BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 07:38 PM

Sounds a bit like he is to me, Kim. (Man you keep trying to keep this thread on track don't you Kim?) Good for you!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 05:53 PM

Is the President (or whatever he calls himself) of North Korea a big boob?

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 05:05 PM

Hmm? I wonder if that is what accounts for my good health and long life to date, Kim. I most certainly like to look.

Troll: I assumed everyone thought Kim was referring to what she was referring to rather than to the alternative. But you're right, one should be very specific when discussing boobs.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 10:05 AM

A friend of mine sent me an actual newspaper story that said it can improve a man's health to "gaze" at women's breasts for about 10 minutes a day. I told her I thought it was a load of shit. She said yeah, but if it's true, I know a lot of men who will live forever.

Yeah, I said, ALL OF THEM.

So North Korea may have the big bomb. What makes anyone think Al Gore would be handling it any better?

Anyway, I voted for Harry Browne.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Troll
Date: 30 Oct 02 - 05:49 AM

DougR, just remember; there's boobs and then there's boobs.
Fortunately it's usually simple to tell the difference.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 07:15 PM

Kim: Thanks for getting this thread back on track. It seems to have taken a curve at some point and Bobert got all excited and ran with it.

If you want me to change the name of the thread from bomb to boobs, I'd be happy to do it. Personally I like boobs much more than I like bombs anyway. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 07:05 PM

Everyone trying to learn to spell like the Bobert. Well, ain't easy to spell as bad as me, Nicole, but I appreciate the effort on your part. Gives me a case of the warm and fuzzies.

Yeah, I know that there is now way of getting a Constitutional Ammendment thru. Heck, these folks in Congress can't even pass a bill without loopholes on campaign finance. Just a few months ago they passed one and Bush has just gone out and shattered all cash-grab records. And this, while tending to business in Washingotn (Whats that?...) Strike the "business tending" part.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 06:53 PM

Uh, that was supposed to be "Constitutional."

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 06:45 PM

#3 Doesn't require a Constitutiuon Amendment -- Electors are designated at the state level. So a state can choose to split up their electors proportionally based on the percentage of vote for each candidate.

Dropping the EC altogether or requiring states to proportionalize their EC reps would require an Amendment, though. That would require states to give up much of their control over the election process and create a national voter's registry, and getting the states to ratify an amendment that sharply decreases their power would be politically impossible for now.

Personally, I favor a national instant-runoff election -- one of the few cases where I don't support state's rights. It's the president, after all, it SHOULD be a National Election of all the citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 06:07 PM

What's the question, Teribus? Jus funnin' with ya...

Yeah, sure, T. No probelm.

First of all, I'd like to see AlGore sue Jeb Bush and Kate Harris for damages from their illegal activities that prevented him from becoming president but that's ahs more to do with law enforcment than changes...

1. Federally funded national elections.

2. No money (directly or indirectly) from corporations, PACS or individuals to parties.

3. Porportioned electors. (No winner take all. Will take a Constitutional Ammendment)

4. Criminal prosection for election officials convicted of violating voter laws.

5. Uniform ballots.

6. Universal voting machines.

Those are for starters...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 12:57 PM

Ture, LH. Then again, I know one Nader voter who would have voted for Bush otherwise. They were only voting for Nader because of the campaign money fiasco.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 12:52 PM

Well, there's an old saying about, he who would have peace must be prepared for war.

But what I really came here to say, is that every time I see this thread title, it looks like "N. Korea may have big boobs."

Only 35 and already my eyesight has gone to crap...........

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 12:47 PM

Hell, if I was American I would most certainly have voted for Nader. I regard the Redemocrapublicants as the two wings of a "bought" bird, and a vulture at that. But I agree that the Republicans are the uglier wing of the two... :>)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 11:07 AM

Troll, a single county does not and absolutely cannot sway a vote, only whole state results can. (I wish it weren't true, but that's the Electoral College for you.) If you look at state results, the only thing that CAN, there are just a few states where it was possible. Iowa, off the top of my head, a couple of others. Florida was one of them, too.

I think it's great that Nader took 80% of your county. But he only took 2% of Florida. Since the other vote was 49% to 49%, Florida is a state where Nader could have swung the vote. But when you look at the whole US picture, it doesn't add up. Heck, Hagelin got 2300 votes in Florida. Let's blame the election on HIM!

It's not logical to model a theoretically election on removing only one 3rd party candidate, but not the others. Many Nader votes would have gone to Gore, true, but many wouldn't have voted and some would have even gone to Hagelin. Then there's the margin for error -- would the vote have been easier to read? Then more votes could have gone to Bush OR Gore. While it may be a true premise in particular places, like your county, no statistician worth their salt would assume 100% of any set of votes.

The 2000 election was an odd case. It was more of a study in what happens when you have two thoroughly bland candidates than what happens when you have a slightly interesting 3rd party candidate around.

1992 is a better study of 3rd party candidate swing -- like here, for example:
Case Study: The 1992 US Presidential Election

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Troll
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 09:23 AM

NicoleC, I am from Florida. The county in which I live -Alachua- is very heavily Democrat but in the last election they went about 80% for Nader. If those Nader votes had been cast for Gore, as they almost certainly would have been, Gore would have had several THOUSAND more votes from that one county alone.
This is the opinion of the Supervisor of Elections for the county. I learned of this from my brother, Skeptic, who works for the county and knows the Supervisor quite well.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Oct 02 - 05:27 AM

Bobert,

Just for once - can you answer the question - none of the waffle is required. You are continually telling everybody about these visionary and radical ideas you come up with to made the planet a better place - never read one yet.

Question asked was:

"What's your suggestion for changing the system for electing your government then Bobert?"

If you have no suggestions - then please say so.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: NicoleC
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 09:50 PM

I'm pretty sure that no one but disgruntled Gore-supporters seriously think Nader lost the election for Gore. There's only a handle full of small states where the Nader vote could have swung the election, and it's theoretically possible -- but it requires practically every Nader vote to go to Gore, and totally discounts the Buchanan, Brown, and Phillips votes. (And Hagelin didn't get enough to sneeze at.)

Unfortunately, most of the Nader voters I've talked to wouldn't have bothered to vote if Tweedledee and Tweedledum were their only choices.

Too much hanky panky in Florida -- and probably in plenty of other states, too (on both sides), just this time they got caught.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 08:27 PM

Well, Ter, apparently you have not spent any appreciable amount of time looking into the crap that went down in Florida. Like the some 57,000 folks who were purged from the roles that were disporportionatly black who voted 90 percent for Gore. Like the military balloting that took place *after* the eclection, when your guy *needed* votes anywhere he could get them. Like paid goon squads that set up shop outside of voting recount centers pounding on windows and threatening folks inside some of whom were being paid by taxpayers. Like Junior outspending Gore 5 to 1 in attorneys who were the *first* to file suit against Gore. Like a Supreme Court that stopped a recount just hours before Junior Bush would have lost his lead forever keeping him back at the ranch. And these facts are just the tip of the iceburg! Don't believe me. Read Greg Palist's "Best Democracy Money Can Buy". All the evidence is there. Copies of secret memos. Copies of votor purge lists where folks were identified buy the color of their skin. Yeah, read the book. Then you will have a better understanding of wht a man why had really crappy approval ratings the day before 9/11 had been beating a drum ever since...

And am I a Gore supporter? Heck no! But don't blame me for his lose! Blame the thief imposter who occupies the White House and his handlers who have called off democracy, thank you...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 04:56 PM

Yes, teribus, I'm well aware of the fact that Canada was being supposedly "protected" by the NATO "nuclear umbrella". My point was, however, that the national character of Canada is different, in that it has never been a very aggressive country (or society), and has never been much inclined to arm itself heavily, except when obliged to by participation in the two World Wars...and, I suppose, in 1812-1814 when attacked by the USA.

I very much doubt that Canada would have been inclined to produce its own nuclear weapons in the absence of NATO. In fact, it's almost unimaginable. Believe me, we've got better things to spend our money on...like health care, roads, schools, police stations, fire departments, waterworks, and so on.

I have never considered Canada to have been genuinely protected by its membership in NATO, but on the contrary endangered by it...in event that a major conflict had arisen between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, for instance.

Canada is a country that historically has not gone around threatening other people, and accordingly has not been threatened by them either, except when drawn into large world conflicts through her alliances with the U.K.

Be that as it may, I am glad that Canada participated in the 2nd World War. As for the 1st World War, I believe we would have been far better advised to stay out of it...but given the British Empire tradition at the time, that was obviously not going to happen. A lot of the Quebecois tended to see it my way at the time.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 09:10 AM

Little Hawk,

Canada has not developed a nuclear weapon capability because it has never had to because of NATO membership. During the days of the "Cold War", Canada and a good number of other countries sheltered under the American blanket - and a very effective blanket it was too!

In 1950 the UN took action against North Korea for invading South Korea. North Korean forces were expelled from the South and constraints were placed on operations in the North. A truce was arranged that holds to this day - note it's a truce, or ceasefire there was no peace treaty negotiated. North Korea undertook the development of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, the motive was not to threaten, it was blackmail, which they have been quite successfull with.

In 1991 the UN took action against Iraq for invading Kuwait. Iraqi forces were expelled from Kuwait and constraints were placed limiting the extent of operations inside Iraq. A peace agreement, of sorts, was negotiated with the Iraqi government under the terms of which Iraq was supposed to comply with a number of UNSC Resolutions. Iraq has failed to comply with any, and is currently suspected of re-arming. That re-armament programme includes chemical, biological WMD and developemnt of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

While increasing contact and trade between North and South Korea will ultimately bring down Kim Il Jong's regime. North Korea is not an aggressor in the same league as Iraq. America does not particularly want to have to deal with a nuclear armed Iraq - I don't believe anyone else in the region, or who has interests in the region, want to do that either. While the two situations may be similar, they are definitiely not the same, and as such require different handling.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Troll
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 04:53 AM

This is thread creep but I think it's time that everyone finally accepted the fact that it wasn't some kind of crooked count and Supreme Court interference that elected George Bush.
It was all the people who voted for Nader -who didn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning- that elected Bush. Had it not been for the Green Party voters siphoning votes away from Gore, He would be the one dealing with this problem; or not dealing with it, considering the Dems track record in the 1990's.
If not for Nader, the recount in West Palm Beach would never have been necessary.
So get over it.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Oct 02 - 03:14 AM

What's your suggestion for changing the system for electing your government then Bobert - seems to me the only system you would go for would be one that only returns the person that you want.

By and large the electoral system in America does work and has done for quite some time, both in domestic and international terms - Oh dang there I go rationalising again.

While I fully accept that "faith, hope, love, compassion and sharing" are all essential, highly commendable qualities, in terms of co-existance here on planet Earth, they must be moderated with some degree of realism.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Oct 02 - 05:50 PM

Teribus writes: "I have faith in the system that elected them (those at the top) and by which they were elected." Hmmmmmmm? You stickin' with this one, Ter? Ya' might want to give a little thought to this one...

Ahhh, seems there is a big old dog that Bush Junior wnats to keep in the cage. You know the cage. The one with all the other big dogs waiting for a piece of Junior's butt. And the last tiem I looked, I'm not too sure there's gonna be enough butt to go around.

Ya' know, Teribus, you and those in you camp are purdy danged good at *rationalizing* but historians will not be too kind to your emperor and his cronies. Well, unless of course, Junior just gets the entire planet blown up and then he and you won't have to worry about explainining this crap to your kids and grandkids.

Too bad. You seem like an industrious and well educated person. Just not too well developed in the area of faith, hope, love, compassion and sharing. I know these are tough concepts but they *can* be incorporated into a new way of co-existance here on the planet and make for a much safer place to live. But you don't have the wiring to see it. But don't feel like the Lone Ranger here. Your *elected* leaders seemed to have missed that day in school, also...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Oct 02 - 01:47 PM

That's an interesting post, teribus, and I find much in it to agree with. It is true that the strong tend to govern the weak. It's also true that the strong, if they are also wise, protect the weak and show them mercy.

I think people often confuse aggressiveness with strength, and that leads to problems. I think aggressiveness is a byproduct of fear and lack of confidence, not of strength.

If I were in the leadership of a nuclear power, I would be inclined to work hard on preventing the further spread of nuclear weapons, so it doesn't surprise me that they are doing that. Nor does it surprise me that some smaller countries are trying to get around it and acquire their own bombs. It's typical human nature.

I think you'll find that the more fearful a country is, the more inclined they are to try to acquire nuclear weapons. Whether their fears are justified is another matter...

Canada, for example, is not a very fearful country...and accordingly has not armed itself in a very aggressive manner (to say the least). That's partly because of geography, partly because of national character and past history. Pakistan is definitely a fearful country, has been since its inception, and accordingly arms itself in a very aggressive manner. That, again, is partly because of geography, partly because of culture and past history. I'm not separating things into "right" and "wrong" here, I'm just describing the situation. Canada has historically been in a fortunate situation.

The USA is by nature a pretty aggressive country, and always has been, if you look at its history. That is fundamentally why American policy worries me...I believe it springs out of an overly aggressive mindset. I think the USA is a country that tends to feel lost unless it has an "enemy" to fight...either internally or externally (frequently both). I'd describe that as a form of emotional illness on a national basis. Of course, like the saying goes, even those suffering from paranoia sometimes have real enemies! But the question is, from where did those enemies come and why? Do the paranoid tend to create self-fulfilling prophecies as time goes by? I believe so.

Troll had mentioned that a country could use nuclear weapons as a form of blackmail on its neighbours, as well as a form of defense. Well, YEAH! Definitely. I'd say, in fact, that ALL countries with nuclear weapons do that...to a certain extent. We've all suffered fear on account of it.

You could have said the same about cowpokes carrying guns in the Wild West. It's partly defense, it's partly intimidation.

I hope that as time goes by the strong in this world use their strength more to assist the weak, rather than to terrorize them into unwilling obedience.

We'll see how it goes.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: saulgoldie
Date: 26 Oct 02 - 01:40 PM

Between the NK bomb admission and the looming war with Iraq there is virtually no discussion of the numerous and critical election issues, not to mention the unfinished business in the rubble that was once Afghanistan.

The Iraq war issue helped along with the NK bomb issue has thus served the President well. Because if he and his fellow party members--yes, even Connie Mozarella--had to truly address the economy, increasing homelessness, the bone-headed tax cut, the threat they pose to women's reproductive rights, the shameless neglect of mental health, their attack on individual liberties, the damage they pose to the Supreme Court, the opportunity cost of whatever military thingie we ultimately get into (and we will!), the environment, including but not limited to the great forest giveaway, our disdain for the Kyoto agreement, our comsumption of oil, and our contribution to global warming, America's sinking image around the world, and on and on, then the election would surely turn out much differently then it likely will. Not that the Dems have shown much spine in raising the issues either...

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Oct 02 - 03:00 AM

Nicely said Troll.

To those who believe we all live in "Camberwick Green"

The "Club" as LH refers to it, were going quite a way down the road to divest themselves of nuclear weapons. Their development by both India and Pakistan put the brakes on that.

LH you say that you are convinced that I TRUST those at the top - No, but I have faith in the system that elected them and by which they were elected. The goals you are seeking will evolve through that system - that I do believe, but it will not happen overnight. Those who belive it can happen overnight are being unrealistic, irresponsible and dangerous.

That the strong will always govern the weak is a law of nature, common to every species alive on this planet, or that has ever lived on this planet. In terms of the human race, how benign that governance is depends upon the philosophy that drives it.

At the moment, western civilisation is viewed as being all powerful, with America as its leader in a multitude of ways. From the lessons of history it should be asked just how and why that came to be. Older civilisations in the Middle East and in Asia were far more advanced, their knowledge was greater, their cultures a great deal more sophisticated. So how did the cave dwellers clinging to the western extremities gain their current position in the face of such competition?

Initially through local struggles a system of government evolved and from this evolution an imperfect but workable form of democracy came into being (it didn't happen anywhere else). With the fall of Eastern Roman Empire a flood of knowledge swept westwards. The Roman Catholic Church tried its best to control the dissemination of that knowledge but was unsuccessful. A great many people found that what those in authority told them as fact was both untrue and unjust and their natural reaction was to question and experiment.

About ten years ago while working in the Far East, I was told how young and primitive our society was in comparison to the East, of how in the East they had invented gunpowder while we were still using clubs. My reply to that was to comment that all they had done with that knowledge was to create fireworks to entertain an Emporor, while our poor primitive society had thaken that and sent a man to the moon and back. And therein lies the difference, we take it as natural that, we question, we challenge and in so doing we advance. Because we live in a society where that is not only allowed to happen - it is actively encouraged across the complete spectra of human endeavour. In our society the days are long gone when a religious leader can tell us what we can, or must, think and do.

Superiority? or sense of superiority? depends on how it is viewed and in what context it is taken. The answer to the straight question "Is the west superior to the rest" - NO. Do we have superior systems and technology to respond to the challenges posed by a rapidly changing world - YES, because that is our past, that has been our learning curve. The best example, to date, of a multitude of the world's people gathering together and working as a community for the good of all is America. You might not like that, those who describe America as the "Great Satan" definitely do not. Not because America IS the "Great Satan", it is because the example shown by America is the greatest challenge to the hold they have over the people and populations they wish to control.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Troll
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 07:35 PM

LH, of course they only want the Bomb for self-defense. None of them would ever use it for nuclear blackmail, to inflict their will on their neighbors thus controling an entire region by fear.
Our motives may be no more pure than those of Saddam but if I have to make a choice over who will exercise the greatest influence in the Middle East, I want it to be us.
Believe me, thats what it boils down to. "If only" is very well in theory but the practicalities of the world dictate otherwise. Communism looks great on paper but the experience of the last century shows otherwise.
So keep your idealism Hawk, because we need idealists. They remind us of what might be someday and that's important. But don't excoriate the pragmatists who deal with things as they are instead of how they could be.

troll

"Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them and psychiatrists collect the rent."

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 05:48 PM

From the point of view of "defence" as it is called, having a few (or a lot of) nuclear weapons has so far proven enough of a deterrent to prevent full scale invasion of the owner of those weapons in, I think, every case on record (a possible exception to that being Israel, debatably). The most recent case was that of India and Pakistan. Without the Bomb they would most likely have fought a bloody war this summer, which would have killed hundreds of thousands.

I believe THAT is why smaller countries wish to have the Bomb themselves. It gives them a sense of immunity from large scale attack.

This is not the route I would take if I were running a small country, but I believe it is the primary rationale behind smaller countries acquiring the Bomb. They are not acquiring it so that they can attack someone bigger and get annihilated, they are doing it so that someone bigger WON'T attack them.

This is not to say that a secret terrorist organization would not attack someone with the Bomb (they undoutedly would, given the opportunity, and that someone would probably be the USA, Russia or Israel). The thing about a terrorist cell is...they hide themselves among other people, and are not subject to a nuclear counterstrike in the same way that a nation state is.

Therefore, I think it is unrealistic to expect nations NOT to try to acquire their own nuclear weapons as time goes by...given people's natural desire to arm themselves as their neighbours and competitors have armed themselves.

It's also a bit morally hypocritical to be so self-righteous about limiting the "Club". It's like saying...Oh, well, we can have the Bomb because we are richer, we are morally superior, and we are more mature (let's face it, more human) than you are. You can't have it because we say so. Only we in the Club have the right to the means to instantly annihilate entire cities full of people if we so choose. You don't. This is a closed shop.

This is ludicrous to those not in the club, you see, and they will resist it. They don't see themselves as second-class people or as children, and given my exposure to 3rd World people I can understand why...they are frankly more mature in many cases than a good many of their North American counterparts.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not personally in favour of building any more nuclear bombs anywhere, but I am simply pointing out the prejudice and arrogance of the Haves, their self-serving maintenance of inequality, and the results of them foisting those attitudes on the Have-nots in the world.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 04:21 PM

I put in the link to that story in the expectation that anyone who was interested would click on it and read it. The quote was to give a taste of it, and put the link in context; and it was picked in this case to respond specifically to the query Doug raised.

Any quote is by definition selective. But the Guardian retains its archives, so there's no point in wasting bandwidth by running the whole story here. And it's much easier to read an article of any length in the paper's own website than it is in a thread here.

(And that last sentence that Troll thought "changed the whole tenor of the Guardian article" was one that I had in effect referred to in my post: "I'm not sugesting that it's OK for North Korea to break international agreements, as they appear to have done in this case.")

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 03:55 PM

France, Russia, UK, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Tuvalu, Let's get this party started.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Peg
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 02:41 PM

Doug, you are STILL not answering any questions. More ad hominem. More hypocrisy. Ho hum.

Good point, LH. The fact that nations whose children go to bed hungry are spending money on bombs is preposterous. What's the old quote? You can measure the compassion of a society by how well it cares for those who can't care for themselves?

Cynicism will kil us more surely than plutonium. We all need to go down fighting for a better world.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 02:28 PM

Hear! Hear!

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 01:07 PM

teribus - You are a cynical fellow, aren't you? I think that you have a lower opinion of the human race than it deserves, but I'm sure you feel it is a reasonable and practical one.

All it comes down to is you are saying we are the way we have always been and nothing will ever change us and so the strong and vigilant shall rule...by force or by the threat of force. And I'm saying we can do better than that. That's what Bobert is saying too, although his spelling is lamentable at times. :-)

My example regarding Hitler was not intended in quite the fashion you took it. Hitler DID try to bring about the complete destruction of his own society (at the bitter end) and take them all down with him, since he felt that having failed his vision they did not deserve to survive. Of course his people (most of them) disobeyed him. A few (like Goebbels) did not. I guess you'd call those few the "true believers"...well, Goebbels would undoubtedly have been tried and executed anyway, so from his point of view better to go out under his own auspices, I suppose. It's the last possible gesture of still being "in control" of one's own life.

Now, I was suggesting that the last possible national gesture of still being "in control" (if you are a primitive-minded fool) is to fire off one's nuclear weapons at the "enemy". Certainly this is what America and Russia were contemplating doing on a few occasions, most notably in the Cuban missile crisis. Recent revelations about that have indicated that it very nearly happened.

If it had happened, it would have been a futile and idiotic gesture, self-defeating to both combatants, as well as to all humanity and to nature as well. It would have been remembered as folly, not heroism.

It amazes me the pickles that supposedly rational people get themselves into merely because they are too fearful and unimaginative to be able to grasp a simple concept like "we are all one humanity and we have a common interest in cooperating with each other".

Is this too idealistic for you, teribus? If so, I suggest that you are trapped in a form of thinking which leads nowhere useful, but simply repeats a savage and primitive past. It's caveman logic.

Are the North Korean leaders inclined toward the same caveman logic? Yes. So? They can be characterized as a very small, stunted impoverished little caveman with a tiny little club. The leaders of the USA can be characterized as a caveman 700 feet tall with a steel ax weighing 5,000 pounds in his hand. Ask me which set of leaders worries me more when I go walking through the forest that is the world of today.

It all boils down to one thing, teribus...you apparently TRUST those guys at the top, and I don't. I'm cynical about the leadership, while you are cynical about humanity in general, as far as I can see. I have observed humanity in general all my life, and I see that the vast majority of them prefer to live quiet, peaceful lives and get along with each other, unless they are very scared and under great stress.

There is great stress in the world, and it's because of poverty and inequality. Do something about that, and you will not need to build more weapons of mass destruction.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 12:11 PM

No, Peg, but I'm old and cranky! The fact that you don't like my posts, or disagree with them, or even don't like me, is your problem, not mine.

I tried to reply to your post, you didn't get what you wanted, so you attack again. So be it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Peg
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 10:59 AM

well I tried to reply earlier but it seems to have disappeared...

Doug, I am just wondering why you expect others to adhere to some standard of rhetoric which you seem all too eager to enforce, but you yourself don't think it applies to you? You urge me to use restraint; yet in the same post you insult me several times. Why on earth do you expect others to behave in a certain way when you have no intention or inclination to do so?

Your petty insults and prickly sarcasm are getting extremely tiresome, as is your evasion of answering direct questions in order to engage in ad hominem insults and picking apart of other people's replies. You have yet to answer my original questions. You say I have "no good argument for it" but I provided one which you seem to be ignoring. You are accusing me of doing exactly what YOU are doing! Are you blind?

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 09:06 AM

Bobert - You are an absolute star!!!!

"Good point, Little Hawk. I can't see a scenerio where a country would us nuclear waepons knowing that that ver action would bring complete destruction unless that country had allready been "attacked, invaded and its last stategic positions are aboout to be overrun"."

Which you follow with:

"Given that as a basic premise of man's instinct to survive"

Priceless, absolutely priceless!!!!

In Little Hawk's post so called "actual" and "theoretical" examples were given.

"Hitler in the last days of the Battle of Berlin or Saddam in the last days of the battle of Baghdad or Pakistan with the Indian army entering Karachi and Islamabad."

I am sorry, but the truth was that in the last days of the Third Reich, Hitler could have given orders until he was blue in the face, those to whom he was giving those orders - DID WANT TO SURVIVE - so they just ignored them.

I think it was General Slim who said something about, "Of the number of Leaders and Generals who order troops to fight until the last man and the last bullet - the Japanese is the only soldier who will carry that order out."

Now onto the theoretical examples:

Saddam Hussein and "The Battle of Baghdad", the result would be the same as for Hitler in his Bunker, Saddam would either be shot on the spot for suggesting it, or completely ignored. What this whole Iraq thing has been about is to ensure we never get the opportunity to find out - you Bobert on the other hand seem to be only too willing to give the man that chance. If Iraq, or more accurately, Saddam Hussein gets a nuclear weapon - it will be firmly targeted at Israel, the country he has vowed to wipe from the face of the Earth.

Indian Invasion of Pakistan:

Because Pakistan has a credible nuclear capability Indian will not invade Pakistan - they are in a stand-off. Pakistan has learned enough in the past not to attack India.

But Bobert you saved the best till last -

"...,I think its way past time to engage the world's leaders in a more inclusive, pro-human, pro-earth serce toward breaking the current cycle of violence.

It just takes courage to go where mankind hasn't been BUT it is do-able and within man's capabilities..."

It will be just after you have taken those steps President Bobert that you will learn the truth in that age old saying:

"You play ball with me - and I'll jam that bat right up your arse".

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 08:07 AM

Good point, Little Hawk. I can't see a scenerio where a country would us nuclear waepons knowing that that ver action would bring complete destruction unless that country had allready been "attacked, invaded and its last stategic positions are aboout to be overrun".

Given that as a basic premise of man's instinct to survive, I think its way past time to engage the world's leaders in a more inclusive, pro-human, pro-earth serce toward breaking the current cycle of violence.

It just takes courage to go where mankind hasn't been BUT it is do-able and within man's capabilities...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Troll
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 06:21 AM

Golly, that last sentence does change the whole tenor of the Guardian article, doesn't it?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 06:14 AM

Interesting Guardian link supplied by McGoH, the whole article is well worth the read and covers the story, as opposed to the rather selective passages quoted above.

In another thread regarding President Bush - Lies, Political or Pathological? NicoleC came out with the following:

"Bush has been priviledged, pampered and protected almost all (all?) of his life. Money or friends or Daddy's connections have always bailed him out. I don't think he's ever had to face the consequences of lies or half-truths. And while I don't doubt that intellectually he thinks falsehoods and untruths are wrong, it just doesn't sink in that it applies to HIM."

Substitute Kim Jong-il for GWB and it would fit like a glove.

Nicole, in the same post goes on to liken politicians lying to teenagers lying. First total denial, etc, through to justification for the lie they have been caught out in.

Again it fits the North Korean situation like a glove. The one exception was that having originally denied everything the NK Government owned up knowing that if they didn't their lie would be laid bare to the world. How? - The Guardian article tells us:

"Washington's first step towards getting confirmation of North Korea's weapons programme - during an October 3 visit to Pyongyang by the assistant secretary of state Jim Kelly -was to despatch its envoy to Seoul and Tokyo, and he is presently on his way to Beijing.

Although Mr Kelly arrived armed with US intelligence of North Korea's efforts to produce enriched uranium, it had been expected that Pyongyang would respond in the traditional fashion: by stonewalling and denial.

On the first day of consultations the North Koreans did exactly that, but they returned the next morning and acknowledged the programme, evidently with the approval of their leader, Kim Jong-il."

Now I expect that this US Intelligence has been gathered by the same organisations that gathered the US Intelligence somewhere else, the same intelligence that so many in this forum have been pouring cold water on from the minute it was published???? Hmmmmmm?? as Bobert would say.

The Guardian article also defines the agreement as follows:

"North Korea is acknowledged to have grounds for complaint about the slow implementation of the 1994 agreement to supply two light water nuclear reactors for peaceful use in return for a freeze on its own programme.

The first reactor was due to be completed next year, but 2008 is now thought to be the earliest feasible date.

But the delay cannot justify the open breach of non-nuclear commitments made repeatedly to other countries as well as to the US."

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 02:25 AM

Peg: You are right of course. The pile on the Mudcat that agrees with me would be a bit small. I think, however, it would represent a "pile" of good quality thinking.

The fact that you chose to make a personal attack rather than address the point I made in my post, re the tardy reading of complaining Mudcatters, leads me to believe you have no good argument for it. If I'm wrong, I will look forward to your response. Restraint would be appreciated, but not expected. After all, you are a declared liberal, right? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 01:34 AM

Hi Peg,

The two points you refer to above, taken in reverse order:

"BUSH got the UN to see reason". Subsequent to the ending of "Desert Storm" the Iraqi Government agreed to certain undertakings in relation to a number of UN Resolutions. They did not comply with those resolutions and sanctions were imposed, by the UN, to force compliance. Iraqi authorities continued to hinder the work of the UNSCOM inspection teams and they were withdrawn in 1998. The Iraqi Government invited the UN inspection teams to return 2002. If that had nothing to do with BUSH, what has held up that invitation from the Iraqi Government for three and a half years? - why was the invitation made when it was made?

The BS part about this being about oil, is the contention by some that a war is being instigated in order that America can "get it's hands on Iraqi oil". I apologise for not making that clear. So far, none of the people voicing that contention, regarding America doing what it is doing, to "get their hands on Iraqi oil" has come up with any rationale as how that could be done - or why. Where it is about oil is a regional threat whereby the resources of the region could be threatened - that affects other countries more so than it affects America, who still import most of their oil from South American oil fields.

To get back to the North Korean question. The agreement was that America would assist North Korea in developing nuclear power stations for civilian use on the proviso that North Korea halted its development in the field of nuclear weapons. I do not believe at any time was the agreement based on continuation of the weapons programme by North Korea up until such time as the civilian reactors were completed. North Korea did not stop its secret weapons programme, therefore US aid was not continued. Again I think it has been your current President's stand that has forced North Korea to "come clean" on what it has been doing since 1994 - When was George W Bush elected again? Who was there before him? Because all this was going on during his watch, much to the consternation of both South Korea and Japan.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 12:46 AM

Yes, a nation with "nothing to lose" is a little hard to imagine...unless it has already been attacked, invaded, and its last strategic positions are about to be overrun. Actual and theoretical examples of such: Hitler in the last days of the Battle of Berlin or Saddam in the last days of the battle of Baghdad or Pakistan with the Indian army entering Karachi and Islamabad.

This is one of the numerous reasons why one may be unwise to contemplate the destruction of a regime by outside force...all depending, of course, on how high you like the stakes when you are gambling with people's lives.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Troll
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 12:18 AM

Ebbie, Saddam and his ilk have the attitude of l'etat c'est moi. Whatever THEY want is what goes. There is where the problem lies.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 12:03 AM

"sooner or later a fanatic state with nothing to lose will get the Bomb"

LEJ, will there ever be a state that has nothing to lose? Yes, I can see that an individual may feel that way, but a state always has an enormous amount at stake.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Peg
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 12:02 AM

Teribus: I take issue with a LOT of what you said but the ONE thing you said which leads me to think there is no point in refuting any of it is your claim that the suggestion that an impending invasion of Iraq has everything to do with oil is somehow "BS"...I mean, what planet do you live on?

That, and you think somehow BUSH got the UN to see reason? This is a man who'd never even been to Europe before getting, erm, "elected." His grasp of foreign policy is no firmer than his grasp of simple English grammar.


Doug: You did not really "suggest" any such thing but I guess it is all mere semantics at this point...and your claim that you;re not being nasty is nasty in itself, isn't it? at the very least, screamingly passive-aggressive. And your assessment of the "Mudcatter view" of the actions of Bush are pretty simple-minded and sweeping. You wouldn't wnat anyone to do as you do, and casually lump you into a big pile with others who thought as you do...except, oops, there aren't many around here who do think as you do. So hard to say.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 11:54 PM

It continues to amaze me how something like this, North Korea announcing it has nukes, gets politicized into a reason to support Bush on attacking Iraq, or attacking Bush as someone who chooses his enemies unfairly,on and on, etcetera etcetera. The crucial fact is another extremist tin-horn dictatorship has gotten its hands on the Bomb, and instead of talking about meaningful control of nuclear proliferation, we turn it into a Bush issue. Because America has the Bomb, we shouldn't have any say about other nations acquiring it?That's fricking ridiculous. When the US and the USSR were poised on opposite sides of the fence with innumerable nukes, why weren't the buttons pushed? Because each power had too much to lose by doing so. If nuclear proliferation is allowed to continue unheeded, sooner or later a fanatic state with nothing to lose will get the Bomb. Then all the noise about whether Bush is right or wrong about Iraq will be put in its true perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Troll
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 11:16 PM

Kevin, was any reason given as to WHY NK "is acknowledged to have grounds for complaint about the slow implementation of the 1994 agreement to supply two light water nuclear reactors for peaceful use in return for a freeze on its own programme."?
THAT would be much more effective than a simple bare-faced statement.
But I doubt that we'll ever hear THAT little tidbit of news. After all, how relevant could it be, right?
I mean, everyone knows the US is always wrong.
Right?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 09:51 PM

McGrath: Not the US of A reniggin' on an agreement? How could this be? Especially under President Junior, who is a "true believer" in abiding by international law, treaties and resolutions... You do drugs, or what?

Opps, sorry, pal. What got into me? For a second there, I thought I was DougR?

Whew!?!?!?!?!....

Danged scarey.....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 08:40 PM

Here's a quote from a report (yes, in the Guardian, since that's the paper I read and it's site is very well archived and accessible, compared to the right-wing Telegraph - but I suspect that will have had essentially the same story, since it prides itself on its foreign news coverage):

On the Korean peninsula, the Bush administration is seen as having wrecked a two-year peace process between the south and the north and parallel efforts at normalising relations with Japan...

...North Korea is acknowledged to have grounds for complaint about the slow implementation of the 1994 agreement to supply two light water nuclear reactors for peaceful use in return for a freeze on its own programme.

The first reactor was due to be completed next year, but 2008 is now thought to be the earliest feasible date.

(And note, I'm not sugesting that it's OK for North Korea to break international agreements, as they appear to have done in this case. Breaking international agreemnts is a wretched things to do, whether it's small countries or big countries that do it.)

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 08:25 PM

I thought they were going to hit Guam, but they hit Pearl Harbor instead.

DougR