N Korea threatens to 'destroy world'

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,...,865094,00.html

 

N Korea threatens to 'destroy world'

 

John Gittings in Hong Kong and Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington

Tuesday December 24, 2002

The Guardian

 

Desperate efforts began yesterday to head off the growing Korean crisis as Pyongyang and Washington continued to talk up the tension.

The UN has confirmed that North Korea has carried out its threat to remove UN seals and dismantle monitoring cameras at a laboratory used to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

 

Senator Joseph Biden, the outgoing chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, warned that North Korea's plan to restart a programme for plutonium extraction could allow it to produce bombs "within months".

 

A spokesman for the Vienna - based International Atomic Energy Agency said: "There isn't any legitimate purpose for the facility other than separating plutonium from spent fuel."

 

Pyongyang has issued a series of threats, including one to "destroy the earth" if the US resorted to nuclear war against it. South Korea's president, Kim Dae-jung, and the president-elect, Roh Moo-hyun, sought to calm the mood by saying they wanted a peaceful resolution.

 

More at the link.

 

So, anyway, what do they plan to do? They're so behind that they're still ten years away from being able to hit the mainland. I guess they could call a shot on Japan, but they wouldn't be hitting Tokyo, Kyoto, or even Hokkaido.. Just "somewhere in Japan."

[Guest J*ingus]

In further news, Funaki threatened to run in on the main event of Royal Rumble, shoot on both Scott Steiner and HHH, and win the title himself. Yeah.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

They might not be able to hit Japan, but they could hit Seoul, and that is no joke.

 

However, their threat to destroy the planet with a menial-at-best nuclear arsenal is fairly dismissable.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Yah, but for some reason we are hell bent on going after Iraq.....mmmm, Bush loves the smell of crude oil in the morning~!

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

However, their threat to destroy the planet with a menial-at-best nuclear arsenal is fairly dismissable.

Well, tiny nutjob countries with nukes are worse than giant countries with nukes because the little nutjob country has nothing to lose.

 

A nuclear strike isn't the end of the world no matter how much the movies has told you, and it probably will happen eventually, but what CAN end the world is if people start using nukes to and fro, meaning that everyone who has them will smoke them if they got them.

[Guest DrTom]

Bush loves the smell of crude oil in the morning~!

Don't you people ever get tired of this argument getting shot down?

 

By your "logic," Bush should be frothing at the mouth to go after Russia, since they presently have the largest supply of oil in the world. Kindly let me know when the Marines land at Moscow, hm?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Bush loves the smell of crude oil in the morning~!

Don't you people ever get tired of this argument getting shot down?

 

By your "logic," Bush should be frothing at the mouth to go after Russia, since they presently have the largest supply of oil in the world. Kindly let me know when the Marines land at Moscow, hm?

Russia is one of our allies right now. So there'd be no need to invade a country that is with us, for their oil. Anyways, America has been reluctant to invade Russia.

 

I figure that America hasn't done enough stealing of oil from the Saudis. At least the Saudis have more of a link to terrorism than Iraq. But, if we did anything to Saudi Arabia, then it'd be baaaaaaaad. Right?

[Zorin Industries 0]

What I want to know is how we got from N. Korea trying to ease tensions about 6 months ago, to this mess?

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Russia is one of our allies right now. So there'd be no need to invade a country that is with us, for their oil. Anyways, America has been reluctant to invade Russia.

 

I figure that America hasn't done enough stealing of oil from the Saudis. At least the Saudis have more of a link to terrorism than Iraq. But, if we did anything to Saudi Arabia, then it'd be baaaaaaaad. Right?

We haven't really had a reason to invade them in ten years either, but then again, we never really thought about invading them so much as bombing them off the face of the Earth.

 

We aren't doing anything against Saudi Arabia at the present time because it's more advantageous to act like their pal at the present time. Think of it as someone you know and hate but have to work with being used to screw over one of your worst enemies. Then, once the enemy is taken care of, you take out the person who helped you.

 

Once again though, this isn't about oil. We can always invade Venezuela or Nigeria in a SWERVE~! if we wanted oil that badly.

[Guest Downhome]

I as well see NOTHING in this that should be joked about. One evil man seeking to destroy is enough, two is pretty bad, but three is getting very very bad.

 

One of the men by themselves, my not be able to do true mass destruction, but if they somehow worked together for their own common cause, then do not underestimate them. It is time we go in and take out these threats to the world, once and for all.

[Guest Downhome]

I'm waiting for someone to start saying that Bush is getting ready to invade Alaska and Texas just for THAT oil...

 

...give me a break.

[Guest DrTom]

Russia is one of our allies right now. So there'd be no need to invade a country that is with us, for their oil.

But Bush loves oil, and our foreign policy in the Middle Easy is dictated by it. Isn't that the leftist argument? Despite the fact that we've reduced our oil buying from that part of the world and could easily get by without one drop of their precious crude, the argument that "this is all about oil" is still made. No ignorance bothers me as much as the blind, persistent type.

 

But, if we did anything to Saudi Arabia, then it'd be baaaaaaaad. Right?

Not at all. I'd love to see us blow that despicable shithole off the map. It's not going to happen, though, so I'd settle for cutting all political, economic, and military ties, and let those terrorism supporters twist in the wind. They'd better hope they find a way to fucking EAT crude oil if that ever happens.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Whoa whoa whoa! That's the BAD leftist argument. I HATE when one or two bad apples spoil the bunch.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I'm waiting for someone to start saying that Bush is getting ready to invade Alaska and Texas just for THAT oil...

 

...give me a break.

Well yes, he does want to drill for oil in Alaska. Texas is probobaly already all tapped out with all the big trucks and tractors needing fuel down there.

 

I never said, the war is JUST ABOUT THE OIL, but I think it plays a big part in it. The blatant ignoring of the fact that Saudi Arabia is just as in support of terrorism as any other country, the fact that we haven't heard one report out of Afganistan/Taliban/AL Qaeda in months. It is all just a little suspect.

[Guest Slapnuts00]

Whoa whoa whoa! That's the BAD leftist argument. I HATE when one or two bad apples spoil the bunch.

haha, is your gimmick that you're for everything left, except all the "BAD" stuff...

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

My gimmick, if I even have one, is to support arguments that have enough basis to be agreeable. Unfortunately, a lot of the leftists and rightists for that matter are just blindly for one side or another and refuse to simply evaluate the pros and cons of everything before spouting off whatever partisan words they have. I'm on the left myself, but I'm not totally inconsolable, and will gladly listen to a conservative viewpoint that is explained and justified to my own satisfaction.

[Guest Kingpk]

I never said, the war is JUST ABOUT THE OIL, but I think it plays a big part in it. The blatant ignoring of the fact that Saudi Arabia is just as in support of terrorism as any other country, the fact that we haven't heard one report out of Afganistan/Taliban/AL Qaeda in months. It is all just a little suspect.

Uh, bin Laden audio tape, anyone? How about the soldier that was killed in a fight with Taliban/Al Queda fighters? The Bali attack, which I believe Al Queda admitted to setting up?

 

There are stories of rocket attacks almost every day out of Afghanistan. Where have YOU been?

 

Anyway, if it's all about the oil, why didn't Bush just go all gung-ho and storm into Iraq, siezing the oil fields? If drilling in Alaska is going to hurt a few caribou, too bad.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Russia is one of our allies right now. So there'd be no need to invade a country that is with us, for their oil. Anyways, America has been reluctant to invade Russia.

Yeah, lets invade Russia. That ALWAYS works.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Russia is one of our allies right now. So there'd be no need to invade a country that is with us, for their oil. Anyways, America has been reluctant to invade Russia.

Yeah, lets invade Russia. That ALWAYS works.

hahaha

 

--Rob

[Guest NoCalMike]

I never said, the war is JUST ABOUT THE OIL, but I think it plays a big part in it. The blatant ignoring of the fact that Saudi Arabia is just as in support of terrorism as any other country, the fact that we haven't heard one report out of Afganistan/Taliban/AL Qaeda in months.  It is all just a little suspect.

Uh, bin Laden audio tape, anyone? How about the soldier that was killed in a fight with Taliban/Al Queda fighters? The Bali attack, which I believe Al Queda admitted to setting up?

 

There are stories of rocket attacks almost every day out of Afghanistan. Where have YOU been?

 

Anyway, if it's all about the oil, why didn't Bush just go all gung-ho and storm into Iraq, siezing the oil fields? If drilling in Alaska is going to hurt a few caribou, too bad.

Ok lemme clarify my statement. I didn't mean that there was no action going on in Afganistan/Pakistan, I meant that our military effort seems to be lifeless now down there and it is full force onto Iraq, for the seizure of Weapons of Mass destruction we(so far) have failed to expose.

 

As far as just going over to Iraq just to seize oil fields and tell the american people. Well umm, I don't think ANYONE WOULD SAY THAT. Of course, so what a great oppurtunity to create tension with Iraq, by claiming they were responsible for 9/11. I guess when we fail at one area of the middle east we just decide it is another countries fault and here we goooooo. Doesn't anyone realize that the whole point of the attacks on 9/11 were to pull us in to a long term involvement/war with the middle east. Without us over there doing something then people like Bin ladin have no ground to stand on, but he is accomplishing his goal quite nicely as almost all of america is bloodthirsty. I am not saying certain aspects of going to war with Iraq are not merited, in fact I support fully the KILLING OF SADAM HUSSEIN like I have said a million times before, however there is no reason for a full-scale war.

 

Instead of drilling for oil in Alaska and killing "a few caribou" Why don't we start looking for alternative sources of energy that WORK and are not LIMITED. Oh wait nevermind, then Bush's oil buddies would be mad at Dubya for not keeping them in their billion dollar homes. Just read between the lines, it is quite simple.

[Guest DrTom]

Doesn't anyone realize that the whole point of the attacks on 9/11 were to pull us in to a long term involvement/war with the middle east.

Consdering how badly Israel whooped up on them about 35 years ago, I'm not sure they're too keen on a repeat performance. Besides, if pushed far enough, we could settle the conflict in a single afternoon. A long-term war is unlikely if their terrorism persists.

[Guest NoCalMike]

If Bush's goal is to fight "terrorism" as he has broadly put it, then a long-term war is certainly what will be in store. It could be an on-again - off/again war so-to-speak, but it won't be overwith anytime soon.

[Guest nikowwf]

If korea came across the border with all they had, its possible millions of people could die. No shit. Seoul will be decimated. They also might be able to hit at a few major japanese cities. Yes, they would lose the war, probably within a few days. But it would be bloody, messy and really really fucked up.

 

Its really not a funny thing.

 

niko

[Guest DrTom]

If Bush's goal is to fight "terrorism" as he has broadly put it, then a long-term war is certainly what will be in store.

Yes, but I was referring specifically to Middle Eastern terrorism. We seem happy to fight it the way we've been doing, but if they pull off another September 11th, I wouldn't be surprised to see the War on Terror ended pretty quickly. Fighting terrorism around the world, however, is indeed a long battle.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

If korea came across the border with all they had, its possible millions of people could die. No shit. Seoul will be decimated. They also might be able to hit at a few major japanese cities. Yes, they would lose the war, probably within a few days. But it would be bloody, messy and really really fucked up.

 

Its really not a funny thing.

 

niko

From what I've heard the new President of South Korea, is very anti-American and wants to continue to appease Communist North Korea. Lucky for SoKo, the U.S. isn't removing troops from the border.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I'd want to appease my nuclear neigbor also if I were them, especially considering that China is right across the Yellow Sea. If being Anti-American fosters survival, we can't really fault them.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

America should just stay away from North Korea, just don't get involved. If the North Koreans ever try anything the Chinese will squash them like bugs. Those two are hardly Communist brothers in arms anymore, China have come as close to publically disowning them as they possibly can. I highly doubt China wants lunatics setting off nuclear bombs anywhere near their general vicinity, plus of course they could use it as a pretense to overrun North Korea anyway.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

I find it surprising that people are willing to short-change North Korea yet can't wait to invade Iraq to destroy their "weapons of mass destruction". niko said it earlier, even if it could only hit South Korea, millions of people would die. Besides, isn't North Korea still in the "Axis of Evil"?

[Guest NoCalMike]

I find it surprising that people are willing to short-change North Korea yet can't wait to invade Iraq to destroy their "weapons of mass destruction". niko said it earlier, even if it could only hit South Korea, millions of people would die. Besides, isn't North Korea still in the "Axis of Evil"?

Well it all has to do with what the U.S. gains the most out of going to war with a certain country. Having a long bloody war with N. Korea would not really benefit us at all, however Iraq has something that our government wants, OIL and lots of it.

[Guest Dopey]

Just to let you all know. America will never take Russia over. No one will do anything major to Russia until they fulfill God's prophecies. Yes, Russia along with some allies will attack Israel someday (Read Ezekiel chapter 38). That is why France nor Germany were able to crush the russians (see the russian winter of 1941 which killed 105,000 germans without a single bullet.).

Also, I don't know if or how N. Korea will influence the 'kings of the east' to come across the 'great Euphrates' river with a two hundred million man army, however, that will happen also. They will be gathered in the Valley of Megiddo, and the greatest battle of all time will comence. Revelations 9:16, 16:12-16; Joel 3:9-14.

 

Of course most of you will not believe this, however, it will happen just as sure as the sun rises in the east. Even if you don't believe in the prophecies of the Bible. Don't you think it a little strange that God said that in the last days He would bring His people back into their land (Israel 1948), and that the eyes of the whole world would be on them and the middle east once again???

Something to think about.