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

#76    Black Red Devil

Black Red Devil

    Mean as Hell

  • Member
  • 2,297 posts
  • Joined:04 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • I would if I could
    But I can't, so I won't

Posted 16 March 2013 - 11:19 PM

View Postsear, on 16 March 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

Wrong, and wrong.
It's called "the supremacy clause" of the United States Constitution.

That's not all. Art. 2 is about the President.

Were any U.S. president ever caught ceding authority to the U.N. they'd be subject to impeachment for purgery; violating their oath, and their sworn duty.

I understand.
Bush (both) got U.N. approval before their Middle East wars.

But that's a fig leaf.

In the United States of America, no law trumps the United States Constitution.

PS / note:
If you closely examine Art.2 Sect.1 part7, you will see "... so help me god" is NOT any part of the Constitutionally stipulated oath.
Yet presidential inaugurees have been prompted for it for as long as I can remember.

That's not correct.  Bush Junior didn't get approval from the UN Security Council but decided to force the issues on Saddam, through a US pre-emptive war policy, by attacking Iraq despite objections, in particular from Germany, France and Russia.  As we all know, the main reason for the attack was the threat against US sovereignty from Iraqi WMD which the Inspectors never found at the time and were never found after the war either.

We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell

- Oscar Wilde

#77    Black Red Devil

Black Red Devil

    Mean as Hell

  • Member
  • 2,297 posts
  • Joined:04 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • I would if I could
    But I can't, so I won't

Posted 17 March 2013 - 12:17 AM

NK are all propaganda.  That's all this is and come to think of it, a pretty simple modus operandi. They're trying to get SK to react and attack them, hoping this would gain them world and UN support, justify the logic in their nuclear program and ultimately ease or totally drop the sanctions. Eventual civilian casualties wouldn't be a big concern for Kim as long as his ultimate goal is reached.

This BTW doesn't justify them or anyone else having nukes.  In fact, without nukes, N Korean threats would go in one ear and out the other.  Unfortunately, it would be hypocritical for the world to take justified military action against this regime when you have others who have illegally developed nukes, threaten other nations with strikes and no action has ever been taken against them (not even sanctions).

Edited by Black Red Devil, 17 March 2013 - 12:19 AM.

We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell

- Oscar Wilde

#78    Black Red Devil

Black Red Devil

    Mean as Hell

  • Member
  • 2,297 posts
  • Joined:04 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • I would if I could
    But I can't, so I won't

Posted 17 March 2013 - 12:28 AM

View PostStellar, on 16 March 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:

Now, I agree with you in the ethical stance that countries should be held to the NPT, and "exceptions" should NOT be made. Having said that, the realistic situation is that countries do have to decide just who they should p*** off and alienate. Israel is, among other things, a strategic ally to the US. They are the USs foothold in the Middle East, and its not in the USs interest to lose this foothold. North Korea is a threat to the US and a select other number of countries, and so it's in the USs best interest to do whatever they can to prevent their enemy from hitting them.


Your logic was doing fine up to,  "Now, I agree with you in the ethical stance that countries should be held to the NPT, and "exceptions" should NOT be made."  The rest that followed is just biased bs.

Believe it or not, there are international laws.  It's not just about what's best for the US and it's allies.  Because Israel is a strategic ally of the US doesn't justify them owning nukes.

We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell

- Oscar Wilde

#79    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 17 March 2013 - 12:35 AM

Thanks BD.
Right, both Bush's but not all three Bush Wars.
IIRC, the elder Bush had approval for Desert Storm (IIRC), and the younger Bush had U.N. approval for the invasion of Afghanistan. But the Bush administration addressed the U.N. General Assembly on invading Iraq, but did not get U.N. approval for it (corroborated by David Krieger).

Quote

"As we all know, the main reason for the attack was the threat against US sovereignty from Iraqi WMD which the Inspectors never found at the time and were never found after the war either." BD
We know that's what they said.
I've long considered it the younger President Bush attempting to settle a Bush family vandetta against Saddam for his failed assassination attempt on the elder President Bush, after he'd left office.

The younger Bush even cited that in his casus belli presentation to the U.N. General Assembly.

Regarding WMD, after all the work Blix & Ritter did looking for WMD, and finding none, I was confident Saddam didn't have them. They searched thoroughly for years, including Saddam's freezer at one of his numerous palaces.

The main sensible use of WMDs is national defense, for example, if the planet's ultra-power was to attack a small, vulnerable nation, like Iraq.

Saddam didn't use WMD when U.S. troops were half way to Baghdad. What would Saddam save them for? He wasn't saving them, he didn't have them. Just as I thought.


#80    Black Red Devil

Black Red Devil

    Mean as Hell

  • Member
  • 2,297 posts
  • Joined:04 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • I would if I could
    But I can't, so I won't

Posted 17 March 2013 - 12:42 AM

View Postsear, on 17 March 2013 - 12:35 AM, said:

The younger Bush even cited that in his casus belli presentation to the U.N. General Assembly.


Yeah, if I remember well it went something like "that naughty man tried to hurt my daddy" :P

Edited by Black Red Devil, 17 March 2013 - 12:42 AM.

We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell

- Oscar Wilde

#81    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 17 March 2013 - 01:28 AM

I remember it too BD.
Sadly, Secretary Powell's presentation wasn't much better.

Ironically, Bush (younger) has done as much harm to his party (GOP) as he's done to the nation.

CPAC reveals a GOP groping for leadership. Rand Paul might have been a slight favorite, but I don't think he got 30% in CPAC's straw poll. I'll look into that when I catch up on TV news.
3 others also got significant vote tally.


#82    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 7,777 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 17 March 2013 - 12:05 PM

North Korea lanuches another missile this time in the East side Of Korea


#83    Corp

Corp

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,939 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 17 March 2013 - 04:33 PM

Guys this isn't about the Middle East, or the US, or the UN. This is about North Korea. A nations where millions starve while the elite live in luxury, where basic needs are ignored in order to fund military projects, where their leaders are worshiped as gods, where the local population is actively brainwashed to ensure they remain ignorant of how truly horrible their lives are, who make threats against neighouring countries every other week, and who have come close to restarting the Korean War many times.

And some members are so wrapped up in their anti-American bias that they're actually defending this government. The mind boggles...

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.

#84    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 7,777 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 17 March 2013 - 05:01 PM

View PostCorp, on 17 March 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

Guys this isn't about the Middle East, or the US, or the UN. This is about North Korea. A nations where millions starve while the elite live in luxury, where basic needs are ignored in order to fund military projects, where their leaders are worshiped as gods, where the local population is actively brainwashed to ensure they remain ignorant of how truly horrible their lives are, who make threats against neighouring countries every other week, and who have come close to restarting the Korean War many times.

And some members are so wrapped up in their anti-American bias that they're actually defending this government. The mind boggles...
Don't really understand why the middle east is even mentioned


#85    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,761 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 17 March 2013 - 05:58 PM

View PostBlack Red Devil, on 17 March 2013 - 12:28 AM, said:



Your logic was doing fine up to,  "Now, I agree with you in the ethical stance that countries should be held to the NPT, and "exceptions" should NOT be made."  The rest that followed is just biased bs.

Believe it or not, there are international laws.  It's not just about what's best for the US and it's allies.  Because Israel is a strategic ally of the US doesn't justify them owning nukes.

There are international laws! Correct! And the US is not the sole country who has to enforce those laws.

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

----Seraphina

#86    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 12,671 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:55 AM

View PostCoffey, on 16 March 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

Oh really.......


So why does Iran have sanctions, when it doesn't own nukes and they haven't threatened anyone or attacked anyone in over 200 years.... YET Israel has nukes and they threaten loads of other countries all the time, dabble in the genocide of a race, have bene involved in countless conflicts as an aggressor and beleive in a prophecy which they are trying to fulfill. The Israeli goverment is full of mad men..... Yet we don't take their nukes, instead we fund them.....


So I'm illogical am I?! lol



Intresting.... So why does the US have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?




HAHAHA, that's what they want us to think. They love it really, having their crazy pet giving the US problems. China could shut them down with the click of their fingers.
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.

  Imagination is the power in the turn of a phrase.

#87    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 12,671 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 18 March 2013 - 01:19 AM

View PostBlack Red Devil, on 17 March 2013 - 12:28 AM, said:

Your logic was doing fine up to,  "Now, I agree with you in the ethical stance that countries should be held to the NPT, and "exceptions" should NOT be made."  The rest that followed is just biased bs.

Believe it or not, there are international laws.  It's not just about what's best for the US and it's allies.  Because Israel is a strategic ally of the US doesn't justify them owning nukes.
Justification is a game for honorable people.  But even dishonorable people are human and deserve to survive.  Bottom line is that regardless how the world views nuclear armed states, once they have nukes the game changes.  They are untouchable until they actually attempt to use them.  So the question is what are the nations of the world willing to sacrifice to stop an aggressive country that might be irresponsible with nukes from obtaining them?  If the answer is that they are unwilling then eventually the wrong nation WILL obtain, then use them.  After that, all the political BS and whining about fairness is going to be looked upon by historians (if any survive) as a breath taking level of irresponsibility of the modern world's leaders.

  Imagination is the power in the turn of a phrase.

#88    Yes_Man

Yes_Man

    hi

  • Member
  • 7,777 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 18 March 2013 - 10:22 AM

Lets talk about North Korea not Israel nor anyone else


#89    Black Red Devil

Black Red Devil

    Mean as Hell

  • Member
  • 2,297 posts
  • Joined:04 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • I would if I could
    But I can't, so I won't

Posted 18 March 2013 - 10:36 AM

View PostStellar, on 17 March 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

There are international laws! Correct! And the US is not the sole country who has to enforce those laws.

Couldn't agree more.

We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell

- Oscar Wilde

#90    Black Red Devil

Black Red Devil

    Mean as Hell

  • Member
  • 2,297 posts
  • Joined:04 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • I would if I could
    But I can't, so I won't

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:40 AM

View Postand then, on 18 March 2013 - 01:19 AM, said:

Justification is a game for honorable people.  But even dishonorable people are human and deserve to survive.  Bottom line is that regardless how the world views nuclear armed states, once they have nukes the game changes.  They are untouchable until they actually attempt to use them.  So the question is what are the nations of the world willing to sacrifice to stop an aggressive country that might be irresponsible with nukes from obtaining them?  If the answer is that they are unwilling then eventually the wrong nation WILL obtain, then use them.  After that, all the political BS and whining about fairness is going to be looked upon by historians (if any survive) as a breath taking level of irresponsibility of the modern world's leaders.

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.

We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell

- Oscar Wilde




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users