Where did N korea get it's nukes from???? - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-21-2003, 01:28 PM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
the United States does NOT have the right to consign the people of another country to a life of misery just to ensure that its people will be safe.
Thank you!

How callous can one be to state that it is fine to support dictators in the name of American security, when those dictators slaughtered their own people, gassed them, threw them out of airplanes into the Pacific while they were still alive, stole their babies. It baffles the mind.

I guess some people are more equal than others in this world. What a joke.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 04-21-2003, 05:24 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:44 PM
Popmartijn,


"Now I still have the feeling that the USA is arbritrarily targetting countries. We target Iraq now because of Saddam, but Pakistan is OK because Musharraf says he supports us. We'll target Syria later because we're in the neighbourhood, but talking with North Korea is enough. I (and maybe others) don't see a clear line in this, a clear idea behind these actions."

The USA does not arbritrarily target countries. Iraq became a target because of its past behavior and WMD. Its past behavior included the attacking and invading four different countries in vital region of the world over a small space of time. Iraq was required to disarm by the United Nations and Resolution 678 approved the "Use of All means Necessary" to bring about compliance with "All subsequent resolutions". These resolutions were of coursed passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allow the use of force!

Saddam failed to disarm peacefully as he was required to do, so he had to be disarmed by force! I don't see how there is anything confusing or mysterious about that. Its rather obvious.

Pakistan has not invaded or attacked four different countries. They are not required under any UN resolutions to disarm anything! The same goes for Syria and even North Korea.

In regards to Stalin, I have found that few people understand or realize the importance of logistics and supplies to any Military, especially one the size of Russia's. Where do you think most of raw materials to build new weapons came from? The USA! Deny Russia this, and you cut way down the number of tanks that can be produced. Who do you think clothed and fed the Russian Army and population during World War II. The USA and UK! The Lend Lease Supplies was vital to the Russian War effort. You can't fight for very long if your hungery, ill clothed, and do not have weapons. You should look up more on the Lend Lease supply effort to Russia, it is the largest supply effort in history!

On the Iran/Iraq war a huge percentage of the people that were killed during Saddams reign of power were killed as the result of the war that he started. Iranian victory in such a war would have led to Iranian slaughter and repression of the Sunni and Kurdish populations of Iraq and the rape of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as well as other Gulf States. Far more people would be killed in this senerio which would be followed potentially by a worldwide economic depression worse than the one in the 1930s due to the total disruption of most of the worlds energy supplies. But this could be partly averted by what would most likely be a counter attack by US forces to retake Saudia Arabia, Kuwait and would have to continue you on to retake Iraq and perhaps even occupy Iran. Such an operation would mean the deaths of even more people.

Nearly every government in the region and the world new that this would be the price of Iranian victory. Iraq as the Soviet Unions client state already, was already supplying Iraq with most of its needs.

Saddam came to power at a time when the Soviets were the only ones dealing with Iraq at all. Its after Saddams attack on Iran and military failures that weakened Iraq's position that the flood of financial aid from the Gulf States and more weapons from China and France in addition to continued mass Soviet support started to come in.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-21-2003, 05:37 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:44 PM
FizzingWhizzbees,

"Sorry but I just cannot agree with that. It's like saying it's okay for the people of other countries to live under a US-backed dictatorship, just so long as the people of the United States are okay. I believe all people are equal, whether they're from America, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Pakistan, Iraq or any other country - the United States does NOT have the right to consign the people of another country to a life of misery just to ensure that its people will be safe."

In supporting Anti-Communist force or dictatorships on a temporary basis, the USA did not consign anyone to live a life of misery to ensure only Americans were safe.

US strategy in the Cold War was about far more than just keeping Americans safe. Rolling back Communism to prevent World War III or a Communist dominated planet with no way to reverse that situation was the most important thing. It has allowed democracy to grow and prosper and will allow people who continue to live under dictatorship to eventually be free. If Soviet Communism had taken over the planet, it would of consigned the whole planet to misery and slavery. Anything to weaken or oppose this most dangerous threat was justified considering the cost of failure! The ends do justify the means!

Would you have supported Stalin and Russia in World War II knowing that if the Russian front had failed it would have been impossible for the allies to defeat the Axis. Don't you think temporarily supporting Stalin for a few years to ensure and Allied victory was worth it considering the alternative was for the planet to live under Nazi control?

The point is that the world is a complicated mess with many problems that require solutions that are not chained and constrained by naive idealism. Those ideals have a much better chance of surviving and achieving a universal following, if realism is adopted to achieve the current problems. The World War II example is a good one!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-21-2003, 05:43 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:44 PM
Anitrim,

"Thank you!"

"How callous can one be to state that it is fine to support dictators in the name of American security, when those dictators slaughtered their own people, gassed them, threw them out of airplanes into the Pacific while they were still alive, stole their babies. It baffles the mind."

"I guess some people are more equal than others in this world. What a joke."

The only joke here is people that would prefer to live in Nazi controlled planet, where everyone would be a slave, simply because they refused to send aid to a dictator(who had murdered and gassed and enslaved many of this own people) who was fighting the same enemy and vital to winning a war and preventing Nazi domination of the planet. You have to be realistic if you seriously desire in eventually achieving a world where everyone is equal in their freedom. Some need to inject their Healthy Idealism with a dose of Realism.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-21-2003, 06:00 PM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In supporting Anti-Communist force or dictatorships on a temporary basis, the USA did not consign anyone to live a life of misery to ensure only Americans were safe.
Yeah, right.

I'm sure the mothers of the disappeared agree with you. Their sons and daughters were throw ALIVE into the Pacific out of airplanes. You think this isn't misery?

These people mourn to this day. The actions of the USA government, which you say were "temporary", in fact consigned these poor people to a lifetime of pain, anguish and tears. To deny that is to slap them in the face again and again; it is the final insult. Have they not suffered enough?

My mother worked with a person from Chile about a decade ago. She knew some of these elderly women, and their stories are heartbreaking. And anybody who tries to deny the fact these people WERE consigned to a life of misery has obviously never thought about what it would be like to walk a mile in their shoes. We should feel so lucky that no superpower felt the need to install and/or support dictatorships in our backyards, or we might be sleeping with the fishes too.

Unbelievable.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 04-21-2003, 06:23 PM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 10:44 PM
I was going to reply to your post seperately, STING, but I think actually anitram said it all perfectly already.

I'd really urge you to do some research on what happened in El Salvador especially - the death squads there, who were trained and supported by the United States, did absolutely horrific things to innocent people. They didn't just murder people, they murdered them in some of the most disgusting ways you can imagine. I don't even want to write about that here because I think it's too shocking to make people read if they don't want to do so.

Fizz
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 04-21-2003, 11:16 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:44 PM
anitram,

Yeah, and you can undisputibly show that if there had been no US involvement Chile none of this would of happened? As long as there was any US involvement in any way in Chile, every cruel thing that happened there was directly the fault of the US government. Thats utter rubish.The fact is, with the political unrest down there, violence and innocent suffering was going to happen. You have to realize that non-intervention and not taking action has a costs as well. To be honest the USA intervened very little in South America compared to Europe and Asia during the Cold War.

I do not deny that many people were consigned to a life of misery! I deny that it was the fault of the US government!

Europeans and the Americans fought two World Wars against Super Powers and nearly fought a third one. Thankfully the US strategy of containment prevented World War III and the Soviet Empire eventually crumbled. Its impossible to count how many lives were saved and allowed to live in freedom because of this. Its unbelievable that some people fail to recognize this.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-21-2003, 11:24 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:44 PM
FizzingWhizzbees,

While the USA supported those opposed to the government in El Salvador at the time, they did not support the mis-use of the training and supplies they were given. I'm sure you don't believe the mayor of your town is at fault when a policeman commits and act of brutallity. Individuals can do evil things, but that does not mean their supporters are guilty of things they would never approve of.

If you think what they did in El Salvador was sick, I'd encourage you to research the regime you were opposed to overthrowing in Iraq.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-24-2003, 10:15 AM   #54
War Child
 
ishkash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: me!bourne
Posts: 751
Local Time: 08:44 AM
Pak continues to support terrorists: CIA

http://server1.msn.co.in/completecoverage/indopak/


The proposed visit of US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to the sub-continent, aiming to initiate steps to ease Indo-Pak tension and cross-border infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir will be a good sign especially in the wake of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's offer of a Ĺ hand of friendshipĺ to Pakistan. But on the eve of his visit to India and Pakistan, the CIA has stated: "Pakistan continues to support groups that resist India's presence in Kashmir in an effort to bring India to the negotiating table." CIA director George Tenet said in a recent speech that even though India's recent military redeployment away from the border reduced the danger of imminent war, the underlying cause of tension was unchanged. "The cycles of tension between India and Pakistan are growing shorter," he added. "Indian frustration with continued terrorist attacks, most of which it attributes to Pakistan, causes New Delhi to reject any suggestion that it resume a dialogue with Islamabad," Tenet said. In the same speech, Tenet said that Chinese firms "remain key suppliers of ballistic- and cruise missile-related technologies to Pakistan, Iran and several other countries". He complained that India and Pakistan continued to develop and produce nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Click here for the Related News

According to the States Department sources, though Armitage's exact itinerary was still being worked out, he is planning to travel from May 5 to 11 to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan and preparations were underway. Contrary to the belief held by some nations that after the Iraq war, the US will focus on Pakistan since it is a Muslim fundamentalist nation, the US indirectly admitted that it had no such intention with Pakistan. On the other hand, the US is most concerned about the growing nuclear tension between India and Pakistan because it felt as always that a war between the two nuclear powers will have a catastrophic effect in the sub-continent. It may be recalled that the US administration had taken a painstaking effort to avoid a clash between the two neighbouring countries.

State department spokesman Richard Boucher has said India is looking for more steps that can be taken to ease the tensions, stop the infiltration and look towards a dialogue between the two. "So without getting more specific, at this point we will see where we are when he actually goes. But there is always ways to further that process that I am sure he will want to discuss," he said. "We have a strong and continuing interest in our relationships with South Asian countries and in promoting peace and stability in the region. Deputy Secretary Armitage will travel to further those goals," he said. Each of his individual stops, said Boucher, is important for the relationships (of the US with those countries). He has a chance to push forward the political and reconstruction process that is ongoing in Afghanistan, he added.

In another strategic development between India and the United States, Bush has expressed his plan to establish military bases in India. Some of the worst fears of the anti-US camp in India may become a reality in the not so distant future. A strategy paper prepared for the US Department of Defence foresees the setting up of American military bases in India, particularly airbases. Senior MEA officials acknowledged the existence of this paper, but played it down. The official Indian stand is that no such proposal has been taken up officially by Washington with New Delhi. But given the sensitive nature of the issue as well as knowing the American way of operating, many experts say that such American moves are preceded by many papers prepared by non-official US think tanks first, as in this case, and later aggressively pursued by official channels.

Prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton, the report is based on views expressed by 42 important Americans in the policy loop, including 23 military officers, 10 serving Indian military officers and five senior government officials. "India's strategic location in the centre of Asia, astride the frequently traveled sea lanes of communication (SLOCs) linking the Middle East with East Asia makes India particularly attractive to the US military," the report states. It quotes officials to argue that the US needs to develop alternatives in Asia. "For many, India is the most attractive alternative... eventual access to Indian military infrastructure represents a critical 'strategic hedge' against dramatic changes in traditional US relationships in Asia," it states.

But the Indian government is not in a position to risk a domestic backlash against such a proposal, given the strong anti-US sentiment prevailing in the country, especially in the wake of the US-led invasion of Iraq, which was condemned nationwide. The U.S. on its part might be thinking on the lines of reigning in Pak-sponsored terror groups by using its clout with the Pakistani administration. US Secretary of State Colin Powell had already mentioned that after the war on Iraq, the US would spend more time to deal with the Indio-Pak stand off. Sharing of technical (military) resources would be another carrot the Americans would dangle to get a military foothold in the India's landscape. Though various Indian and Pakistani leaders have talked about the need for dialogue in the recent past, the chances for a resumption of dialogue between the hostile neighbours are still considered remote, given the deep distrust between the Indian and Pakistani administration. This is where the U.S. would hope to cash in. If the U.S. succeeds in bringing the foes to the negotiating table, albeit through backdoor, then it would be able to leverage on it and subsequently bargain for "more space" for its military activities in the subcontinent.
__________________
ishkash is offline  
Old 04-25-2003, 07:56 AM   #55
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 11:44 PM
I just saw a PBS documentary on N korea and an CIA official said they had sattelite photos of N korea shipping nuclear parts from pakistani facilities.


I think this is open and shut....so...N korea builds weapons that can strike the US because of pakistan...and suddenly pakistan is no threat to the US?.
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 04-25-2003, 08:00 AM   #56
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 11:44 PM
this is an article from another thread


Pearl killed 'for finding terror links'

Paul Webster, Paris
Thursday April 24, 2003
The Guardian

The American journalist Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered in Pakistan because he uncovered links between the British terrorist Richard Reid and the Pakistani secret service, according to an investigation by the French philosopher and author Bernard-Henri LÚvy.
LÚvy's book Who Killed Daniel Pearl? traces the Wall Street Journal correspondent's last investigation after he was persuaded to go to Pakistan by a London-born double agent, Omar Saeed Sheikh.

Sheikh has since been sentenced to death in Pakistan for overseeing the murder, in which the reporter's body was cut into 10 pieces.

LÚvy spent several weeks in Pakistan and described it as "the most delinquent of delinquent nations". He said Muslims such as Reid who were linked to al-Qaida were being manipulated by "the most violent and most anti-American faction" inside the Pakistani intelligence service.

Sheikh, a London School of Economics graduate, reportedly invited Pearl, who was then in India, to visit him in Pakistan as part of an inquiry into the background of Reid.

Reid is now in prison in the US after trying to blow up a flight from Paris to Miami.

LÚvy said "an odour of the apocalypse" floated over cities in Pakistan where there was a struggle between moderate and radical Muslims recruited by the intelligence service. He accused Pakistani extremists of transferring nuclear secrets to Iran and helping North Korea to develop the atomic bomb.

Claiming that Pakistan was the real key to all Islamic-led international terrorism, he said that the US had solved only 1% of the problem by deposing Saddam Hussein.










apparantly everyone sees this problem except bush
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 07-05-2003, 03:07 AM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 11:44 PM
The two faces of Rumsfeld Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts to build nuclear weapons.




Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m (ú125m) contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defence secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/arti...952289,00.html
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 07-05-2003, 12:56 PM   #58
Refugee
 
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: your skull
Posts: 2,311
Local Time: 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
STING, what you are saying sounds so familiar.

Pakistan is now helping the USA, wonderful, so we'll overlook what else they're doing internally, what's going on in the madrasas, how many people are killed by terror attacks in Kashmir, the fact they have a dictatorship. It's all good so long as it's helping you catch some terrorists.

In 20 years, when some guy trained in a Pakistani terror camp takes out Bloomingdales and 3 city blocks with it, then of course it will be time to invade, to liberate those poor people from dictatorship, to bring them democracy, to stop them from threatening the poor Indians next door. Why? because this government of Bush & co. only deals with consequences and not with the problems themselves.

And so it goes and so it goes. And so it went with Iraq in the 80s and so it went with Afghanistan in the 80s, and so it goes again and again like the politicians are all mentally challenged and 2+2=6 to them.
very well put.

interesting how sting2, even when corned and has his back to the wall still defends bush as though he were the president himself. all the evidence stacked up against him means nothing.

terrifying, really.
__________________
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa is offline  
Old 07-05-2003, 02:51 PM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:44 PM
Red Ships of Scalla-Festa,

Because most of this so called evidence is fluff! Not even worthy of an Oliver Stone movie.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-05-2003, 03:11 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 10:44 PM
Actually the Guardian article Rono linked to isn't fluff. It's fact. If you go and do your research at whatever conservative sites you do trust you'll find that the comments it makes regarding Donald Rumsfeld's previous employment are accurate.

That aside, I'm amused at how many times people dismiss articles as "biased" or "fluff" or "speculation" simply because they don't like what they're saying. It seems that rather than debating the issues, it's simpler to diss those who disagree with you. Nice.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ┬ę Interference.com