Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
OverSword

N. Korea fires 2 short range missiles

111 posts in this topic

Oh, and I would like to point-out that NK state-sponsors not only opium production, but also counterfeits US currency that is considered by the US Secret Service to be nearly undetectable. The USSS consider them "super bills".

In short, NK leadership are bonafide thugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the thing is, if a big bully told you what to do..... Would you obey them or would you be really annoyed?

Cause the US keeps putting sanctions on them, the US puts sanctions on Iran as well. Do you know what thta does to the innocent people of those coun tries? People starve, their money becomes useless and their living conditions suffer.

Do you expect these countries to just sit and take that? I sure as hell wouldn't. So when you read these stories in the western media, remember that it's our goverments fault in the first place, these countries are being pushed and pushed until they hit back. You back an animal into the corner and it will fight back.

Yes that's what happens when a big bully country puts sanctions on another country.

The UN put the sanctions on, not just the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UN put the sanctions on, not just the US.

The US controls the UN... Otherwise the Un would be held accountable for war crimes. Seeing as the Un has bene used as a reason to cause more wars. The UN is just a war machine not a rela attempt at peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"China doesn't want to annex North Korea." C

China would have several options, each less desirable than the next.

"They already have a big problem with Koreans sneaking across the border looking for a better life." C

Yes.

China is about authoritarianism. It's about control. China is run by control-freaks.

And if their choice boiled down to China claiming sovereignty there, or the U.S., I think they'd choose the former.

AND, if China did claim sovereignty, that wouldn't necessarily require they open the border.

China could leave it shut for a few decades, until the mentally deficient generations died off.

It might be a burden, but:

- it would keep the Chinese politburo in control. They like that. &

- it would keep a U.S. friendly nation (SK, or the U.S.) off its border. They like that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then it is logical for a country to try to prevent others from obtaining certain weapons! Excellent! Now we're getting somewhere.

So now why should the US be concerned about losing a strategic ally who is no threat to the US over nukes, but is completely wrong to try to prevent a country that they are technically at war with from obtaining nukes? Thats what this discussion is about.

Israel is a threat to every none Jew. So how is Israel not a threat?! Hence why it's hypocritical.

As much as I want to answer this ridiculous load of bs, this thread isnt about Israel and their actions. Its about the US and NK.

No it's about why the US has the right to make these sanctions and the reasonons behind it. Which does involve Israel.

:rolleyes: There's plenty of other links, but of course, you'll just dismiss them anyway.

None from non western media and none of them state he threatened Israel, they all state he said Israel shouldn't exist. Something a lot of normal people also beleive. Obviously you haven't read the Talmud.

So because of this, Israel should'nt have nukes?

So you think ac ountry led by a goverment that beleives beleives in destroying a race should be allowed nukes? If so you would have wanted Hitler to have nukes too?

Rape and torture? I see none of that. What I see is that you have a naive view of war and the world.

War? LOL No Israeli soldiers breaking into peoples houses at night and torturing them is not war.

So because of this, Israel shouldn't have nukes?

No a country who is religious fanatics should not have nukes. Not when they beleive ina prophecy of destruction that they are triyng to bring into existance. You wouldn't give a Fanatical extreme muslim a sucide jacket would you?! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel is a threat to every none Jew. So how is Israel not a threat?! Hence why it's hypocritical.

Hypocritical? If your point of view is correct, maybe. But the thing is, the US isnt going around preventing just every country except Israel from obtaining nukes, it's mainly focused on the ones that are a threat to her and her allies.

I mean, look at it this way: If Person A is threatening to kill me, and my friend is threatening to kill Person B, I'm going to let Person B deal with my friend while I deal with Person A. Its not "wrong" per say.

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.

I'm going to avoid quoting every sentence of the rest of your reply and just answer the rest with one quote:

No a country who is religious fanatics should not have nukes.

And that makes my point: There are justifiable reasons to prevent a country from obtaining nukes. That's been my point all along.

Let me explain to you my position from my perspective in a little more detail: I live in Canada and, by virtue of our proximity to the US and to our political ties, if the US is attacked by North Korea, it will impact Canada. Israel having nukes doesnt affect me. They're not going to attack the US, and so I'm not concerned with them. North Korea, since they can affect me, I'm concerned about and feel we should do what we must to weaken them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US controls the UN... Otherwise the Un would be held accountable for war crimes. Seeing as the Un has bene used as a reason to cause more wars. The UN is just a war machine not a rela attempt at peace.

If your opinion were fact that would be all fine and dandy.....Sorry to say, your opinion is not true to the fact, not at all.

The structure of the United Nations

The structure of the United Nations is based around its charter. The United Nations Charter consists of 111 articles. These articles explain how the United Nations works.

The charter established six parts of the United Nations:

General Assembly Security Council Economic and Social Council Trusteeship Council International Court of Justice Secretariat

The General Assembly has the brief to discuss and decide on issues of international peace and security. All members of the United Nations are represented in the General Assembly. It can make recommendations to promote international peace; international economic and social co-operation and it can promote human rights. The General Assembly is expected to meet on a regular basis and when a vote is taken it needs a two-thirds majority for it to be passed.

The Security Council consists of eleven members. Five of these are permanent (USA, USSR, GB, China, France). The General Assembly appoints another six members who are non-permanent members. The Security Council is given the primary task by the United Nations of maintaining peace and security at an international level. Each member of the Security Council is given one vote and a vote of seven members is needed for action to be taken. All five permanent members have to agree with the course of action. The Security Council can recommend the use of a blockade or other financial impositions for any nation that is deemed as breaking international law. If these do not work, then the Security Council can call on the United Nations to use military force to enforce its will. This is the major difference to the League of Nations – the United Nations has the ability to enforce its decisions as each member state has to pledge to provide a military component dependent on its national wealth and capability.

The main task of the Economic and Social Council is to promote and improve the economic and social well-being of those living in the member states. This council deals with human rights and seeks to develop a greater understanding of cultures throughout the world. An improvement in world health is also in its remit. Article 57 gives a clear indication of the areas this council covers: health, education, economic, social and cultural issues and the promotion of the position of women in the world. Each member of the Council has one vote.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the main judicial body of the United Nations. All members of the United Nations are party to the International Court. The ICJ consists of 15 members and only two members come from the same country at any one time. All members of the United Nations have to agree to abide by the decisions of the ICJ.

The Secretariat comprises of a Secretary-General and it is the body that runs the United Nations. The Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly which receives recommendations from the Security Council. The Secretary-General is the United Nations’ chief administrative officer.

Since 1945, the United Nations has been involved as a peacekeeper in Iran and the Balkans, Indonesia, Palestine and the Middle East in general, Korea and the Congo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"There are justifiable reasons to prevent a country from obtaining nukes. That's been my point all along." S

I know of no precedent for it.

Since there was a thing called national sovereignty, the sovereign had the right to do as he / she / they pleased.

I understand the U.N. Security Council can point fingers, etc. etc.

Suppose the U.N. Security Council ordered President Obama to cut U.S. atmospheric CO2 emissions 40% by Dec. 31, 2014.

Do you think he'd be obliged to comply?

If the U.N. told Obama he had to get rid of his nukes, do you think he would have to comply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of no precedent for it.

Since there was a thing called national sovereignty, the sovereign had the right to do as he / she / they pleased.

I understand the U.N. Security Council can point fingers, etc. etc.

Suppose the U.N. Security Council ordered President Obama to cut U.S. atmospheric CO2 emissions 40% by Dec. 31, 2014.

Do you think he'd be obliged to comply?

If the U.N. told Obama he had to get rid of his nukes, do you think he would have to comply?

Yes, and Yes.

Do I think the UN would do either one....No, not unless there were good reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there was a thing called national sovereignty, the sovereign had the right to do as he / she / they pleased.

And theres also something called international relations, where one country deals with another for their best interests.

Suppose the U.N. Security Council ordered President Obama to cut U.S. atmospheric CO2 emissions 40% by Dec. 31, 2014.

Do you think he'd be obliged to comply?

No he wouldnt. And then if the UN wanted to punish the US for doing it, they could decide to cut trade with the US.

If the U.N. told Obama he had to get rid of his nukes, do you think he would have to comply?

They are saying "If you do this, we're going to do this in return." Repercussions. Are you saying the UN has to trade with NK?

Are you saying the US had to let the soviets install missile's in Cuba?

There are consequences for every action. The US feels that NK developing nukes is a threat to them and SK, and so the US is going to do what it can to minimize the threat.

Similarly, the world feels that NK is being too menacing and should not have nukes, hence they are taking measures to try to minimize the NK menace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like... what do you think is going to happen when a country continually threatens to "destroy the US imperialist aggressors"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Like... what do you think is going to happen when a country continually threatens to "destroy the US imperialist aggressors"?

Nothing....

Threats are just words. The US feel everyone has a right to freedom of speech. If a Country acts on the threats, we will do what we normally do. Kick some ass and let God sort them out.

Edited by Sakari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your opinion were fact that would be all fine and dandy.....Sorry to say, your opinion is not true to the fact, not at all.

The structure of the United Nations

The structure of the United Nations is based around its charter. The United Nations Charter consists of 111 articles. These articles explain how the United Nations works.

The charter established six parts of the United Nations:

General Assembly Security Council Economic and Social Council Trusteeship Council International Court of Justice Secretariat

The General Assembly has the brief to discuss and decide on issues of international peace and security. All members of the United Nations are represented in the General Assembly. It can make recommendations to promote international peace; international economic and social co-operation and it can promote human rights. The General Assembly is expected to meet on a regular basis and when a vote is taken it needs a two-thirds majority for it to be passed.

The Security Council consists of eleven members. Five of these are permanent (USA, USSR, GB, China, France). The General Assembly appoints another six members who are non-permanent members. The Security Council is given the primary task by the United Nations of maintaining peace and security at an international level. Each member of the Security Council is given one vote and a vote of seven members is needed for action to be taken. All five permanent members have to agree with the course of action. The Security Council can recommend the use of a blockade or other financial impositions for any nation that is deemed as breaking international law. If these do not work, then the Security Council can call on the United Nations to use military force to enforce its will. This is the major difference to the League of Nations – the United Nations has the ability to enforce its decisions as each member state has to pledge to provide a military component dependent on its national wealth and capability.

The main task of the Economic and Social Council is to promote and improve the economic and social well-being of those living in the member states. This council deals with human rights and seeks to develop a greater understanding of cultures throughout the world. An improvement in world health is also in its remit. Article 57 gives a clear indication of the areas this council covers: health, education, economic, social and cultural issues and the promotion of the position of women in the world. Each member of the Council has one vote.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the main judicial body of the United Nations. All members of the United Nations are party to the International Court. The ICJ consists of 15 members and only two members come from the same country at any one time. All members of the United Nations have to agree to abide by the decisions of the ICJ.

The Secretariat comprises of a Secretary-General and it is the body that runs the United Nations. The Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly which receives recommendations from the Security Council. The Secretary-General is the United Nations’ chief administrative officer.

Since 1945, the United Nations has been involved as a peacekeeper in Iran and the Balkans, Indonesia, Palestine and the Middle East in general, Korea and the Congo.

So you are just going to post a load of BS I already knew.... I'm not talking about what they tell the general public.

If the above was actually true then Israel would have to attend their meetings... But they don't when everyone else has to. Also if the US really cared about keeping the peace then why do they always walk out of UN meetings when Iran is talking. And no it's not because Iran is spouting loads of hatred, if you actually listen to Irans speeches you would realise how much BS the western media makes up about Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Yes, and Yes." Sakari

Wrong, and wrong.

It's called "the supremacy clause" of the United States Constitution.

ARTICLE 6.

2 This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ...

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

ARTICLE 2. SECTION 1.

7 Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:-

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Has the US ever gone against the UN?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Oh also the UN was founded by 2 American Presidents and an American lawyer.......... (Can you get anymore corrupt than that? lol)

So the US doesn't control the UN no?

Edited by Coffey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Oh also the UN was founded by 2 American Presidents and an American lawyer.......... (Can you get anymore corrupt than that? lol)

So the US doesn't control the UN no?

No it does not....It actually disagrees with the UN quite a bit.

As said, your opinion is not fact.

Edited by Sakari
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it does not....It actually disagrees with the UN quite a bit.

As said, your opinion is not fact.

So it doesn't control it, but it was 2 American presidents and an American lawyer that founded it? Ok.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Has the US ever gone against the UN?" Sakari

Interesting question.

But I'm not sure it's germane.

The question is:

If the U.N. orders Iran to allow U.N. inspectors into its nuclear plant, is Iran obliged to obey?

I'm guessing in Iran's case the answer is no.

In the U.N.'s case the answer is yes.

With such impasse, the U.S. tends to prevail.

"So the US doesn't control the UN no?" Coffey

The U.S. hosts the U.N., NYC UNHQ.

The U.S. funds the U.N. disproportionately.

The U.N. is substantially a U.S. tool. The Bush (younger) administration had U.N. approval for his invasion / occupation of Iraq. But was ruse that was transparent to me even before the invasion began.

Not all U.N. Security Council votes go as the U.S. president wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

North Korea apparently has told everyone to leave a South Korean Island

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going put this point-blank. So, sorry if it offends anyone.

NK is a b****** nation.

They need to be 100% constrained, and quickly.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RN,

I did not know that.

That's potentially very, very bad.

NK is a b****** nation.

You under-state the case.

They need to be 100% constrained, and quickly.

Nobody has the stomache for it. The U.S. lost 54K troops there, after WWII. We don't want to do that again.

And any move on NK would almost surely result in NK shelling Seoul from North of the DMZ.

They might just level the capitol, & the capital.

Then there's China to contend with, as there was 62 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS

An additional thought on the U.N. Sakari,

The U.N.'s capacity to enforce its own dictates is extremely weak. It's main tool of coercion is "sanctions", usually trade sanctions.

By & large these seem to be ineffective.

I can't think of an example where U.N. sanctions have resulted in a nation being coerced into compliance (reversing its own policy).

The U.N. has no standing army of its own.

It does have "blue hats", but the troops that wear them are on loan from other militaries.

George Will has called the blue hats "worse than nothing", as some terrible massacres have taken place with "U.N. troops" (misnomer) standing by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A small mistake willl trigger it

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.