Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

N. Korea fires 2 short range missiles


  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#91    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:17 PM

View Postand then, on 18 March 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

Israel has never threatened anyone with nukes.  It is a lie to say Israel practices genocide on anyone.  Their leadership and the majority of their citizenry are extremely secular to the point of being atheist.  There is plenty to find fault with against Israel, as with any country, no need to smear them as well.


Never said they threatened anyone with nukes, I said they threaten other countries/races... Which I have proven by the qoutes I posted. But when threats are made and you own nukes it says a lot as well.

Plenty to find fualt as with any other country? LOL

No I can't think of another country that is so stuck on the mass genocide of another race/religion. Not since Hitler.. Ironically.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#92    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,790 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 18 March 2013 - 01:15 PM

View PostBlack Red Devil, on 18 March 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

So what's your answer?  Let me guess, level NK and Iran nuclear facilities.  :tsu:

The world should take a strong stance for complete disarmament.  There are 3 main powers who pull the nuclear strings in this world (and the rest).  The US, Russia and China.  All the other nations who have nukes would disarm if these three nations disarm.  That's the simple answer.  Apparently Obama's trying to push this agenda as well, but your warmongering Congress seems to be deaf from that ear.
No, not at all.  I think when nukes get used again it will be a profound evil but demolishing a country and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents is only marginally LESS evil.  I have no answer for this one - see my thread on the morality of pre-emptive war.  IF Iran someday or NK decide to use nukes then they should be eliminated.  Totally.  But until they do the world will never act.  And if the decision were mine I don't think I could either.  Not unless I trusted the intel that was telling me that a strike was imminent.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#93    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,269 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 18 March 2013 - 01:35 PM

One of these days a city somewhere is going to be destroyed by a nuclear blast.  It is a disaster just waiting to happen.  It may be that the perpetrators will be identified, it may be that they won't.

Either way the world will be turned upside down.  The various flavors of "patriots" I see posting here and there about how American's freedom and privacy are being taken away will see real taking away of freedom and privacy.  When whole cities are at risk no one will be free from scrutiny.  National security will be the be-all of government behavior.

Further, any country that even talks about building any sort of nuclear reactor able to produce nuclear material will be invaded.


#94    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,282 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:43 PM

View PostStellar, on 15 March 2013 - 11:53 PM, said:

Probably the nuclear non proliferation treaty, which is an international treaty. Couple that with common sense. Given the amount of threats North Korea is throwing around, if I was in charge, I'd attempt to prevent them from gaining nukes as well.

I can not even put into words how illogical your position is. I cant even comprehend that someone would WANT a madman to have nukes, as if its no big deal.

Your "logic" is deeply flawed. If your neighbor was threatening to kill you, would you not do what you can to prevent him from getting weapons that you can hardly protect yourself against?
Ummmm.  N.Korea never signed soooooo.........


#95    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,855 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 18 March 2013 - 05:13 PM

Quote

Ummmm. N.Korea never signed soooooo.........

Umm... go check your facts. NK signed in 1985 and then withdrew in 2003. Its also common practice that if a certain amount of the international community ratifies a treaty, all nations are held to the standard of the treaty, whether they signed or not.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#96    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,282 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 18 March 2013 - 09:38 PM

View PostStellar, on 18 March 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

Umm... go check your facts. NK signed in 1985 and then withdrew in 2003. Its also common practice that if a certain amount of the international community ratifies a treaty, all nations are held to the standard of the treaty, whether they signed or not.
I stand corrected, and agree with your second contension as well.


#97    shrooma

shrooma

    doesn't have one screw fully tightened.....

  • Member
  • 3,562 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:20 AM

View Postsear, on 15 March 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

PS

~54,246 U.S. military died in the Korean War

In this global economic climate, resuming the Korean War lacks attractiveness.
.
that number is small potatoes compared to the ones who've died since then sear, and war has ALWAYS been the best way to kickstart a failing economy.
look at america's emergance from the '30's depression because of WWII, or britain's post-war years, or how japan went from being a medieval, agrarian society to a global economic power in a few short years.
amazing, the good a couple of atomic bombs can do when somebody lobs them at your country.....

- - - - -disclaimer- - - - -
all posts- without exception- are humourous.
if you fail to grasp the sublety, then don't whine on due to your lack of understanding.

#98    sear

sear

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 429 posts
  • Joined:04 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Adirondack Park, NY

  • "A prudent question is one half of wisdom." William James

Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:27 PM

Quote

"that number is small potatoes compared to the ones who've died since then" sa
I broke my leg, but it's small potatoes because I have terminal cancer?

Just because we lost almost 59K in Vietnam doesn't mean the over 54K we lost in Korea is "small potatoes".

Quote

"war has ALWAYS been the best way to kickstart a failing economy." sa
a) I'm guessing you're not a U.S. military combat veteran.

B) I haven't reviewed the data. But I suspect the Clinton era "dot com bubble" did more for the U.S. economy than most U.S. wars.
During Clinton's 8 years, the S&P 500* index gained over 20%, FIVE YEARS IN A ROW!!
You name a war that caused that.

c) Yes. War can stimulate the economy. But we're at War right now. Does the economy look stimulated to you?

d) Our military department is called "The Department of Defense", not "The Department of Kickstarting a Failing Economy".

e) The U.S. military is all volunteer. They volunteer to protect our sovereignty, not to climb into body-bags to stimulate the economy.

Quote

"look at america's emergance from the '30's depression because of WWII" sa
I'm not disputing the stimulative affect of war on the economy.

But you're implying the U.S. waging war for economic self-benefit is legitimate, or even thinkable.

It's unthinkable, by our political / military leaders, thank goodness.

President Obama has substantially better casus belli in Syria, Iran, and perhaps China, than Bush did for Iraq.
Luckily, Obama is vastly too ethical to sink as low as Bush did.
To the contrary, several in Obama's cabinet are urging Obama to do more to arm the Syrian rebels, etc.
Here to fore Obama has resisted.

* note:
The Dow is a commonly used index. But it's a narrow, and therefore less accurate gauge of overall economic vitality. It's an index of only 30 stocks.
In vivid contrast the S&P 500 is an index of (guess how many) five hundred stocks. It's an index broader than an order of magnitude, and is therefore more representative of the economy as a whole.


#99    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 20 March 2013 - 12:44 PM

North Korea cyber attack on South. Looks like we hit them first a few days ago according to the article. So yeah seems the ceasefire is over but hopefully it stays in cyberspace since one would suspect NK's Big Brother pulled that one off.

http://news.yahoo.co...-111917254.html


#100    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,269 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 20 March 2013 - 12:59 PM

The idea of war to stimulate the economy reminds me of the notion of going around breaking all the windows in a town so as to make work for glass installers.

All the war does is force spending money, and if it is done with deficits, then it has a stimulative effect.  The government could more easily throw money out helicopter windows.


#101    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 20 March 2013 - 01:11 PM

Quote

All the war does is force spending money, and if it is done with deficits, then it has a stimulative effect.  The government could more easily throw money out helicopter windows.

Yes and no..MY Understanding is it starts a consolidation of debt not a reduction. Any reduction only comes from Military complex work and spoils of war. So no stimulative effect unless you want to consider jobs but there is always a rationing of goods as well.


#102    Corp

Corp

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,951 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 20 March 2013 - 04:21 PM

The way wars are fought are different these days thanks to technological progress. The cost of military equipment means that war is far more likely to hurt an economy rather than help it. At the cost of a single F-15 you could have bought over two hundred Spitfires. Plus it's harder to swtich from making top of the line tanks to making trucks and tractors due to that technology gap.



War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

#103    sear

sear

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 429 posts
  • Joined:04 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Adirondack Park, NY

  • "A prudent question is one half of wisdom." William James

Posted 20 March 2013 - 05:30 PM

Quote

"The government could more easily throw money out helicopter windows." FM  
True.
What affect would that have on the economy?
A slight benefit to:
- the ones that worked OT to print the currency
- the chopper pilot & crew
- the chopper mechanics
- the chopper fuel suppliers

But I strongly believe the most stimulative affect for that money would be to lower taxes, and leave that money with the citizens that earned it.
Who better to know how money should be spent, than the one that earned it?

Quote

  "You and I as individuals can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" Ronald Reagan's First Inaugural Address, 1981   



#104    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,790 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:26 AM

View PostCoffey, on 18 March 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

Never said they threatened anyone with nukes, I said they threaten other countries/races... Which I have proven by the qoutes I posted. But when threats are made and you own nukes it says a lot as well.

Plenty to find fualt as with any other country? LOL

No I can't think of another country that is so stuck on the mass genocide of another race/religion. Not since Hitler.. Ironically.
The definition of genocide by the UN in 1944 is quite broad and can be used against nearly ANY group within the context of war.  But to say there has been a systematic attempt to destroy the population of non Israelis in Palestine is ridiculous.  The NUMBERS just don't bear it out.  If the Israelis are guilty of genocide then so are the US, British, Russians, Rwandans..... any group at war with another group - so what meaning does the term have?
Sorry, do not mean to derail, just get tired of the casual use of a truly AWFUL word/concept.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#105    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,269 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:47 AM

Throwing money out windows is basically what they do now.  The people who pick up the money feel wealthier and hence spend it, creating demand for things that in turn creates jobs.  These people who get these jobs then also feel wealthier and they spend money and you create a virtuous cycle.

Instead of throwing it out windows, the government runs a deficit, spending more (in this case much more) than it takes in from taxes and fees.  If it borrowed the money legitimately, there would be no economic effect, but most of it gets "borrowed" from the Fed (it is said in words only a bureacrat could invent, to increase the Fed's assets).  The Feds write checks and the banks chash the checks.  The Fed is allowed to do this (write checks for money you don't have -- don't you try it).

So long as the deficit goes to good use, like building things, the effect is not too bad and the economy grows.  We get into a good war, however, which is the very definition of wasting money, and before long you have an inflationary spiral.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users