Bush is f*cking inbelievable, vote him out!

[justin syder]

Thats very hard to say. But I do think its better to keep talking, than to stop and put a country like north korea in doubt to what the next move of the us might be.

Thats just an excuse. Nothing has come out of the talks other than procrastination and time given to N.Korean to keep doing what they want.

The US WILL NOT do anything militarily as it has been said by the Bush admin that they want talks to continue.

N.Korea is making demands just to come back to the 6 party talks. I say again, what good has come out of these talks? Not that Im giving up on them but its hard to say that love and peace will change his mind and force him to disarm.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by justin syder

Were the talks going anywhere? Honestly.

Actually, they were. The U.S. and N.K. agreed upon a framework and things were going pretty smoothly. Things took a turn after 2000 though (well, maybe 2001). Now if they have nukes, it makes me wonder if all the negotiations had any effect...well, they weren't threatening anybody then, right?

I'll be honest. I don't really give much importance to this situation. As you pointed out, America is not going to invade or bomb them....so all that's really left is to talk and negotiate further, which is better than doing nothing (which is where we are at now).

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by justin syder

N.Korea is making demands just to come back to the 6 party talks..

They want bilateral talks

[Kip_6666]

Originally Posted by justin syder

Thats just an excuse. Nothing has come out of the talks other than procrastination and time given to N.Korean to keep doing what they want.

The US WILL NOT do anything militarily as it has been said by the Bush admin that they want talks to continue.

N.Korea is making demands just to come back to the 6 party talks. I say again, what good has come out of these talks? Not that Im giving up on them but its hard to say that love and peace will change his mind and force him to disarm.

Wait,
Its South Korea and China and Japan and Russia asking North Korea for 6 party talks, not north korea, right?

[justin syder]

Multilateral talks are the way to get this solved. It is not a N.Korea/China problem, this effects more than two sides, more than two countries.

[justin syder]

Its South Korea and China and Japan and Russia asking North Korea for 6 party talks, not north korea, right?

Correct Kipp. N.Korea would HAVE to disarm if 5 countries see it as a problem, especially when 3 are in the vicinity of the nukes and when N.Korea has tested weapons near Japans coast.

[Mischief007]

First of all, this discussion is going great. I LOVE it.

Originally Posted by justin syder

How could you be so naive? The reaosn why someone would do that is to continue bad behavior or something illegal. Why else would he kick them out? Why else did he limit the sites inspectors could see, why else would he have some of them wait up to 20mins before they inspected the site. Im sure you remember those news stories.

Didn't really pay attention to politics back then so I never really knew. Only after watching a documentary about a week ago did I see the light. I can see why the US wanted to threaten IRAQ and invade it now. Basically they were scared.

North Korea:
I'm more clear on that situation now.

Canada's Healthcare:
You have it mostly right . There is no wait period for yearly checkups so it's not hard to get one. What we have here is a doctor shortage in Ontario. About 1 in 5 doesn't have a family doctor. So it's quite bad. You know how it is everyone blaming everybody else...etc. The hospitals in my town are pretty bad. Extrememly long wait periods (12+ hours). About two weeks ago one of our ER hospitals closed it's doors and only allowed serious injuries. They had no staff or anything like that. So all's not that dandy up in the North with healthcare .

[rant]As far as taxes. Well we get raped. Canadians get taxes up the wazoo for everything and our politicians are giving themselves raises and producing scams. I don't know if you guys heard about that. So....I think the Canadian government is a lot worse than the US government in terms of the domestic policies. It's a joke when our politicians can play games and lie to the extent that most people wouldn't believe.[/rant]

[Firecat]

What do you mean by "it is not a N.Korea/China problem?"

North Korea wants bilateral negotiations with washington, not Beijing

[justin syder]

My mis-posting. But in the past bilateral talks have not gone anywhere. N.Korea breaks the agreement then we are back to negotiating again.

Talks between all the parties will put far more pressure than we can alone.

Mischief, as I said, capitalism has its flaws too but I just think that it is better in some aspects. Its good to want to help your fellow countrymen but high taxes and socialism are the wrong way about it, I think.

[Mischief007]

Originally Posted by justin syder

Mischief, as I said, capitalism has its flaws too but I just think that it is better in some aspects. Its good to want to help your fellow countrymen but high taxes and socialism are the wrong way about it, I think.

I agree with you on that .

[Firecat]

Eventually North Korea will agree to some type of dialogue. Multilateral, bilateral...I could care less.

I do find it hypocritical that the U.S. is dictating who can have weapons and who can not. All while the United States wants to further increase its nuclear aresenal.

[justin syder]

All while the United States wants to further increase its nuclear aresenal.

Show me proof of that.

On top of that, we have no motive to attack South Korea because they are not communist. We have no intention of attacking Israel with nukes as Iran would. We have only used nukes in WW2 and have never set out to get colonies or overpower a country with those nukes.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by justin syder

Show me proof of that.

What, you don't believe me?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3126141.stm

Originally Posted by justin syder

On top of that, we have no motive to attack South Korea because they are not communist. We have no intention of attacking Israel with nukes as Iran would. We have only used nukes in WW2 and have never set out to get colonies or overpower a country with those nukes.

I've already commented on Israel, nukes, and mid-east stability. The only thing that would prevent Israel or America from invading Iran are nuclear weapons. Again, what are they (Iran) supposed to do?

[justin syder]

I doubt the ppl of Iran wouldn't love to see regime change.

Whos to say we would invade Iran?

Your argument is like saying, why not give crimials access to guns so they can defend themselves against the police. After all criminals are, most of the time, unarmed and the cops have battons and guns and tazors, mase etc.

[hokiethang]

Originally Posted by Firecat

All while the United States wants to further increase its nuclear aresenal.

Yeah, I also don't believe this statement. The U.S. has been destroying hundreds if not thousands of nuclear weapons (and delivery systems) a year. Peacemaker missile sites are being decomissioned as are a large number of nuclear-capable attack aircraft. Explain to me why we would be decomissioning all of these things, if we were "increasing" the nuclear arsenal? The U.S. does need to maintain some nuclear weaponry, but more is being destroyed than being created.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0011113-3.html

As Justin said, I'd like to see proof of your claims.

Edit: One BBC article about low yield nuclear weapons isn't proof that the government is increasing the arsenal. It may be modifying it, but when defense is an issue, a smaller yield weapon is a better solution than a large yield one.

[Firecat]

Actually, the people of Iran (the young people) would.

Who's to say we would invade iran? LOL. With all the axis of evil talk plus the fact that we already have them surrounded....They have a legitimate concern.

I'm not saying anyone has plans to (well, Israel does). But, again, it's a form of protection. Just like you said earlier about Israel having nukes prevents others from attacking her, the same logic applies to Iran.

[justin syder]

Iran is far from a peace loving nation.

[justin syder]

Also we are stretched to thin to take on another country/military strike.

After Jan of 2006 when about 40,000 troops will be pulled out following the Iraqi elections in Dec 05 that would be the soonest we could have some amount of troops ready for anything, but even then they would come home, not into another country for military action.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by hokiethang

Yeah, I also don't believe this statement. The U.S. has been destroying hundreds if not thousands of nuclear weapons (and delivery systems) a year. Peacemaker missile sites are being decomissioned as are a large number of nuclear-capable attack aircraft. Explain to me why we would be decomissioning all of these things, if we were "increasing" the nuclear arsenal? The U.S. does need to maintain some nuclear weaponry, but more is being destroyed than being created.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0011113-3.html

As Justin said, I'd like to see proof of your claims.

Edit: One BBC article about low yield nuclear weapons isn't proof that the government is increasing the arsenal. It may be modifying it, but when defense is an issue, a smaller yield weapon is a better solution than a large yield one.

The fact is, the department of defense is looking for ways to get out of treaties and bans. One "low-yield nuclear weapon" now, maybe more later. What does the future hold, I don't know. It is however setting a dangerous precedent. Plus, it just adds to the proliferation of weapons


It's not just "one bbc article"...I could post more relating to the same thing. We have also increased the budget for nuclear weapons by quite a bit, more than during the cold war era (Which includes upgrading and developing warheads and their command and control systems).

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...11/MN16775.DTL

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by justin syder

Also we are stretched to thin to take on another country/military strike.

After Jan of 2006 when about 40,000 troops will be pulled out following the Iraqi elections in Dec 05 that would be the soonest we could have some amount of troops ready for anything, but even then they would come home, not into another country for military action.

Short of any "incident"...I agree.