This article paints a very scary picture of a concentration camp in North Korea. A story very similar to those told during the Holocaust.

 

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...1136440,00.html

Yeah, I knew this for a while. I have seen satellite photos of the camps. Right before the war on iraq, the media was stirring up trouble with the "bomb korea" mood, in order to make people not want to bomb iraq (thus create more controversey.) However, when someone has a nuke, it isn't that easy. However, if I knew for a fact they didn't, I would want to bomb these bastards before they have a chance to build one. North Korea is gar more evil and threatening than Iraq was.

Damn. I am totally speechless.

one thing totally unrelated to Korea for the most part.

 

 

Why can we have nukes but nobody else?

Evil.

 

It's interesting to note how the U.S. has aided every Evil Empire we've created in the last twenty years. Almost makes you wonder if we're not the real Evil Empire.

 

Back to the real topic on hand... Hasn't the U.S. stirred up enough trouble or awhile? What makes us Superman of the world? Since we started the nuclear proliferation project I don't think it's wise to go screwing around with a country who could and would drop a nuclear bomb on us if given the chance.

 

All I'm saying is let China deal with this problem. They're supposed to replace the U.S. as the next world superpower, let them act like it.

 

Good point Texan.

 

Also, this is about Holocaust 30. And it's conveniant to remember that the U.S. has supported regimes who have favored genocide.

Genocide? Not on that sort of scale. We have acted against genocide (Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq...), and the "genocide" we supported, like the contras, deals with highly inflated numbers and is blown out of proportion.

 

And we never supported north korea, who is by far the most evil power on earth. I don't think they have the bomb, but they are working on it and the proper delivery system right now. If they had the bomb, they would of tested it.

 

I would favor a preemptive strike against north korea because in the long run it would be cheaper, north korea is evil like Hitler (the establishment there), and they pose a very real threat to stability in the region and have on numerous counts said they would nuke us if given the oppurtunity. So yes, I am against an Iraqi war, but not north korea. The world should rise against them.

Yeah, here are the satellite photos of the camp.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world...eryong-camp.htm

truly truly horrifying. If north korea wasn't so close to china, do you think we would of taken action by now? Possibly is oil an factor?

one thing totally unrelated to Korea for the most part.

 

 

Why can we have nukes but nobody else?

That is one question I was asked when I was defending George Bush (imagine that) for invading Iraq.

 

How come all countries on earth but the USA are forbidden to own weapons... Why President Bush backed out of the international treaty? I have no idea.

And one last link. This is from January 15th of last year. It tells about some of the atrocities at the camp.

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3071466/

Iran Contra numbers blown out of proportion? Hardly.

 

And how do you think these weapons get around? Do they MAGICALLY appear from nowhere? I think not. The US and Great Britain sell them (as in the case with Iraq).

 

According to the nuclear proliferation theory everyone should be allowed Nukes so there's equal fear on all sides to press the button. Seems pretty stupid to me, but we cannot NOT allow a country to have nukes just because the leader is crazy.

 

Hitler, Hitler, Hitler. Everyone's a Hitler. Everytime we build up an enemy he's a Hitler. Why not call the leader of North Korea a Stalin? Oh, well, I'm bowing out now, because I'm of the constitution that once Hitler is brought up the conversation is over.

 

Kind of seems hypocritical to not allow other countries the same life ending devices we have.

We should have focused more on North Korea then on Iraq...

Iran Contra numbers blown out of proportion?? Hardly.

World Political Almanac (3 ed) puts it at 10,000. Nevertheless, it was a 10 year civil war between Marxist Ortega and the Democratic Contras. Since the revolution, Nicaragua has been a democracy.

 

And how do you think these weapons get around?? Do they MAGICALLY appear from nowhere?? I think not.? The US and Great Britain sell them (as in the case with Iraq).

Yeah, but Russia and China sell them too. Most of Iraq's systems and weapons were Russian and Chinese.

 

And powerful bombs? Countries develop those on their own, like north korea is right now.

 

According to the nuclear proliferation theory everyone should be allowed Nukes so there's equal fear on all sides to press the button.? Seems pretty stupid to me, but we cannot NOT allow a country to have nukes just because the leader is crazy.

I'm scared enough with Bush at the helm, now imagine Hitler or Stalin with nuclear weapons. Il is that bad.

 

Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.? Everyone's a Hitler.? Everytime we build up an enemy he's a Hitler.? Why not call the leader of North Korea a Stalin?? Oh, well, I'm bowing out now, because I'm of the constitution that once Hitler is brought up the conversation is over.

Il can be Stalin. I don't care, though russia didn't have organized death camp killing facilites (though they killed people nonetheless.) I'm not an ignorant fool my friend, mass state instituted genocide for beyond political reasons using death camps is closest to how the Nazis performed "the final solution." Of course, north korea is not at that scale, but its scary we haven't learned a thing since WW2.

 

Kind of seems hypocritical to not allow other countries the same life ending devices we have.

How so? Is it hypocritical if you have a dog and I don't? You went out and bought that Dog. Now what if that Dog is totally nuts and likes to bite people. Maybe I can trust you to lock up the dog and make sure it doesn't hurt anyone, but if I had the dog, it would be allowed to go nuts and hurt people.

 

Your logic is faulty because it goes like this:

I have X therefore everyone is entitled to X

 

that is simply not true, the logic cannot possibly be that simple, and you can put anything in for X and you will many times not agree with the outcome.

 

We have nuclear weapons therefore everyone is entitled to nuclear weapons.

I sure as hell don't agree with that.

Nonetheless, nice try Brian. You're a smart guy, but don't buy into propaganda (like America kills everyone on Earth or illogical logic and ect.)

Why can we have nukes but nobody else?

 

That is one question I was asked when I was defending George Bush (imagine that) for invading Iraq.

 

How come all countries on earth but the USA are forbidden to own weapons... Why President Bush backed out of the international treaty? I have no idea.

substantial military power in the hands of a few responsible governments is a very good thing and it keeps the world peaceful.

 

the world's nuclear superpowers--the US, russia, china, britain, and france--built their nuclear weapons during prior conflicts that no longer exist today. nukes in the hands of these responsible governments serve no tactical offensive purpose; they are purely a defensive threat that basically keeps the entire world in check.

 

it is a very, very bad thing when new nations develop nuclear weapons. india and pakistan, for example, developed nuclear weapons in the 70s and have since been proliferating their stockpiles and upgrading their weapons technology. unlike the original nuclear superpower club, india and pakistan have tactical offensive motives in having nuclear weapons (driven by mutual hatred, 3 and a half wars, and perpetual conflict); these countries having nukes does not enhance the world's peacekeeping force.

 

israel's nuclear weapons is another huge can of worms that i'm not even going to discuss... that'd take hours.

 

today, it is an unbelievably bad thing when another nation attempts to become a military power. there is always an offensive motive when a country wishes to acquire weapons. the argument that "why can the US have weapons and nobody else can't?" is faulty because it suggests that every nation should be entitled to an equal military force and every government can be trusted to use the military responsibly. for all intents and purposes, nukes, missiles, bioagents, and other superweapons are outlawed internationally. however, it is impossible to enforce such international peace measures unless there is a "police" force--the previously established superpowers--to keep everyone in order. for the most part, these governments have acted responsibly since the cold war ended and have only used their military for defensive, law-enforcing, peacekeeping, or otherwise altruistic objectives (e.g. gulf war 1, somalia, kosovo, gulf war 2).

 

like it or not, just because the US, UK, russia, and china have weapons doesn't mean the rest of the world should. would you trust with nuclear weapons an unelected, murderous, totalitarian dictator who just 10 years ago tried to CONQUER a neighboring country? do you truly believe he won't misuse those weapons?

 

similarly, would you allow another unelected totalitarian dictator--head of a brutal, oppressive regime--who is afflicted with known clinical psychosis and whose stated objective is to annex his neighbor to the south--to develop nuclear bombs?

 

these are unelected dictators who can't even be trusted to work for the best interests of their own people, and people think they should be allowed to possess any weapons they wish just because other responsible governments have them.

 

i trust the government of the UK to act responsibly with its weapons. i don't trust the government of libya (composed of one military dictator) to act responsbily were it to own such weapons. there shouldn't even be a debate on this issue.

 

if every nation were allowed to have nukes, the world would probably not exist today. that's why it is such a good thing to have power in the hand of responsible governments.

According to the nuclear proliferation theory everyone should be allowed Nukes so there's equal fear on all sides to press the button.

that's not exactly correct.

 

there's no "nuclear proliferation theory" that suggests "everyone should be allowed nukes so there's equal fear on all sides to press the button."

 

nuclear proliferation might not lead to nuclear war if all governments are assumed to act rationally.

 

if a dictator of a rogue state cannot properly perceive the fear of nuclear war and doesn't have to answer to his people, there is no reason for him to be trusted implicitly with nuclear bombs.

 

Seems pretty stupid to me, but we cannot NOT allow a country to have nukes just because the leader is crazy.

with all due respect, you have not explained your rationale behind that statement (unless your rationale is "the nuclear proliferation theory says so").

Difference between Saddam and Il

 

Saddam: "If you attack me, I will bring unimaginable destruction to the united states."

 

Il: "Korea has the right to use pre-emptive measures against the United States."

 

Korea has very openly been a threat, testing missilie by firing them over our allies and flat out sayign they are considering just atatcking us one day. thus, I am against the war on Iraq, but not one on korea if it did not risk nuclear holocaust.

Genocide? Not on that sort of scale. We have acted against genocide (Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq...), and the "genocide" we supported, like the contras, deals with highly inflated numbers and is blown out of proportion.

One genocide we did not act against was the one in Rwanda in 1994 (although the Clinton administration did not want to call it a genocide because if they did, they would have had to help). Over 800,000 people there were killed (with machetes) and the United States and the U.N. did not anything besides sent a few international troops who moved out when it got more violent.

There is at least one instance when the U.S. did not act accordingly against genocide.

Genocide? Not on that sort of scale. We have acted against genocide (Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq...), and the "genocide" we supported, like the contras, deals with highly inflated numbers and is blown out of proportion.

One genocide we did not act against was the one in Rwanda in 1994 (although the Clinton administration did not want to call it a genocide because if they did, they would have had to help). Over 800,000 people there were killed (with machetes) and the United States and the U.N. did not anything besides sent a few international troops who moved out when it got more violent.

There is at least one instance when the U.S. did not act accordingly against genocide. I heard about that years ago and its a damn shame. No one cares about Africa, I agree with you.

 

Someone tells me, "Well, there were no weapons in Iraq, but we did rid them of an oppressive tyrant."

 

Mr reply is much like yours: there are cheaper ways to help more people, especially in Africa.

 

However, North Korea is not the same. We have ahd a commitment there for now 51 years. Every year we spend billions upon billions in peace. If we could take out North korea without sparking world war 3, it would not only rid the world of a tyrant, but also SAVE US MONEY, which makes it win win, unlike Iraq, which just pissed more people off, used lies to the people, costs more money in the long run, but takes out a tyrant.

 

So there is a difference.

I would like to go on record and say that I support a full out military offensive against North Korea. While I think they're talking a lot of trash to try to scare us, i do believe that they have the capabilities that they claim to have. I mean come on. Why else would you openly bait the United States like that?Saddaam used it as a scare tactic. That old fool didnt have the weaopnry to take out his own country, let alon ours. But in the case of Korea, I think its very different. Il isnt just running his mouth just to show off. He wants us to be scared, and in turn, he wants us to attack him so that he can bomb us. Korea does in fact have the capability to inflict a huge blow to our west coast. But is that all they have? I think that we should kick down the door of that country and give that fool the fight that hes looking for before he has the ability to do even mor damage. But hey, thats just my opinion.

We should but it ain't gonna happen until we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and we should not rush in doing so. I wish the CIA still had the right to assassinate world leaders.