posted on May 5, 2003 06:00:32 PM new"Yes, definitely," he said. "North Korea will use those nuclear weapons against the US mainland if America imposes additional economic sanctions on North Korea."
Blackmail pure and simple. Threaten and hope the US backs down in fear. LOL It's NOT going to happen under this administration....that's for sure.
Be true or more BS? No one really knows for sure. But I've always operated under the premise that I believe what anyone says, UNTIL I find out I've been lied to.
NK leaders have become famous for the lies they tell. So...no I don't believe them. Just see them as making childish threats go try and get their own way.
On the other hand, if our intelligence agrees that they most likely have these capabilities then let them have it. Take care of the issue, SINCE they're threatening to use it against the US. A very smart person here recently said "Hit them hard, and without warning" and I'd agree if this type of 'threat' continues.....[again unless our government doesn't believe there's any way for this to be possible]....don't try to guess whether or not they're lying....take them at their word.
posted on May 5, 2003 06:46:30 PM new
::A very smart person here recently said "Hit them hard, and without warning"::
Was this very smart person aware of a neat invention called RADAR?
How is it that every US and Russian president knew that using nukes on a country with nukes might be a bad idea and yet a shocking number of RT posters don't?
posted on May 5, 2003 06:59:06 PM new
neonmania - It's not a matter of not understanding the consequences. Our government most likely knows what NK has or doesn't have. It's disagreeing that it's a bad idea to make this little turn aware that he's not going to tell the US what they're going to do. PERIOD.
You want to allow a little turd like Jong Il to continue threatening us that if we decide we're *not* going to continue with the bribe money, and give into his other demands, that he's going to nuke us. Maybe those threats are okay with you, but they're not with me.
If you want to sit around and wait until this little idiot does get the capabilities he says he already has....then fine...that's your opinion. I disagree and I'm certainly not alone....here in the RT NOR out in society.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on May 5, 2003 07:01:28 PM new
Because Russia had the ability to send as many as they were going to receive, and from subs... NK has no nuclear threat from subs and maybe just maybe has one or two missles that they could launch...
posted on May 5, 2003 07:45:07 PM new
Linda - what exactly is the problem that conservatives have with the concept of Diplomacy? We are just entering into this situation with NK and its shocking to see how many people jump directly on the "Nuke the Bastards" bandwagon.
Twelve - isn't Two launched nuclear weapons, even if aimed at our allies due to lack of a delivery method, two too many? How do you justifying sacrificing Japan or SK becuse you didn't want to deal?
posted on May 5, 2003 08:00:24 PM new
neonmania - I'm laughing, not at you but at your statement, because I wonder exactly the same thing about the liberal side.
what exactly is the problem that conservatives have with the concept of Diplomacy? My question would be when do you *EVER* stop 'talking' and take action? Not just in this area but in almost all issues. The liberals talk everything to death and imo come up with few solutions.
Conservatives believe in diplomacy....TRYING to reach agreements and that step is always the first step tried. It's just we see much more quickly than you do how fruitless it is to continue talks [diplomacy] with tyrants like Jong Il. Reason? There is no talking...you either agree to his demands or else he's going to NUKE us. He wants it his way... PAY HIM NOW OR ELSE. You can't negotiate with people like him so why continue talking.
I agree with Bush that other countries also need to be involved in the process of letting him know THEY have demands HE must meet. Why do liberals side so often with the communist dictators/tyrants/murders? Why must WE always be the ones responsible to 'work this out'. Where in your eyes does THEIR responsibility for a conflict begin?
We are just entering into this situation with NK and its shocking to see how many people jump directly on the "Nuke the Bastards" bandwagon. You're joking right? Just entering into this situation? No....sorry...not true. It's just that we thought we'd paid the ransom price during the clinton administration....obviously Bush doesn't want to continue to do so...and I surport that decision.
posted on May 5, 2003 08:19:03 PM new
::You're joking right? Just entering into this situation? No....sorry...not true.::
Yes - the current situation is one that we are just beginning to deal with. Unless you know of a previous point in time when they stated they had nukes.
:: Obviously Bush doesn't want to continue to do so...and I surport that decision. ::
Great - so which country and how many 100.000s of people are you willing to sacrifice. Do you really think that if we launch against them they are going to sit idly by? Which country and what group of people do we deserve to live more than?
posted on May 5, 2003 08:27:51 PM new
NM - You didn't answer my question to you. At what point to you put any blame/responsibility at all for this NK conflict on NK rather than on your own government for not using the amount of deplomacy you wish them to?
How would you personally solve this problem? Give in a pay them what they want?
We the US were acting in good faith under the plan that the clinton administration tried. IT DIDN'T WORK, neonmania. They were working on producing their NW during this time. Is that okay with you that they 'fooled us' until we got wind they were lying to us?
Please answer some of my questions.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on May 5, 2003 08:49:17 PM new
I justify it by the fact that both SK and Japan depend upon us for their security and if that is a consequence to pemenately stop NK, then I would make that sacrefice for the good of the future, however I don't believe that NK will back up their threat and you can bet there will be a sub or two off the coast just waiting for the launch signal...
Being right and standing up for it doesn't always involve flapping of the gums... singing of the guns gets everyone's attention.
posted on May 5, 2003 08:57:25 PM new
"Hit them hard, and without warning"
That's what I think we should do. Hit them with everything we've got, except for nukes, in a 24 hour period. Carpet bomb all those artillery pieces on the DMZ. They won't know what hit them.
They probably have a few nukes but they probably don't have reliable ways to deliver them. We need to take them out before they can.
posted on May 5, 2003 09:12:18 PM new
::NM - You didn't answer my question to you. At what point to you put any blame/responsibility at all for this NK conflict on NK rather than on your own government for not using the amount of deplomacy you wish them to? ::
You know, Helen may put up with this but I don't. I have not ,in any post, anywhere placed the entirety of blame nor have I absoloved any country of any blame. If I have perhaps been sleep posting and you are able to find evidence to back your accusations to the contrary, I would appreciate seeing them here in your reply otherwise kindly knock off this "I'm a patriot and you're not" crap off because I'm sick of being asked to defend opinions that I do not hold.
::How would you personally solve this problem? Give in a pay them what they want? ::
Well, as any negotiator knows, the first demand made is never the one you actually expect to be honored, I would enter into direct negotiations and see what they REALLY want . I would definately placed expediting the power plant completion on the table but without the whole story, I can't say. I can say that dropping bombs would be a last resort, not an opening gambit. If an agreeable compromise could be fund, one of our demands should be a definative destruction of the current plants.
:: Is that okay with you that they 'fooled us' until we got wind they were lying to us? ::
No, but you don't kill amillion people because someone lied.
::Please answer some of my questions. ::
As long as you base your questions on opinions I have actually expressed I have always been happy to.
Nw, please answer mine. How many people have to die so that you feel secure?
Think about it - knowing that we will act in kind - do you HONESTLY believe that NK would attempt to use nukes against us?
posted on May 5, 2003 09:12:23 PM new
twelvepole - Yes, you're right there too.
---
And I think we can say that since Saddam has been removed Jong Il might just be seeing the US through different glasses....seeing strength not fear.
We conservatives are continually questioned about why WE don't do this or that. I don't understand why these communists/tyrants/dictators are never held to the same accountability by the liberal US citizens as they hold their own government.
But...again that's really not true either. Not **ALL** liberals take the other countries side. There are liberals who stand with their own country and don't see OUR government as being at fault because Jong Il lied about producing NW when he agreed not to. They don't follow the thought process that we're at fault because Jong Il's the one using threats to use NK. They aren't all blaming us.
Like in this case, it wasn't the US that started the threats of using NW. But who is being blamed? The US. Why no support that this is a world problem Jong Il himself is creating?
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on May 5, 2003 09:21:24 PM new
neonmania - Helen may put up with what? BEING ASKED A QUESTION??????
You are being grossly unreasonable once again. My question to you was VERY simple and straight forward. The fact that you continue to jump to conclusions and add your paranoid conclusions into a simple questions....is your problem alone.
[i]You didn't answer my question to you. At what point to you put any blame/responsibility at all for this NK conflict on NK rather than on your own government for not using the amount of deplomacy you wish them to?
How would you personally solve this problem? Give in a pay them what they want[/i]?
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on May 5, 2003 09:25:57 PM new
::We conservatives are continually questioned about why WE don't do this or that. I don't understand why these communists/tyrants/dictators are never held to the same accountability by the liberal US citizens as they hold their own government.::
How about because no commumist world leaders post on these boards to ask? I asked you because you are here to answer - To the best of my knowledge - KJI does not post here so asking him would not have been very productive.
posted on May 5, 2003 09:29:20 PM new
ebayauctionguy - I think the person I mentioned had what you've suggested in mind. You'll notice, please, the FIRST person in this thread to bring NUKES into the conversation....it wasn't me.
And I'd agree that would probably be the way our military would go....unless they believed there was a reason that wouldn't work.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on May 5, 2003 09:35:50 PM new
::neonmania - Helen may put up with what? BEING ASKED A QUESTION?????? ::
No, having a question regarding the rationale being the ease of calling for nukes turned into "You our against our government, you never support us" accusation. I think an very important issue is that I never once a government or a country - I asked why CONSERVATIVES are so eager to nuke.
::You are being grossly unreasonable once again. ::
ROFL! This coming from someone that turned a question asking why CONSERVATIVES are so eager to play the nuke card into a indictment of our government.
::My question to you was VERY simple and straight forward.::
Yes but unfortunately it was based on an opinion that I never expressed but that you instead decided to assign to me.
::The fact that you continue to jump to conclusions and add your paranoid conclusions into a simple questions....is your problem alone. ::
Linda - are you telling me that ....
::At what point to you put any blame/responsibility at all for this NK conflict on NK rather than on your own government for not using the amount of deplomacy you wish them to? ::
....does not imply that I have in fact already placed blame on the US and absolved NK of any?
As for not answering your question - I believe there is an entire paragraph devoted to it - of course that would mean you would need to read my actual words.
I notice that you on the other hand have twice now avoided answering the question of how many peole need to die and which ones should be sacrificed.
posted on May 5, 2003 09:50:05 PM new
neonmania - I have noticed when you are communicating with others that you do the same thing with them. YOU read more into what they say...than they are actually saying. Then you don't question....you make assumptions.
Linda - are you telling me that ....
::At what point to you put any blame/responsibility at all for this NK conflict on NK rather than on your own government for not using the amount of deplomacy you wish them to? ::
....does not imply that I have in fact already placed blame on the US and absolved NK of any?
No it does not imply anything, you read something into it. It's a question???? See the question mark? It asked at what point do you question the wrong doing of a communist ding-bat leader? You clearly question the actions of our government [under this administration] so I ask where you find fault [or do you find any fault] with the actions of Jong Il and what he is/has been doing. There was no 'statement' in that question. I have not seen you say anything negative about his actions. But I have seen you be negative about the way this administration is dealing with it. So I asked....where DO YOU see any fault for this world issue coming from Jong Il's side of the fence. Then you go balistic.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on May 5, 2003 09:57:17 PM new
::I have not seen you say anything negative about his actions. But I have seen you be negative about the way this administration is dealing with it.::
I defy you to post here copies of any post I have made which supports this statement.. I have not made a single comment on the US governemnts handling of the situation. Considering that nothing has really been done yet, there has been nothing for me to condemn or support.
I have called into question some of the suggested solutions brought up by members of the RT however I am unaware that any of these posters are government representatives or policy makers. Please note the distinction for future reference.
NOw - if you can show where I have condemned US actions, I would like to see them. Otherwise, I would like to see a retraction.
posted on May 5, 2003 10:03:19 PM new
NK has nothing to negotiate. NK black mailed the Clinton administration and lied about what they were and were not doing.
So exactly what in the h*ll do we negotiate with NK about ? Send them more money, fuel and food in exchange for what ? More lies and contempt, and nuclear weapons development ?
NK needs to be decapitated immediately. No talk, no warning.
The leftists are singing the Chicken Little tune again.
posted on May 5, 2003 10:15:48 PM new
You want me to answer your question on the nukes but you still haven't answered my question about what, if any fault you find from the NK side of this issue. I'll be more than happy to answer your question, once I get more than defensive statements from what you haven't said and what I have said....according to you.
Have you not said that you saw part of this North Korea NW issue as being caused, in part, because the US didn't hold up our end of building the promised power plants in NK? You did. And are you saying you *never* criticized/or made any statement that this administration was unwilling to use dipolmacy [in your eyes] to settle this matter? Weren't you one of those who was upset that Bush rejected direct talks with NK and held his ground that he felt more/other countries should become involved when this first started? I believe you were. This was when we were about to head into Iraq. If you say you didn't....I'm not spending the time to look for it. I could well have you confused with another who took that stand. But I did/do think it was you who felt that way. Did you? Are you saying you didn't then? I'll belive you if you say you weren't critical of Bush decision NOT to negotiate alone with NK.
posted on May 5, 2003 10:30:12 PM new
::You want me to answer your question on the nukes but you still haven't answered my question about what, if any fault you find from the NK side of this issue. ::
I said they lied what more did you want? The reason I never answered the question was because its original form implied that I did not hold them at fault for anything.
::Have you not said that you saw part of this North Korea NW issue as being caused, in part, because the US didn't hold up our end of building the promised power plants in NK? You did.::
What does that have to do with condemning how our government is dealing with the current situation? Also I did not lay blame, I merely pointed out that both sides have failed to live up their sides of the previous agreement.
:: And are you saying you *never* criticized/or made any statement that this administration was unwilling to use dipolmacy [in your eyes] to settle this matter? ::
Yes- I am saying that. As a matter of fact, I find the administration (not necessarily Bush, but others within) to be much more open to diploacy then members of these boards.
::Weren't you one of those who was upset that Bush rejected direct talks with NK and held his ground that he felt more/other countries should become involved when this first started? I believe you were.::
Again - rather than suppostion I have asked for you to produced my actual quotes. I would really appreciate these since I do not recall making a statement to that effect.
::This was when we were about to head into Iraq. If you say you didn't....I'm not spending the time to look for it. I could well have you confused with another who took that stand. But I did/do think it was you who felt that way. Did you? Are you saying you didn't then? I'll belive you if you say you weren't critical of Bush decision NOT to negotiate alone with NK. ::
Not me. I did state that I think that with proof of nukes I felt that NK should be considered a greater threat than Iraq and that the situation there should be have been the immediate priority but if I remember correctly, I was scoffed at by the opposition.
posted on May 5, 2003 11:59:25 PM newI said they lied what more did you want? Oh...I don't know...it always thrills me to death when I hear/read Americans taking their own country's side in issues against communist tyrants who threaten to use NW against our country.
The reason I never answered the question was because its original form implied that I did not hold them at fault for anything. Nope....it implied nothing...it's how you took it. It asked WHAT blame you put on them. Have you answered that question yet? Is "they've lied" the only thing you see that they're doing wrong in this crisis? The magnitude of WHAT they lied about sounds so unimportant when one only says "they lied". Like..okay they lied now let's move on and negotiate some more agreements with them so they won't do what they said they wouldn't do before.
Have you not said that you saw part of this North Korea NW issue as being caused, in part, because the US didn't hold up our end of building the promised power plants in NK? You didWhat does that have to do with condemning how our government is dealing with the current situation? You tend to answer questions with another question.
Also I did not lay blame, I merely pointed out that both sides have failed to live up their sides of the previous agreement. Guess that's the part I'm not remembering....where you laid fault on NKs side.
And are you saying you *never* criticized/or made any statement that this administration was unwilling to use dipolmacy [in your eyes] to settle this matter? Yes- I am saying that. As a matter of fact, I find the administration (not necessarily Bush, but others within) to be much more open to diploacy then members of these boards. That's the truth sometimes. But we don't have to pretend we think it's okay to work things out with communists, blackmailers of our tax dollars, nor tyrants...our elected and appointed officials do.
Weren't you one of those who was upset that Bush rejected direct talks with NK and held his ground that he felt more/other countries should become involved when this first started? I believe you wereAgain - rather than suppostion I have asked for you to produced my actual quotes. I would really appreciate these since I do not recall making a statement to that effect. Neonmania you could just answer....as you did....you don't remember. It's okay not to remember everything you ever said, really. Just as I said I could be mistaken...and it wasn't you who said that. Questions are asked to clarify...answers make clear.
I'll believe you if you say you weren't critical of Bush decision NOT to negotiate alone with NK. Not me. I did state that I think that with proof of nukes I felt that NK should be considered a greater threat than Iraq and that the situation there should be have been the immediate priority but if I remember correctly, I was scoffed at by the opposition. Many here, at that time, were blasting Bush for not wanting to negotiate directly with Jong Il...being critical that he wouldn't accept Jong Il's demands to do so.....and I did believe you were one of those. Since you say you weren't, I believe you and offer my most sincere apology. This is NOT the first mistake I have ever made in my life, and I'm sure it won't be the last. But my apology is most sincere.
posted on May 6, 2003 12:05:50 AM new
austbounty - I will NEVER put a communist country before my own. If that bothers you in any way, shape or form....POUND SAND!!!
posted on May 6, 2003 12:23:17 AM new
:h...I don't know...it always thrills me to death when I hear/read Americans taking their own country's side in issues against communist tyrants who threaten to use NW against our country. ::
Ah - so you don't want my opinion. You want me to parrot yours
::Like..okay they lied now let's move on and negotiate some more agreements with them so they won't do what they said they wouldn't do before. ::
Yes, and since we lived up to every aspect of our end we can point fingers and refuse to talk. Oh wait... we didn't quite live up to our end either. Fact is, we cannot change they past, we can only attempt to affect the future, hopefully in positive ways.
::You tend to answer questions with another question. ::
And you tend to ignore responses that you do not like.
::Guess that's the part I'm not remembering....where you laid fault on NKs side. ::
You should I start ever sentence with "NKis the epitomy of evil, now.....
::But we don't have to pretend we think it's okay to work things out with communists, blackmailers of our tax dollars, nor tyrants...our elected and appointed officials do. ::
So you war death and destruction follwed by using our tax dollars to compensate is a better answer?
:: Neonmania you could just answer....as you did....you don't remember. It's okay not to remember everything you ever said, really.::
I was trying to be polite Linda. I didn't say it. Period, If you doubt me... poduce the quote that disputes it.
::This is NOT the first mistake I have ever made in my life, and I'm sure it won't be the last. But my apology is most sincere.::
As is my acceptance.
Now - could you please grant me the respect to answer my repeated question of how many peoples lives do you think should be sacrificed because you don't want the government to appear weak and negotiating.
posted on May 6, 2003 12:46:01 AM newNw, please answer mine. How many people have to die so that you feel secure?
So that I feel secure? No, so that the world is more secure from communist tyrants like Jong Il and his military. He's made very verbal threats to our country, publically. To me, you appear to not be taking his threats seriously. I believe those who state to the world they want to destroy our country. And I fully support DOING something about it.
posted on May 6, 2003 01:19:18 AM new
Ahhh yourself...so what are you saying with this statement?
Ah - so you don't want my opinion. You want me to parrot yours. No not at all neonmania. If you wish to side with NK, and only point out your own country's faults... that's your right to do so. You asked what more did I want and I answered.
Yes, and since we lived up to every aspect of our end we can point fingers and refuse to talk. Oh wait... we didn't quite live up to our end either. Fact is, we cannot change they past, we can only attempt to affect the future, hopefully in positive ways. There you go again....other than the building of the energy sites what do you see as the US having not done? And why won't you answer me on what caused this project to take longer than the clinton administration thought it would? Can you NEVER see there might just be a good reason construction got behind?
And you tend to ignore responses that you do not like. Really? Point that out to me please. I will certainly disagree with responses I don't like but I don't agree I ignore them.
Guess that's the part I'm not remembering....where you laid fault on NKs side.
You should I start ever sentence with.....No....no need to ever mention it if you don't see it that way.
So you war death and destruction follwed by using our tax dollars to compensate is a better answer? I support a large military. I don't agree with the 'lefties' view of a smaller or no US military. That leaves us vulnerable. I never want to see my country as anything less than #1 militarily. So yes, I'd much rather have my tax dollars put towards our military than to pay some communist dictator bribes so we can say we don't need one.
I was trying to be polite Linda. I didn't say it. Period, If you doubt me... poduce the quote that disputes it. I can doubt you without having to do a search. Don't be polite next time....just say what you really mean.
Oh yes....my answer was being written as you posted yours. There is absolutely NO point in negotiating with NK. Been there....done that.
h...I don't know...it always thrills me to death when I hear/read Americans taking their own country's side in issues against communist tyrants who threaten to use NW against our country. ::
