[Stick]

Now you've done it Kim Jong il. You're so asking for a sanction......again.

I kind of wish Japan had shot it down. North Korea said if they had it would be considered an act of war. Although, can anyone count on the US anymore to have their backs? A bankrupt nation is flirting with the ability to proliferate nuclear weapons technology. Iran is an oil rich nation with plenty of buying power. Not to mention North Korea's previous willingness, and current need to sell. Mean while Obama is cutting defense budget and wants more nuclear cut backs as a "deterant." Anyone else see where this is going?

[redheadedrider]

little kim has that short man sickness

[denzee]

The North Korea/Japan situation has Japan feeling much like Israel. Korea just wants the technology for peaceful purpose just like Iran. Yeah Right!
In this growing Nuclear age of rogue nations aquiring this technology, it can't have a happy ending.

Maybe the Messiah will fix things while he's on his apology tour.

[dicknose]

The problem is what right do we (other countries) have to say that someone can or cant have certain weapons. Especially when the countries saying this have more and better weapons.

Sure I dont think NK or Iran should have any nuclear weapons - but from their point of view the "other side" has lots of them plus way superior non-nuke capabilities. How do they feel safe?

[dr256]

North Korea is posturing in order to get what it wants.
Once you have a rocket with a range of over 5000 miles suddenly you have Seattle in your sights. (Anchorage, Alaska, is roughly 3,500 miles (6,000 kilometers) from the launch site, Seattle about 5,000 miles (8,000 kilometers).

This is generally known as the 'pressure card' and is used by many less developed countries to apply pressure on more developed countries in order to receive technology, trade, aid etc. You don't need to actually use them as 'having them' is enough to get everyones attention.
So the likelihood of North Korea actually attacking anyone with a nuke is actually very small because the real intention is to use them as a way of essentially blackmailing the rest of the world into giving them want they want.

So the question is, do you call their bluff and say "yes go ahead and develop the nuclear missiles. You and I know you can never use them."
Or do you up the anti and try to apply reverse pressure in order to get them to stand down?

Either way, the truth is that Nuclear weapons are a complete and utter waste of money and resources. Given that a world nuclear war is really just nothing more than collective mass suicide, the sooner we get rid of them the better. And as the old saying goes, you have to lead by example.

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by denzee

The North Korea/Japan situation has Japan feeling much like Israel.

and please don't forget the South Koreans. They really are next door.

Originally Posted by denzee

Maybe the Messiah will fix things while he's on his apology tour.

Originally Posted by dr256

North Korea is posturing in order to get what it wants. Once you have a rocket with a range of over 5000 miles suddenly you have Seattle in your sights. (Anchorage, Alaska, is roughly 3,500 miles (6,000 kilometers) from the launch site, Seattle about 5,000 miles (8,000 kilometers).

This is generally known as the 'pressure card' and is used by many less developed countries to apply pressure on more developed countries in order to receive technology, trade, aid etc. You don't need to actually use them as 'having them' is enough to get everyones attention.
So the likelihood of North Korea actually attacking anyone with a nuke is actually very small because the real intention is to use them as a way of essentially blackmailing the rest of the world into giving them want they want.

So the question is, do you call their bluff and say "yes go ahead and develop the nuclear missiles. You and I know you can never use them."
Or do you up the anti and try to apply reverse pressure in order to get them to stand down?

Except that you're assuming a rational mind at the helm, because they can and have been used before. There is in fact very little stopping them being used again when the person in charge doesn't subscribe to the rules of the game.

Originally Posted by dr256

Either way, the truth is that Nuclear weapons are a complete and utter waste of money and resources. Given that a world nuclear war is really just nothing more than collective mass suicide, the sooner we get rid of them the better. And as the old saying goes, you have to lead by example.

Except that no country trusts the other enough to get rid of them all - remember the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Anyway, if North Korea really does develop nuke missiles it's going to find them EXTREMELY expensive to maintain. It isn't just a question of build 'em and leave them in storage for a rainy day.

[denzee]

Hey Surf, that last quote "Either way, the truth is that Nuclear weapons....." you had of mine belongs to dr256. I don't know how my name got in there.

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by denzee

Hey Surf, that last quote "Either way, the truth is that Nuclear weapons....." you had of mine belongs to dr256. I don't know how my name got in there.

Sorry. Copy and pasted the wrong title opener on that paragraph

Corrected now

[denzee]

No apology needed but accepted Surf. It was funny reading something I remembered reading at some point but certainly not writing it.

[dr256]

Originally Posted by Surffrog

Except that you're assuming a rational mind at the helm, because they can and have been used before. There is in fact very little stopping them being used again when the person in charge doesn't subscribe to the rules of the game.

Even during the height of the cold war when the US and Russia were effectively playing hardball, both sides new that shipping them Cuba was one thing, launching them was entirely different!
My point being there aren't any rules anyway. Each side takes its position and levers as much as they can out of the situation. Denzee's remark about Israel for example - despite the posturing of both the former Iraq and Iran, they still know they can't nuke them.
So the net effect is the same. You have them to prove you are powerful. But no-one can really use them.

Originally Posted by Surffrog

Except that no country trusts the other enough to get rid of them all - remember the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Anyway, if North Korea really does develop nuke missiles it's going to find them EXTREMELY expensive to maintain. It isn't just a question of build 'em and leave them in storage for a rainy day.

True, and this is what makes them so completely pointless. Trident is going to cost the UK about £76 billion. We'll never use them. Completely pointless....

[Brett Haven]

Originally Posted by dicknose

The problem is what right do we (other countries) have to say that someone can or cant have certain weapons. Especially when the countries saying this have more and better weapons.

Sure I dont think NK or Iran should have any nuclear weapons - but from their point of view the "other side" has lots of them plus way superior non-nuke capabilities. How do they feel safe?

Governments who do things like the following links suggest should not be allowed to have access to a weapon that can start the extinction of mankind. I found these links by simply googling "north korea atrocity" and have done no research on them. Note that some of it is rather startling.....
North Korean and Chinese Atrocities Against Christians Worsen
Daimnation!: North Korean atrocities
The Blue Site: North Korean Atrocities
Death, terror in N. Korea gulag - January 2003: Crisis in the Koreas- msnbc.com

....... and I am fine with the fact that these types of government don't feel safe. They should live in fear everyday, just as their victims do now.

Originally Posted by dr256

This is generally known as the 'pressure card' and is used by many less developed countries to apply pressure on more developed countries in order to receive technology, trade, aid etc. You don't need to actually use them as 'having them' is enough to get everyones attention.
So the likelihood of North Korea actually attacking anyone with a nuke is actually very small because the real intention is to use them as a way of essentially blackmailing the rest of the world into giving them want they want.

Either way, the truth is that Nuclear weapons are a complete and utter waste of money and resources. Given that a world nuclear war is really just nothing more than collective mass suicide, the sooner we get rid of them the better. And as the old saying goes, you have to lead by example.

While Kim Jong Crazy is in deed an individual that needs some time on a couch with a therapist, I don't think he is really going to create nuclear war. Launching a warhead at another country would undoubtedly create a backlash from other countries that would wipe them off the face of the planet. He has to know this.... and because he does, he will use it as a bargaining chip to get what he feels he needs as a dictator. But there are no gurantees that he will always think this way. After he gets what he wants from the rest of the world, what would he do next? Thats the big question.

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by dr256

Even during the height of the cold war when the US and Russia were effectively playing hardball, both sides new that shipping them Cuba was one thing, launching them was entirely different!
My point being there aren't any rules anyway. Each side takes its position and levers as much as they can out of the situation. Denzee's remark about Israel for example - despite the posturing of both the former Iraq and Iran, they still know they can't nuke them.
So the net effect is the same. You have them to prove you are powerful. But no-one can really use them.

Nevertheless if we look at North Korea in isolation, its position is precarious and KJI knows it. He has only a few options:

1. Fully reintegrate with South Korea
Not an option he is likely to agree to given that the full scope of the atrocities he has ordered would be out in the public domain and he would have to concede power and lose his legacy. Although North Korea is on its knees, it is still able to maintain its massive number of troops and keep the country's imperious leader in the lap of god-like luxury.

In addition, South Korea considers little Kimmy an enemy and would probably seek to imprison him or worse. The best he could hope for is exile, but that's just not the same as ruling over millions of people and deciding on a whim whether they live or die. South Korea is actually quite a little power house financially but even so it knows it cannot take on the monumental task of integration of a size last seen in Germany, which nearly collapsed under the strain. If it were going to do so, integration would have to be carried out over decades not years. Therefore there would be no power sharing option.

2. Make the country feared so that he stays in power until he dies and can leave the thorny issue of what happens next to someone else.

This is quite an appealing option for him, if you think about it. Regardless of whatever sanctions the US put on the country, little Kimmy is always going to get what he wants. The rest of the country won't even notice the difference and he'll continue to look powerful by defying the US. He hasn't got too much longer to go anyway given that people have been digging around his brain with scalpels lately and he isn't getting any younger. If progress towards his grand plan of making North Korea the greatest country in the world stops upon his death, it probably won't surprise him. I don't actually think he ever thought about anything further than surrounding the borders with as many bodies as he could so that he could get on doing whatever it is he does (I mean aside from arms dealing).

3. Make new friends

Well, he did try that with China, but they rather stunned him by siding with the Americans on the nuclear development issue. That plus the Russians (after they'd stopped p*ssing around trying to wind the US up) also realised that North Korea probably is a little too close for comfort and back peddled.

I reckon he'll go for option two. As hardly anyone knows anything about little kimmy's potential successor, the country will have breathing space (at least for a good few months) to sort its sh1t out before any country attempts to establish a new working relationship with the government. That means bugger all of any significance will happen for at least a year, protecting little kimmy's so-called legacy. After that the history books will read like he was the country's last great leader before its fall (if that's what happens of course).

Originally Posted by dr256

True, and this is what makes them so completely pointless. Trident is going to cost the UK about £76 billion. We'll never use them. Completely pointless....

We never will, Dr, you're quite right. We're well and truly in bed with the Americans and have been since WWII. However, the nukes in the UK (I believe but this could have changed) are under US control.

Originally Posted by Brett Haven

I don't think he is really going to create nuclear war. Launching a warhead at another country would undoubtedly create a backlash from other countries that would wipe them off the face of the planet. He has to know this.... and because he does, he will use it as a bargaining chip to get what he feels he needs as a dictator. But there are no gurantees that he will always think this way. After he gets what he wants from the rest of the world, what would he do next? Thats the big question.

Well, lets not forget that he already has a huge bargaining chip. If he let his armies storm into South Korea, the South would be overrun in a couple of days, even without the use of tanks. He'll also get all the spoils of that rather quick encounter, too. It would actually be positively productive. And who will attack? He knows all the UN and humanitarian groups will get involved to protect the victims and non-combatant North Koreans who haven't got a bowl of rice to eat.

[dr256]

Originally Posted by Surffrog

I reckon he'll go for option two.

I agree. All he can really do is keep up the anti to keep the worlds attention and keep his people down to keep his position. Sad bloody old world my friend...

[denzee]

I think it's very important to keep nuclear power from rogue nations almost at all costs. However, let's be honest with ourselves, as nuclear proliferation continues over time, it will not be possible to control. It's almost at that point now. Look how Pakistan's nuclear warheads can even come under threat from the Taliban in Ahghanistan. I can't help but think that some dictator nut job will threaten the US or other countries with a strike. If you're already at the point where you will launch a nuclear attack then you're likely not thinking too clearly about the repercussions of such a move.

[dr256]

Originally Posted by denzee

I think it's very important to keep nuclear power from rogue nations almost at all costs. However, let's be honest with ourselves, as nuclear proliferation continues over time, it will not be possible to control. It's almost at that point now. Look how Pakistan's nuclear warheads can even come under threat from the Taliban in Ahghanistan. I can't help but think that some dictator nut job will threaten the US or other countries with a strike. If you're already at the point where you will launch a nuclear attack then you're likely not thinking too clearly about the repercussions of such a move.

Absolutely agree that we're are pretty much at the stage where the proliferation is uncontrollable. The technology and certainly the science are widely available via books and the internet. For most the only real block is the raw materials needed and the processing there of.

[denzee]

Just heard on the news that Iran launched a medium range test missle that has a 1200 mile range. Enough to reach Israel or US bases. Hmmmm, how far is it to the UK from Iran?

[dr256]

They've a way to go yet Denzee - London to Tehran is 2740 miles.

Plus if they want to rile up the UK and the US at the same time then just zap one over to Israel. Much easier...

[denzee]

Originally Posted by dr256

They've a way to go yet Denzee - London to Tehran is 2740 miles.

Plus if they want to rile up the UK and the US at the same time then just zap one over to Israel. Much easier...

Yeh dr but it's one thing worrying about your allies butt and another being concerned about your own. Glad we're nowhere near that sand pit. I kinda wish they'd launch something so we can turn that sand into glass over there. Of course I don't wish theirs would reach its target.
Go ahead and beat me up now. I can take it!

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by Brett Haven

Governments who do things like the following links suggest should not be allowed to have access to a weapon that can start the extinction of mankind. I found these links by simply googling "north korea atrocity" and have done no research on them. Note that some of it is rather startling.....
North Korean and Chinese Atrocities Against Christians Worsen
Daimnation!: North Korean atrocities
The Blue Site: North Korean Atrocities
Death, terror in N. Korea gulag - January 2003: Crisis in the Koreas- msnbc.com

....... and I am fine with the fact that these types of government don't feel safe. They should live in fear everyday, just as their victims do now.

So how about we post links about Israel...
they are regularly condemned by other western countries and the UN for their actions against Palestinians.
Or even the US (torture, assinations, detaining without trial)
France - rainbow warrior.

Sure I think China and North Korea are way worse at human rights, but its not like the other nuclear powers are squeeky clean.

So again - why do we (the world, nations with nukes) have the right to say who can and cant have nukes?

Would you be happy if there was a world body that decided this?
What is they said "US has a bad record, invaded countries without UN approval, they arent allowed to have nukes!"

Thats the big question.

Yes it is a big question.
But again - why do we get to say what he can and cant do?
That is THE big question.

Bush pretty much put the threat of invasion on the "axis of evil".
When you have that threat coming from the major military power in the world why dont you have the right to arm yourself for defense?
Its fine to say Kim Jong is a bit crazy, but why is that any worse than the US president being a bit crazy? The US could launch an invasion and not risk any country retaliating. We have already seen that in Iraq.
But if North Korea did that then there would be talk of dropping the bomb on them.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by denzee

I kinda wish they'd launch something so we can turn that sand into glass over there.

And you wonder why they want nukes?

When it seems that every second american has the "turn them to glass" attitude, your country has already invaded others - surely they have to be worried and thinking - what can we do to not be the next Iraq.

[Natezlvnit]

Originally Posted by dicknose

And you wonder why they want nukes?

When it seems that every second american has the "turn them to glass" attitude, your country has already invaded others - surely they have to be worried and thinking - what can we do to not be the next Iraq.

That was a Canadian comment there. Although that is probably a lot Americans point of view. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is the best analogy I can come up with to describe our actions around the world lately. I think that North Korea's best bet for financial aid is to start a nuclear weapons program. One of my co workers has a shirt that on the front states 'If you build it" and has blue prints for a North Korean nuclear weapons plant, and on the back it says "We will come!" and there is a picture of three F-117 stealths. He got it from a air show and it is signed by a stealth pilot. I was thinking about that the other day and that shirt is a reality that might happen in the near future and it scares me to death. All of the outcomes of that are not good at all. I think that we Americans need to seriously need to reconsider the billions of dollars we give away as "foreign aid" and stop trying to be the world police and start focusing on our own problems. Especially now with the millions of jobless and homeless which is multiplying every day. Also focus on the drug cartels that are knocking right on our southern door. It may not help the gas prices like playing policeman in the middle east but they are certainly showing a clear and present danger to the U.S. Now as I am typing this I see Iran launched a missile also. It never ends. I just think that we need to start worrying about our selves. The world is full of tragedy and is not our responsibility to fix it all. Some time I wonder if OPEC runs the world. This is just one tax payers opinion.

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by dr256

I agree. All he can really do is keep up the anti to keep the worlds attention and keep his people down to keep his position. Sad bloody old world my friend...

And there's nothing the outside world can realistically do about it.

Originally Posted by denzee

I think it's very important to keep nuclear power from rogue nations almost at all costs. However, let's be honest with ourselves, as nuclear proliferation continues over time, it will not be possible to control. It's almost at that point now. Look how Pakistan's nuclear warheads can even come under threat from the Taliban in Ahghanistan. I can't help but think that some dictator nut job will threaten the US or other countries with a strike. If you're already at the point where you will launch a nuclear attack then you're likely not thinking too clearly about the repercussions of such a move.

Don't you ever wonder how both Pakistan and India got nuclear powered weapons around the same time? I always wondered whether the US got wind of the Russians or Israelis selling into one of those countries so they sold into the other to maintain the balance power in the region.

The point is the countries with the technology and materials will always end up being the point of origin for new up-and-coming superpowers. It's just the way it is behind all the public posturing and denouncing of nuclear weapons. Where there's money to be made you'll find someone without a conscious

Originally Posted by dicknose

So how about we post links about Israel...
they are regularly condemned by other western countries and the UN for their actions against Palestinians.
Or even the US (torture, assinations, detaining without trial)
France - rainbow warrior.

Don't forget the French did far more than just rainbow warrior. That was just the public bit...

Originally Posted by dicknose

Sure I think China and North Korea are way worse at human rights, but its not like the other nuclear powers are squeeky clean.

Every single country on this planet has it's Skeletons in the closet.

Originally Posted by dicknose

So again - why do we (the world, nations with nukes) have the right to say who can and cant have nukes?

It's not about rights and never was. It's about power.

[Brett Haven]

Before anyone reads too much into this...... I have no aggressive intentions here. Just a friendly debate with others and their thoughts.........

Originally Posted by dicknose

So how about we post links about Israel...
they are regularly condemned by other western countries and the UN for their actions against Palestinians.
Or even the US (torture, assinations, detaining without trial)
France - rainbow warrior.

Bush pretty much put the threat of invasion on the "axis of evil".

Like Surffrog said, every country has its skeletons. The US had Slavery, and still has corruption on Capitol Hill daily. But don't confuse the fact that the "US and its Allies" removed a mass murdered form power in Iraq and detained terrorists who were planning to kill innocent people..... No person in their right mind would want these people free and roaming the streets of their county.

Originally Posted by dicknose

And you wonder why they want nukes?

When it seems that every second american has the "turn them to glass" attitude, your country has already invaded others - surely they have to be worried and thinking - what can we do to not be the next Iraq.

Seems like reading through your posts here that you're mad at Americans. I may be wrong here, but thats what I'm reading.

If terrorists had leveled a few buildings in Sydney I'm sure there would be some national reaction from Australians as well. Keep in mind the history behind the thought process..... and I am not saying that its right either. Emotions carry no right and wrong, only emotion.

Originally Posted by Surffrog

Every single country on this planet has it's Skeletons in the closet.

It's not about rights and never was. It's about power.

you speak the truth sir.

[dr256]

Originally Posted by denzee

Yeh dr but it's one thing worrying about your allies butt and another being concerned about your own. Glad we're nowhere near that sand pit. I kinda wish they'd launch something so we can turn that sand into glass over there. Of course I don't wish theirs would reach its target.
Go ahead and beat me up now. I can take it!

But isn't that the problem in the first place. The easy thing to do is beat you up. The hard and right thing to do is to talk to you. (over an ale preferably)

Oh sh*t I think I'm turning into a hippy!!!

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by Brett Haven

Like Surffrog said, every country has its skeletons. The US had Slavery, and still has corruption on Capitol Hill daily. But don't confuse the fact that the "US and its Allies" removed a mass murdered form power in Iraq and detained terrorists who were planning to kill innocent people..... No person in their right mind would want these people free and roaming the streets of their county.

No they wouldnt.
But when you do that and call other places "axis of evil" then you are basically issuing a warning that you could invade them as well.
I hear lots of people talking about a countries right to defend itself - why shouldnt NK and Iran have the rights to defend themselves?
Why should other countries be able to say what weapons they can and cant have?

Seems like reading through your posts here that you're mad at Americans. I may be wrong here, but thats what I'm reading.

Not at all.
It more that America has the power and needs to be careful with how its used.
But it also has a very patriotic population that is pushed to see things as black and white. Maybe this is from having many years of cold war as well as actual wars. But starting with "NK is the enemy" is not good logic. Wanting to nuke Iran is not good logic. But that seems to be a very common attitude of Americans (and of other people in other countries as well)

If terrorists had leveled a few buildings in Sydney I'm sure there would be some national reaction from Australians as well. Keep in mind the history behind the thought process..... and I am not saying that its right either. Emotions carry no right and wrong, only emotion.

Plenty of australians died in Bali.
We didnt have a desire to invade.

It is a cultural difference.
I guess having lived in both countries its far more obvious to me.

So sure - everyone has their skeletons.
But thats just my point. No one is so squeeky clean that they should be able to say to another country "you cant do that - be we can"

If a country without nukes says "you shouldnt have nukes" then thats reasonable (to a point)
But those with them, especially those who also have vast military power as well (USA, Russia, China) shouldnt be saying "no nukes" to others - doubly so if its someone who you are threatening.
It might be different if the USA hadnt been involved in any wars in the last 20 years. But thats not the case.

[sheepofblue]

Let's see where to start....

Australia IS fighting them (with us in Iraq), though you might have withdrew

The US is more capable of attacking psychos than Australia though y'all always pitch in with a hand. The same for the Brits and it used to be the Canadians. France and Germany vary with time a bunch.

Comparing the US history of slavery to current actions in Iran and North Korea is sad. Yes that was a sad part of our history. It was also a way more common practice than it is today (yes there is still slave trading in Africa) but it is a major shame on us for not applying the advances in ideals we had to everyone. However North Korea is run by an crazed dictator that starves his country to a point near collapse (China and South Korea keep it from imploding) he has threatened his neighbors AND us. He propagates the weapons around the world and it is very likely he would assist terrorists that want to hurt us. Iran has a history of war by proxy in the region and again has threatened us with harm. Oh and threatened to nuke Israel when possible. Sorry we had a major moral failing but have largely helped to free people and have almost zero history of conquering for gain.

Oh and how free would Europe be had not the USA come in to WWII? Would Australia have been overrun by the Japanese (who were VERY nasty at that time to conquered peoples). Would Communism have won? And don't even try saying they are not that bad unless you have lived under such an oppression as 100% of people that I have met who have are even more rabid than me and that is saying something.

We are not perfect but without the USA the world would be a worse place for all but the dictators of the world.

[Brett Haven]

Originally Posted by dicknose

No they wouldnt.

I hear lots of people talking about a countries right to defend itself - why shouldnt NK and Iran have the rights to defend themselves?

It more that America has the power and needs to be careful with how its used.

Plenty of australians died in Bali.

"you cant do that - be we can"

Yes they would. They are called the Taliban and thats what they do. You cannot reason with them, they are in desperate search of the power we are discussing and will stop at nothing to get it. Research the Taliban and you will agree. They are not democratic and do not believe in it. Sitting at a table and compromising isn't an option.

They absolutely should have the right to defend themselves. They should not however have the option of starting the final world war that could start the extintion of the the planet. When they stop killing their own people then they will have begun to show the proper respect for human life, and then could be trusted with such weapons.

All nations of power need to be careful how they use it. Totally agree. And the US has made some considerable mistakes under the previous administration. No argument here. Good point sir.

Bali? Thats not in Australia. Its Indonesia. Think about if a terrorist group leveled the Rialto Towers. I'm sure Australians would have some rather strong emotions for years later..... this will subside, give it time. We don't have any problems with Germany or Japan now. Time heals.

"you cant do that - be we can"...... someone has to be in power and someone has to hold the majority of the chips. Thats the same reason we have a police force, and judicial system, and laws to be interpreted by them. Some people cannot be trusted with the same liberties that we all have. Rapists, murderers, thieves, they all have had rights taken away due to bad decisions. The same theory applies to this situation.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

Comparing the US history of slavery to current actions in Iran and North Korea is sad.

I didnt mention that!

Sorry we had a major moral failing but have largely helped to free people and have almost zero history of conquering for gain.

You mean in the last week?

Oh and how free would Europe be had not the USA come in to WWII? Would Australia have been overrun by the Japanese

Get over it.
Its not like you guys single handed won the war.
Other countries helped out.
Australia joined in both WW1 and WW2 but you dont see Aussies going on about "you owe us, we saved you"

As for Australia being overrun - maybe you should thank the Aussies for helping fight Japan so America wasnt overrun. Works both ways!

We are not perfect but without the USA the world would be a worse place for all but the dictators of the world.

Arguable!
I think the world would be a lot better if Bush hadnt had the helm.
"Freedom Fries" - a great example of why Americans are seen as rude and disrespecting even by those who are their friends.


Forget all that for 1 minute.
Get back to the core question.
Does the USA (or any other country) have the right to say who can and cant have weapons??

Do we have any right to say to "rogue" nations - you cant have this weapon?

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by Brett Haven

Research the Taliban and you will agree. They are not democratic and do not believe in it. Sitting at a table and compromising isn't an option.

If you think someone cant be compromised with and you disgree with them then you both have a problem.
But you can always discuss and compromise.

They absolutely should have the right to defend themselves. They should not however have the option of starting the final world war that could start the extintion of the the planet. When they stop killing their own people then they will have begun to show the proper respect for human life, and then could be trusted with such weapons.

Sort of like how China, Russia, USA have nukes and have shown such respect for people.

So how does North Korea or Iran defend themselves?
A nuke is a good deterrent.
Heck how about this for a crazy suggestion - instead of letting them develop their own - give them a nuke. One only and small.

Bali? Thats not in Australia. Its Indonesia.

The point was the attack was aimed at westerners and Australians were the majority group.

We are lucky we have never had a war or serious terrorist attack on our soil.

"you cant do that - be we can"...... someone has to be in power and someone has to hold the majority of the chips. Thats the same reason we have a police force, and judicial system, and laws to be interpreted by them.

Yes but unless America becomes World Police then what gives you the right.
And for a place that loves freedom and democracy - why the rush to act with completely the opposite attitude to others.

Of cause you could go to the UN.
But why should NK accept the UN's decision when the US doesnt when it doesnt suit them?

If you want others to play by the rules then you also have to play by the rules. Selectively obeying the rules is pretty much the same as not having any rules.

Rapists, murderers, thieves, they all have had rights taken away due to bad decisions. The same theory applies to this situation.

Except that the US isnt a judge.
You are the biggest gang with the best weapons saying to another gang - you cant do that.

[Brett Haven]

WOW..... this is seriously an odd conversation to have with someone who appears to be pretty intelligent. Rebuttal to the last 2 posts......

I mentioned Slavery as a blemish on our countries history. A statement that shows a country can do terrible things to its own people and put it behind them, recovering as a stronger society.

Tell me the last time the US ever went to war anywhere and laid claim to that land for personal gain. Or the last time we invaded a country in a effort to do anything less than help oppressed people. Usually by their own government.

The US has readily sent forces to the aid of its friends numerous times. If Australia was invaded tomorrow, I can confidently say that their government would ask the US to send military aid. And in the 5% chance it doesn't, it would ask the UN or Great Britain, who would in turn ask.

If you think for one minute that the Taliban are democratic and would openly accept compromise then you are sadly mistaken. I urge you to research their history and mentality. If you find that they are just a misunderstood peaceful people then why not invite them all to Australia? Would you want them creating a presence in your country?

A nuke is not the only defense a country can have. There are many many weapons that incur freight in enemies. Laser guided missiles, stealth fighters, ect......

You have never been attacked on your homeland so use this as a option. The people at the local pub decide that you aren't the type person they like. They all ride over to your house and kill your family while you watch. Then run into hiding when you start fighting back. I'd think you would have a grudge and seek them out the rest of your life. If not.... then I honestly feel sorry for you and hope you decide to fight for right.

America is the world police, and has been for decades. We aren't a gang either. We are simply looking to make the world a better place for everyone, including us. It isn't easy being on top in anything. Especially if you just happen to be wealthy nation who has the most powerful military. Not everyone will like you, and thats fine.