ClumsyMonkey.net

by **Korzic** » 10/12/2006, 8:20 am

So everyone's favourite despotic leader Kim Jong-Il (oh so ronery) has detontated his first nuke in some underground mine. The UN as poised to take extreme sanctions which North Korea view as war. Discuss.

I have a vague niggling we may see the 2nd Korean War, except that the Chinese would not be fighting against the Americans. North Korea threatens everyone's best interests including the Chinese. While military action would be drastic I would not be overly surprised to see it happen. If North Korea does make some stupid move, the Chinese will not stand in the way of a group of Coalition forces moving into and obliterating the North Korean regime. We may then see the start of UROK! Although I'm sure that the Sth Koreans would rather stay as they are, this way they won't share the burden of welfare that a united Korea would bring.

by **Kicker774** » 10/12/2006, 9:41 am

Just goes to show Kerry isn't the only flip flopper.

Iraq - They had weapons 10 years ago, UN inspectors havn't been able to find any, they claim not to have any, but I swear they have them let's invade anyways.

Korea meanwhile is shooting off missles into the sea of Japan and beat their chest over thir kick ass weapons just egging on the rest of the world. I beleive their underground test was 1/3 powerful as Hiroshima. But when it comes to military action gun ho Bush wants to be diplomatic for a change.

I've been saying for the past 2 years if the wind blows the wrong direction out there mass chaos could break out and we could even see a reinstatement of the draft. But I guess if it comes down to military action we should hopefully have the backing and support of the UN so we're not in it all alone.

by **VazValium** » 10/12/2006, 10:36 am

Really, as dangerous as this may be, can the US, UK and China really stop N. Korea from having nuclear weapons when they are all in the club themselves? Seems a bit hypocritical to me. Why don't they actually take action against the country that sold these nukes to N. Korea and Iran in the first place?

by **Joe Cooler** » 10/12/2006, 1:10 pm

VazValium wrote: Why don't they actually take action against the country that sold these nukes to N. Korea and Iran in the first place?

You do know what your implying...right?

by **VazValium** » 10/12/2006, 2:51 pm

If I have missed something, please tell, because I am implying that this 'relationship' with Pakistan with slap us all harder in the face more than anything else.

by **nelison** » 10/12/2006, 7:29 pm

umm well for starters American arms manufacturers sold weapons to the N. Koreans a few years back... who led the deal? Donald Rumsfeld...

It looks like Russia and China don't want the sanctions to be imposed, thus they won't be. They have veto power, and a war on their borders is not something they want (for various reasons)

Second, one can make the argument that the reason Bush went into Iraq was because they knew they didn't have WMD's. It's game theory at it's simplest.

Third, if North Korea is attacked, the odds are that Iran would try and back them, thus causing more havoc in the middle east. The only upside about this is that you could potentially kill two birds with one stone, but I don't think the world has the power to take on both nations at once.

last.fm · by **Hope** » 10/12/2006, 7:50 pm

I doubt there will be a "2nd Korean War", the powers don't want war and like people said, Russia and China is not going to back N. Korea easily. I've talked to my relatives and it sounds like the western countries are making much more fuss than S. Korea is. no one there thinks there will be a war.

Although I'm sure that the Sth Koreans would rather stay as they are, this way they won't share the burden of welfare that a united Korea would bring.

uh, the majority of South Koreans would want to see a united Korea before they die. ever since the armistice people have been wanting it... maybe it's not the best economically, and it's probably unlikely/complicated, but they're really the same people. there is great sentimentality over the idea of a unified korea, and it's what everyone wants, except maybe kim jong il. but who knows what goes on in his head.

by **redneck_bill** » 10/12/2006, 8:20 pm

What kind of arms were they?

I'm new to this whole current events thing, trying to catch up on the last 30 years. Used to not care.

by **nelison** » 10/14/2006, 1:22 pm

Well Rumsfeld was the chair of a company that was given the contract to build soft-water nuclear reactors in N. Korea... which can be converted to create nuclear arms. Rather than saying "sold weapons" I probably should have said "sold materials that made developing weapons possible." My bad.

but anyways...

an interesting article in today's Toronto Star discusses whether N. Korea is crazy afterall

Redneck Bill, if you're new to learning about politics the first thing i would do is stop watching the major news channels like CNN, NBC, etc. Most of these stations are horribly biased, gloss over facts and stories, are seeking ratings, and giving a very American-centric view about things in the world, which isn't always the best way to understand the world.

Personally, as a political science major I tend to get my international news from websites such as the BBC, the New York Times and Canadian news or a Canadian perspective on global news from The Toronto Star. the first two are the most important news sites in the world in my opinion and with the BBC in particular there is a lot of background material provided. Don't be afraid to check various sites and compare how they view an issue. Also try and seek out some alternative independent news sources.

Also, don't be afraid to go down to your local bookstore and pick up a book on politics. if you're interested in US politics the best place to start would be Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States". It's a huge book but offers by far the best analysis of the United States.

last.fm · by **Hope** » 10/14/2006, 7:34 pm

If Saddam had possessed an atomic bomb, the North Koreans calculate, Bush would have never dared to invade his country.

hahaha this is so funny to me.

The UN Security Council threatens sanctions. But, ironically, it is the allegedly irrational regime of North Korea that has reason on its side. Its tests do not break any international treaties. If Israel, Pakistan, India, China, France, Britain, Russia and the U.S. can possess atomic weapons, why can't North Korea?

What it wants, it says, is what it has always wanted — a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War, treatment by the rest of the world as a normal state and — most importantly — a signed agreement from the U.S. that it will not attempt to overthrow Kim Jong-il's regime.

w0rd!

by **nelison** » 10/14/2006, 8:07 pm

why is that funny? it's true...

last.fm · by **Hope** » 10/14/2006, 9:20 pm

thats why its funny

by **VazValium** » 10/15/2006, 8:06 am

I am sorry if I missed out on the whole US being involved. It is not a surprise that the US has created another of it's own monsters. However, Pakistan gave North Korea high-speed centrifuges and how-to data on building and testing a uranium-triggered nuclear weapon. So I know they are guilty too. Not to forget, they pardoned the scientist responsible for giving this to the North Koreans.

The whole point is though, that the rest of the world can't be so judgmental of North Korea, especially the US, when they all have nukes themselves.

by **redneck_bill** » 10/19/2006, 4:41 pm

Redneck Bill, if you're new to learning about politics...

Sounds like good advice. I try to stay away from the nightly news. I suspect they're more interested in ratings than journalism.

by **Korzic** » 10/20/2006, 12:53 am

infotainment any one?

I grab all my news from Reuters and AP.

by **VazValium** » 10/21/2006, 6:00 pm

J-Neli wrote:
Personally, as a political science major I tend to get my international news from websites such as the BBC, the New York Times and Canadian news or a Canadian perspective on global news from The Toronto Star. the first two are the most important news sites in the world in my opinion and with the BBC in particular there is a lot of background material provided. Don't be afraid to check various sites and compare how they view an issue. Also try and seek out some alternative independent news sources.

Actually, the BBC don't know how to even distinguish between different ethnic minorities and religious groups as they continually opt to call Muslims 'Asians', and this truly pisses me off, putting people like me in the middle of all the shit that happens over here in the UK. Sorry, but whatever credibility they have regarding accuracy on world affairs is infinitesimal due to their sheer ignorance, causing me to ignore whatever comes from them. The influence of media giants such as the BBC is so much, that the average person where I live isn't even aware that brown-skinned non-Muslims exist and that there are white-skinned Muslims.

by **redneck_bill** » 11/3/2006, 5:43 pm

Iran just test fired a bunch of long range missiles...but what really scares me is that it was in section 3, page 14 of my local paper, after the sports and the cooking section o_0

by **saman** » 11/3/2006, 10:12 pm

VazValium wrote:
J-Neli wrote:
Personally, as a political science major I tend to get my international news from websites such as the BBC, the New York Times and Canadian news or a Canadian perspective on global news from The Toronto Star. the first two are the most important news sites in the world in my opinion and with the BBC in particular there is a lot of background material provided. Don't be afraid to check various sites and compare how they view an issue. Also try and seek out some alternative independent news sources.

Actually, the BBC don't know how to even distinguish between different ethnic minorities and religious groups as they continually opt to call Muslims 'Asians', and this truly pisses me off, putting people like me in the middle of all the shit that happens over here in the UK. Sorry, but whatever credibility they have regarding accuracy on world affairs is infinitesimal due to their sheer ignorance, causing me to ignore whatever comes from them. The influence of media giants such as the BBC is so much, that the average person where I live isn't even aware that brown-skinned non-Muslims exist and that there are white-skinned Muslims.

hmm, actually, you might be interested to know that some (i'm not sure if most) Muslims do call themselves "Asian". my parents both refer to themselves and most others from asia as asian, even though they're from Pakistan. i remember being very surprised when we moved to canada and i found out that people here referred to asians as oriental people instead of all people from asia. don't know if that's actually BBC's reasoning behind it, but i just figured you might like to know.

by **VazValium** » 11/8/2006, 4:08 pm

I totally understand your point, as many Muslims are from Asia, but so are Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Christians, and people of many other religions. Where I live, and generally in the British media, there is this false attitude that being of ethnic origin from an Asian country is a prerequisite to being Muslim, and vice versa. This use of language helps fuel the cause of 'neo-Nazi' parties such as the BNP, who continue to grow in the more working class areas. Not only has the war on terrorism become a war on Islam to the ignorant people, but it is becoming a war on the colour of a person's skin.

I apologise if I have caused this thread to digress from it's title.

ClumsyMonkey.net

North Korea and their nukes

North Korea and their nukes

Who is online