kingdaddy said:
Ah ha. So I take it you fully understand North Korea's position,surrounded as they are by not insignificant military force.
rfbrw said:
Sure I understand, but they are rocking the boat themselves by being separatist and making (nuclear) threats to all the free world, they made their bed by subjugating their people and forcing communism on them, many countries have many outstanding disputes with them and their human rights policies. Please don’t go into how you think the USA has human rights issues, that horse has been beaten to death already.
What exactly is the requisite criteria for the possesion of nuclear weapons? The majority of the the nuclear club, weapons declared or otherwise, have questionable human rights. I can't say I see why it is the US or anyone else's business whether the North Koreans have nuclear weapons or not. Surrounded as they are by countries that between them probably have over 50,000 nuclear weapons, I very much doubt that the North Korean regime, hellbent on survival as it is, would seek to pick a fight, nuclear or conventional.
I'll try to dig up the link, but Clinton explained once why North Korea is a far worse threat than Iraq.
North Korea is a poor country with almost no economic output. People are starving. The only choice the North Korean government has is to sell nuclear weapons to the highest bidder. Nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. Not pretty.
They are farther along in their nuclear program than Iraq, and have greater capability to produce nuclear weapons.
We should have been dealing with North Korea before Iraq. Much worse situation.
North Korea is a poor country with almost no economic output. People are starving. The only choice the North Korean government has is to sell nuclear weapons to the highest bidder. Nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. Not pretty.
They are farther along in their nuclear program than Iraq, and have greater capability to produce nuclear weapons.
We should have been dealing with North Korea before Iraq. Much worse situation.
SY said:
Who is responsible for Cuba's economic oppression?
Castro or Cuban Americans?
I dont understand why a country like Cuba is so poor when it has a rich country next door?
Much, if not most of our countries (N.Z's) wealth comes from export and trade with other rich countries
Stop picking on the little guy USA, there are no more missiles in Cuba and Castro is an old man who could get nocked down by the wind
It seems that the war on terror and the cold war are at odds with eachother
Eeehhm does communism versus free enterprise ring a bell?
Maybe...repressive regime versus a liberal democracy?
No?😉
USA should allow trade again with Cuba. But the Cuban American lobby is too powerful...they want revenge...even at the expense of their own people? Do you still understand the world? They would even keep a boy from his father to get even with Castro!?
I don't like Castro any more than they do...but you can go to far!!!
B.VDBOS said:
Castro, now if there is anything else I can clear up for ya sport, just let me know!
Bas Horneman said:
Going a little far there, aren’t ya. The boys mother died trying to get herself and the boy out of the country, don’t you think there might have been a good reason? Wouldn’t it seem wrong to give him back after such a sacrifice?
I wouldn't have thought that the type of terrorists that are currently in vogue would make good repeat customers.kelticwizard said:
rfbrw said:
The leaders don't blow themselves up. Only the foot soldiers.
The leaders would make very good repeat customers.
Not to mention rogue states.
kelticwizard said:
Oh yes that old one. What exactly is it you think these 'rogue states' are going to do with nuclear weapons bearing in mind what the response would be?
roibm said:
As if I care.
mikeks said:
well, one has to be responsible for one's decisions. Cuba should have weighed between telling the US to take a hike and suffering the consequencies of telling the US to take a hike.
they decided on the later and they got exactly what they bargained for.
That's a pretty fair game in my book. 🙂
rfbrw said:
So then I should put you down on the list as being pro nuclear proliferation? You're starting a nuclear version of the NRA? 😉
Seriously, a rogue state could threaten others in the vicinity and it would lead to instability in the region, to say the least. Should this be ignored?
That is why dealing with North Korea is important.
Looking at your usual spiteful replies, you do care if someone 'misspells' your name. But he, who cares...
Haha
Millwood scores another point....99% of your posts fall in one or more of these categories: useless, obnoxious, short-sighted, overly provocative, annoying, offensive or just plain silly (like the one above). All in the name of 'defending' or starting a good fight or just scoring another meaningless point with that semi-intelligent wit you display so often. I assume you don't realize that this attitude sucks seriously and that it only brings out the worst on others, leaving no room at all for any meaningful dialog.
I don't expect it to change anymore, so your off to my ignorelist... again... and this time I hope I have the common sense to leave you there.
kingdaddy said:
Yes there is something that I would like you clear up
Who's country is responsable for Castro?
B.VDBOS said:
Castro is responsible for Castro, next would be Cuba, then the USA if you want a pecking order, isn't this the way with all things, you are responsible for what you do.
Or do you subscribe to this recent generations ideology that nothing I do is my fault, always someone or something else.
Castro is the leader of Cuba not the USA, right.
Not a country...but the previous corrupt (pro US) (maybe even US puppets?) government was ultimately responsible for creating an environment ripe for revolution, wherein a person like Castro came to the fore.
Using the same logic you could hold France responsible for the second world war. After WW1 they crippled Germany in such a way, that provided fertile ground for a scumbag like Hitler to come to power.
I don't know the details of US involvement in Cuba...but it goes waaay back....also I remember an exhibition in Chile where they displayed political cartoons from US newspapers on Cuba from around the 18th century onwards...I can remember being shocked by the blatant jingoïsm/narrow mindedness.
Now that's what I call the right to bear arms. I would best be described as indifferent.
Not if all the others have nuclear weapons. More to the point one does not need nuclear weapons to be a destabilizing influence in the region.
Frankly, can't say I loose much sleep over the issue.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.