so we started doing most of our testing in the Pacific. With disasterous results. The world is still suffering from the fall-out and will continue to do so for many generations to come.

By the 1960's it was decide that above ground testing was too hazardous so it was change to underground tests. That still has not eliminated the dangers. Many water systems have been destroyed from the tests. Nuclear weapons are still in their infancy and nobody really knows how long a bomb is good for (Shelf Life) it is known that they will deteriate rapidly and become useless. The problem is nobody knows for certain how long different versions can last. This is one reason for the constant need for testing. Both the US and Russia still have many thousands stodkpiles. The problem is nobody knows how many, if any will still detonate and if they do detonat what will they do. There is also a question if some designs may self detonat after a certain time.

They really are stupid weapons and are just as dangerous to the countries that have any as they are to a potential target. I would say that a country possessing any, is more at risk from a severe accident than of ever having any need to use them.

My big worry with N. Korea is how much damage they have done to the water supply for a large portion of NE Asia with their stupid egotistical test. They must not have any concern for their own people or for their neighbors to have gone ahead with the test in such a fragile ecological zone. Yes, we in the US were guilty of the same thing when we were conducting tests in New Mexico and Arizona. It did not show much consideration for our own people or the residents of Canada and Mexico. Our tests in the Pacific showed no concern about the world.

It is a moot point today to try to calculate the number of annual cancer deaths that occur because of tests by the US and Russia. Each future test compounds the damage already done.
Reply

doodlebug
10-10-2006, 02:34 PM
I don't think that we can say for sure it was indeed a nuclear test. I was listening to BBC this morning and we are still doing tests to confirm if it was just a big blast (by doing the size of the quakes and such) or a nuclear test. I think the final determining factor will be the nuclear residue in the air which they were supposed to test today. My bet is that they're bluffing and that it's just a big explosion, but not a nuclear one. I mean look at their ballistic missile testing failure just a couple of months ago.
Reply

Woodrow
10-10-2006, 02:40 PM
Originally Posted by doodlebug
I don't think that we can say for sure it was indeed a nuclear test. I was listening to BBC this morning and we are still doing tests to confirm if it was just a big blast (by doing the size of the quakes and such) or a nuclear test. I think the final determining factor will be the nuclear residue in the air which they were supposed to test today. My bet is that they're bluffing and that it's just a big explosion, but not a nuclear one. I mean look at their ballistic missile testing failure just a couple of months ago.
Good possibility. The 4.5 siesmic activity is not impressive. If I recall the 2 smallest ones ever made and dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki rated at near 5 if memory serves me right and with todays nukes they use the Hiroshima class nukes as detonators for the big ones.

Come to think of it 4.5 is about the equivilent of what you would expect from normal dynamite blasting in a coal mine.
Reply

Keltoi
10-10-2006, 04:40 PM
Originally Posted by AHMED_GUREY
i think deep down Japanese elites still hold a grudge against US for Hiroshima and Nagasaki

a military buildup of Japan would be very dangerous as we have seen in the past especially if it allies with China

but Japan and US have a booming trade so it's not likely to happen
Japan and China will never be allies in our lifetimes and probably not after.
Reply

AHMED_GUREY
10-10-2006, 05:04 PM
^lol true but you never know

i don't think anyone in 1776 would have predicted that the UK and US would be the type partners they are today

so they might not be in our lifetime but don't count this potential team up of Japan and China out in the future
Reply

badrulhisyam
10-11-2006, 01:23 AM
by hook or by crook, to be a powerful and respected nation,n.korea set a good example to all islamic country. patient,preseverance, determination courage and wits are the ingredient that we should have.
Muslimalloverthe world must prepare themselves so that others willnot look down on us. For a start,lets focus on education cause it is the key to success.insyaallah.
Reply

Joe98
10-11-2006, 02:14 AM
Originally Posted by badrulhisyam
For a start,lets focus on education cause it is the key to success.

North Koreans don't have education. The cost of the nuclear program means they cannot afford it.
Reply

Keltoi
10-11-2006, 02:20 AM
Originally Posted by Joe98
North Koreans don't have education. The cost of the nuclear program means they cannot afford it.
They can't afford to eat much less get an education.
Reply

Woodrow
10-11-2006, 02:32 AM
Originally Posted by badrulhisyam
by hook or by crook, to be a powerful and respected nation,n.korea set a good example to all islamic country. patient,preseverance, determination courage and wits are the ingredient that we should have.
Muslimalloverthe world must prepare themselves so that others willnot look down on us. For a start,lets focus on education cause it is the key to success.insyaallah.
Keep in mind North Korea is not Muslim. It is a communist regime and the official religion is Atheism.

Korea's traditional religions are Buddhism and Shamanism. Christian missionaries arrived as early as the 16th century, but it was not until the 19th century that they founded schools, hospitals, and other modern institutions throughout Korea. Major centers of 19th-century missionary activity included Seoul and Pyongyang, and there was a relatively large Christian population in the north before 1945. Although religious groups exist in North Korea, most available evidence suggests that the government severely restricts religious activity.
Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...of_North_Korea


Additional Source:

http://www.answers.com/topic/demogra...of-north-korea
Reply

Keltoi
10-11-2006, 02:35 AM
Originally Posted by badrulhisyam
by hook or by crook, to be a powerful and respected nation,n.korea set a good example to all islamic country. patient,preseverance, determination courage and wits are the ingredient that we should have.
Muslimalloverthe world must prepare themselves so that others willnot look down on us. For a start,lets focus on education cause it is the key to success.insyaallah.
Hopefully no Islamic country would follow North Korea's example. The people are starving. Building up your military at the price of your own people's well being isn't an example for any nation to follow, much less one based on the word of God.
Reply

akulion
10-11-2006, 02:37 AM
its funny the west puts sanctions on a country

then when its poeple start to starve it says "look its the govts doing"

perfect example?

Iraq oil for food program
Reply

Keltoi
10-11-2006, 02:38 AM
Originally Posted by akulion
its funny the west puts sanctions on a country

then when its poeple start to starve it says "look its the govts doing"

perfect example?

Iraq oil for food program
The United States and China have been giving North Korea economic aid for quite some time. There are currently no sanctions against North Korea, so with all due respect you're barking up the wrong tree.
Reply

akulion
10-11-2006, 02:51 AM
well why dont u watch todays news?

sanctions on their way - full economic embargo

and yup there were sanctions on them before by which they could not import export many materials plus not to mention how they have been getting pressurized for ages now by the west with the stand off

i think the un is just another face for the us and what it wants to do which is to control everyone lol

From old archive of BBC: Wednesday, 21 June, 2000
North Korea has urged the United States to lift all sanctions against it, saying that this would further improve relations between the two countries.

At the same time, it reaffirmed that Pyongyang's self-imposed moratorium on missile-testing remained in place.

Washington announced on Monday that it was easing sanctions against North Korea after almost 50 years.
Reply

Keltoi
10-11-2006, 06:11 PM
Originally Posted by akulion
well why dont u watch todays news?

sanctions on their way - full economic embargo

and yup there were sanctions on them before by which they could not import export many materials plus not to mention how they have been getting pressurized for ages now by the west with the stand off

i think the un is just another face for the us and what it wants to do which is to control everyone lol

From old archive of BBC: Wednesday, 21 June, 2000
There are differences in sanctions. The sanctions on North Korea weren't that effective since China did business with NK. Blaming the U.N. or half-hearted sanctions for the state of the North Korean people is extremely dishonest. Kim Jung Ill and Saddam had alot in common in that they cared more about their palaces and mansions and military buildup than they did about feeding their citizens. I for one hope for a full trade embargo, with certain economic aid still given for the benefit of the people of North Korea. That doesn't mean the money given to North Korea will actually go to the people for which it was intended. The Oil For Food program with Saddam is a perfect example of that.
Reply

akulion
10-11-2006, 11:00 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
There are differences in sanctions. The sanctions on North Korea weren't that effective since China did business with NK. Blaming the U.N. or half-hearted sanctions for the state of the North Korean people is extremely dishonest. Kim Jung Ill and Saddam had alot in common in that they cared more about their palaces and mansions and military buildup than they did about feeding their citizens. I for one hope for a full trade embargo, with certain economic aid still given for the benefit of the people of North Korea. That doesn't mean the money given to North Korea will actually go to the people for which it was intended. The Oil For Food program with Saddam is a perfect example of that.
yea saddam hussein and Kim Jung Ill have a lot in common - i can bet on it ;)

Dosent take much to find out the real culprits behind all the warring and unrest around the world going on - that is if ur willing to accept the facts...

especially with regards to stuff like this im sure:


Best Friends Saddam(Iraq Rep) & Rumsfeild (USA rep) shaking hands in Iraq while Saddam still slaughtered his own people yet USA was ok with it and even supplied arms and political backing to him back then, so why the sudden change?

If anyone has a hard time believing what I just said please read the following:
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]

July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]

References:
1 Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
2 Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
3 Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
4 Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
5 ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
6 Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
7 Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
8 Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
9 Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
10 Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
11 Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
12 Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
13 Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
14 Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
15 Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
16 Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
17 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
18 Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
19 Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986
20 Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. www . gendercide . com
Reply

Keltoi
10-11-2006, 11:58 PM
Nice way to change the subject. I don't see how this relates to North Korea supposedly testing a nuclear weapon. That being said, France and Russia did far more business with Iraq in the weapons department, and the picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand seems quite striking I know. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a basic tenent of national foreign policy of any nation. At the time Iran was considered more of a threat to national security than Saddam Hussein, and with Iraq involved in a war with our enemy, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Saddam and the U.S. benefited from this circumstance. That being said, perhaps you've noticed that the weapons used by the Iraqi army were of Russian manufacture, not American. Obviously the relationship wasn't as friendly as that of the U.S. and Pakistan, for example.

Now that this diversion is hopefully over, can we get back on the topic of North Korea?
Reply

akulion
10-12-2006, 01:45 AM
You cant see the common denominator ?

Its funny how everywhere there is conflict in the world the US seems to have a foot or arm in it...isnt it?
Reply

doodlebug
10-13-2006, 04:10 PM
Originally Posted by badrulhisyam
by hook or by crook, to be a powerful and respected nation,n.korea set a good example to all islamic country. patient,preseverance, determination courage and wits are the ingredient that we should have.
Muslimalloverthe world must prepare themselves so that others willnot look down on us. For a start,lets focus on education cause it is the key to success.insyaallah.
Pretty hard to focus on education when there is no electricity. FYI that wee lil dot of brightness in N. Korea is where Kim Jung Ill and his buddies live. The rest of that poor nation is blacked out as of 9pm. I hope all islamic countries don't use N. Korea as a "best practice" type of government.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811
Reply

doodlebug
10-13-2006, 04:11 PM
Originally Posted by akulion
its funny the west puts sanctions on a country

then when its poeple start to starve it says "look its the govts doing"

perfect example?

Iraq oil for food program
How is that a perfect example? Saddam was taking that money and NOT feeding the poor.
Reply

wilberhum
10-13-2006, 06:02 PM
North Korea Conducts Successful nuclear test
Well, maybe not. Maybe just some other explosive was used.
No radiation = no nuke. And it was 1/8 the power expected.
Reply

terrellowens
10-13-2006, 08:50 PM
Originally Posted by akulion
...its funny the west puts sanctions on a country
then when its poeple start to starve it says "look its the govts doing" perfect example? Iraq oil for food program

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...n/15745399.htm

North Korean client list is said to take in Iran, Syria, 16 others

Here's what really scares the world about Pyongyang's nuclear test

By Katherine Shrader
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - North Korea's claimed test of a nuclear weapon is only the tip of what frightens the rest of the world. The country has shown itself to be a virtual bazaar for spreading missiles, conventional weapons, and nuclear technology around the globe.

Pyongyang has sold its military goods to at least 18 countries, mostly in Africa and the Middle East, according to U.S. officials and outside experts. That is a good indication, officials warn, that North Korea might sell nuclear weapons if doing so would bring hard currency into the impoverished communist state.

North Korea's catalog has included ballistic missiles and related components, conventional weapons such as mobile rocket launchers, and nuclear technology. It is also possible, the officials say, that Pyongyang has sold components that could be part of biological or chemical munitions.

The U.S. officials and others interviewed this week about North Korea's weapons trade spoke on the condition that they not be identified, given the tense situation between the two countries.

On Wednesday, the United States circulated a draft resolution at the United Nations that condemns North Korea's proclaimed nuclear test on Monday as in "flagrant disregard" of U.N resolutions and "a clear threat to international peace and security."

The resolution calls for a ban on all North Korean arms sales and travel by people involved in North Korea's weapons program. It also would require countries to freeze all assets related to North Korea's weapons and missile programs.

In admonishing North Korea for its purported nuclear test, President Bush called Pyongyang "one of the world's leading proliferators of missile technology, including transfers to Iran and Syria."

North Korea's customer list, going back to the mid-1980s, goes beyond those two countries. U.S. officials and outside experts report sales of missiles or related components to Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

Pyongyang is also believed to have engaged in deals for cruise missiles and other wares with most of those countries and Angola, Burma, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iraq, Rwanda, Sudan, Uganda, Vietnam, Zaire and Zimbabwe.

North Korea is also believed to have shared its nuclear technology. Government officials have said publicly that A.Q. Khan - the Pakistani scientist who confessed in 2004 to running an illegal nuclear market - had close connections with North Korea, trading in equipment, facilitating international deals for components, and swapping nuclear know-how.

Also of concern is that North Korea sells its weaponry to unstable or undemocratic states that may not have adequate control over their arsenals. That includes Iran and Syria, said Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence policy subcommittee that recently issued a Republican-drafted report on the North Korean threat.

In another case, "Yemen is trying to help [the United States], and they have made some public efforts - at least in P.R. efforts - when it comes to helping us on terrorism," Rogers said. "But Yemen has a troubled history."

Rogers' report, which was reviewed by the U.S. intelligence community, says North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il has a personal fortune estimated at $4 billion, "at least partially amassed through drug and missile sales and counterfeiting."

The United States leads the world in arms sales to developing nations. While North Korea is believed to make hundreds of millions of dollars annually from weapons sales, that may be shrinking, in part because of international pressure to avoid the unpredictable government.


Sounds like Jong is living 'la vida loca' while his people starve.
Reply

akulion
10-13-2006, 10:24 PM
Originally Posted by doodlebug
How is that a perfect example? Saddam was taking that money and NOT feeding the poor.

the example is good because u didnt read the post i made about saddam husein and who was behind him in the 1st place

so him being there and supressing his people and the embargoes can all be blamed on one and that the US who supported him woleheartedly until they decided to turn their back on him and attck (read my last post - the long one)
Reply

wilberhum
10-13-2006, 10:31 PM
The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a mistake every government has made. Nothing new here. The US even gave ade to OBL. That is old news too. Manybe some day we will learn, but I doubt it.
Reply

akulion
10-13-2006, 10:43 PM
this was no mistake it seems - supplying chemical weapons is a mistake?

nah i dont think so and then to turn around and say they have WMD's? a mistake? lol

and then to top it off back the "oil for food program" despite knowing they are themselves guilty?

And the grandest of them all - declaring him an enemy despite knowing there were no WMD's and then waging war and killiong over 600000 (yes six hundred thousand casualties in Iraq) people ?

its no mistake in my view - its a long drawn out plot

once again i say read my last post in detial :D
Reply

akulion
10-13-2006, 10:48 PM
Originally Posted by terrellowens
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...n/15745399.htm

Rogers' report, which was reviewed by the U.S. intelligence community, says North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il has a personal fortune estimated at $4 billion, "at least partially amassed through drug and missile sales and counterfeiting."

Sounds like Jong is living 'la vida loca' while his people starve.
the not unusual for any dictator - the issue is why does the us wana stop anyone from having Nuclear weapons while they have it themselves?

Pakistan they tried to stop - while turning a blind eye to India
Egypt they tried and stoped - while they aided Isreal in building them
Iran cant have them either :uhwhat

i mean come on where do the double standards stop?

I guess the USA is worried that sooner or later someone dosent pull the "they have weapons of mass destruction" scheme on the usa, AFTER they develop nuclear weapons with a delivery system :uuh:

Cos after all - what goes around comes around eventually
Reply

*Hana*
10-13-2006, 10:54 PM
Originally Posted by doodlebug
How is that a perfect example? Saddam was taking that money and NOT feeding the poor.
Salam Alaikum sister:

You have to understand that prior to the USA imposed sanctions, the American government were well aware of what Saddam was capable of doing to his own people. Prior to the sanctions people were not dying of starvation, or dying because they couldn't get medicine, etc. The sanctions were the cause of that and they knew full well Saddam would not use that money for his people. Who suffered because of the sanctions? Who was it meant to hurt? Innocent civilians die from sanctions, not government officials. It wasn't a matter of him not feeding the poor. Sanctions MADE almost everyone poor! Saddam took the money to build 7 palaces while people died and the USA, who imposed the sanctions, watched. When the USA saw what was happening due to sanctions, why didn't they lift them to save the people?

The same analogy can be used for the USA illegal invasion of Iraq. The American government knew from day one they were lying about having a reason to invade. Saddam is still alive, being fed and cared for while the innocents are continuing to die. You think the American government didn't know the civilian casualities would be high? You think they cared they were lying to thier own soldiers and were willing to sacrifice their lives for a lie? Ask those mothers in Iraq that had to bury thier children if sanctions were worth it and if their lives were better before or after sanctions. Ask any Iraqi if their lives have improved since being "liberated". Ask the mother of a young american soldier who was returned to her in a body bag because of a lie, if it was worth it? The American people know, without a doubt, Bush lied and soldiers are dying because of it. Ask most soldiers if they want to be there and are they willingly risking their lives for it. You think all those soldiers are proud to be serving in Iraq? Many, if not most, are not. They have no one to blame except their own government that sent them there.

The responsibility of the slaughter in both cases is obvious....the American government fueled by greed with absolutely no concern over the death and destruction they cause.

Wa'alaikum salam,
Hana
Reply

Keltoi
10-13-2006, 10:55 PM
Originally Posted by akulion
this was no mistake it seems - supplying chemical weapons is a mistake?

nah i dont think so and then to turn around and say they have WMD's? a mistake? lol

and then to top it off back the "oil for food program" despite knowing they are themselves guilty?

And the grandest of them all - declaring him an enemy despite knowing there were no WMD's and then waging war and killiong over 600000 (yes six hundred thousand casualties in Iraq) people ?

its no mistake in my view - its a long drawn out plot

once again i say read my last post in detial :D
There are quite a few misconceptions and falsehoods in your post.

(1) The U.S. did not "supply" chemical weapons to Saddam. The people that say this point to some industrial and agricultural chemicals that could have been altered to produce a chemical agent, which can be said about every country on Earth.

(2) WMD. You have to put the WMD debate in the context of a post-9-11 foreign policy. The greatest fear of the intelligence community in the U.S. was that a rogue regime would supply a terrorist group with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The international community had their intelligence agencies come up with the worst possible scenario, and each one, including Russia, France, Great Britain, and many more, felt that Saddam posed the greatest risk in this area. Saddam refused to cooperate in weapons inspections and the rest is history.

(3) Blaming the U.S. for the Oil for Food program is simply not based in reality. The problem with Oil for Food was Saddam himself, who instead of using these funds for his people's needs, built new palaces and increased military spending.

(4) Then we have the "600,000" Iraqi dead statistical estimate, which isn't about how many Iraqis were killed by Americans, it is about how many Iraqis have died from violent causes since the Iraq War began, ranging from criminal activity, Sunni and Shia death squads, stampedes at religious events, etc. Extremely misleading in this context.
Reply

akulion
10-13-2006, 10:58 PM
uuumm u didnt read my last post did u?

go back one page and read the long one i posted there with the pic of saddam and rumsfeld ;)
Reply

akulion
10-13-2006, 10:59 PM
I had a feeling u might ignore it again

so ill post it right here


Best Friends Saddam(Iraq Rep) & Rumsfeild (USA rep) shaking hands in Iraq while Saddam still slaughtered his own people yet USA was ok with it and even supplied arms and political backing to him back then, so why the sudden change?

If anyone has a hard time believing what I just said please read the following:
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]

August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives." [15]

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]

July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations". Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]

References:
1 Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
2 Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
3 Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
4 Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
5 ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
6 Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
7 Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
8 Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
9 Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
10 Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
11 Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
12 Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
13 Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
14 Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
15 Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
16 Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
17 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
18 Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
19 Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986
20 Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. www . gendercide . com
Reply

Keltoi
10-13-2006, 11:00 PM
Originally Posted by akulion
uuumm u didnt read my last post did u?

go back one page and read the long one i posted there with the pic of saddam and rumsfeld ;)
I've seen the photo plenty of times before, so what is your point?
Reply

akulion
10-13-2006, 11:02 PM
its not the photo i want u to look at

read the Post where it gives tonnes of evidence about how the US provided Saddam hussein with ALLLL the chemicals and chemical weapons he needed + more to keep in his fridge and the little fridge in his car as well
Reply

wilberhum
10-13-2006, 11:05 PM
Twenty years ago. Boy are you up on your news.
Reply

Keltoi
10-13-2006, 11:08 PM
Originally Posted by akulion
its not the photo i want u to look at

read the Post where it gives tonnes of evidence about how the US provided Saddam hussein with ALLLL the chemicals and chemical weapons he needed + more to keep in his fridge and the little fridge in his car as well
There isn't "tonnes(tons) of evidence" that the U.S. provided Saddam with "ALLLL" the chemical weapons he needed. The Iraqi Atomic Energy Agency imported some chemical agents that could be altered to create a chemical weapons agent. There was no "arms deal" resulting in the U.S. selling Saddam chemical weapons.
Reply

akulion
10-13-2006, 11:20 PM
un huh

ever heard about the Iran vs Iraq war?

And who was supplying weapons to whom?

Man come on wake up

The US jumped into Iraq because it KNEW they had nothing in there

But you wont see them step into Korea cos they KNOW he will kick their behind and their alies by simply using his WMD's

Wake up - no more fox news!
Reply

*Hana*
10-13-2006, 11:20 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
There are quite a few misconceptions and falsehoods in your post.

(1) The U.S. did not "supply" chemical weapons to Saddam. The people that say this point to some industrial and agricultural chemicals that could have been altered to produce a chemical agent, which can be said about every country on Earth.

(2) WMD. You have to put the WMD debate in the context of a post-9-11 foreign policy. The greatest fear of the intelligence community in the U.S. was that a rogue regime would supply a terrorist group with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The international community had their intelligence agencies come up with the worst possible scenario, and each one, including Russia, France, Great Britain, and many more, felt that Saddam posed the greatest risk in this area. Saddam refused to cooperate in weapons inspections and the rest is history.

(3) Blaming the U.S. for the Oil for Food program is simply not based in reality. The problem with Oil for Food was Saddam himself, who instead of using these funds for his people's needs, built new palaces and increased military spending.

(4) Then we have the "600,000" Iraqi dead statistical estimate, which isn't about how many Iraqis were killed by Americans, it is about how many Iraqis have died from violent causes since the Iraq War began, ranging from criminal activity, Sunni and Shia death squads, stampedes at religious events, etc. Extremely misleading in this context.
lol you know, you can be in denial all you want, but the USA was well aware of what Saddam was doing to his own people, not to mention the Iranian people.

The USA announced, well boasted actually, many times just a couple of months prior to 9/11, they knew FOR SURE Saddam did NOT have WMD and were absolutely NO threat to anyone INCLUDING their own neighbours. Woooo, how much can change in 2 months. ;) Saddam did co-operate with UN inspectors for a long time and the inspectors own reports prove there were NO WMD in Iraq and the USA knew it but ignored it because they needed a reason.

The USA is to blame for the disaster of the Food for Oil program, (you can read my post above).

The 600,000 dead Iraqis is probably grossly UNDERestimated, particularly if you combine that with the 10 years of sanctions. The amount of violence in Iraq wouldn't be there if not for the illegal invasion....led by who? Let me think....oh yes, the USA!!

Korea has been under a dictatorship for years. Do you have any idea the atrocities committed by Jong against his people? Why hasn't the USA done anything to "liberate" the North Koreans? The USA referred to Lukeshanko as "the last dictator", and they know he commits atrocities against his people too, so why aren't they "liberating" Belarusians? Maybe because the Russians wouldn't allow it???? Why are they not "liberating" the people in Uganda being slaughtered at the hands of the Lord's Liberation Army? Quite frankly, these small, impoverished countries don't have anything useful to offer the American government.

They knew Korea had nuclear capabilities, why didn't they do anything? Why didn't they do anything to Israel when Israel refused to allow UN inspectors in and in the end....they DID make nuclear weapons, but that was okie dokie, because the USA still needs them. ;)

Wasalam,
Hana
Reply

*Hana*
10-13-2006, 11:27 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Twenty years ago. Boy are you up on your news.
It's called a time line leading up to events? Ever hear of it? or are you one of those ones that just ignore it so you can better justify the atrocities commited today by burying your head in the sand? :rollseyes
Reply

wilberhum
10-13-2006, 11:32 PM
Oh ya, I forgot. Every bad thing in this world is caused by the US.
How forgetfull of me.
Reply

akulion
10-13-2006, 11:43 PM
well u just dont wana open ur eyes EVEN when presented with evidence

thats ur own fault man not mine

i dont give a rats popo about kim yung bung or whatever his name is

the issue that bugs me is "oh the valiant us is going to liberate the poor iraqis by bombing their country to high hell"

but as for the others who DO have WMD's and the US KNOWS they will get retaliation - the us is like a mouse in his mouse hole...Go liberate N.Korea, why dont they? after all the 'poor people of n.korea' are also suffering much i the same way
Reply

*Hana*
10-13-2006, 11:46 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Oh ya, I forgot. Every bad thing in this world is caused by the US.
How forgetfull of me.
Yes, very :p
Reply

doodlebug
10-13-2006, 11:47 PM
Originally Posted by akulion
un huh

ever heard about the Iran vs Iraq war?

And who was supplying weapons to whom?

Man come on wake up

The US jumped into Iraq because it KNEW they had nothing in there

But you wont see them step into Korea cos they KNOW he will kick their behind and their alies by simply using his WMD's

Wake up - no more fox news!

Are you serious? You seriously think that the US is scared of N. Koreah? It was proven today that the so called nuke wasn't even a nuke for goodness sakes. The reason we're not in N.Korea is that it's China and other countries' jobs to control that country...not ours for once.


The anti-US feelings on this site really give me pause. Are all of you not from the US? If so are your countries perfect?
Reply

akulion
10-13-2006, 11:51 PM
Originally Posted by doodlebug
Are you serious? You seriously think that the US is scared of N. Koreah? It was proven today that the so called nuke wasn't even a nuke for goodness sakes. The reason we're not in N.Korea is that it's China and other countries' jobs to control that country...not ours for once.


The anti-US feelings on this site really give me pause. Are all of you not from the US? If so are your countries perfect?
then why arent they there 'liberating' the n.koreans? lol

Actions my friend speak louder than any words

so why was it US job to control iraq? or maybe i missed the "big book on who has to take care of who book" which some celestial force sent out of the sky

if they are gona play "world police" well then police n.korea too...whose people are suffering even worse than in iraq

its a joke and u know it ;)
Reply

doodlebug
10-13-2006, 11:54 PM
Originally Posted by akulion
then why arent they there 'liberating' the n.koreans? lol

Actions my friend speak louder than any words

so why was it US job to control iraq? or maybe i missed the "big book on who has to take care of who book" which some celestial force sent out of the sky

if they are gona play "world police" well then police n.korea too...whose people are suffering even worse than in iraq

its a joke and u know it ;)
I never said it was our job to liberate Iraq. I was against the war in the first place. As a matter of fact I'd like all of the US forces to withdraw from every single country and put our focus on our OWN country for once. I want us out of Saudi, out of Iraq, out of Germany, out of EVERY COUNTRY. Let them all protect themselves for once and let our men and women come home!

it is not our job to police the world nor is it our job to provide the world with anything. If we stopped giving money out and focused on giving it to our own citizens we'd be a lot better off.
Reply

akulion
10-13-2006, 11:56 PM
I never said it was our job to liberate Iraq. I was against the war in the first place. As a matter of fact I'd like all of the US forces to withdraw from every single country and put our focus on our OWN country for once. I want us out of Saudi, out of Iraq, out of Germany, out of EVERY COUNTRY. Let them all protect themselves for once and let our men and women come home!

it is not our job to police the world nor is it our job to provide the world with anything. If we stopped giving money out and focused on giving it to our own citizens we'd be a lot better off.
now ur talkin my language - no one has a right to go around invading others and killion countless people

and for that Bush must hang!
Reply

doodlebug
10-13-2006, 11:58 PM
Originally Posted by akulion
now ur talkin my language - no one has a right to go around invading others and killion countless people

and for that Bush must hang!
Well there's where we differ since I am against the death penalty. Allah will judge all in due time. That is not our job, in my opinion.
Reply

akulion
10-13-2006, 11:59 PM
Death Penalty is the punishment for Murder in Islam

And so I completely agree with giving it to murderers like bush
Reply

*Hana*
10-14-2006, 12:04 AM
Originally Posted by doodlebug
Are you serious? You seriously think that the US is scared of N. Koreah? It was proven today that the so called nuke wasn't even a nuke for goodness sakes. The reason we're not in N.Korea is that it's China and other countries' jobs to control that country...not ours for once.


The anti-US feelings on this site really give me pause. Are all of you not from the US? If so are your countries perfect?
Salam Sister:

I didn't realize each country was given the job to control other countries? So, whose job is it to control the USA, because they've been seriously slacking. :giggling:

Sister, no one is against the American people at all. It is the American foreign policy that angers most. Surely you can see what your government is doing in the Middle East and the double standards it has for countries like Iraq, Palestine, Iran, etc., and the favouritism it has for Israel even though that country has done far worse things to its neighbours, AND to the USA I might add.

You have to be able to seperate the wrong your government does from the people. We aren't blaming the people, we blame your government.

Wasalam,
Hana
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2006, 12:12 AM
Since we have the blame America orgy out of the way, I would like to return to the topic. Since it seems now that the North Korean nuclear "test" was actually either a failed attempt or a complete fraud, I wonder if this will embolden international actions against North Korea or give China and Russia justification to ignore the problem another five years until they have a successful test. Doodlebug was actually correct in stating this is a Chinese and Japanese(not to mention South Korea)problem. China has the best connection to North Korea, so on the diplomatic front China has the best chance of stopping NK from continuing on this course.
Reply

akulion
10-14-2006, 12:17 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Since we have the blame America orgy out of the way, I would like to return to the topic. Since it seems now that the North Korean nuclear "test" was actually either a failed attempt or a complete fraud, I wonder if this will embolden international actions against North Korea or give China and Russia justification to ignore the problem another five years until they have a successful test. Doodlebug was actually correct in stating this is a Chinese and Japanese(not to mention South Korea)problem. China has the best connection to North Korea, so on the diplomatic front China has the best chance of stopping NK from continuing on this course.
so what the usa doing in south korea? lol

man u guys sure make spaghetti!
Reply

*Hana*
10-14-2006, 12:19 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Since we have the blame America orgy out of the way, I would like to return to the topic. Since it seems now that the North Korean nuclear "test" was actually either a failed attempt or a complete fraud, I wonder if this will embolden international actions against North Korea or give China and Russia justification to ignore the problem another five years until they have a successful test. Doodlebug was actually correct in stating this is a Chinese and Japanese(not to mention South Korea)problem. China has the best connection to North Korea, so on the diplomatic front China has the best chance of stopping NK from continuing on this course.
I'm still waiting to hear how a country with NO WMD in the Middle East was the USA's problem? The USA was quick to make N. Korea its problem by encouraging sanctions, that we all know doesn't work except to make innocents suffer.
Reply

akulion
10-14-2006, 12:22 AM
yea id like to know that too since we are deciding here "who is whose problem"

so id like to see the international charter of global policing and authority lines laid out in 1909 by general honky tonk
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2006, 12:23 AM
Originally Posted by akulion
so what the usa doing in south korea? lol

man u guys sure make spaghetti!
What? I don't know about spaghetti, although I do make a great chicken parmesan. I assume you are aware of a little thing called the Korean War way back in Roman times? Anyway, North Korea was stopped from taking over South Korea at the DMZ, and by agreement U.S. forces are stationed in South Korea to defend the DMZ. The point is to make sure the U.S. forces on the DMZ just sit around and eat noodles and rice.
Reply

akulion
10-14-2006, 12:25 AM
so once again we make a twist in the topic like spaghetti

since the korean war became the US's responsibility wouldnt that make n.korea us's direct rsponsibility as well?

or maybe they are defending the s.korens against the fishes who may attackk them from the sea and take over...invasion of the mermen :p
Reply

doodlebug
10-14-2006, 12:31 AM
Originally Posted by akulion
so once again we make a twist in the topic like spaghetti

since the korean war became the US's responsibility wouldnt that make n.korea us's direct rsponsibility as well?

or maybe they are defending the s.korens against the fishes who may attackk them from the sea and take over...invasion of the mermen :p
can i ask how old you are and if you studied any of Korea's history in school?
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2006, 12:31 AM
Originally Posted by akulion
so once again we make a twist in the topic like spaghetti

since the korean war became the US's responsibility wouldnt that make n.korea us's direct rsponsibility as well?

or maybe they are defending the s.korens against the fishes who may attackk them from the sea and take over...invasion of the mermen :p
The defense of South Korea in the event of an attack by the PRK is the U.S. responsibility. China has the best diplomatic relationship with North Korea and has the best chance of getting positive results. As a member of the U.N. security council, China has a veto power over any sanctions proposal against North Korea, so it makes sense that China has a larger role in making sure North Korea adheres to international pressure.
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2006, 12:35 AM
Uh oh...I just saw a report on the hated FOX news channel that radioactivity has been detected in one of the test areas....so I guess maybe it was nuclear. This is really bad news.
Reply

akulion
10-14-2006, 12:40 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
The defense of South Korea in the event of an attack by the PRK is the U.S. responsibility. China has the best diplomatic relationship with North Korea and has the best chance of getting positive results. As a member of the U.N. security council, China has a veto power over any sanctions proposal against North Korea, so it makes sense that China has a larger role in making sure North Korea adheres to international pressure.
but then again we come to the question "How was Iraq us's responsibility?"

lol i mean come on in one country they are sitting RIGHT next to the people and they dont do squat cos they know there is REAL threat

in the other they are sitting 1000's of miles away and go there cos they know there is NO REAL threat!

u just have to wak up man and stop watching fox news....its just a bunch of biased news...

u have to give up 'nationalistic feelings' for a minute to see the facts as they are. The US govt is guilty of the murder of over 600000 people in Iraq alone

so they must be brought to account (no wonder bush wants to change the war criminals act lol)

so wake up wake up - no more bill reily for u :p
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2006, 12:43 AM
Originally Posted by akulion
but then again we come to the question "How was Iraq us's responsibility?"

lol i mean come on in one country they are sitting RIGHT next to the people and they dont do squat cos they know there is REAL threat

in the other they are sitting 1000's of miles away and go there cos they know there is NO REAL threat!

u just have to wak up man and stop watching fox news....its just a bunch of biased news...

u have to give up 'nationalistic feelings' for a minute to see the facts as they are. The US govt is guilty of the murder of over 600000 people in Iraq alone

so they must be brought to account (no wonder bush wants to change the war criminals act lol)

so wake up wake up - no more bill reily for u :p
Talking about FOX news and blatantly stating falsehoods isn't going to convince me of anything. Many countries believed that Saddam Hussein and the WMD aspect were a threat to world security. The KGB, MI5, the CIA, all believed that Saddam was a threat. This revisionism that the U.S. "knew" there weren't WMD in Iraq is simply that, revisionism. I've already addressed the "600,000" issue and I don't feel the need to repeat myself.
Reply

akulion
10-14-2006, 12:49 AM
oh come on man!!!!
the US admitted before 9/11 they didnt have it
then afterwards suddenly they had it?
and UN inspectors said they didnt have it either
why do u think the world was so hesitant?
why do u think the UN ruled AGAINST the war?
dont lie
cos if ur going to lie then let me tell u something about lies and the truth
God has said in the torah, the injeel and the Quran in ALL books:
he does not love the liars and their punishment is they will live in their lies!

So dont tell me the 'world thought' because quite frankly the Us went AGAINST the UN's decision and wages war all the same.
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2006, 12:57 AM
Originally Posted by akulion
oh come on man!!!!
the US admitted before 9/11 they didnt have it
then afterwards suddenly they had it?
and UN inspectors said they didnt have it either
why do u think the world was so hesitant?
why do u think the UN ruled AGAINST the war?
dont lie
cos if ur going to lie then let me tell u something about lies and the truth
God has said in the torah, the injeel and the Quran in ALL books:
he does not love the liars and their punishment is they will live in their lies!

So dont tell me the 'world thought' because quite frankly the Us went AGAINST the UN's decision and wages war all the same.
Can you give me a link to your "proof" that the U.S. "knew before 9-11" that Iraq didn't have WMD? Because that is blatantly false. Weapons inspections were being blocked by Saddam Hussein throughout the late 1990's. President Clinton even launched attacks on Iraq because of this, and that Saddam Hussein broke the cease-fire aggreement, which makes your claim that the Iraq War was "illegal" null and void by the way.
Reply

akulion
10-14-2006, 01:08 AM
u dont even take the evidence i give u like in my last longgg post! so whats the sence of producing one link or millions of them?

the simple fact is that before 9-11 do we hear USA going on and on about WMD's in Iraq? No we dont! Then suddenly it is! Why?

Why is the US not harping on and waging war in N.Korea now? After all the people there are sufering too under a dictotor and he HAS WMD's - why not attack them?

u are even justifying the murder of 600000 people just like that without any sort of backing and any sort of proof or links or anything - murder is murder my dear sir and u nor the entire world can justify the huge numbers of old men, women and children who have been killed in Iraq with ANY sort of justification.

Because if u say to me "thats colletaral damage" then ill say to u "oh osama was only trying to kill one dude, the rest was collotaral damage too"

i have to say - u are very very wrong and u dont even admit when ur wrong..one min ur talking about "n.korea' not being us's responsibility and I ask u then how was iraq..u just sideline it.

then u say the world knew about the wmd's i said the UN apposed it and u side line it.

u never even admitted to being wrong about the chemical weapons after i gave u a whole article about it.

really u need to back up your statements more - rather than me having "accept them" or otherwise take my statements too ;)
Reply

*Hana*
10-14-2006, 01:12 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Talking about FOX news and blatantly stating falsehoods isn't going to convince me of anything. Many countries believed that Saddam Hussein and the WMD aspect were a threat to world security. The KGB, MI5, the CIA, all believed that Saddam was a threat. This revisionism that the U.S. "knew" there weren't WMD in Iraq is simply that, revisionism. I've already addressed the "600,000" issue and I don't feel the need to repeat myself.
Why don't you read over these quotes starting from 2001, PRIOR to 9/11, and see how your government changes it's mind and song over time, then tell us who he was TRYING to convince, considering no one, except Britain would join forces due to lack of proof. Not to mention he went against the UN!!

Colin Powell, February 2001: "[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq."

Condoleeza Rice, July 2001: "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

and let's move on to 2003, shall we....

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

George Galloway:

Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies."

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, [Paul Wolfowitz] said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." [Guardian 4/6/2003]
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2006, 01:13 AM
Originally Posted by akulion
u dont even take the evidence i give u like in my last longgg post! so whats the sence of producing one link or millions of them?

the simple fact is that before 9-11 do we hear USA going on and on about WMD's in Iraq? No we dont! Then suddenly it is! Why?

Why is the US not harping on and waging war in N.Korea now? After all the people there are sufering too under a dictotor and he HAS WMD's - why not attack them?

u are even justifying the murder of 600000 people just like that without any sort of backing and any sort of proof or links or anything - murder is murder my dear sir and u nor the entire world can justify the huge numbers of old men, women and children who have been killed in Iraq with ANY sort of justification.

Because if u say to me "thats colletaral damage" then ill say to u "oh osama was only trying to kill one dude, the rest was collotaral damage too"

i have to say - u are very very wrong and u dont even admit when ur wrong..one min ur talking about "n.korea' not being us's responsibility and I ask u then how was iraq..u just sideline it.

then u say the world knew about the wmd's i said the UN apposed it and u side line it.

u never even admitted to being wrong about the chemical weapons after i gave u a whole article about it.

really u need to back up your statements more - rather than me having "accept them" or otherwise take my statements too ;)
Your mentioning things you stated and then state something else completely unrelated and call that "evidence". What the U.N. supports or doesn't support has very little to do with whether international intelligence agencies reported that Saddam possessed WMD. The U.N. couldn't agree its way out of a brown paper bag. As for chemical weapons, I made the distinction between importing chemicals and the manufacture of chemical weapon agents. There is a vital distinction. Now, I re-read many of your long posts, and found nothing as evidence that the U.S. "knew" Iraq didn't possess WMD before 9-11. Would you like to try again?
Reply

akulion
10-14-2006, 01:15 AM
and just to let u know how 'right' you are bout the 'world knowing and backing the us'

here are some extracts:

China
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said the military operation violated the principles of international law.

"They ignored the opposition of most countries and peoples of the world and went around the UN Security Council to being military action against Iraq," he added.
Vatican
The Vatican said it was "deeply pained" by the conflict and deplored the interruption of peace efforts.
Russia
Mr Putin urged the US to halt what he called the unjustifiable attack on Iraq - an attack which questioned a basic principle of world order.

"If we install the rule of force in place of international security structures, no country in the world will feel secure," Mr Putin said.
France
President Jacques Chirac of France expressed regret at the launch of hostilities without UN backing.
The world in general
The start of war against Iraq has drawn a barrage of criticism from leaders around the world and brought thousands of demonstrators onto the streets.
Source

So if you can justify THAT then u are totally warped! honestly (no offence)
Reply

akulion
10-14-2006, 01:16 AM
there u go keloti read hana_aku's post

there is ur evidence

now lets hear u deny that too and PROVE that u are a liar :p
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2006, 01:19 AM
in response to Hana_aku....I'm glad you mentioned the statements of Colin Powell in this discussion. The belief prior to 9-11 was that Iraq was "contained". Which means Iraq cannot pose a threat to its neighbors. Now, zoom forward after 9-11. The situation and the security risks on the radar have changed. No longer is an Iraq with WMD invading its neighbors the concern, it is terrorist groups and their ability to obtain WMD. After 9-11, world intelligence agencies reevaluated their own threats, and all the major intelligence agencies agreed that there was a high risk of Saddam Hussein handing off WMD to a terrorist organization. These reports in hindsight are now known to be false. However, after 9-11 there was a sense of urgency, and many intelligence reports mislead honored and respected military and civian leaders, like Colin Powell. Comparing pre-911 thoughts on U.S. security and post-9-11 thoughts on U.S. security is apples and oranges.
Reply

akulion
10-14-2006, 01:21 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
in response to Hana_aku....I'm glad you mentioned the statements of Colin Powell in this discussion. The belief prior to 9-11 was that Iraq was "contained". Which means Iraq cannot pose a threat to its neighbors. Now, zoom forward after 9-11. The situation and the security risks on the radar have changed. No longer is an Iraq with WMD invading its neighbors the concern, it is terrorist groups and their ability to obtain WMD. After 9-11, world intelligence agencies reevaluated their own threats, and all the major intelligence agencies agreed that there was a high risk of Saddam Hussein handing off WMD to a terrorist organization. These reports in hindsight are now known to be false. However, after 9-11 there was a sense of urgency, and many intelligence reports mislead honored and respected military and civian leaders, like Colin Powell. Comparing pre-911 thoughts on U.S. security and post-9-11 thoughts on U.S. security is apples and oranges.
STOP!!!!

Your word is NOT a citation - ur not 'Mr. Encyclopedia'

Since u are so eager to ask for "links and evidence'
please produce the same

otherwise this debate is quite frankly over based on the weight of citations, quotes and evidences we have presented VERSUS your word with no citations, no quotes and nothing at all!
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2006, 01:23 AM
Originally Posted by akulion
and just to let u know how 'right' you are bout the 'world knowing and backing the us'

here are some extracts:

China


Vatican


Russia


France


The world in general


Source

So if you can justify THAT then u are totally warped! honestly (no offence)
It isn't the fault of the U.S. that the members of the Security Council weren't willing to back up their own Resolution 1441. Thankfully, the U.S. and the U.K were willing to put a little bite in the U.N.'s weakening bark.
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2006, 01:26 AM
Originally Posted by akulion
STOP!!!!

Your word is NOT a citation - ur not 'Mr. Encyclopedia'

Since u are so eager to ask for "links and evidence'
please produce the same

otherwise this debate is quite frankly over based on the weight of citations, quotes and evidences we have presented VERSUS your word with no citations, no quotes and nothing at all!
What would you like links to exactly? I would be more than happy to supply them if you tell which portion of my text you want a link to support.
Reply

akulion
10-14-2006, 01:29 AM
man im so sorry that u cannot see the truth!

The UN opposed the WAR - The Us went against UN resolution - period

There are no 2 ways about it.

either the US follows UN or dosent - if it dosent then it should be telling others about "un decisions"

i just wish that as a humab being u would please let ur nationalistic feelings down and see what is going on.

Once again u have failed to produce any evidence or any citations or any quotes or anything.

I simply cannot accept this double standard in this debate that I MUST take ur word as being "the absolute truth" yet my word is treated as if it is "lies" even after providing all the evidence!

Sadly you are only decieveing urself - u really need to think more deeply

Since u asked - the links i would like are counter argument links to all the things I provided - my quotes, and my arguments and their counter arguments

to check up on them just read back - including hana_aku's posts ;)
Reply

*Hana*
10-14-2006, 01:31 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
in response to Hana_aku....I'm glad you mentioned the statements of Colin Powell in this discussion. The belief prior to 9-11 was that Iraq was "contained". Which means Iraq cannot pose a threat to its neighbors. Now, zoom forward after 9-11. The situation and the security risks on the radar have changed. No longer is an Iraq with WMD invading its neighbors the concern, it is terrorist groups and their ability to obtain WMD. After 9-11, world intelligence agencies reevaluated their own threats, and all the major intelligence agencies agreed that there was a high risk of Saddam Hussein handing off WMD to a terrorist organization. These reports in hindsight are now known to be false. However, after 9-11 there was a sense of urgency, and many intelligence reports mislead honored and respected military and civian leaders, like Colin Powell. Comparing pre-911 thoughts on U.S. security and post-9-11 thoughts on U.S. security is apples and oranges.
Show me where Powell said it was "contained" to not effect his neighbours but is a threat to the USA......a gazillion miles away. Show me where Iraq is linked to Al Qaeda? "World Intelligence" lied and the USA did admit that, and show us proof the world accepted Bush's invasion because of these "newly created threats". Why are you changing it?? You obviously didn't read what I posted. Clearly, when they invaded they were still insisting on WMD being in Iraq. Iraq was not a threat to the USA prior to 9/11 nor after 9/11. YOUR GOVERNMENT LIED MAN!!!!!!!! Go read something that's posted instead of trying to justify an illegal war.

We provide clear proofs and evidences and you blow smoke out your butt with your own opinions trying to justify the slaughter of over 600,000 Iraqi civilians. It's bad enough your government did this, and thankfully the vast majority of Americans know it and admit it, but for you to sit at your pc and try to justify it when the truth is slapping you in the face, is just pathetic.

Why don't you stand in front of all the American soldiers in Iraq and tell them what you have just said here? Trust me, you wouldn't be standing for long....even they know they are being slaughtered because of lies.

Hana
Reply

akulion
10-14-2006, 01:31 AM
PS: since u may have a lot to research
we can continue tomorrow since I have to get going anyways.

aku
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2006, 01:37 AM
Originally Posted by akulion
man im so sorry that u cannot see the truth!

The UN opposed the WAR - The Us went against UN resolution - period

There are no 2 ways about it.

either the US follows UN or dosent - if it dosent then it should be telling others about "un decisions"

i just wish that as a humab being u would please let ur nationalistic feelings down and see what is going on.

Once again u have failed to produce any evidence or any citations or any quotes or anything.

I simply cannot accept this double standard in this debate that I MUST take ur word as being "the absolute truth" yet my word is treated as if it is "lies" even after providing all the evidence!

Sadly you are only decieveing urself - u really need to think more deeply

Since u asked - the links i would like are counter argument links to all the things I provided - my quotes, and my arguments and their counter arguments

to check up on them just read back - including hana_aku's posts ;)
You post facts and then lace them with your own opinion which isn't backed up by the fact in question. Here is an example. You stated that the U.N. didn't support military action in Iraq(which is true), you then take that fact and use it to support your assertion that global intelligence agencies didn't point to a threat in Iraq. Here is something from the Council on Foreign Relations....
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200603...r-in-iraq.html

The administration defended itself by pointing out that it was not alone in its view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and active weapons programs, however mistaken that view may have been.

In this regard, the Bush administration was quite right: its perception of Saddam's weapons capacities was shared by the Clinton administration, congressional Democrats, and most other Western governments and intelligence services.

This article isn't a pro-Bush article in the least, but points to the accuracy of my assertion that many intelligence agencies agreed that Saddam possessed WMD capability.
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2006, 01:40 AM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Show me where Powell said it was "contained" to not effect his neighbours but is a threat to the USA......a gazillion miles away. Show me where Iraq is linked to Al Qaeda? "World Intelligence" lied and the USA did admit that, and show us proof the world accepted Bush's invasion because of these "newly created threats". Why are you changing it?? You obviously didn't read what I posted. Clearly, when they invaded they were still insisting on WMD being in Iraq. Iraq was not a threat to the USA prior to 9/11 nor after 9/11. YOUR GOVERNMENT LIED MAN!!!!!!!! Go read something that's posted instead of trying to justify an illegal war.

We provide clear proofs and evidences and you blow smoke out your butt with your own opinions trying to justify the slaughter of over 600,000 Iraqi civilians. It's bad enough your government did this, and thankfully the vast majority of Americans know it and admit it, but for you to sit at your pc and try to justify it when the truth is slapping you in the face, is just pathetic.

Why don't you stand in front of all the American soldiers in Iraq and tell them what you have just said here? Trust me, you wouldn't be standing for long....even they know they are being slaughtered because of lies.

Hana
I stand in front of Marines every day and we actually discuss these things. So don't use that tactic. The rest is just emotional, so there is nothing to address there.
Reply

*Hana*
10-14-2006, 01:55 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
I stand in front of Marines every day and we actually discuss these things. So don't use that tactic. The rest is just emotional, so there is nothing to address there.
Then go tell them they're just being emotional. Tell them they should enjoy giving up their lives because of lies, I'm sure they would appreciate it. ;)

LOL you choose that one sentence of my post to comment on. Provide the proofs I requested in the first half of the post. :)
Reply

akulion
10-14-2006, 02:00 AM
im back - lemme read ur link ^o)


....much later.....

Very interesting article :uhwhat
it only proves what ive been saying all along...

quotes from your very own article:

If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath. What is most remarkable about prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong and thereby misled policymakers; it is that it played so small a role in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in recent decades.
aha intelligence of agencies VS intelligence of Bush.... :hiding:

The Bush administration's use of intelligence on Iraq did not just blur this distinction; it turned the entire model upside down. The administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made. It went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq.
un huh so like i said bush and his administration were doing everything wrongly cos they had it all planned all along :D see even ur article points that out!

Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war. On the issue that mattered most, the intelligence community judged that Iraq probably was several years away from developing a nuclear weapon. The October 2002 NIE also judged that Saddam was unlikely to use WMD against the United States unless his regime was placed in mortal danger.
so since Bush attacked - according to intelligance reports one could say he was creating a bigger threat to the US than Saddam hussein was :mmokay:

The Bush administration deviated from the professional standard not only in using policy to drive intelligence, but also in aggressively using intelligence to win public support for its decision to go to war. This meant selectively adducing data -- "cherry-picking" -- rather than using the intelligence community's own analytic judgments.
and then the article goes on and on and on to prove my points further :uuh:

so atleast now wake up and admit it man!

im not against YOU - im against what bush and his admin are doing
I dont hate AMERICANS, but i most certainly do hate Bush and his Admin

thats why im saying to u wakeup :uhwhat and open them eyes :uuh:
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2006, 02:13 AM
I'm not here to defend any decision by George W. Bush, which is why I posted that article in the first place. The point is that intelligence (that we now know is faulty) led to the decision for War in Iraq. The fact that Bush and his administration wanted Saddam Hussein out of the picture as a policy matter is beside the point. In the U.S. it is up to Congress to authorize military action, and by looking at the intelligence available there was enough evidence to point to a "clear and present danger". I do not and did not support the Iraq War in the beginning, but now I'm left with little choice but to support a positive outcome. The article is an opinion by a political scientist, not the gospel. The point of the article was to show the common knowledge on this topic, which was that pre-war intelligence, rightly or wrongly, pointed to a threat inside Iraq.
Reply

*Hana*
10-14-2006, 02:14 AM
Oh, I feel I should make one correction. When we make a mistake we must correct ourselves and you are correct about 600,000 not being accurate.

According to THIS ARTICLE FROM THE BBC , the number is actually, 655,000 since 2003.

An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion, according to a survey by a US university.

Hana
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2006, 02:20 AM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Oh, I feel I should make one correction. When we make a mistake we must correct ourselves and you are correct about 600,000 not being accurate.

According to THIS ARTICLE FROM THE BBC , the number is actually, 655,000 since 2003.

An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion, according to a survey by a US university.

Hana
Completely misleading in the context you are using. As I've stated many times today, which is obvious if one actually reads this report in its full form, the majority of these deaths are not related to U.S. combat action. They are related to the breakdown of civil order and Iraqis butchering each other, which the U.S. is partly to blame for I agree. However, using this number in the context of U.S. combat action is extremely misleading. From the best estimates, between 30,000 and 60,000 Iraqis have died as a result of U.S. bombing and combat action. Still a huge number, but not nearly the 655,000 you would like to blame the U.S. military for.
Reply

akulion
10-14-2006, 02:21 AM
The intelligence was not faulty - it was the bush administration USING it and portraying what they wanted to show the public which is the real issue:

The Bush administration deviated from the professional standard not only in using policy to drive intelligence, but also in aggressively using intelligence to win public support for its decision to go to war. This meant selectively adducing data -- "cherry-picking" -- rather than using the intelligence community's own analytic judgments.
The intelligence was ALL in favour of NO WAR.
But bush and his admin USED the people..just like it says and now the world knows.

So you see that is why I oppose the decisions of Bush and his administration - and I believe that they are simply war mongers and nothing else. And in my personal opinion are war criminals and murderers.

Because to you the death of 655000 (as hana pointed out) may be a small matter

But to me that is a HUGE MATTER!
Reply

akulion
10-14-2006, 02:24 AM
From the best estimates, between 30,000 and 60,000 Iraqis have died as a result of U.S. bombing and combat action. Still a huge number, but not nearly the 655,000 you would like to blame the U.S. military for.
that is according to FOX news my dear sir

thats according to BUSH

the REAL estimate are now coming forth from the REAL news agencies like BBC and CNN and other sources who are actually doing research like the uni mentioned in the article and amnesty international. Bush and his 'alliances sources are ofcourse insisting 'oh its only 30000 to 40000 nothing more"

Like I said:

:uuh: :uuh: :uuh: Wake up:uuh: :uuh: :uuh:
And open them eyes
open eyesme
(open sesme)

Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2006, 02:26 AM
Originally Posted by akulion
that is according to FOX news my dear sir

thats according to BUSH

the REAL estimate are now coming forth from the REAL news agencies like BBC and CNN and other sources who are actually doing research like the uni mentioned in the article and amnesty international.

Like I said:

:uuh: :uuh: :uuh: Wake up:uuh: :uuh: :uuh:
And open them eyes
open eyesme
(open sesme)
http://www.userbars.net/forum/images/smiles/ashamed.gif

Overall, the study found 55% of deaths since March 2003 were due to violence. Of that subset, 56% resulted from gunshots; car bombs and other explosives accounted for 27%, and airstrikes caused 13%. The rest were due to other factors.

I know it is boring and not as dramatic to look at the details, but perhaps you should try.

Here is an article that puts this in context....and it isn't your whipping boy FOX...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15215574/
Reply

akulion
10-14-2006, 02:31 AM
once again - according to the bush admin that figure is true but not according to research.

bush comments on this issue:

"I stand by the figure that a lot of innocent people have lost their life... and that troubles me, and it grieves me," Mr Bush told reporters at the White House.

"Six-hundred thousand or whatever they guessed at is just... it's not credible," Mr Bush said.
coming from a man who didnt even know who the president of Pakistan was Quote "Its that dictator guy" - I wouldnt take his word for anything

im surprised he even knows how many fingers he has


Reply

*Hana*
10-14-2006, 02:32 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Completely misleading in the context you are using. As I've stated many times today, which is obvious if one actually reads this report in its full form, the majority of these deaths are not related to U.S. combat action. They are related to the breakdown of civil order and Iraqis butchering each other, which the U.S. is partly to blame for I agree. However, using this number in the context of U.S. combat action is extremely misleading. From the best estimates, between 30,000 and 60,000 Iraqis have died as a result of U.S. bombing and combat action. Still a huge number, but not nearly the 655,000 you would like to blame the U.S. military for.
LOL you really don't like to read articles do you. :P That article is QUESTIONING the results given by the US Military and the way the numbers were compiled. If you read the article you would see where this USA research group, saw actual death certificates from 80%!!!

The USA illegal invasion is what caused the entire mess in Iraq!!!!!!!!!!!!
You really believe only 60,000 people died in Iraq? lool You're in major denial. I guess you also believe the usa only lost 2500 soldiers too?

We tried to make you see the truth man, you just refuse to see it. Keep your blinders on, that choice is yours, but based on your line of reasoning, don't question the people that were responsible for 9/11. They felt threatened by the USA and must have had their reasons, and who's to say they weren't even more justified with their "intelligence". It doesn't matter if it was twisted, right?? And what the heck, compared to 60,000, 3,000 must seem easy. Not even that many soldiers died in the war according to your gov't. And it doesn't even matter that the Iraqi citizens were completely innocent of any crime....just like those that lost their lives on 9/11. Nope, doesn't matter at all, as long as we can twist and juggle the truth to make it fit the agenda, right?

So, that's it, there are no more words. :)

Hana
Reply

akulion
10-14-2006, 02:37 AM
The thing is the Bush admin will ALWAYS tell you:

oh we only killed 23 afghanis - the rest of the 300000+ died of influenza

and in iraq we only kiled 40,000 the rest ded of car bombs

they HAVE to because otherwise they KNOW sooner or later they will face war crime charges because this war was totally unjustified!

wether the figure is 10 - 200 - 20000 or 2 billion
Murder is murder!

and unless u can accept that - then there is no hope!

Well now I have to go because I already came back once just cos it was intereesting

but now i really must attent to "customer support" questions down at Tiny Portal - where im a volunteer support guy
Reply

*Hana*
10-14-2006, 02:40 AM
:rollseyes WOW, how far off topic did we go.

We're gonna get a finger slappin' for this one. :cry: perhaps, we could move these posts to a new thread? :? And ummm, sorry, for drifting so far off course. :embarrass

Hana
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2006, 02:40 AM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
LOL you really don't like to read articles do you. :P That article is QUESTIONING the results given by the US Military and the way the numbers were compiled. If you read the article you would see where this USA research group, saw actual death certificates from 80%!!!

The USA illegal invasion is what caused the entire mess in Iraq!!!!!!!!!!!!
You really believe only 60,000 people died in Iraq? lool You're in major denial. I guess you also believe the usa only lost 2500 soldiers too?

We tried to make you see the truth man, you just refuse to see it. Keep your blinders on, that choice is yours, but based on your line of reasoning, don't question the people that were responsible for 9/11. They felt threatened by the USA and must have had their reasons, and who's to say they weren't even more justified with their "intelligence". It doesn't matter if it was twisted, right?? And what the heck, compared to 60,000, 3,000 must seem easy. Not even that many soldiers died in the war according to your gov't. And it doesn't even matter that the Iraqi citizens were completely innocent of any crime....just like those that lost their lives on 9/11. Nope, doesn't matter at all, as long as we can twist and juggle the truth to make it fit the agenda, right?

So, that's it, there are no more words. :)

Hana
No more words? That is probably for the best since you have fallen back to conspiracy theories. I don't support U.S. involvment in Iraq, but I also don't support misleading statements and emotional conjecture. I'm sorry that I can't agree with you, and I know you honestly believe some of the things you state. No hard feelings I hope.
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2006, 02:44 AM
Originally Posted by akulion
The thing is the Bush admin will ALWAYS tell you:

oh we only killed 23 afghanis - the rest of the 300000+ died of influenza

and in iraq we only kiled 40,000 the rest ded of car bombs

they HAVE to because otherwise they KNOW sooner or later they will face war crime charges because this war was totally unjustified!

wether the figure is 10 - 200 - 20000 or 2 billion
Murder is murder!

and unless u can accept that - then there is no hope! http://img52.exs.cx/img52/7849/ambulance6zx.gif

Well now I have to go because I already came back once just cos it was intereesting

but now i really must attent to "customer support" questions down at Tiny Portal - where im a volunteer support guy
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...ning/chewy.gif
The Bush administration doesn't have as much control of released information as you seem to believe. It doesn't matter what Bush says when there are a variety of well respected organizations who attempt to estimate the cost of conflict. The majority of these organzations put the number around 30,000 to 60,000 Iraqis killed as a direct result of U.S. military action. This is a high number and is horrible to contemplate, but the recently released study is considered "dramatically too high" by the majority of these well-known organizations.
Reply

*Hana*
10-14-2006, 02:45 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
No more words? That is probably for the best since you have fallen back to conspiracy theories. I don't support U.S. involvment in Iraq, but I also don't support misleading statements and emotional conjecture. I'm sorry that I can't agree with you, and I know you honestly believe some of the things you state. No hard feelings I hope.
No hard feelings at all, but if you would like to explain the conspiracy theory, I'd listen. LOOOL Listen, we presented FACTS from RELIABLE, KNOWN sources. You speak on your opinion and beliefs and the only "proof" you provided only managed to prove OUR point. We presented facts, if I were giving you my emotional side, my post would run for pages. :p So, like I said, wear your blinders, join in the celebration of slaughter with your government, it's up to you. No hard feelings. :)

hana
Reply

akulion
10-14-2006, 02:49 AM
well anyways wether 40000 or 600000 no one TRULY knows

why?

simply because no ones been goin around counting bodies plus who kows how many are dead under rubble and been incenirated by bombs dropped on them (the 20thousand pound bombs dropped on cities)

so in the end

id just like to say - Bush is a murderer and he must hang for it.

Salam Alaikum :)
bro aku

PS: just to say b4 i leave: ur very unfair in ur debate skills, since u expect everyone else to take ur word but everyone else must provide evidence. And even after evidence is provided to u, u dont give in.
Reply

Woodrow
10-14-2006, 01:11 PM
When a thread has gone this far off topic I can only come to the conclusion that the original topic has been thoroughly discussed and there is no further need for discussion.

:offtopic:


:threadclo
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-29-2009, 11:38 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-05-2006, 04:38 AM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-06-2006, 12:20 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-05-2006, 11:16 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-07-2006, 02:34 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!