|
18 Oct 02 - 12:15 AM (#805839) Subject: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR I was certain Bobert, Amos, Don F., L.H. or someone else so critical of President Bush's handling of the Iraq situation would start a thread about North Korea having a secret nuclear weapons development program, but I haven't seen one. So I thought I would inquire whether or not this concerns anyone. There was a great deal of criticizm on the Mudcat of GWB when he included North Korea in his "Axis of Evil" speech most will recall. It appears he may have been right don't you think? DougR |
|
18 Oct 02 - 12:29 AM (#805847) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST Michael Gordon, NY Times, says North Korea has frozen its nuclear bomb program, but they may already have one or two according to American officials. Arms Races On the other hand, North Korea is busy starting development of a Hong Kong type manufacturing zone, with the aid of the Chinese. Like Hong Kong, it will be kept somewhat separate from the rest of the economy. At the moment, they seem more interested in changing to the capitalist route. They must be watched, but the course of action at present should be to encourage them to enter the world economy. |
|
18 Oct 02 - 02:41 AM (#805879) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR Michael Gordon said that? In the New York Times? So I guess that means we shouldn't worry about it then right? I'd rest easier if we had a bit more evidence of their good intentions other than the assurance you offer Guest. DougR |
|
18 Oct 02 - 06:20 AM (#805944) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: The Pooka OK DougR, a-waaaay we go. :) / (1) North Korea is a rotten Stalinist warlord state with an economy in ruins, ruled by a paranoid hereditary oligarchy which would rather build nukes than feed its starving people. (2) Their nuclear program is very dangerous, especially coupled with their long-range missile development. The US West Coast may be within their reach. They are probably more of a direct threat to us than Iraq is now. Now for the parts you won't like so much. (3) Their public inclusion in Bush's Axis *may* have turned them away from, or slowed them down on, the path of negotiation on which they had set out. "Even paranoids have real enemies". (4) In any case, there is this about the current story that is odd: the NKs owned up to their nuke program *after the US envoy handed them his evidence of it*. Now, we are shocked & outraged at their **confirmation that our assessments and accusation were correct**. We are running around like guillotined chickens because they said "Yeah, you're right." Somebody said that owning-up-to-it is so alien to Washington culture that we can't stand it. "You want the *Truth*? You can't **handle** the Truth!" (5) Nevertheless, despite (or because of?) being so stunned when its WMD claims were confirmed valid (an unnerving reaction, if you think about it in other contexts...), the administration is now emphasizing *peaceful diplomacy* to deal with the situation. Gee! Now why didn't WE think of that?? Yer man Dubya's not so Dum after all! Boy's a genius. (6) Actually he's so damn smart that he even knows NK has a million soldiers and massive conventional artillery power a short distance north of Seoul and the US military garrison in the ROK. Nukes, pukes: we try to Saddamize Pyongyang -- Disarmament & Regime Change courtesy of Uncle Sam -- we goan' pay a **big** price in lives before we win. (7) Therefore: Iraq is the Number One Threat. i.e. - easier to whip. OK, Doug - back over to your side. ;} |
|
18 Oct 02 - 10:37 AM (#806089) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST,Gern Let me get this straight..Our nukes, good; their nukes, bad???????? Ironic, coming from the only nation ever to use nukes as a weapon of war. |
|
18 Oct 02 - 11:52 AM (#806134) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk Hmmmmm. No, it doesn't concern me much that North Korea may have the bomb. It concerns me that humanity in general has the bomb, and that humanity is disunited and fearful of one another. As far as North Korea goes, it concerns me that they are in poverty, are isolated from most of the world, and are very behind the times in many ways. It would be a good idea to encourage a rapprochmente between the 2 Koreas, normalize relations, demilitarize gradually, and encourage trade and friendly exchange of every kind with North Korea and the rest of the world. If that were done, it would become much less likely that they will ever use a nuclear weapon on anyone. They would have much more to gain by not doing so, to put it mildly. - LH |
|
18 Oct 02 - 12:59 PM (#806185) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: McGrath of Harlow What's to worry about? I've had a lot more nuclear weaopons than North Korea is ever likely to get pointing at me all my life, and I'm still here. They've always been telling us that having nuclear weapons makes peace more secure. I imagine North Korea might have thought that flagging this up now might reduce the likelihood of Bush shifting his invasion attentions to them. |
|
18 Oct 02 - 01:10 PM (#806190) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy no need to worry about North Korea WE ARE THE THREAT we have used the bomb, TWICE, on defenseless civilian populations, and for the most cynical, evil purposes. AND Bush's handlers would certainly use it again, but NOT IN MY NAME. |
|
18 Oct 02 - 01:51 PM (#806230) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST Echo: If developing/possessing/potentially using nuclear devices puts a country into the Axis of Evil, are we at the top? |
|
18 Oct 02 - 02:45 PM (#806272) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Don Firth Doug, I have thought all along that when it came to countries with WMDs, North Korea was a far more dangerous threat that Iraq ever was, and if Bush was going to pick on someone, why did he chose Iraq over North Korea? You tell me. Why didn't I start a thread on this? I don't start all that many threads and when I do, they're usually music threads. I knew I could count on someone, though. I am highly critical of Bush, not because he is a Republican, but because he obviously has an agenda of his own, and if it's an honest one, why doesn't he feel like he can share it with the American people? I trust him about as far as I could throw him--and that's not Bush the Republican, that's Bush the man. Don Firth |
|
18 Oct 02 - 04:51 PM (#806362) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST I got nukes. You got nukes. We all got.... Who has them? So far, we know that the US, France, Russia, UK, China, India, Pakistan and Israel have them. Which of these is the most dangerous? Programs are at various stages in North Korea, Libya, Iran, Iraq and who knows? Perhaps Tuvalu. Obviously a status symbol. North Korea has an aid program from the US, Japan, European Union and South Korea to develop two modern nuclear power reactors. Either we push diplomacy and cooperation, or will Bush's childish evil axis rhetoric prevail and lead us who knows where? |
|
18 Oct 02 - 05:36 PM (#806385) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk There was once this sort of concern over dreadnoughts (the modern all-big-gun battleship). The British were the first to launch one, instantly rendering all other capital ships obsolete. It was considered the ultimate weapon. In very short order there were more dreadnoughts built by Britain, the USA, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Japan. Then some of the minor naval powers wanted them, although they really could hardly afford them. Eventually Greece and Spain got a couple each. Russia built four of them. In South America the Argentinians, Chileans, and Brazilians purchased one or two each. All those ships achieved in the end was to raise needless fears and cause massive spending. The Spanish ones were lost through accidents. The Greeks had one sunk in 1941 by the Luftwaffe. The South American dreadnoughts never fought their counterparts, and were all eventually scrapped. This ought to serve as some kind of lesson, I think. If I were in charge of a smaller country, I would want to spend the money on something positive, and certainly not on nuclear weapons. They only serve to make you a target for other nuclear weapons. However, there's a lot of fear out there. Perhaps we should take iniatitives to reduce those fears, rather than to pre-emptively attack late comers to the "club". When a dog is frightened, cornered, and likely to bite if approached, you don't calm him down by yelling threats and waving a club in his face. - LH |
|
18 Oct 02 - 06:08 PM (#806411) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll Bill Kennedy, I would hardly call Hiroshima - a major manufacturing center for armaments - and Nagasaki - a major port and ship-building facility- civilian targets nor would I characterize the Home Islands of Japan as defensless. Obviously, you have a very different take on WWII than I do. I am aware that popular revisionist history claims that the use of the A-bomb was unnecessary, that Japan was on the verge of surrender. This, I assume, assuages some sort of guilt felt by some that the US ended (and won) the war with no more loss of American life. I,d suggest that you remember that we didn't start the war and then read about the Rape of Nanking and Shanghai, two actions that the Japanese Government has yet to formally acknowledge. Lastly, if saving American lives (and possibly countless Japanese lives) and ending a war in which the US was NOT the agressor nation comprises a evil and cynical action, then the sacrifices made by the countless Americans who fought the Japanese and those at home who lost family members may be termed futile and of no value. troll |
|
18 Oct 02 - 06:35 PM (#806423) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert Doug: I didn't start this thread because I have used up my monthly quota but don't think I didn't think about it. I'm not gonna say much more about your guy that I haven't casually mentioned a few times before but he ain't no total dummie. Now that ought to give you a case ot the warm and fuzzies. No, like what else could he do about learning that NK has the bomb? Ahhhh, like nothin, that's what. And he's doing nothing rather well, as he should. Funny thing is, NK needs and wants so bad to get into the game and have a good relationship with the western world. And they need a lot of help. If Bush had really had a world view on that dark day of the "Axis of Evil" speech, he could have done something with NK similar to Nixon going to China. It's not too late but now he's gonna have to eat a good helping of crow pie when he gets there. As fir NK having nuclear waepons? Hey, comes as no surprise. You shun folks long enough and they're gonna get understandingly paraniod and look around at trying to figure how to *protect* themselves. This development is the end result of failed foriegn policies of the US that go back a long, long time over many administrations. Lastly, now we have proff that Iraq has nothin'! If Iraq had a punch then Bush would be more inclined to exercise diplomacy he's showing NK. Bobert |
|
18 Oct 02 - 07:05 PM (#806439) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: artbrooks We got the bomb, but that is good, Because we love peace and brotherhood. Russia's got the bomb, but that's ok The balance of power's maintained that way. Who's next, Who's next? ...Tom Lehrer... |
|
19 Oct 02 - 06:39 AM (#806563) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Kaleea Give somebody the DUH!! award. "We" are just finding this out--how could this be? I could have told 'em they had it! How did I know? The countries who keep their masses poor & hungry usually do! That's why the people are poor & hungry--the so called "leader" is spending all the $$ of the people on nukes & his own personal gain. That's why it's fun being a dictator. DUH!! I heard some of my fav musicians at Winfield this year singing a terrific song called, "NOT IN MY NAME!" I wish more people could hear that one. And then there's: . . .an eye for an eye, and another eye for another eye, till all are blind & cannot see." And what about the "ten suggestions" and the one that says, "Thou shalt not kill." Then there's the "golden rule." Gee, if everyone who practices any of the major religions on this planet would read their own scriptures, they would see--in writing--that they are not supposed to kill other people, and that they are supposed to treat others as "brothers," & it is not referring to the way "Cain & Abel" treated each other. However, there has been war since "Cain & Abel." As long as there are humans with their minds filled with rage for reasons they have long forgotten, I suppose there will be wars. Why is it that people can still hate long after they have forgotten what the hate was about? I will never understand how people can claim that any "God" has told them to kill. It is a lie. Humans tell humans to kill. Humans hate. God--by whatever name--does not. |
|
19 Oct 02 - 01:46 PM (#806738) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk That's true, Kaleea. It is humans who tell other humans what to do, the other humans make the mistake of believing them, and the past repeats itself. When Stalin became aware of the Bomb (which he did following Hiroshima, I believe...), he devoted every resource possible to catching up with the USA. That was a tremendous social setback for the people of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In fact, the massive military spending by Russia, trying to keep up technologically with the West, was precisely what doomed their system to failure in the end. Ironical, isn't it? Fear results in actions which eventually destroy the fearful...one way or another...quickly or slowly. troll - Here's my take on the war with Japan. All the involved powers were guilty of various forms of self-interest which led inevitably to that war. The Japanese undoubtedly bear the largest burden of guilt, and their behaviour was the worst by far, but they were not alone in that. To make a carte blanche statement that American servicemen "died in vain" if the dropping of the A-bomb was not necessary is simplistic. You can't just divide things like that into black and white and say...it's ALL white or it's ALL black. I find it odd that no one ever questions why it was necessary to demand UNCONDITIONAL surrender of the Japanese??? Why "unconditional"? The whole concept of unconditional surrender seems to have really started with Ulysses S. Grant back in the Civil War...yet before Grant conditional surrender was the normal thing...one fought until it was clear one side couldn't win, then one negotiated a settlement. This was done for the benefit of both victor and vanquished, and usually saved a LOT of lives. It was the subsequent American fixation on unconditional surrender which stretched the war with Japan out far beyond any sensible point. This was also somewhat true of the war with Germany, although Hitler was the particular problem there, so that is a bit different situation (he was unwilling to negotiate, and no one would negotiate with him either...this was a key reason for assassination attempts by various Germans on Hitler, by the way). The Japanese knew very well after the Battle of the Phillipine Sea that defeat was inevitable (their Navy had been rendered virtually helpless, and without their Navy they were doomed). It became even more clear after Leyte Gulf. There were strong factions in the Japanese armed forces and the government who were quietly seeking a negotiated way out of the war...BUT...the USA gave them absolutely NO room for maneuver by constantly and continuously demanding unconditional surrender. In this manner the USA ensured the dominance of the most extreme hawks in the Japanese Army who were determined to fight to the last man, woman, and child in Japan, if necessary! Pretty dumb move, if you seriously wish to end a war. Not only was the concept of unconditional surrender almost psychologically inconceivable to the Japanese, and unprecedented in their history, it also appeared to endanger the life of their Emperor, who was actually a "god" in the eyes of most of his people. Had there been one iota of perception of the human realities in that situation on the part of the Allies, they would have negotiated with Japan, secured a conditional surrender sometime in 1944, sparing the Japanese total humiliation and psychological death, and would have saved a great many lives on BOTH sides, not just the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That no one in the USA ever asks why it was unjustified to seek unconditional surrender in the first place is quite amazing. It's a form of wilful blindness. The truth hurts, so let's just not ever even mention it, and hopefully no one will notice after awhile. Most wars in history have been ended by conditional negotiations. When Japan fought Russia over Port Arthur, it ended with conditional negotiations. They did not feel it necessary to go all the way to Moscow, and make every Russian get down on his knees, did they? When they destroyed the Russian fleet at Tsushima some of the Russian ships surrendered. It was not felt necessary to sink them ALL. For some reason, as we have proceeded into what are termed "modern" times the precedent has gone more and more towards total destruction of ALL enemy forces, however. This does not speak well for our civilization. In 1945 the USA bombed and sank numerous Japanese Navy vessels that were sitting helplessly in port with no fuel in their tanks, and nowhere to get that fuel. They did their best to sink every last one of them. So why sink them? What for? What good would it do anyone and whose life would it save? Those ships were no longer capable of threatening American lives (unless directly attacked, in which case they might shoot down a few American pilots with their AA guns). Yet these actions have never been even questioned. They should have been. And the A-bombs should never have been dropped. People who demand unconditional surrender of others in wartime are people who are caught up in massive hubris and tremendous hatred, people who don't respect their enemy or consider him to be truly human, and people who simply lack wisdom. In other words...people pretty much like the Japanese commanders who perpetrated the Rape of Nanking. Those Japanese commanders were a gloriously self-righteous bunch of chaps too, by the way...so certain of their moral superiority. Ah, yes...it's a common conceit of the victors. And that's why the A-bombs need never have been dropped on those 2 cities. (In any case, I very much doubt the bombs were dropped to "shorten" the war, I think they were dropped primarily for certain other reasons...but we've debated about that before at great length.) - LH |
|
19 Oct 02 - 02:12 PM (#806748) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR Bobert: not once did you mention that 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. NK is a prime example of why I believe you, and those who think like you, are wrong in your approach to dealing with dictators. If you appease them, they will consider this a weakness and will answer kindness with aggression. Saddam did it, and NK's dictator did it. The only question I have is, will Jimmy Carter be asked to give back the Nobel Prize for Peace, since it was he who brokered the 1994 Accord, and Clinton agreed to it. Part of the reason he was given the award, I believe, was for his humanitarian efforts, and his "keen" negotiating skills with the dictator of NK. Both Carter and Clinton should be called before Congressional Committees to explain why they got us into this mess in NK. Troll: Well said. DougR |
|
19 Oct 02 - 02:41 PM (#806763) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk Fear or Love, Doug. What'll it be? What would you use with your next door neighbour or your children? Is the other guy human or is he not? What do you think? What if the people on the "other side" use your logic, as you have stated above, and say: "If you appease them, they will consider this a weakness and will answer kindness with aggression." This is precisely the attitude that motivates Palestinian suicide bombers who blow themselves up in Israeli marketplaces, rather than using dialogue, non-violence, and other peaceful methods to secure change in Israel and the Middle East. They're afraid to be seen as weak, Doug. And like you, they believe they are among the "good guys" and among those who are being threatened with potential attack by a ruthless and evil enemy. So how about it? Love or fear? Are we a single human race or are we not? - LH |
|
19 Oct 02 - 03:24 PM (#806809) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR So I assume from what you say then, L.H., you would invite a known terrotist into your home even if you knew he had several pounds of dynamite strapped to his/her body. The purpose, to reason with with him/her. All I have to say, is good luck my friend. DougR |
|
19 Oct 02 - 06:49 PM (#806921) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST,Taliesn (quote) "There was a great deal of criticizm on the Mudcat of GWB when he included North Korea in his "Axis of Evil" speech most will recall. It appears he may have been right don't you think? DougR " Well then ofcourse you should be the first to call for Dubya to make a new speech explaining why we must now take immediate military action to "disarm" NK. I mean the whole world now knows that NK now has "proven" huke tech waeponry * without inspectors* and has a far more advanced ballistic delivery system to go with it than Iraq aspires to. Shouldn't it be the logical *real politique* act for you & felloow Bushites to call for the Dubya/Dick "Big Time" Cheney/ Condi Rice/ Paul Wolfowitz/ Richard Perl warchoir to *seize* the initiative and now *make an example* of NK so as to show Iraq we mean business? C'mon, Daddy Dubya's buddies in Beijing won't mind.....will they? This whole "Suddenly seeking Saddam" campaign has the stench of "Wag the Dog" steaming off of it in order to distract attention away from a drawn-out Afghanistan rebuild and a stagnant economy that Bushites know will play badly in the November elections. |
|
19 Oct 02 - 07:01 PM (#806928) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert Danged, Doug, broken resolutions? Nuke the SOB's. Opps, no don't. Hey, they might nuke us back. Hmmmmmmmm? Problem is that no one, the US included abides by international agreements. Why? Because the US has wanted to maintain it's "Big Dog" status and not allow the United Nations to gain the strength it needs to be what it could and *should* be. Meanwhile, back at Junior's ranch, the US renigs on one treaty after another, one agreement after another, threatens to attack folks for no reason, huff and puffs, and then we wonder why other folks break agreements? Hmmmmmmmm, Part B? So now Junior is wringing his hands and pacing the floor over a country that the US and the rest of the world has chosen to ostrasize for the ladst 50 years and wondering just went wrong? Hmmmmmmmm, Part C? Hmmmmmmmmm? Bobert |
|
19 Oct 02 - 07:18 PM (#806933) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST,Taliesn (quote) "(7) Therefore: Iraq is the Number One Threat. i.e. - easier to whip. OK, Doug - back over to your side. ;} " Hey Rev.Bobert. You & DougR. have maintained a cordial & respectful *agree to disagree* dialogue. My question would be how long of a non-rebuttal post from DougR would constitute a bonafied *dodge* by a Bushite on the issue that , by Dubya's own speeches , he should thus call for the military disarmming of NK to make an example to Saddam? I'll give 'em 36 hours since he was so "prudent" to launch this thread. ;-) |
|
19 Oct 02 - 08:08 PM (#806953) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Don Firth Okay, let's cut to some real hard-nosed basics here. If we're talking about the possibility of North Korea or Iraq starting a nuclear war, which we seem to be, then be reminded that the United States has a sufficient stockpile of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them precisely down any chimney anywhere on the planet. Just a day or two ago a brand new Trident submarine sailed into Hood Canal to the Bangor submarine base not too far from where I live. Several Tridents operate out of Bangor. And there are several other Trident sub bases around the country. A Trident submarine can sit underwater off the coast of any country on earth and lob missiles, nuclear or conventional, into the interior. The firepower of one single Trident submarine exceeds that of most of the nations on earth. And the Trident sub is only one of many weapons systems we have. Any country that attacks the United States with a nuclear weapon is asking for retaliation in kind. I believe our stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons are essentially equivalent to our other ordnance. And our capabilities in conventional warfare are second to none. I think that every nation on earth knows that to attack the United States with conventional weapons is futile, and to attack us with weapons of mass destruction is to do nothing less than commit national suicide. The doctrine if Mutual Assured Destruction (aptly named MAD) is still a valid defense against such attacks (although I tend to doubt the "mutual" part of that. The United States would sustain damage in such a war, but the attacking country would be destroyed.). I'm sure Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and others are fully cognizant of this. I would not be concerned with any military exploits launched against us by the "Axis of Evil." Terrorists, on the other hand, are another matter. Any single person can be a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh had some help, but there is no doubt that he could have handled the whole thing all by himself. And according to the news, one person with a rifle seems to be doing a pretty fair job of terrorizing a whole lot of people. Fighting terrorism requires something considerably more difficult and precise that gross military action. And it requires a whole different mindset. No matter how much our fearless (?) leader tries to convince us otherwise, for the United States to attack some country without our having been attacked first by that specific country is against international law, good sense, and common decency, and it's against all the principles America claims to stand for. To try to connect this with a "war on terrorism" shouldn't fool anyone into thinking that it's anything but imperialistic expansion combined with an attempt to divert people's attention away from domestic problems and attempts to slip unpopular programs in under the radar. It would be an exercise in futility and general silliness were it not for the tragic consequences of such an action. Not to mention the sheer dishonesty and immorality of it. As far as our foreign policy is concerned, rather than insulting the leaders and the peoples of other nations by calling them "evil," a president with real presidential qualities would be attempting to resolve difficulties and disagreements, not engendering them. We (meaning our government) have the strength to do this. But obviously not the will. Don Firth P. S.: By the way, how is it that counties like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, and scores of others I could name have strong economies, get along well with their neighbors, and are populated by happy, healthy, free people—and they hardly have any military forces at all? Maybe we could learn something from them? Nah! That's just plain silly! |
|
19 Oct 02 - 08:53 PM (#806969) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert You ask a good question, Don, and I think the answer lies somewhere in the mix of the following: 1. The leadership of corporate US is morally bankrupt and is more interested in the bottom line than any of the following: A./ its workers, B./ laws and C./ those entitities or individuals who will have to be destroyed to keep the corporation profitable. 2. The US's absolute *nationalism* in that it feels like it has to win them all, irregardless of the means by which victory is achieved. 3. The US was the first to have the "bomb", first and only country to use the "bomb" and that has to creat a level of negative Karma that has never been dealt with. 4. The US has not been blessed with the level of leadership that it needs and those leaders it has been blessed with have all been killed by folks who had no apparent good motive. Bobert's first "hmmmmmmm?" of this post. 5. The US has a certain arrogance that came with the victories over Germany and Japan that it's older, and more influencal citizens, want to keep burning and pass down to their kids and grandkids. (No comment.) 6. The US consumes a lion's share of the earth's resources. 7. The US, like it or not, is the world's last remaining super power and as such feels like the orderliness of the rest of the world is on its shoulders. Well, that's a few of my thoughts on why the US "does not play well with others." Bobert |
|
20 Oct 02 - 01:47 AM (#807057) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk Well, Doug, I thought it would be fun to toss a few philosophical questions your way for a change... :-) But you misunderstand me. No, of course I would not invite a known terrorist with dynamite strapped on his body into my house in order to have a friendly dialogue. I ain't stupid, pal. But why do you misunderstand me? That's the part I don't get. I know you're not stupid, and I assume you know I'm not stupid too, right? I am suggesting that a paranoid, negative, divisive philosophy of life doesn't lead one to a good place in life, but where does paranoia stop and sensible caution begin? I believe we differ on defining where that point is, that's all. There are dangerous hostile people in this town...usually people who are drunk, and emerging late from some bar. I don't invite them in, I avoid them. Believe me, Doug, I am just as sensible as anyone else when it comes to normal caution, and assessing the danger posed by aggressive people. Let's consider the case of the sniper in the Washington area. What would I do about him? Why, I'd do exactly what the police are presently doing, I'd try with all means at hand to find and capture him (or if necessary, shoot him). Sensible, right? He has already attacked people, and people must respond to that effectively, and I'm sure they will. Now let's take the case of North Korea. Once and only once in their history have they attacked a neighbour, their other half, by the way (minor border incidents not counting)...way back around 1950. That was 52 years ago. The USA has also attacked various neighbours and more distant targets more than a few times in its history, often with little or no real provocation. So? What do we do? Should we attack the USA or North Korea pre-emptively, based on past aggressions or the possibility of future ones? North Korea is under a dictatorship. Uh-huh. So are and have been any number of countries who are considered friends and allies of America. So? What do we do, attack them all? What earthly justification is there for attacking people who have not attacked you? If I were in charge of any country and it WAS attacked, I would fight back against that attack most strenously with all the means at hand, I assure you. But I would not launch a pre-emptive strike against them on suspicion that they may one day attack me! That is an act of criminal lunacy. If I suspected that they might attack me, I would arm and prepare in such a way that they would be VERY unlikely to be foolish enough to attack me. This, this USA has ALREADY done...and done most thoroughly. The only people who dare to attack the USA are people who operate secretly (a terrorist cell). Those people do not represent any nation in its entirety. They may represent a faction in a nation. Their activities do not, in my opinion, justify preemptive strikes on entire nations in retaliation. That's kind of like bombing a whole neighborhood full of people in an American city because there's a crack gang operating out of it...or attacking the whole city of Chicago because the mayor of Chicago paid a hit man to kill your brother...so you bomb Chicago into oblivion in order to kill him. Crack gangs usually arise out of impoverished, desperate neighbourhoods. Terrorists usually arise out of impoverished, desperate populations. What are we going to do about it? Do something to end the poverty and despair, that's what, not further terrorize people who are already terrorized anyway by hitting them with the big technological stick of the USA. I am not recommending weakness in the face of overt attack. I am recommending Love as a policy, and that's what I mean. Address the real problems in the world...which are poverty, unemployment, inequality, economic injustice, and despair. That's tougher and far more complicated than merely blowing people up, which is why the powers that be can't be bothered. It's also way more expensive...in the short run. But it wouldn't be in the long run. Not in the least. By "long run" I'm talking 20 years. It's not a job for the impatient or for those who care only about this year's profits. Is the USA so terrified of losing American lives that it must bully, threaten, and possibly invade any country it chooses to merely on suspicion that that country might at some time pose a danger? What gives the USA the right to be judge, jury, and executioner of the whole rest of the world? What gives the USA the illusion that it is the world's arbiter of what constitutes morality, freedom, and justice? These are questions worth pondering for some time, before just leaping to a glib answer. Either a clear majority of the world's nations agree to support a course of action...or that course of action is a criminal action. I don't care who is the one doing it or how many nukes and stealth bombers they have. Most of the free nations on this planet oppose the USA making unilateral attacks on small countries. I said FREE nations. Think about it. - LH |
|
20 Oct 02 - 02:55 AM (#807076) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR Uh Bobert? What U. N. Resolution(s) is the U. S. in violation of? Enlighten me, por favor. And you folks that aren't concerned about NK or Iraq getting the bomb ...that will certainly ensure me a good night's sleep. DougR |
|
20 Oct 02 - 03:22 AM (#807083) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk Doug, I honestly think you are in more danger from the citizens of your own town than you are from either North Korea or Iraq. North Korea and Iraq, on the other hand, are in a great deal of danger...particularly Iraq, which has been getting bombed off and on, here and there, ever since the Gulf War. Be glad you are not an Iraqui or a North Korean. You would have not only your own rotten government and a wrecked economy to worry about on a daily basis, but the US Air Force as well. You and I were born lucky, Doug. That's my opinion. Why am I up this late? Sheesh. Good night. - LH |
|
20 Oct 02 - 04:01 AM (#807092) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST,Taliesn (quote) "Uh Bobert? What U. N. Resolution(s) is the U. S. in violation of? Enlighten me, por favor. And you folks that aren't concerned about NK or Iraq getting the bomb ...that will certainly ensure me a good night's sleep. DougR " Uh, Rev.Bobert? Ofcourse he could always claim to ha've not read my post , but correct me if I be jumping to conclusions ,but does this DougR response constitute a bonafied *dodge* to this attempt at a dialogue? (instant replay quote ) "There was a great deal of criticizm on the Mudcat of GWB when he included North Korea in his "Axis of Evil" speech most will recall. It appears he may have been right don't you think? DougR " Well then ofcourse you should be the first to call for Dubya to make a new speech explaining why we must now take immediate military action to "disarm" NK. I mean the whole world now knows that NK now has "proven" nuke tech waeponry * without inspectors* and has a far more advanced ballistic delivery system to go with it than Iraq aspires to. Shouldn't it be the logical *real politique* act for you & fellow Bushites to call for the Dubya/Dick "Big Time" Cheney/ Condi Rice/ Paul Wolfowitz/ Richard Perl warchoir to *seize* the initiative and now *make an example* of NK so as to show Iraq we mean business? C'mon, Daddy Dubya's buddies in Beijing won't mind.....will they? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm really spoon-feeding here ,but a thoughtful response would be , how shall I say ,....*prudent*. |
|
20 Oct 02 - 05:16 AM (#807102) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Mark Cohen Taliesn, I suppose it's possible that your point and Bobert's point might not have been clearly understood by all concerned. Let me try one more time: DougR: Yes. You are right. North Korea has nuclear weapons. So, we can all agree that (1) North Korea has a monomaniacal dictator, (2) it poses a threat to its neighbors and to American interests, and (3) it possesses weapons of mass destruction. These are all the conditions that, according to President Bush, make it essential for us to prepare to go to war against Iraq, IMMEDIATELY, without waiting for the U.N. or anybody else. So...Why shouldn't President Bush call for an IMMEDIATE war against North Korea? Doug, I think that is a reasonable question. I'd be interested to know what your answer is. Aloha, Mark |
|
20 Oct 02 - 06:41 AM (#807127) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll The reason that countries like Beigium and Denmark don't have significant numbers of military personnel is that they don't need them. They are protected by the troops of NATO. Perhaps some of you have heard of it. The US is the largest member and furnishes the most troops. I can remember very well, back in the 1950's, those times when we had our bags packed and were ready to leave for France at a moments notice. You see, the Russians were massing tanks and troops on the border and the NATO troops (read US) stood ready to oppose them should they cross over. So those small countries have been able to develop in peace and security because the Us and Britain have stood ready to defend them. They have contributed according to their ability when called upon, but they have had no real need to develop a large military. Don, I hope this helps you understand the role of the US and NATO in Europe and why the smaller European countries seem to be better off than their larger neighbors. The reasons that Bush would not call for an immediate attack on North Korea are two. 1) the NK Government has admitted to the violations of the 1994 accords and seem to be in a conciliatory mood. Saddam has admitted nothing and maintains his belligerant attitude. 2) Of even greater importance is the fact that NK has thousands of artillery pieces along the DMZ which could dump literally thousands of high explosive shells on the civilian population of Seoul. They also have delivery systems capable of hitting Japan. Every situation must be handled differently. Just like in business or, even closer to home, entertaining, you have to judge each audience separately and taylor your songs accordingly. Bobert, when you spoke of the leaders who were killed, I hope you weren't referring to the Kennedy brothers. If you were, may I suggest that you put the sentiment aside and read a good modern treatment of JFK's presidency. RFK came to the anti-war ranks only when he decided to run for president. As JFK's Atty Gen, he hewed to the party line and defended the US presence in Viet Nam. Quite frankly, I don't see where seeing which way the wind is blowing, getting out front, and shouting "Follow Me!" constitutes leadership. But I could be wrong. Or at least have unpopular opinions. troll |
|
20 Oct 02 - 11:57 AM (#807249) Subject: One Option, ONLY! From: saulgoldie The world has reached the place where there is only one option for the survival of the human species and many other species, as well. That is that we must solve our problems in a manner superior to that of chucking spears (literally or metaphorically). We must evolve emotionally and with regard to wisdom just as our knowledge has evolved to where a small gaggle of people can anihilate(sp?) everyone rather than just maim each other and a couple of onlookers. It takes the whole world of leaders acting wisely and with long-range vision. It both saddens me and scares me that at the moment my country's contribution to that process (if there even IS a process) cannot properly utter common words and phrases, much less think thoughts more than three paragraphs deep. |
|
20 Oct 02 - 04:11 PM (#807336) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: The Pooka 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 |
|
20 Oct 02 - 05:11 PM (#807361) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR 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 |
|
20 Oct 02 - 06:26 PM (#807401) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk 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 |
|
20 Oct 02 - 08:47 PM (#807474) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert "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 |
|
20 Oct 02 - 09:20 PM (#807488) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: toadfrog 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? |
|
21 Oct 02 - 03:10 AM (#807601) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR 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 |
|
21 Oct 02 - 06:48 AM (#807657) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll 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 |
|
21 Oct 02 - 09:27 PM (#808186) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: toadfrog 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? |
|
21 Oct 02 - 10:05 PM (#808203) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert 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 |
|
22 Oct 02 - 05:00 AM (#808364) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Teribus "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!!!!" |
|
22 Oct 02 - 05:34 AM (#808381) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll 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 |
|
22 Oct 02 - 06:49 AM (#808411) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST,Wolfgang 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 |
|
22 Oct 02 - 07:16 AM (#808422) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bagpuss 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... |
|
22 Oct 02 - 07:24 AM (#808426) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bagpuss And in case anyone is interested this is the page for Human Rights Watch in the Gulf War |
|
22 Oct 02 - 07:28 AM (#808430) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST,Wolfgang I guess you're right, Bagpuss. I only had seen the name Gulf War so far. Wolfgang |
|
22 Oct 02 - 08:38 AM (#808457) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert 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 |
|
22 Oct 02 - 01:41 PM (#808653) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Ebbie 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. |
|
22 Oct 02 - 02:02 PM (#808668) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR 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 |
|
22 Oct 02 - 02:16 PM (#808683) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Wolfgang 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 |
|
22 Oct 02 - 02:56 PM (#808724) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy 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? |
|
22 Oct 02 - 04:17 PM (#808792) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk 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 |
|
22 Oct 02 - 04:26 PM (#808799) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR 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 |
|
22 Oct 02 - 05:04 PM (#808829) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: toadfrog 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. |
|
22 Oct 02 - 06:36 PM (#808902) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert 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 |
|
22 Oct 02 - 06:58 PM (#808915) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert 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 |
|
22 Oct 02 - 07:56 PM (#808930) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST,a Limey 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. |
|
22 Oct 02 - 10:36 PM (#809008) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Don Firth 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 |
|
22 Oct 02 - 11:04 PM (#809025) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert 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 |
|
23 Oct 02 - 06:41 AM (#809115) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bagpuss 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 |
|
23 Oct 02 - 07:47 AM (#809135) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll 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 |
|
23 Oct 02 - 11:56 AM (#809323) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk 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 |
|
23 Oct 02 - 12:13 PM (#809350) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR 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 |
|
23 Oct 02 - 12:29 PM (#809365) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: NicoleC 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 |
|
23 Oct 02 - 01:01 PM (#809403) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Don Firth 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 |
|
23 Oct 02 - 01:17 PM (#809417) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST 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... |
|
23 Oct 02 - 01:40 PM (#809444) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll 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 |
|
23 Oct 02 - 05:48 PM (#809579) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: toadfrog 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? |
|
23 Oct 02 - 07:26 PM (#809663) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert 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 |
|
23 Oct 02 - 07:42 PM (#809683) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR 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 |
|
24 Oct 02 - 12:24 AM (#809855) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: toadfrog 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? |
|
24 Oct 02 - 05:59 AM (#809952) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll 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 |
|
24 Oct 02 - 07:47 AM (#809999) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Peg 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 |
|
24 Oct 02 - 09:00 AM (#810051) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Teribus 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. |
|
24 Oct 02 - 01:46 PM (#810314) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR "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 |
|
24 Oct 02 - 03:04 PM (#810365) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Don Firth 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 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 |
|
24 Oct 02 - 03:14 PM (#810369) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR 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 |
|
24 Oct 02 - 05:49 PM (#810492) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert 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 |
|
24 Oct 02 - 07:30 PM (#810561) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
24 Oct 02 - 07:43 PM (#810576) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR 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 |
|
24 Oct 02 - 08:14 PM (#810593) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk What was it you were wrong about in '41, Doug? - LH |
|
24 Oct 02 - 08:25 PM (#810601) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR I thought they were going to hit Guam, but they hit Pearl Harbor instead. DougR |
|
24 Oct 02 - 08:40 PM (#810613) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: McGrath of Harlow 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.) |
|
24 Oct 02 - 09:51 PM (#810666) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert 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 |
|
24 Oct 02 - 11:16 PM (#810724) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll 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 |
|
24 Oct 02 - 11:54 PM (#810743) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Lonesome EJ 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. |
|
25 Oct 02 - 12:02 AM (#810748) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Peg 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. |
|
25 Oct 02 - 12:03 AM (#810752) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Ebbie "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. |
|
25 Oct 02 - 12:18 AM (#810760) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll 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 |
|
25 Oct 02 - 12:46 AM (#810782) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk 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 |
|
25 Oct 02 - 01:34 AM (#810793) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Teribus 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. |
|
25 Oct 02 - 02:25 AM (#810811) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR 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 |
|
25 Oct 02 - 06:14 AM (#810885) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Teribus 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." |
|
25 Oct 02 - 06:21 AM (#810888) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll Golly, that last sentence does change the whole tenor of the Guardian article, doesn't it? troll |
|
25 Oct 02 - 08:07 AM (#810932) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert 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 |
|
25 Oct 02 - 09:06 AM (#810981) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Teribus 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". |
|
25 Oct 02 - 10:59 AM (#811072) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Peg 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? |
|
25 Oct 02 - 12:11 PM (#811153) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR 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 |
|
25 Oct 02 - 01:07 PM (#811191) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk 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 |
|
25 Oct 02 - 02:28 PM (#811260) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Ebbie Hear! Hear! |
|
25 Oct 02 - 02:41 PM (#811278) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Peg 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. |
|
25 Oct 02 - 03:55 PM (#811349) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST France, Russia, UK, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Tuvalu, Let's get this party started. |
|
25 Oct 02 - 04:21 PM (#811359) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: McGrath of Harlow 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.") |
|
25 Oct 02 - 05:48 PM (#811421) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk 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 |
|
25 Oct 02 - 07:35 PM (#811502) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll 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." |
|
26 Oct 02 - 03:00 AM (#811744) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Teribus 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. |
|
26 Oct 02 - 01:40 PM (#811913) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: saulgoldie 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... |
|
26 Oct 02 - 01:47 PM (#811914) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk 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 |
|
26 Oct 02 - 05:50 PM (#812018) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert 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 |
|
28 Oct 02 - 03:14 AM (#812934) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Teribus 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. |
|
28 Oct 02 - 04:53 AM (#812963) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll 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 |
|
28 Oct 02 - 09:10 AM (#813072) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Teribus 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. |
|
28 Oct 02 - 04:56 PM (#813212) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk 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 |
|
28 Oct 02 - 08:27 PM (#813289) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert 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 |
|
28 Oct 02 - 09:50 PM (#813342) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: NicoleC 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. |
|
29 Oct 02 - 05:27 AM (#813437) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Teribus 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. |
|
29 Oct 02 - 09:23 AM (#813527) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll 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 |
|
29 Oct 02 - 11:07 AM (#813600) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: NicoleC 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 |
|
29 Oct 02 - 12:47 PM (#813692) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Little Hawk 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 |
|
29 Oct 02 - 12:52 PM (#813698) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie 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........... |
|
29 Oct 02 - 12:57 PM (#813701) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: NicoleC 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. |
|
29 Oct 02 - 06:07 PM (#813953) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert 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 |
|
29 Oct 02 - 06:45 PM (#813979) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: NicoleC #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. |
|
29 Oct 02 - 06:53 PM (#813985) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: NicoleC Uh, that was supposed to be "Constitutional." |
|
29 Oct 02 - 07:05 PM (#813993) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Bobert 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 |
|
29 Oct 02 - 07:15 PM (#814002) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR 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 |
|
30 Oct 02 - 05:49 AM (#814236) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: Troll DougR, just remember; there's boobs and then there's boobs. Fortunately it's usually simple to tell the difference. troll |
|
30 Oct 02 - 10:05 AM (#814371) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie 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. |
|
30 Oct 02 - 05:05 PM (#814711) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR 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 |
|
30 Oct 02 - 05:53 PM (#814749) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie Is the President (or whatever he calls himself) of North Korea a big boob? |
|
30 Oct 02 - 07:38 PM (#814805) Subject: RE: BS: N. Korea may have the big bomb! From: DougR 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 |