BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 08:14 PM

What was it you were wrong about in '41, Doug?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 07:43 PM

Interesting, McGrath. That's contrary to everything I have read or heard about the agreement. What is the source of your information? I'll take a second look at mine.

Bobert: I don't think I have indicated dissatisfaction with the Social Security program. From all I have read and heard it is going to cease to exist in about 2040 unless something is done to shore it up though. The non-partisan commission the president appointed to study the program and come back to him with suggestions for saving SS recommended the choice for new entrants into the program. As I recall, the amount that could be invested was two to three percent of the total funds put into SS. I could be wrong though. I was wrong in 1941.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 07:30 PM

A bit back Doug write: "NK violated the accord of 1994 in which in exchange for our providing them nuclear materials, money, and other materials for domestic use, they used it instead for their weapons program."

Well actually it was the USA violated that accord, when it failed to come up with the help that was promised as part of the deal, to enable a civil nuclear power programme; in return for which the Koreans agreed to cancel their own nuclear development programme.

Not that I'm keen on civil nuclear power myself, but that was the agreement, and it was the USA that ratted on it.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 05:49 PM

I see your point, Doug, and if it were 2 or 3 percent of what would have been paid into Social Security, then I might even come around a little. No promises. But, even though I haven't heard the numbers, I'd bet when the Repubs talk 2 or 3 percent, they are not talking of the money that is taken out for Social Security but 2 or 3 percent of their taxable income which is a ton of dough to take out of the system.

Like it or not, my friend, Social Security may not be a perfect system but its premise is sound. And, yeah, it has some aspects of socialism. So what? The ruling class is gonna be comfortable in their old age and I'd like to think thay they'd want that for the working class who serve them. If not, then heck with them, 'cause in the big scheme of things, they need us a lot more than we need them, thank you.

Ahhhh, what's the name of the thread? Did I start this drift, or what?

Nevermind.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 03:14 PM

Good point, Don, and well taken.

If you can afford to hold on to those mutual funds, and if they have a good ten year record of earnings, you may still come out ok. I hope so.

As I said, though, if I were young and just starting out on a career, I wouldn't hesitate a minute to invest two or three percent of my SS money in conservative mutual funds. Unfortunately, one cannot always control when bad times are going to roll around, and the market does have it's ups and downs. Over the long haul, though, I would still favor what the Commission that studied SS recommended, again, were I young.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 03:04 PM

Doug, two things:—

1. The deduction from my paycheck for Social Security was, among all the other deductions, relatively insignificant, and since I kept track of what I would receive at retirement, I felt fairly sure that, although I would not be living in the lap of luxury, at least I wouldn't starve. But as they say one should do, I also invested in a couple of mutual funds and a number of other things that a financial advisor friend suggested. These were quite conservative investments, definitely not considered speculative. So in essence, I was already putting some of my money into the market. But not my contribution to Social Security. That, as the name indicates, would keep me relatively secure if other things didn't pan out. During the current dip in the market, aggravated by outright corporate banditry, the mutual funds are not doing very well, and of course the Lucent Technologies stuff, pending investigation, seems to share the fate of Enron, WorldCom, and the others. Were it not for the fact that currently my Social Security is secure, I could be in pretty deep doo-doo. Why should one reduce one's Social Security contribution to invest in something chancy? It seems like using your rainy day fund to buy into the Saturday night poker game. Kinda dumb, if you ask me.

2. All of the annual and quarterly reports from Lucent Technologies that I, as a stockholder, received painted nothing but the rosiest of pictures. And there was nothing—absolutely nothing—in the news until a couple of days ago that Lucent was in any kind of trouble. The buggers lied to the stockholders. It's as simple as that. And the Securities and Exchange Commission, of course, was sitting there with their thumbs up their butts noses. Even if they had been disposed to do their job, Bush's very recent proclamation gutted the SEC's ability act to protect the interests of stockholders when they're supposed to. Looks like a sop to shaky corporations. And it sure as hell isn't going to make potential investors in the stock market have confidence in the safety of their investments. What's that going to do to the economy?

Like I keep saying, be sure you don't spend so much time looking at foreign policy that you fail to notice what's going on at home.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 01:46 PM

"So Doug we are waiting for your explanation of why we should only pay attention to the NEWS headlines you think we should pay atention to, and ignore all the rest of them."

Peg, had you identified yourself as the author of that "Guest" thread in the body of the message, I would have been happy to reply.

My reply will not be as nasty as your original post, I assure you.

I posted the message that you found offensive because so many Mudcatters were riding a dead horse moaning and groaning about the president's approach to the Iraq situation. He began by rattling his sabre and that nearly gave Bobert a heart attack, so after Bobert organized millions of people to march on Washington, he decided to modify his approach and go the U. N., which was what Bobert and Company thought he should have done in the first place. Long after he had done that, Mudcatters were still piling on the president for his approach to handling Saddam. It occurred to me that those who were doing that might not have heard that he had adopted an approach more in line with their thinking. That is why I suggested that they become more current with the news. In my opinion (we are still allowed that ... right?)if Bush had not rattled his sabre in the first place, he would not have gained Saddam's attention.

As to your question above: I don't give a hoot what anybody reads.

There may be two replies to your query. The first one disappeared when I hit the submit message space. It is difficult to write exactly the same thing in a second post that was written in the first one, so if the first one appears due to some computer internet magic, I'm sure you will look forward to reading it. :>)

Teribus: Excellent post you made as of 9:00 A.M. this date.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 09:00 AM

Hi Peg,

In your post above as Guest:

Firstly:

"YOU the one not paying attention to current headlines, since you seem to think Bush is now being a good boy and doing just what the UN tells him to."

Maybe you are paying too much attention to current headlines, while failing to match that up to exactly what is going on.

Secondly:

"You are ignoring what happened in the early days of this most recent line of aggression against Saddam Hussein. Before he declared he was going to go the sane route and proceed with weapons inspections, the news headlines said Bush was calling for an invasion of Iraq within a week to two week's time!"

Your remarks prove the point made above and completely ignores the fact that it was stance taken by the President and his Administration that brought the United Nations to its senses with regard to its responsibilities - That stand and that stand alone got the Iraqi authorities to issue the invitation to the weapons inspection teams - nothing else did that.

Thirdly:

"This is about the next election. This is about not being able to hunt down Osama bin Laden. This is about justifying the enormous military build-up to the tune of billions of taxpayers' dollars in the last few months. This is about oil. This is NOT about who poses a threat the United States."

Oh yes of course - its on the check list of every democratically elected leader - "Six months to elections Sir. Who shall we declare war on." Complete and utter BS.

Costs of maintaining the military would be roughly the same irrespective of the situation, they are still there, you still have to pay for them. The US has seen increased costs due to call up of reservists - that was done immediately after 911.

Explain to me about how this is about oil? Loads of people have mentioned it none have explained it - primarily because it is also total BS.

So far the President of the United States of America has accomplished the following:

1. Suceeded in getting the UN to act with respect to a situation it was quietly ignoring in the hope that it would just go away.

2. Suceeded in getting Iraq to permit the return of weapons inspection teams

3. He is well on the way to getting a new resolution from the UNSC that will allow the UNMOVIC teams to do their job effectively, without Iraqi interference.

All the rest is just so much Magpie chatter - as I believe I said in my first post on this topic.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Peg
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 07:47 AM

The GUEST post above was mine, from work yesterday.

So Doug, I'm waiting for your explanation of why we should only pay attention to the news headlines YOU think we should pay atention to, and ignore all the rest of them.

peg

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Troll
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 05:59 AM

Toadfrog, the best way to get a balanced view of the news is to read a variety of international papers and wire services. The best source that I have found is the Drudge Report website. He has links to the major wire services and links to newspapers all over the world. Plus, he has links to about 100 columnists.
Sort of one-stop-shopping in the news market.
The alternative is to try to read the one or two papers in your area. Pretty one-dimensional coverage to my way of thinking. Or you can read a paper that caters to your own political bias. Your choice.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: toadfrog
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 12:24 AM

Doug, just out of curiosity, what "Guardian" is it that you keep mentioning? Doesn't sound like the old Manchester Guardian, the way you describe it. Am I missing something?

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 07:42 PM

GUEST: I don't ignore the news. I am going to ignore you though. Put on a name and I'll reply to you.

Don: No one would be forced to put a portion of their social security into the stock market. It would in no way affect any of those who currently receive social security. If I were just starting out as a young man, you bet I'd welcome the opportunity to put some of my social security money into the market. Investors would not be allowed to put the money in highly speculative stocks.

As for as the Lucent Technology stock is concerned, I'm sorry you are taking a bath with it, but one thing for sure, if you have money in the market, it is up to the investor to stay current with what is going on with the company. Perhaps that was not possible if they were hiding things from investors though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 07:26 PM

Oh, don't even get my sorry Wse Ginny butt going on the media, toadfrog, because they have very little to do with reporting the news and a lot about manipulating the working class while entertaining it...

But, now this privatization of Social Security? That's a different story. We don;t have to go back too far to see that the Repubs *hate* Social Security. They foughg with FDR on it. They said it was socialism. They fought the Medicare program. They said it's socialism. Now I don't like the Dems to much these days because Bill Clinton took it further to the right than its been in my life time, but the Repubs are the biggest crybabies. Heck, they almost always get their way and when they don't they spend million of bucks on PR folks to sway the working class to vote for stuff that is *not* at all in the best interest in the working class. Hmmmmmm?

So now they want to bleed the Social Security system by sticking leeches all over and embezzeling the money. Hmmmmmm? Like that's gonna make solve the problems with Social Security?!?!.... That's like amputation to cure the common hangnail. But that's exactly what they are gonna do afetr the Repubs win back control of the Senate.

So, like I have menti0oned on another thread. Oh heck, it was this one. If you think you've seen poverty in the US, just give the Repubs *unfettered* access into the working class's wallets and revisit the great US of A in, oh, about 15 years....

You ain't seen nuthin yet...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: toadfrog
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 05:48 PM

Well but Troll, we all know the media can be wrong, but how are we supposed to "keep current with the news" without watching the media? Or reading the newspaper, which is my preferred approach. Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Troll
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 01:40 PM

Guest, and of course the medias take is 100% accurate.
Right.
NicoleC, I think we all agree on what needs to be done. Where we disagree is on how.
Don, the Postal Service went from Civil Service Retirement to Federal Employees Retirement. FERS is tied to Soc. Sec. while CSRS is not. Since I had the option- due to longevity- I stayed with CSRS even though it was slightly less money (a few dollars). Am I glad I did!

troll

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 01:17 PM

Doug: what's this crap about lambasting "anti-Bush folks" about not "staying current with the news???" First off that is just plain snotty, and secondly it is wildly inaccurate.

YOU the one not paying attention to current headlines, since you seem to think Bush is now being a good boy and doing just what the UN tells him to. You are ignoring what happened in the early days of this most recent line of aggression against Saddam Hussein. Before he declared he was going to go the sane route and proceed with weapons inspections, the news headlines said Bush was calling for an invasion of Iraq within a week to two week's time! Obviously he spoke too hastily and the warmonger strings holding the puppet had to reign him in slightly. Even post-Nine-Eleven he can't away with a sudden declaration of war like this...not when the target is not clearly an immediate threat (no more than usual anyway).

This is about the next election. This is about not being able to hunt down Osama bin Laden. This is about justifying the enormous military build-up to the tune of billions of taxpayers' dollars in the last few months. This is about oil. This is NOT about who poses a threat the United States.

Anyone realize what's heppening in Columbia this week?

It might be in a newspaper near you...

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 01:01 PM

I worked for the telephone company for eight years. During that time, all employees received a small amount of AT&T stock (not a 401-K or anything like that, it was just part of the bennie package). When I left the company, I had fifty-one shares, approximately $3,000 worth. I figured, "Okay, AT&T is a pretty solid stock, so I'll just let it sit and build up over time as part of my meager retirement fund." It did appreciate. But some years ago, AT&T switched some of it over to Lucent Technologies, which they said was going to be a real hot item. I figured, "Well, okay. Looks all right, I guess. I'll let it sit. But it's nice to know I can cash it in any time I need it."

Just yesterday on the news, I heard that Lucent Technologies is going belly up because of mismanagement, and the stock is now pennies a share and is considered to have fallen into the "junk" category. They are considering bankruptcy. The CEO, who is receiving an annual salary of many millions of dollars says, in effect, "Gee whiz! I don't know how that happened!"

Question 1:— What in the hell do CEOs do to earn salaries like that? It seems that the best thing they do is either screw up royally or run off with the money.

Question 2:— Do you really want your Social Security invested in the stock market?

The Securities and Excange Commission (SEC) is supposed to oversee this kind of thing to prevent it from happening. They've obviously been dozing for the last several years, but instead of giving them a kick in the butt, the Administration just reduced their authority to act when things start looking fishy.

Fortunately I still get my monthly Social Security check. But while our fearless leaders are pointing overseas and crying "Wolf!" they're quietly doing their damnedest to change that. And this is only one of the things they're doing while we're all looking the other way. I really think we need to clean our own house before we try to tell the rest of the world how to run theirs. How about a regime change here?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: NicoleC
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 12:29 PM

Ohmigod, Troll, we agree on something! It was bound to ahppen one of these days.

With few exceptions, politicians are wealthy people who have typically been born wealthy. That's because getting nominated for an election requires personal connections. And that's because getting elected takes tons of money. And that's because many voters are sheep who just show up and vote for the names they recognize, making advertising more important than issues to a campaign.

Er, that's a lot of issues to tackle to clean up the political process. Where to start?

I'm not against rich people or think that we're ever going to get rid of poor people. But it seems unconscionable in a country as rich as ours that we have people dying of malnutrition, dying of exposure because they have to sleep in a park, unable to afford basic medical care, or having to make the choice between buying their kids' medication and buying their kids food. It's wrong.

I don't think private or religious charity is the answer because it just doesn't get the job done. No matter how well-meaning and well-organized the charity, they just never have enough donations to service all the people they need to. And we'll cut back on government programs of aid -- ones that work -- yet they'll raise my property taxes to help pay for the 24% pay raise the city council voted themselves when they are already making well above the average salary.

It's wrong. Period. We are not some third world country that has a hard time feeding anyone -- we throw out huge amounts of food and plow under fields for market reasons. Basic food, shelter and medicine is something we CAN provide for every citizen. It's do-able, and wouldn't cost half as much as we've spent on bombing empty Afghani mountains this year. But again -- where to start?

Why is there no War on Hunger? No War on Homelessness? War on Mental Illness? War on People Dying of Perfectly Preventable Diseases That Couldn't Afford a Doctor?

Is it because no one gets rich off off distributing second-hand clothing to folks who can't even afford Goodwill?

/rant off

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 12:13 PM

Toad: My apologies. I assumed you would know I was referring to the current Bush thread referring to him and his perceived (by many) penchant for war. Sorry if I put you to a time consuming search.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 11:56 AM

By golly, troll, I couldn't agree more with your first paragraph up there. You are speaking of the oligarchy that runs the Democrats, the Republicans, and the USA...and which provides all the key candidates you get a chance to vote for.

Sounds like a Catch-22 doesn't it?

I'd call it a sort of velvet dictatorship...elections, yes, but no real choice.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Troll
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 07:47 AM

It's not hard to have an incredible gap between rich and poor when CEOs make millions of dollars a year and are given immense severance packages, when the Board of Directors gets huge bonuses just before the company flies for bankruptcy or "downsizes" half of it's employees out of a job, or when a company moves its operation to a third world country because it's easier to make huge profits that way.
And it's not against the law either. But it could be if the voters would force their Congressmen to restructure the tax laws and rewrite the corporate laws. But that'll never happen no matter WHO is in the White House and in control of Congress and the Senate.
They are not going to do anything that takes money out of THEIR pockets.

troll

There will be people sleeping on the sidewalk in NYC this winter but you may be sure that we'll send humanitarian aid to North Korea. And I wouldn't be surprised if sume of it is siphoned off to the NK Army or whoever.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bagpuss
Date: 23 Oct 02 - 06:41 AM

Millions die in poverty? Well probably because there's a lot of people in poverty and everyone dies. Whether any individual dies because of poverty is more difficult to state, but you can look at the mortality rates for people of different incomes and there will always be a gap. For those that think that only absolute poverty is important, that is wrong. Relative povery is very important. The US has one of the widest gaps between rich and poor in the developed world, and it also has one of the poorest records as regards health (and other) problems related to poverty in the developed world - including infant mortality figures. The correlation is pretty strong. Even within the US - when comparing states - the important figure linked to these problems is not the overall wealth of the state, but rather the size of the gap between rich and poor - ie the level of inequality.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 11:04 PM

Not afraid here, Don....

And I work in Northern Virgina...

Well, I'm kinda afraid that Mr. Bush is gonna wake up in a drunken stuper and next thing ya' know the planet will be de-populated by 20 or 30 thousand folks...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 10:36 PM

I'm not afraid. Bobert, are you afraid? toadfrog? I don't think Doug is really afraid. Anybody? George says he's afraid, but I'm not sure what he's afraid of. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: GUEST,a Limey
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 07:56 PM

What is it about the US that you're scared of one little country that may, or may not, have the bomb. At the moment you are more likely to suffer at the hands of one nutter who has decided that he doesn't like people who fill up at petrol stations (among other things)in Washington. You should really fear the NRA more, since it is these people who are (indirectly) responsible for killing a lot more Americans than a possible North Korean bomb ever will.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 06:58 PM

Okay, my fellow Catsters, according to www.nlchp.org there are 3 million homeless people in the US, according to www.panix.com, 14.5 % (approximately 45 million Americans) live in poverty and according to www.clev.fvb.org the poverty line for a family of four is $16,895...

Just a few thing for quiet contimplation.

Now, back to North Korea.

I say, Nuke the bast**ds. (No you don't Bobert!) Opps, sorry, I was reading one of Dougie's lines...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 06:36 PM

Boberts 'retraction": Okay, it's not millions every year but it's a lot and if I get time I'll come back with my sources. And Dougie, I said Die "in" poverty not die "of" poverty since then one can say, "Well, what part of poverty caused the death?" and then we end up arguing how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.

I'll do some bombing around and come up with some harder numbers for you all who think things are so peachy for our elderly folks. Maybe you eldery folks. I worked as a social worker for many years in Richmond, Va. and worked in adult services and my case load was a mix of revolving door mental folks and old folks. I still have friend who are social workers in adult services who tell me that the case loads are increasing steadily. These folks, my friends all live well below the poverty level most will not see their situations improve before they die.

And I'm sticken to the premise that we ain't seen nuthin yet as the Baby Boomers head into old age. Especially with Junior's War still be paid for.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: toadfrog
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 05:04 PM

Doug: One more try. The "Bush is a louse" thread must be fairly old. I couldn't find it.   It may be that the author of some article has different views from mind. May even be he publishes in a "liberal" magazine. The only "opinion" I have stated of the USA is that it is not all-powerful, and if someone disagrees with me on that, well, what can I say?

But really, I think I am being willfully misunderstood. I believe you are attributing to me a low "opinion" of my country. Not so. I want my country to be strong. I want it to have friends. I don't want it to have a whole lot of deadly enemies. As stated above, W. Bush is making lots of deadly enemies, sometimes it seems for no apparent reason but to whip up nationalistic sentiment and win elections. A political speech about an "axis of evil" is a good example. Such a speech can have no possible purpose other than electioneering.

And Bush is also costing us friends. Don't be decieved if the national leaders of European countries go along with Bush for a ways. The U.S. has clout. Bush is unpopular enough with the people over there so that it may cost those leaders a lot to follow. Note, the German Social Democratic Party, which was unpopular, was expected to lose a national election. Its leader said he would not support a war against Iraq, and won another term in office. You will doubtless respond that the two things have nothing to do with each other. But I suggest you give that some thought.

Last month I was invited to a reception at the German Consulate here (I'm not claiming I'm a big shot, but I have a known interest in Germany.) Almost everyone there was a German expatriate in the export-import business - a very conservative crew, when it came to things like labor relations. But nobody liked Bush's foreign policy.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 04:26 PM

While the figures you supplied, Wolfgang, are still too high, they are certainly more believable than the millions claimed by my WV buddy, Ole'Bobert.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 04:17 PM

It's true, Bill, that people are generally not swayed by facts or arguments. What they do, in fact, is to look around for facts...or just rhetoric...which support their already established opinion. And they heap contempt on material which doesn't support it...or just ignore such material.

This is why it's always a good idea to look to a number of sources, and to bear in mind one's own fallibility...as well as that of leaders, the media, and so on.

Nothing beats direct experience, but most people don't have the time or means to seek it out. I did go to Cuba, and as a result of that visit I would never consider supporting a hostile action against that country...I have friends I really love there.

So that's one small bit of real experience in an ocean of speculation. It's a start.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 02:56 PM

no point in adding to this thread, those who believe a certain thing will not be swayed by facts or arguments,

Troll - did you miss the recent revelations about out government exposing unknowing military personnel to chemical and biological agents in the 60s? any parallels do you think to Iraq? justified in our case how?

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 02:16 PM

Roughly 4 million people die annually in the USA from all causes. More than 50% of them would have to die from 'poverty' if Bobert's 'millions' would be correct.

The only widely cited guess I have found is that 27 children die per day in the USA from poverty, which makes less than 10,000 annually. If you add the adults you'd be still far from 'millions'.

I think Bobert uses exaggerated figures like that for the effect and we shouldn't read them as an attempt of correct reporting.

But even if the truth is closer to 'tens of thousands' it is a shame.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 02:02 PM

Bobert: I do think you got a bit carried way when you said "millions die from poverty in the U. S. each year." Figures would be nice, but just be sure you don't get them from "The Guardian." :>)

Toad: And YES I care. Amos posted an aticle from a liberal newspaper in Great Britain on the "Bush is a louse" thread. I hope you will read it. You and the writer of the article have opions of the USofA that are 180 degrees apart.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 01:41 PM

I don't know about "millions" but I do know of one aspect of poverty in this country. Our drugs are astonishingly, prohibitively expensive. An Australian-born friend of mine was appalled at what she observed the other day. She was standing in line at a pharmacy when an elderly man handed a drug prescription to the pharmacist. 'How much is it?' he asked. The pharmacist told him; the man shook his head and said, 'Can't afford that.' and shuffled away.

My friend asked how in the world a rich country justifies that.

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 08:38 AM

troll:

I ain't got time this mornin' to go digging up the statistics but I'm stickin' to the statement that millions die in poverty every year in America. Maybe someone will dig up the numbers and do a blue clicky thing fir ya'. But it is up into the millions. Now, I know your gonna say that uour poor are better off that some other countries but bottom line, I'd like to see the US at least start with ours and work their way out towards assisting other countries in developing economies which will help their poor.

And, here's the real kicker, troll. With the population situation in the US we're gonna see a lot of baby boomers either having to work until the day they drop out on the master's assembly lines or die in poverty. No, I'm probably not talking to you, or to many folks here in the Catbox, but ya' see, most of those folks are too busy working to make ends meet to have the luxary of either owning a pudder or having the time to use the danged thing.

But if you still want numbers, troll, I'll dig 'em up fir ya' but right now, I gotta get my sorry Wes Ginny but down to the widget factory...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 07:28 AM

I guess you're right, Bagpuss. I only had seen the name Gulf War so far.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bagpuss
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 07:24 AM

And in case anyone is interested this is the page for Human Rights Watch in the Gulf War

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bagpuss
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 07:16 AM

Wolfgang, I thing the Persian Gulf War is the War more often referred to as the Gulf War - given that the Gulf in question is the Persian Gulf...

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 06:49 AM

Then to the last two days of the Persian Gulf War where the US bombed and bombed and bombed and tens of thousands of folks were blown the heck up. (Bobert)

I thought the Persian Gulf War was between Iran and Iraq? Could you please back up your statement, Bobert?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Troll
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 05:34 AM

Teribus, don't mind Bobert. He tends toward hyperbole on ocassion. He feels very strongly about this and sometimes lets a love of rhetoric override his good sense.
I'm sure he is aware- as are we all- that millions do NOT die in poverty in this country every year and that, in fact, what this country calls poverty is called an enviable life-style among the poor of many third world countries. I think that what he meant by his statement is that the US should take upon itsself the task of abolishing world poverty. This, of course, while respecting the culture, government, religion, etc.
Every time we've tried, we've only made the crooked politicians richer but folks like Bobert like to keep trying. Why, I'm not sure.
Perhaps they feel guilty.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Oct 02 - 05:00 AM

"Oh, lets not forget the WMD the US uses on its own folks. Millions die in poverty every year without health care, without food, without that safety net that the US boasts of."

Any facts that actually back this statement up Bobert?

Toadfrog:

"...if we push North Korea too far, they don't have to resort to terrorism; they can easily obliterate the city of Seoul, just with conventional artillery. A city of many millions. Do you care? "

So far as I am aware, nobody is even attempting to push North Korea at all at the moment. All parties seem to be in agreement that this can be resolved amicably. Oh! Sorry I forgot, "He's a-goin' to do it!!! He's a-goin'to do it!!! He's a-goin to do it regardless!!!!"

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 02 - 10:05 PM

troll:

Depends on one's definition of WMD?

Firstly, I don't think we should dismiss the use of Nuclear weapons at the end of WW II. We has options. Like dropoping the bomb on a less populted area like over water and just told the Japanese to observe the danged thing. That wouyld have had the same effect and brought about the same conclusion.

Now, fast forward to Vietnam, where the US bombed and bombed and bombed and hundreds of thousands folks were blown the heck up.

Then to the last two days of the Persian Gulf War where the US bombed and bombed and bombed and tens of thousands of folks were blown the heck up.

Now, take the sanctions against Iraq which only time will tell how amny thousands of folks have died of starvation of lack of medical care.

Oh, lets not forget the WMD the US uses on its own folks. Millions die in poverty every year without health care, without food, without that safety net that the US boasts of. And now we're going to turn our back on the elderly. Oh sure, those folks who came through the system will do fine. The double dippers. The gov't retirees. But the working class elderly are gonna die in poverty. That, as far as I'm concerned, troll, is a weapon of mass destruction.

So lets keep John Wayne's America in some perspective here, my friend.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: toadfrog
Date: 21 Oct 02 - 09:27 PM

Doug:
1. I do not hold any brief for North Korea. Had Franklin Roosevelt given a speech, say, in 1938, before the Second World War, referring to Nazi Germany as "evil," that would have been lousy diplomacy and poor statesmanship. Franklin Roosevelt did not do that. He was a statesman and he knew better. Crazy people conduct foreign policy by way of invective. It serves no purpose. I'm not saying North Korea is virtuous. I'm saying Bush is an irresponsible cowboy.
2. I am sure North Korea has broken agreements. I can likewise think of agreements the United States has broken. Countries do that. I cannot think of any nation that has a perfect record of keeping its agreements. It is said that every Treaty includes a clausula rebus sic stantibus. Look that up if you're curious, it could be educational. And Clinton North Korea was playing funny, so we did not fulfill our side of the deal, which involved helping them build a
nuclear reactor. So there was no particular harm in making the agreement.
4. The First Lord of the Treasury is usually called a Prime Minister, for short.
3. "Failed policy"? What failed policy? We have kept out of war, haven't we? You somehow have this vision of the USA as omnipotent, so if we don't have our way everywhere, it's a failure. That is so monumentally wrong, it is a sure road to disaster. No matter how big our Army gets, we will never be omnipotent, because there are other people in the world who don't agree with us, and if all else fails, they will do stuff like (say) steal an airplane and crash it into the Pentagon. So it is not a good idea to push people too far. And if we push North Korea too far, they don't have to resort to terrorism; they can easily obliterate the city of Seoul, just with conventional artillery. A city of many millions. Do you care?

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Troll
Date: 21 Oct 02 - 06:48 AM

Bobert, yes, we used a WMD at the end of WWII. Since then, I believe that the US record is fairly clean.
Do you have documentation of any time in the last 50 years that the US has used nuclear, biological or chemical agents on either an enemy or it's own troops or people with malice aforethought.
I put that last in to forestall a diatribe about Agent Orange. When it was used in Viet Nam, it's devastating side effects were not yet known.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 21 Oct 02 - 03:10 AM

Sigh. Toad: I know not where you come from.
In reply: 1. So you object to North Korea being referred to as evil. How would you describe a country that agrees to stop it's nuclear weapons program in exchange for aid, accepts the aid, but continues its program?

2. North Korea announced that the 1994 Accord was cancelled (once they admitted they violated it) not Bush.

3. Clinton agreed to the failed policy negotiated by Jimmy Carter with North Korea. He was about as adept at foreign policy as Monica Lewinsky.

4. I don't know what dictionary you rely on, but in mine, there is no reference to a "Conservative First Lord of the Treasury" at all. I'd suggest you purchase a new one.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: toadfrog
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 09:20 PM

Doug: Now that everyone has expressed their philosophical positions, a few practical points:
1. I respectfully submit that anyone who imagines that anything is gained by calling a foreign power "evil" has a superstitious belief in the magical power of words that defies logic. I am not a theologian, and don't know whether North Korea is "evil" or not. Surely it isn't a place anyone would want to live. But kindly tell me, what in hell do you think is gained by heaping gratuitous insults on people who are sitting there with big armies?
2. Aside from the above philosophical criticisms of Bush, there are some very sound practical problems with his approach. Discovery of these atomic weapons creates what I would call a serious crisis. Bush stopped negotiations with North Korea, so it is going to be very touchy to negotiate out of it. Bush does not have what it takes to deal with crises. He does not have the patience. His only mode is to strike macho poses and try to bully everyone in sight.
3. Now, Bill Clinton fumbled a bit at the beginning, but by the time he got to his second term, he had an excellent grasp of foreign policy. Bush's idea is to do everything different from Clinton, which means, do everything wrong. And pander to jingoes who get their rocks off at the idea of us throwing our weight around.
4. Finally, as I understand the word "appeasement," it was used by a Conservative First Lord of the Treasury to describe his plan to give Nazi Germany a big chunk of Czech real estate. Surely one should not give Iraq or Korea pieces of other people's real estate. But since when is it "appeasement" simply to refrain from attacking people, or refrain from unnecessarily insulting them?

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 08:47 PM

"Instead of spending huge sums of money on weaonry, they should be providing more foood and medical care to their people." Danged, Dougie, I thought you were talking about Bush there, pal.

Then you say that the US is "we are still dependent on oil... unless we drill for our own" Ahhh, we could cut consumption and we could also make a larger investment in renewable energy. We should be doing both those things anyway for our kids and grandkid's sake.

And unless you know something that I don't know, Saddam does not have a technology to destroy his oil fields. Even if ya' light them up they're just going to burn in relation to the available oxygen which two miles under the surface of the earth is in short supply.

And, my friend, this little "Saddam has exhibited his willingness to use wepons of mass destruction" line is getting a tad thread bare. The US has certainly not been to shy itself.

Lastly, if you'll look back at the end of the Persian Gulf War I think you'll agree that the US had two concerns. First, with the highway of death, the PR war was loosing ground around the world. I personally think that the killings were excessive and hurt the US's image in the last day or two of the bombings. Secondly, the next phase would have been the phase that the US is now faced with and that is the urban warfare phase. Between the two, Bush senior pulled the plug. The end game was ill thought out just as it is ill thought out this time.

Your turn, Doug...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 06:26 PM

I can see your line of reasoning, Doug.

I certainly never suggested that North Korea could be trusted! Hell, no! Neither can South Korea or China or the USA. :-) They are all untrustworthy when their more crucial private interests are at stake (as are most if not all nation states, and probably a majority of ordinary people as well, given my experience).

What I was more focusing on was the actual capabilities of North Korea, which are quite limited, regardless of whether or not they have a few nuclear bombs. And I was suggesting that appealing to their natural sense of self-interest might be a far more effective way of avoiding conflict than threatening them. Same goes for Iraq.

There are win-win situations possible, always. I am suggesting that the USA look for win-win situations, not "we win...you surrender unconditionally or be destroyed" scenarios. Some people would rather go down fighting than accept such an ultimatum.

A lot of people would rather be "right" (their version of right) than be alive...and this can lead people to desperate actions, as we have seen in the last few years, culminating in Sept 11th. The Japanese desire to be "right" led them to "die with honour" by the hundreds of thousands in 1944-45. The only thing that could lead a country like North Korea to lob a nuke at the USA would be that same suicidal desire to vindicate their own sense of identity, even at the cost of complete national death. That can only happen if they are isolated and treated as outcasts. It will not happen if they are included in the community of nations and treated the way we would desire others to treat us.

And that is the Golden Rule, isn't it?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: DougR
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 05:11 PM

Mark: Ok, you asked for my opinion so here 'tis.

First, I wish you anti-Bush folks would stay current with the news. The president is NOT advocating an immediate invasion of Iraq! He has done what so many of you suggested weeks ago that he should do. He is GOING THORUGH THE U.N. He is talking tough, to be sure, but do any of you seriously think that we would have come this close to getting unfettered inspections in Iraq if he had not? Unless you sweep your minds of the fact that he is not advocating immediate invasion I'm wasting my breath (probably am anyway).

Iraq versus Korea: Iraq has a record of aggression that even North Korea does not have. Yes, North Korea invaded South Korea in the early 1950's but they have not committed aggressive acts since that time. Does that mean I think it is a peaceful nation? Of course not.
Are they to be trusted? No way! They made peace with Mr. Carter, made all kinds of promises to halt their nuclear weapon program in exchange for our help, and then went back on their word. They have left their champion swinging in the wind. This after his having returned from Korea in 1994 extolling the virtures of the Pyongyang regime. I have not read or heard Carter's comments on the current situation. It would be understandable were he not to make any.

One thing both North Korea and Iraq have in common is the dictators of each country have repressed their people. Instead of spending huge sums of money on weaponry, they should be providing more food and medical care to their people. One thing they do not have in common is oil. Like it or not, we are still dependent on having access to oil, unless we drill for our own. If we do the latter, you folks will scream like wild banshees because a few hundred acres of wilderness might have to be tapped into. Do I think the fact that Saddam sits on a huge reserve of oil is the reason Bush advocates invastion if inspections fail? I do not. But the U. S. and our allies cannot allow Saddam to destroy his oil fields as he tried to do in Kuwait.

Saddam has exhibited his willingness to use weapons of mass destruction. He has used them on his own people. Pyongyang has not.
Saddam is surrounded by countries that could hardly be described as allies of the United States but North Korea has nearby neighbors, China and Russia who are, and they probably are not very excited themselves to see thier neighbor developing nuclear weapons. They and Japan will likely do more to keep North Korea in check than the U. S. will.

Right now, I believe our main focus must be domestic terrorism and concentration on disarming Saddam. I think they are closely related on to the other.

Now as to Taliesn's whining (I think it was him/her)about the senior Bush not "finishing the job with Saddam" during Desert Storm. I don't know why this has to be repeated so much on the Mudcat. It has. I'll try again, though. President Bush did not do away with Saddam then, because he did not have a mandate from the U. N. to do so. The purpose for that campaign was to get Saddam out of Kuwait. Nothing more. If you don't believe me, Taliesn, do some research of your own. If he had been allowed to go into Baghdad and finish off Saddam during Desert Storm you would all (those of you old enough at the time) would have been screaming and crying for his head! You cannot convince me that if you feel it is not justified now, that you would have felt it justified then.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb!
From: The Pooka
Date: 20 Oct 02 - 04:11 PM

1. What Don Firth said, above, last night. / No first strike. Not unprecedented; but still un-American. / Albeit politically-incorrect to say so, and however ghoulishly: MAD works. Between US & USSR, it did prevent a WWWIII which was otherwise, absent the nukes, inevitable. Worth remembering this lonesome October, 40 years on.

2. Speaking of which, how would this updated JFK deterrent doctrine be, Don, Doug, & all other peaceloving 'Catters? "It shall be the policy of this government, to regard any attack using weapons of mass destruction, upon any nation or people anywhere, by Iraq, Iran, or North Korea, or by any entity proven supplied with such weapons or their components by any of the said countries, as an attack by such country upon the United States of America, requiring a retaliatory response as deemed appropriate by the United States, upon such attacking or supplying nation." / I got your MAD right here. / Hm? No?? Didn't think so. / Well, it was a thought.

3. The foregoing is not the celebrate the nukes, you understand. But re Hiroshima etc.: also worth remembering is that the Manhattan Project which produced the Bomb was instituted by Roosevelt at the behest of Einstein and others who, realizing that the physics now made it theoretically possible, *feared, rightly, that the Germans were working, or would work, on it*. If the Nazis had succeeded, we wouldn't be posting in English today; nor from the former UK at all, at all, with its radioactive half-life of ninety-nine years; and most certainly not expressing our opinions so freely. Fortunately, dumkopf Hitler apparently didn't grasp the implications well enough to adequately support a crash program; plus, he had made his best-and-brightest physicists refugees from the Holocaust. / None of which justifies our nuking Japan after Germany had surrendered & Nippon was beaten already. That, I suspect, was from an unholy combination of vengeance, showing off at Uncle Joe Stalin (who was so impressed he went out and stole it; smart move, Harry), and disappointment: "Waal shoot! Ah din't come awl this way jes' ta drap this thang in the drank! Whar's th' nearest target o' awp'rtoonity?" - Slim Pickens; "Dr. Strangelove". We didn't give a damn, we had the fiddle anyway.

3. Sadly, re science anyway, what we *can* be done, *will* be done. Despite all our sound protestations to the contrary. (Hopefully our genetically-"perfected" clones will remember us kindly. If at all.) Thus, the Bomb would come to be. Would that it could be disinvented. But no.

4. Re North Korea/Iraq - those of us who are rightly criticizing Dumya for intellectual inconsistency (HAHAHAHA! and now, let's critique the ostrich for his crappy flight patterns, the snake for lousy footwork...) ought to confess--I do--that we're also *glad* he's NOT suiting up for Pyongyang just yet. Hey, some diplomacy is better than none. And those NK missiles just *might* reach California. (And, my kid is there.)

--General Jack D. Pooker