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

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

"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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets talk about North Korea not Israel nor anyone else

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Couldn't agree more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"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".

"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.

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/experts-suspect-north-behind-skorea-computer-crash-111917254.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.