You wish the US was focusing on that [NK] rather than Iraq. How much focus is the rest of the world putting on dealing with NK, including your country? I've never understood the double-speak of people who want the US to take command [make right] the problems that are created by other countries....but then scream bloody murder when we do think there's a threat and they don't agree with US. A double standard, as I see it.
Yes, NK is presenting a pretty big threat right now. So why can't the whole rest of the world deal with them if they believe it's such a threat? Why is the US the ONLY one who can deal with this?
______________
And to those who support Bush sitting down RIGHT NOW and negotating with this madman, what would you have him negotiate? His demands are we agree to never be agressive towards him, no matter what he does. He demands that he be allowed to continue with the NW production. And he still wants us to continue the financial support we were previously giving him. That or get out of SK and let him take over so his economy will survive.
I never see any answers on these subjects....just criticism on what we do or don't do and it's always we've done it wrong.
____________________
NTS - I couldn't agree with you more. It does get REAL old listing to all the bad things we do...while they enjoy the full benefits of what our country offers. Well said.
By a broad definition, there are 193 countries in the world and 191 of those countries are members of the U.N. The other two countries are Taiwan and Vatican City.
Yes, I think that the U.N. carries more weight than the U.S. in determining what is "right" for this entire planet.
posted on March 8, 2003 10:50:33 PM new
Linda, I think North Korea is more likely to aim nuclear weapons at the U.S. than at Canada. Ditto for any nations that buy such weapons from North Korea, particularly since your President seems hellbent on pissing off the entire world.
Unfortunately, nuclear fallout doesn't respect national boundaries and we're right next door to you.
posted on March 8, 2003 10:54:18 PM new
And what would you have Canada do about Korea, Linda? Break our commitment to the U.S. and not send our troups to Afganistan this summer and send them to Korea instead?
posted on March 8, 2003 10:54:57 PM new
You're right Irene....and we're dealing with it the way this administration chooses to. So my point was if you don't like it, or if you feel threatened that if the US does get attacked that it will 'spill' over to you...then the way I see it is you DO have a vested interest and maybe your country should step up to the plate to see it doesn't happen.
posted on March 8, 2003 10:58:00 PM new
What would I have you do? Go the the UN who you so whole heartedly appear to support, and file a protest to get the whole UN working on dealing with this idiot. Not sit back and complain the US isn't doing what you [collectively] think it should be doing.
posted on March 8, 2003 11:02:26 PM new
Linda, re-read my post. I didn't say what the U.S. ought to be doing, I stated what I wished it was doing. Big difference.
posted on March 8, 2003 11:09:44 PM new
Linda, great point you made above. The world gets pissed off when we take charge and fix the problems of the world. But if we don't do it who will?
What are the other countries doing about North Korea? Not a damn thing.
posted on March 8, 2003 11:10:24 PM new
Yes, Irene, I know that. It's the way I word my posts sometimes.
But your main point was you feel more threatened by NK and you wished we were doing something about the situation. And we are. We're trying to let other countries step up to the plate and object to what NK is trying to do. If your premise of the UN being more able to decide what's best for the whole world, better that the US, then that's who should be dealing with this threat.
But as usually happens, the US ends up taking the responsibility and all we get is criticism for doing so. But we have made the world a better place. And if no one else in the whole world can deal with changing the NK leaders mind...then we will. Just as Reamond, and others, have stated. And if it comes down to that...then we will.
posted on March 8, 2003 11:18:17 PM new
Linda, I do think you're wrong. As I stated in my earlier post, I do think other countries would be a lot more supportive to the U.S. with respect to North Korea. By supportive, I mean providing military support. So how would the U.S. be taking all the responsibility and criticism in that situation?
posted on March 8, 2003 11:24:54 PM new
Thank you ebayauctionguy. I hope my posts to Irene weren't coming off as only debating with her, because many have shared her exact same thoughts/opinions. I was using her as my sounding board.
If the UN resolutions had worked we wouldn't be in the position we are now. The collective whole of the UN would have worked to disarm Saddam.
But as we see it's not in SOME countries best interest to support us in disarming Saddam. So they don't. Then we take the blame for FINALLY doing something about it.
And the same thing now with NK. If the whole world would be against NK not making and selling NWs, then it wouldn't be happening either. But it appears once again everyone's just going to watch and see what we do and then criticize that. Even American's.
posted on March 8, 2003 11:33:25 PM new
Irene - I understand you think that will happen. It very well may. What you don't seem to want to see is that this idiot [NK] refuses to talk to anyone other than the US. And I personally support Bush's stance that he's not going to agree to do so because there would be no point in it. But if the UN did get protests from many countries, then maybe, just maybe this jerk would see the light. If he doesn't or he attacks us first....he will pay the price.
-------------
donny - So unlike you to put words in my mouth. Yes, I very much support this administrations stance and won't apologize for that. You have some solutions to the problems that you'd like to see the US take?
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 8, 2003 11:37 PM ]
posted on March 8, 2003 11:34:14 PM new
You're absolutely right. If all of the countries worked together against Iraq, the sanctions probably would've worked. The UN is a joke.
posted on March 8, 2003 11:51:21 PM new
Yes, ebayauctionguy, that's why I personally don't think the US needs to get their approval. They're the
'world group' who some believe should make these decisions, not the US alone. But we see what's come of that for the past 12 years, now haven't we? And even thought the UN security council voted 15-0 in agreement that they need to disarm....who's showing the courage to do this?....who has in the last 12 years? Answer: NO ONE.
And on NK, there's nothing stopping any country from filing a protest against NK actions. NOTHING. But are they? How many countries do you see are willing to stick their necks out? So....some say...let's take it to the UN. You'll have more support there. Well....we HAD support for Saddam being forced to disarm. Now look what's happening. And yes, we might get full support on the NK nuclear issue...but again when it comes down to who's going to enforce it.....guess who? We're already being criticized for not being willing to negotiate with his idiot. But you notice.....there are no suggestions/answers to my questions on how they'd deal with with this. How can you negociate with this leader? Or would they agree to all this madman's demands just to have what??????? peace? no war? Peace at any price? I hope not.
posted on March 8, 2003 11:52:00 PM new
I didn't put all those words in your mouth, Linda. You stated - "We made the world a better place." And I disagree.
So we're the world's only Superpower... How did that happen? Not only by us making ourselves stronger, but by us making other countries weaker, and keeping them that way.
When Bush said that North Korea was a regional problem and that therefore other countries in the region should handle it, you'd have to laugh, wouldn't you? Japan and South Korea are in no position to defend themselves... and we put them in that position.
I used to be a solidly no nukes type of guy. Now I'm starting to think it'd be much better if more countries had them, and had the means to deliver them. I don't trust any nation to use great power for great good. I trust more in checks to keep too much power from doing too much evil.
posted on March 9, 2003 12:13:02 AM new
donny - Sure you did when you made the statement 'now love it or leave it' because I didn't say that. When I said we've done a lot of good, I feel that way. A pride I have in my country. That's not the same as love it or leave it. I appreciate the good we have done.
You disagree? Fine. But no, I don't laugh at Bush expecting those in the area to stand up and be counted. And if you've read recently, the NK leader says his weapons can reach our country and has made mention of Chicago, Washington and NY. We all feel the same threat. NK is a threat to the whole world. We should not be the only one's who have to deal with that.
Can SK and Japan protect themselves? I dont' know. Just a couple of months ago SK was requesting we remove our troops. Matter of fact I think they were in the streets protesting our presense there. Today they want them our troops to stay. That's because they want our protection, when just a couple of months ago they felt our troops being there were interferring with their peace with NK. So which is it?
On Japan...I think you'd be surprised as to how strong Japan is. Our forces are there. Our son was stationed there for 2 years. Their not weak.
So am I correct in hearing you say that you believe other countries should have NW too? I would strongly disagree. Other countries do have NW but they don't have leaders like NK and Iraq either. China still remains a BIG threat to us. And if we ever expect to see the MAJOR countries start disarment of NW that won't happen if more little, non-democracies start production. You have read that recently Russia and the US have agreed to start decreasing their NW haven't you? I wouldn't expect that to continue IF other nations were just starting to develop their NWs.
posted on March 9, 2003 12:49:46 AM new
Some very good points brought up here, and one especially that didn't even occur to me until now...why aren't any other countries standing up and protesting NK latest statements and actions? Afraid that they will be targeted as well, along with New York or Chicago?
I wholeheartedly agree...other countries, our supposed "friends", better put up or shut up.
"Who's tending the bar? Sniping works up a thirst"
posted on March 9, 2003 01:02:54 AM new
There it is again. Put up or shut up. They don't have anything to put up. That's the way we wanted it, and that's the way we've made it. That's the way we intend to keep it, and even moreso, if we can. So, since there's nothing to put up, shut up. Love the world the way we've made it, or leave it.
posted on March 9, 2003 01:17:31 AM new
Who has nothing to put up, donny? Let's take Canada [don't read this Irene or KD
We've had a thread here, not too long ago, where we were debating the fact that Canada's nose got a little out of joint because it was suggested that Canada might want to think about spending a little of their own money on the own defense. More money than they currently allot. Everyone got upset. Well...I don't feel that's an unreasonable thing to ask. Like Irene just asked me...would we rather they send their troops to NK or the Afghanistan? Well....they could choose to have enough to do both. They don't. Their right. But when too many countries do this, then we spend more money to make up for that on the 'world platform'. It's not that they can't afford to spend more, they just choose not to.
So I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you're saying. Because SK has almost as big of an army as NK does. Now they want us to stay and defend them. How did you see we made them weak? How did we make Japan weak? I'm not getting that.
posted on March 9, 2003 01:19:33 AM new
donny - Maybe it's like if I invite you to dinner. Since I'm paying I get to choose. I might ask where you'd like to go, or what you'd like to eat but the final decision is mine.
posted on March 9, 2003 02:01:30 AM new
Linda, the U.S. authored Japan's Constitution in 1946. It says: "the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes." If the best defense is a good offense, it's pretty close to say they not only don't have a good defense, they pretty much have no defense. I have some crummy knick knacks here, they say "Occupied Japan" on the bottom. They were made... when, in the late late 40's, early 50's? They might as well have been made last week. We've never unoccupied Japan. We've never unoccupied South Korea. And it's ironic that the only country ever to have been the target of nuclear weapons in war doesn't have nuclear weaponry of its own.
When you're talking about nuclear brinksmanship, whether Canada or Japan or South Korea or any other of our non-nuclear "supposed friends" puts up or shuts up becomes meaningless. They have nothing to put up. Could they have become nuclear powers? Perhaps... but they better not now, unless they want to risk coming under our eyes as the newest threat.
There are.. what, 9 or 7 countries with nuclear weapons. That's not even to say that all of those are viable weapons of war. Pakistan's can reach India, India's can't even reach Pakistan, as I remember.
When Bush says that it's time to put the cards on the table, does anyone doubt that we hold all the cards? That deck was stacked long ago.
posted on March 9, 2003 02:08:17 AM new
"donny - Maybe it's like if I invite you to dinner. Since I'm paying I get to choose. I might ask where you'd like to go, or what you'd like to eat but the final decision is mine."
Actually, that's a pretty good analogy, but I'd change it around a bit. I control all the food there is. If it suits me, I'll invite you to dinner. If I do, accept my gracious invitation, or starve. And if I do invite you, and you do accept, be sure to tell me what a great host I am, or you won't get another invitation.
posted on March 9, 2003 02:08:33 AM new
Donny - Don't particularly like being an American? I guess I don't understand your retort to my posting. We haven't kept our European "friends" weak militarily. We haven't kept Canada weak militarily.
Linda_K - Well, actually, we did affect Japan militarily, since we were victors in WWII. We reworked their political system, and made it law that Japan could only have a certain amount of military, for protection of the island nation only. We made sure they could not project military might anymore. Japan then had to move into other venues to become powerful...their economy (which has taken quite a hit lately) and technology. However, just recently I believe these military restrictions have been relaxed a bit. If anyone knows more about this please share!
"Who's tending the bar? Sniping works up a thirst"
posted on March 9, 2003 02:12:25 AM newWhen Bush says that it's time to put the cards on the table, does anyone doubt that we hold all the cards? That deck was stacked long ago.
True, but I'd prefer to be in the position where the cards are in our favor. I just wish Pres. Bush would be a little more diplomatic in his choice of words. For all of his sins (which were many), Clinton was the consumate politician and could sweet talk many heads of state...which is not a bad thing.
"Who's tending the bar? Sniping works up a thirst"
posted on March 9, 2003 05:58:14 AM new
I am not worried about Canada, they are a follower nation and will be right there after the fighting starts...
Yes Donny we kept the Japanese down to just defense force, but if you investigate you will find it is quite capable.
We have carried the burden of this world going on 60 years, but all I see is b*tching because we want to do something for just the US this time... it shows alot of class from these other nations that can sit back for years and enjoy the freedom that the US provides for them, and all the aid we provide, but now that things get a little ugly, Oh no, we don't like that...
You know what, tough sh*t... Any Nukes that land in the NW, will leave fallout in Canada, SW will have fallout in Mexico... guess NAFTA has new meaning... North American FallouT Area...
posted on March 9, 2003 06:24:34 AM new
If the roles of North Korea and Iraq were reversed there would be the same uproar, by the same people.
Many that post on here really hate the US and or Bush. Some are actually Leftist, some real pacifist, some morons and then there's.....Never mind.
I can respect anyone against WAR, I would like to think everyone is.
What bothers me is the half truths some have thrown on the board for debate. When debated they go into a frenzy if there theory is disagreed with or proven faults.
The world has changed greatly in the last few years. Long before 9/11. If we don't do something now, I fear it may be to late.
If France and Germany had come on at the beginning, I doubt we would have to go into Iraq. A show of support would have made him back down.
France is trying to show they are still a power in the world. They aren't.
Germany has been in a crisis since the Berlin Wall was taken down. The Euro conversion was a further kick in the a**.
Socialism has been on the rise for both countries for years. Not to mention any secret deals they may have with Iraq.
We are ready for NK. It won't be a war of troops it will be a war of missiles. I hope not nuclear but if that's what it takes so be it.
They are a much bigger threat to the surrounding countries. China, Japan and even Australia.
It's time to blame the Bad guys for any war that may come about. They have every opportunity to come in line to world policies.
posted on March 9, 2003 07:40:09 AM newI am not worried about Canada, they are a follower nation and will be right there after the fighting starts...
Canada's entry into World War I was 1914. U.S. entry was 1917.
Canada's entry into World War II was 1939. U.S. entry was 1941.
We were also in the Korean 'War' since the beginning.
By the way, Twelvepole, do you have any idea why American soldiers had the very popular nickname "Dough Boys" during World War I. The joke was they were kneaded in 1914 and didn't rise until 1917.
Sniping works up a thirst"
