N Korea *sigh*

[taranaki]

I won't be voting for him.

[Pick]

Originally posted by ILike2DriveCars


Nope I know there are a lot of people who support the man, but I just dont like Bush. Never have, probably never will. Some would say "well, you just dont understand him." If you dont like someone, then you dont like them. Sorry to all those pro-bush people, but that's how I feel.

That's cool. Your loss.

[jon@af]

Originally posted by Pick

Your loss.

not to me

[taranaki]

What we have here is an insurmountable difference of opinions.You are both within your right to vote which ever way you like,and both of your votes have equal merit.So let's draw a line under this argument and leave this thread open for those who have anything of substance to add.

[Pick]

Originally posted by taranaki
What we have here is an insurmountable difference of opinions.You are both within your right to vote which ever way you like,and both of your votes have equal merit.So let's draw a line under this argument and leave this thread open for those who have anything of substance to add.

OK

[TexasF355F1]

Originally posted by taranaki
I won't be voting for him.

LOL, well of course you won't. Even if you lived here you wouldn't. But I bet you could find some way to make vote in the U.S. all the way from N.Z.

[NSX-R-SSJ20K]

Originally posted by tomlong
I do not think that the U.S. or Korea would be stupid enough to use them. Korea is using it as leverage power to keep us shipping food to them; however they should be worried about China!

China wouldn't give a rats ass if they had nukes if they presented a threat they'd be gone. :o

[Prelewd]

Taranaki, would you support a conflict with N. Korea if they actually threatened to use nuclear warfare against the US? Do you think most of the world would? How about dropping a nuke on them first, pre-emptively?

If you did say no to any of these questions, what are the circumstances that would change your mind? If they attacked first?

I'm not trying to prove any points, just requesting your thoughts.

[taranaki]

Originally posted by Prelewd
Taranaki, would you support a conflict with N. Korea if they actually threatened to use nuclear warfare against the US? Do you think most of the world would? How about dropping a nuke on them first, pre-emptively?

If you did say no to any of these questions, what are the circumstances that would change your mind? If they attacked first?

I'm not trying to prove any points, just requesting your thoughts.

I'm opposed to any form of pre-emptive defence.The term is an oxymoron.Military forces should exist soley to keep the peace,both at home and through the work of the United Nations.

If the U.N. were to decide that Norh Korea were a threat,I'd back a peacekeeping operation to the hilt.But I don't have any faith whatsoever in leaving the decision to George Bush.

I would never,under any circumstances ever,at all, sanction the use of nuclear weapons.In my view,they are EVIL, and the manufacture and possession of such equipment is an offence against humanity.

[Pick]

Originally posted by taranaki


I'm opposed to any form of pre-emptive defence.The term is an oxymoron.Military forces should exist soley to keep the peace,both at home and through the work of the United Nations.

BUT THEY DON'T That is the problem. Countries can't live in peace and the U.N. is as useless as using sticky note to wipe your ass.

[taranaki]

Originally posted by Pick


BUT THEY DON'T That is the problem. Countries can't live in peace and the U.N. is as useless as using sticky note to wipe your ass.

If george put as much money and effort into the U.N. as he has into his crusade in the Middle East,he could help to make it far more effective than his bombing campaign.

[Prelewd]

Originally posted by taranaki


If george put as much money and effort into the U.N. as he has into his crusade in the Middle East,he could help to make it far more effective than his bombing campaign.

Seems like then people would say he's trying to buy out the UN, and would still call him a bad person. Sucks to be republican..

[NSX-R-SSJ20K]

Originally posted by Pick


BUT THEY DON'T That is the problem. Countries can't live in peace and the U.N. is as useless as using sticky note to wipe your ass.

only if you think like that is there a problem

[texan]

Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K


only if you think like that is there a problem

Well what else is someone to think? I don't think anyone here can argue that countries can't get along in peace; at any given time there are a few wars raging somewhere on the planet for various reasons. And to go along with that, please provide any evidence of the UN's ability to stop these wars, and especially without the principle involvement of the US.

I used to think the UN was a good idea in principle, but now I believe it to be a glorified debate society without the moral dignity to even enforce it's own charter on member states. Prove me wrong there .

[tomlong]

China wouldn't give a rats ass if they had nukes if they presented a threat they'd be gone.

Than why is China looking to have talks between China, US, and N. Korea?

I would never,under any circumstances ever,at all, sanction the use of nuclear weapons.In my view,they are EVIL, and the manufacture and possession of such equipment is an offence against humanity.

I agree that they should never be used. In fact I think they should all be destroyed, but this will never happen.

I used to think the UN was a good idea in principle, but now I believe it to be a glorified debate society without the moral dignity to even enforce it's own charter on member states.

I agree with this also the reason being is that their are to many different thoughts, opinions, and political agendas for anything to ever be decided on. They are still debating issues from 10 years ago.