<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+May 18 2004, 06:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ May 18 2004, 06:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There are reasons that we (the US) will not sign a treaty like that with north korea. We already had a deal with north korea that if they would not develope nuclear weapons we would provide economical help. What the point in making a deal if the other side is not going to hold up their side of the bargin. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think this happened after Bush jr. labeled N-Korea a part of axis of evil with Iraq, which US shortly after invaded.
<span style='color:white'>I'm starting to lose my patience here. Declaring that somebody else can't be right because you have access to newssources he couldn't <i>possibly</i> know is not simply bad style, it's an insult. Shape up or leave this forum.</span>
The question I'm asking myself is under which situation the United States would be interested in an attack on North Korea, which is implied by them refusing to sign such a treaty. Yes, there's the possibility of North Korean troops attacking either South Korea or Japan, but both cases would be clear attacks on American allies, and adding such exceptions to a treaty is basic diplomacy, and apart from that, I'm drawing a blank.
<!--QuoteBegin-Gargamel+May 18 2004, 01:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gargamel @ May 18 2004, 01:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <span style='color:white'>I'm starting to lose my patience here. Declaring that somebody else can't be right because you have access to newssources he couldn't <i>possibly</i> know is not simply bad style, it's an insult. Shape up or leave this forum.</span> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <span style='color:white'>Use PMs to discuss moderation decisions. And in case you hadn't noticed from my posts, I'm on your side, but I won't accept rule violations, from nobody.</span>
This post has been edited by Nemesis Zero on May 18 2004, 02:47 AM
Gargamel Edit: Ok mate <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Sorry about the confussion <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> I love u2 <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Peace :]
<!--QuoteBegin-version91x+May 23 2004, 04:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (version91x @ May 23 2004, 04:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What about the whole "omg omg j00 have WMD's. u will die like the freaks with the towels on their heads" thing? I'm sure an active nuclear program will atleast bring up the possibility of a preemptive attack on NK. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Be at peace my friend. The fact that DPRNK (why, oh why can't they be just Democratic Republic of North Korea - that would make the best acronym ever) most likely has functional WMDs, unlike "the freaks with the towels on their heads", reduces the probability of a pre-emptive strike by the US to nil. Yes, the active nuclear program of NK is more likely to deter than encourage US military operations there, since unlike Saddam, Kim can actually cause some damage.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dread+May 18 2004, 12:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ May 18 2004, 12:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Handman+May 18 2004, 06:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ May 18 2004, 06:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There are reasons that we (the US) will not sign a treaty like that with north korea. We already had a deal with north korea that if they would not develope nuclear weapons we would provide economical help. What the point in making a deal if the other side is not going to hold up their side of the bargin. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think this happened after Bush jr. labeled N-Korea a part of axis of evil with Iraq, which US shortly after invaded.
Ho-hum. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> They had the program running since before bush came to office. THey just announced it because bush said they are a potential threat to us, or part of the axis of evil.
Well, North Korea has millions of pwople starving to death, but the leaders of the country refuse to stop spending money on nuclear weapons. The United States has no interest in invading North Korea. We'd rather Korea united under a free government system. North Korea is a threat to the balance of power in Asia. and they know it. That is why they keep making more powerful weapons, and that is why we keep 30,000 America troops there. The North Korean government is made of many hardline military generals, who have long since stopped the implementation of communism, instead relying on their lust for power to justify their increased massing of WMD's.
Will America launch a preemptive strike against North Korea? I seriously doubt it. Should we sign an agreement with them saying we won't? Obviously not.
What about the whole "omg omg j00 have WMD's. u will die like the freaks with the towels on their heads" thing? I'm sure an active nuclear program will atleast bring up the possibility of a preemptive attack on NK.
Comments
I think this happened after Bush jr. labeled N-Korea a part of axis of evil with Iraq, which US shortly after invaded.
Ho-hum.
<span style='color:white'>Use PMs to discuss moderation decisions. And in case you hadn't noticed from my posts, I'm on your side, but I won't accept rule violations, from nobody.</span>
This post has been edited by Nemesis Zero on May 18 2004, 02:47 AM
Gargamel Edit: Ok mate <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Sorry about the confussion <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> I love u2 <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Peace :]
Be at peace my friend. The fact that DPRNK (why, oh why can't they be just Democratic Republic of North Korea - that would make the best acronym ever) most likely has functional WMDs, unlike "the freaks with the towels on their heads", reduces the probability of a pre-emptive strike by the US to nil. Yes, the active nuclear program of NK is more likely to deter than encourage US military operations there, since unlike Saddam, Kim can actually cause some damage.
I think this happened after Bush jr. labeled N-Korea a part of axis of evil with Iraq, which US shortly after invaded.
Ho-hum. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
They had the program running since before bush came to office. THey just announced it because bush said they are a potential threat to us, or part of the axis of evil.
Will America launch a preemptive strike against North Korea? I seriously doubt it. Should we sign an agreement with them saying we won't? Obviously not.