*Breaking News* N. Korea Claims Successful Nuclear Test

[Tarlam!]

So your argument is based on crimes comitted in Germany over 50 years ago, the USA needs nuclear weapons? Pardon me for yawning here. The country I live in doesn't resmble Nazi Germany. Even the language has gone through two reforms. You have more Nazis living in America than Germany has today.

BTW, I displayed no moral outrage, I merely pointed out some facts. In your attack on the country I live in, you have totally bypassed the discussion at hand, which is whether or not countries have a right to pursue nuclear weapons of their very own.

EDIT: Hitler was born in Austria....

[Scott Campbell]

which is whether or not countries have a right to pursue nuclear weapons of their very own.

EDIT: Hitler was born in Austria....

What right does Kim have to even lead his own country? What qulifications does he have other than being a member of the lucky sperm club?

[MJZiggy]

I tend to doubt that insane people should be allowed weapons of mass destruction, but that's just my base rule. Don't give weapons to crazy people. That govt. really needs to be overthrown from within...

[Scott Campbell]

So your argument is based on crimes comitted in Germany over 50 years ago, the USA needs nuclear weapons? Pardon me for yawning here.

You suffer from a similar mindset as most westerners. I am writing this mail from Shanghai. People around here plan in terms of multiple centuries. You, on the otherhand, do not. You think perhaps in generations at best.

Ok, make up your mind. You either want me thinking in terms of multiple centuries, or you don't.

[Tarlam!]

Ok, make up your mind. You either want me thinking in terms of multiple centuries, or you don't.

Just stick with the programme. We can debate the 3rd Reich, but I'm pretty sure we're on the same page.

We can discuss the US world policy, I am pretty sure, we are volumes apart.

My point on thinking in centuries is forward thinking. No doubt, you will now quote "remember history, or be damned to repeat it" yada.

Still, you're avoiding the "kern". Why should the USA have nukes, and N. Korea/Iran not?

[Scott Campbell]

Now, to Nukes. I forgot to mention China in my post above. Dear Kiwon, nothing you wrote, made my argument weaker. With respect, you posted an emotional claim based on not using the bomb since you did, so, you guys get to police the world. That's not enough for me, I'm afraid.

As long as your wonderful (I mean it) country is in a position to wipe other states off of maps, all countries have a right to strive to stop you.

A right to stop us???? I find it ironic that 2nd tier world powers lay claim to equal status during good times, but when all hell breaks loose these same slacker countries expect the mighty United States to step up as the leader of the free world and spend it's money, and shed it's blood to restore the order.

And then as soon as we've completed all the dirty work, these countries decide it's once again convenient to demand their equal status back.

It's certainly not true of all countries. But we get taken advantage of by the majority. In general, the world community leaches off their rich and gullible Uncle Sam.

[MJZiggy]

Still, you're avoiding the "kern". Why should the USA have nukes, and N. Korea/Iran not?

Because if they get them, the first thing they will do is use them?

[Scott Campbell]

Still, you're avoiding the "kern". Why should the USA have nukes, and N. Korea/Iran not?

I'm sure we could rattle off 15 or 20 reasons why, and the international community certainly seems to agree with us. But it all boils down to this:

1) The world is a safer place because the US has nukes.
2) The world is a less safe place because N. Korea has nukes. Same thing with Iran.

[rdanomly]

Now, to Nukes. I forgot to mention China in my post above. Dear Kiwon, nothing you wrote, made my argument weaker. With respect, you posted an emotional claim based on not using the bomb since you did, so, you guys get to police the world. That's not enough for me, I'm afraid.

As long as your wonderful (I mean it) country is in a position to wipe other states off of maps, all countries have a right to strive to stop you.

A right to stop us???? I find it ironic that 2nd tier world powers lay claim to equal status during good times, but when all hell breaks loose these same slacker countries expect the mighty United States to step up as the leader of the free world and spend it's money, and shed it's blood to restore the order.

And then as soon as we've completed all the dirty work, these countries decide it's once again convenient to demand their equal status back.

It's certainly not true of all countries. But we get taken advantage of by the majority. In general, the world community leaches off their rich and gullible Uncle Sam.

Check this book out some time:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780452287082&itm=1

The book isn't a report and it seems like there has been some fictionalization, but I definately would not describe Uncle Sam as gullible. Maybe more like convieniently looking the other way while other entities do what they do to get paid.

[woodbuck27]

such a man as President (as you suggest could exist) would be impeached or otherwise forced from his office.

To even consider such a possibility of a man being the Head of State of the most important Nation in the World; and linking that to a suggestion of him being insane...is hardly realistic therefore moot.

You need to get a dose of reality old buddy. The President of the USA can nuke anybody he wants, anytime. He might be impeached, but only after the fact.

Have you already forgotten one US President pushed the button? Twice? Why on earth would you call him insane? He wasn't.

Many people claim the current President doesn't have all his marbles. I am definately not one of them, BTW.

The USA being the MVN of the World is your take. I'm not sure everybody, even in Canada, agrees with that sentiment.

You suffer from a similar mindset as most westerners. I am writing this mail from Shanghai. People around here plan in terms of multiple centuries. You, on the otherhand, do not. You think perhaps in generations at best.

Your thoughts are interesting (as usual ) and I've recorded them Tarlam!.

I will come back to YOU " on your thoughts" as YOU certainly deserve to be rebuted.

The OLE Tarlam! Vs woodbuck27 debate lives on at PACKERRATS.

I TRUST that won't detract from the importance of the general debate afforded in this very excellent thread and topic of discussion.

Otherwise Tarlam!... I'm sure your alive and living well in Shanghai.

As an extention of that thought...

We are WORLD's apart in OUR views Maan.

[woodbuck27]

Link:

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20061013%2fki_moon_061013&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True

Some of that in a synopsis:

Canadian relatives thrilled for next UN chief

13/10/2006 9:37:40 PM

South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon's appointment as head of the UN is bittersweet, his Canadian cousin says, referring to this week's crisis over North Korea's nuclear threat.


Ban Ki-moon,



newly appointed Secretary General of the United Nations speaks at a press conference after he was elected at a meeting of the General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York, Friday, Oct. 13, 2006.

Kang is a committee director at the Korean-Canadian Cultural Association.

"Everyone said to him congratulations, but he said

" I'm not getting that feeling yet, because North Korea weighs heavy on my mind."

Ban has said publicly he will work to resolve the crisis over North Korea's nuclear threat.

He repeated this commitment to his cousin, when he called the Kang home in Oshawa Wednesday, to celebrate his impending appointment.

Friday, the celebration became official...

Ban, 62, will succeed Kofi Annan as the UN's eighth secretary-general on Jan. 1.

Annan predicted Ban would be "a future secretary-general who is exceptionally attuned to the sensitivities of countries and constituencies in every continent."

Paul Evans, co-CEO of Vancouver's Asia Pacific Foundation, met with Ban in New York two weeks ago. He says the career diplomat's appointment comes at an interesting time for Koreans.

"It's the best of times and the worst of times in South Korea right now," Evans told CTV.ca.

"For South Koreans, it's a sign of special pride that a South Korean would be selected for the post."

"But it's also the worst of times, with the North Korean nuclear test, essentially now straining relations all over northeast Asia."

Ban was heavily favored to win the appointment, according to four informal polls in the UN Security Council. While there is no formal policy, the position of secretary-general rotates among the continents, and many considered it Asia's turn.

"Ban was seen as the person who could get the support of the entire Security Council, including both China and the United States, said Evans.

Ban is well known for his close ties to the United States.

He received his master's degree in public administration from Harvard University in 1985. His cousin remembers...

Ban's interest in U.S. politics was sparked at a much earlier age.

"In 1962, he visited the United States," said Kang,

"He met President John F. Kennedy, who gave him a pencil case. He gave it to me, but I was too young to understand why he was so excited."

According to Evans, Ban's warm attitude to the U.S. could have been the tipping point in his selection.

He was seen as someone who could gain the U.S. confidence.

"For the last four or five years, there's been a feeling that U.S. unilateralism has lead it into collision with the UN. The philosophy of wanting to work with the U.S. is a necessary prerequisite of the secretary-general," Evans said.

While the rest of the world waits to see how Ban will perform, his family already expresses confidence in his leadership.

"He's worked in foreign affairs for 40 years," said Kang.

"He's my cousin, so of course I say this, but Koreans know he is a genius."


Comment woodbuck27:

I'm thinking.

It'll take... more than genius, to unravel this mess.

CRAP I hate this stuff. "How has the world gone so crazy"... some may ask?

I believe that History often / to... just repeats itself It's always been crazy, because people become enamoured with wrongful POWER LORD's, that are lost in theie selfish ego-maniacle nonsence.

We get trapped in their bullshit.

Yet... we trap ourselves in OUR slack attitudes and weak stances.

It should be every man/woman's position, to encouage rightful purpose in ways of thinking and living for the good not evil that is predominating societies all over the world. We must pay better attention to events outside of OUR own lives, with at least some proper form of consciosness and decent conviction.

Why?

Because not enough of us, do come to realize... the TRUE VALUE in the term..."POWER to the people".

This person ... that... often takes the stance of powerlessness, and the "what can I do response/whine" and it /that mushrooms. The money POWERFUL win out over more purposeful candidates in terms of overall goodand holisitic agendas.

Young people today are the worst for denying themselves the POWER of their vote.

We must realize that this issue, that we discuss on this thread is important and try to reach some valid conclusion. "a proper response"... rather than toss the salad around as a distraction.

My name is Ed.

[Tarlam!]

Zig, Scott, 'buck,

pure rhetoric on you parts. Why would l'il Kim use nukes once he has them? He has them. He hasn't used them yet. Argument just collapsed.

Scott, the world is not better because your country has nukes. It makes L'il Kim, Pakistan et All want their own. Finally get that as a fact. It is a fact. It's called an Arms Race.

'buck. I am not vs you. That's in your head and it is flattering ONLY YOU.

None of you have made a case for the USA to have nukes, and everybody else not to; The fact is, THERE IS NO CASE.

[Joemailman]

I agree with Tarlam here. This seems like a case of "The Nuclear Club" wanting to bar any new membership. Personally, I worry about the fact that Pakistan has them more than I do about North Korea. It's just a matter of time before another coup occurs in Pakistan. When it does, we could very easily have a situation where people friendly to Al-Qaeda have their hands on a nuclear weapon.

[Fosco33]

None of you have made a case for the USA to have nukes, and everybody else not to; The fact is, THERE IS NO CASE.

We developed the technology. Saying we shouldn't have nukes is akin to saying China shouldn't have blackpowder

It was a sad day in the world's history when the US had to end an extremely bloody war to use these weapons - if Pearl Harbor hadn't occured and the Nazis didn't try to take over the world - the US wouldn't have been in a position to develop or use this weapon.

As I stated above, nuclear warfare has an inherent beauty in it's power - and MAD would assure that nation wartimes would avoid nukes at all costs.

Having rouge gov'ts w/ unknown motives wanting nukes and terrorists wanting to destroy US citizens with them is

Not having US nukes is equally

[Tarlam!]

Fosco, the USA didn't share nuclear technology with anyone. So, by your argument, anybody who develops the technology is entitled to have it.

Einstein (a German) encouraged Roosevelt to develop the bomb, because Hitler was doing it. This fact also lends to my theory that as long as any country persist with maintaining a nuclear arsenal, other countries will pursue similar goals, if only to "keep up with the Jonses".

It is on record that Oppenheimer (received his PhD in Germany) and many of his team petitioned to shelve the technology after they witnessed the devestation of the first test site.

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa050300a.htm