North Korea Conducts Successful nuclear test

[doodlebug]

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

can i ask how old you are and if you studied any of Korea's history in school?

 

[Keltoi]

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

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.

 

[Keltoi]

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.

 

[akulion]

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

 

[Keltoi]

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

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.

 

[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.

 

[Keltoi]

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.

 

[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

 

[*Hana*]

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]

 

[Keltoi]

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?

 

[akulion]

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)

 

[akulion]

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

 

[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.

 

[akulion]

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!

 

[Keltoi]

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.

 

[Keltoi]

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.

 

[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

 

[*Hana*]

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

 

[akulion]

PS: since u may have a lot to research
we can continue tomorrow since I have to get going anyways.

aku

 

[Keltoi]

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/20060.../intelligence-policy-and-the-war-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.