Non aggression pact.

http://cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/03/nkorea030103

"American officials say a nonaggression pact is unnecessary because the U.S. has no hostile intent."

Well it wouldn't hurt to sign one then wouldn't it? In fact it would mean North Korea could not have aggressive intent without breaking the pact.

Aren't non-aggression pacts a GOOD thing when looking for peaceful solutions?

If they have no hostile intent, then a nonagression pact isn't going to tie their hands. And it would be a show of good faith as well.

probably somewhere on the "Places To Bomb" list...:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by siyan
"American officials say a nonaggression pact is unnecessary because the U.S. has no hostile intent."

Well it wouldn't hurt to sign one then wouldn't it? In fact it would mean North Korea could not have aggressive intent without breaking the pact.

---

That's exactly the point, isn't it?

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
That's exactly the point, isn't it?

.

---

:confused: :confused:

what?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by siyan
http://cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/03/nkorea030103

"American officials say a nonaggression pact is unnecessary because the U.S. has no hostile intent."

Well it wouldn't hurt to sign one then wouldn't it? In fact it would mean North Korea could not have aggressive intent without breaking the pact.

Aren't non-aggression pacts a GOOD thing when looking for peaceful solutions?

If they have no hostile intent, then a nonagression pact isn't going to tie their hands. And it would be a show of good faith as well.

---

Well, I think you missing the fact that there just trying to find an excuse to build nuclear weapons. Clearly, with the missles to deliever such weapons, they are "aggressive".

Are you a complete moron? The U.S SIGNED a Non agression treaty with North Korea in 1994. Korea promised to not make enriched Uranium and the U.S and the other members of the treaty (Japan, Russia other various countrys) promised to keep sending them oil. Well the U.S. recently found out that NORTH KOREA BROKE THE TREATY! They have been producing enriched uranium and developing nuclear weapons so the U.S. and the other members of the treaty Put an embargo on North Koreas Fuel imports.

Then North Korea says that we broke the treaty by putting the embargo on them.. so it is VERY obvious to all but the ignorant or the U.S. haters that as PC_Madness said.. North Korea is just looking for excuses to build nuclear wepons.

Korea is pushing for NEW peace talks thinking they can black mail the U.S. with thier nuclear weapons. America will not be black mailed. Can you imagine what a target we would be if we gave in to terorist demands?


Good lord... this Message board is just full of communists.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arc
Are you a complete moron? The U.S SIGNED a Non agression treaty with North Korea in 1994. Korea promised to not make enriched Uranium and the U.S and the other members of the treaty (Japan, Russia other various countrys) promised to keep sending them oil. Well the U.S. recently found out that NORTH KOREA BROKE THE TREATY! They have been producing enriched uranium and developing nuclear weapons so the U.S. and the other members of the treaty Put an embargo on North Koreas Fuel imports.

Then North Korea says that we broke the treaty by putting the embargo on them.. so it is VERY obvious to all but the ignorant or the U.S. haters that as PC_Madness said.. North Korea is just looking for excuses to build nuclear wepons.

Korea is pushing for NEW peace talks thinking they can black mail the U.S. with thier nuclear weapons. America will not be black mailed. Can you imagine what a target we would be if we gave in to terorist demands?


Good lord... this Message board is just full of communists.

---

you forget one thing

which ****ing country would have hte balls to attack america? none

they would get eaten alive

thus, NKorea building weapons is a defensive action. they want to equalize their military power with that of the US (they won't equalize completely, but its better than nothing).

They don't want to equilize crap. They want to black male other countrys and sell nuclear weapons to 3rd world countrys. That's exactly what the world needs, a bunch of insane dictators with bullistic nuclear warheads...:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arc
That's exactly what the world needs, a bunch of insane dictators with bullistic nuclear warheads...:mad:

---

Exactly! Then we could just start over! :rolleyes:

Z.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arc
They don't want to equilize crap. They want to black male other countrys and sell nuclear weapons to 3rd world countrys. That's exactly what the world needs, a bunch of insane dictators with bullistic nuclear warheads...:mad:

---

True. The US and Russia are already cutting there nuke counts, theres no need for them to go building them. And I must point out that having a standing army of 1 million (the second largest), is hardly a sign of wanting peace.

Now.... the US withdrew Coal/Oil supplies because the NK started up one of its reactors?

Someone tell me that bit again, I've forgot. :)

Sorry to interrupt, :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arc
Are you a complete moron?

---

Nope, some parts are still missing :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arc
The U.S SIGNED a Non agression treaty with North Korea in 1994. Korea promised to not make enriched Uranium and the U.S and the other members of the treaty (Japan, Russia other various countrys) promised to keep sending them oil. Well the U.S. recently found out that NORTH KOREA BROKE THE TREATY! They have been producing enriched uranium and developing nuclear weapons so the U.S. and the other members of the treaty Put an embargo on North Koreas Fuel imports.

---

So, the UN inspectors were dozing off all these years, while the N Korea went ahead with its N programme right under their noses? OMG, are they so inefficient? Also the US probably made arrengements so its satelites wouldn't monitor N Korea for any such developments, maybe because they "trusted" N Korea to keep their word, or maybe because the sats were too busy taking photos from other areas such as Iraq?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arc
Then North Korea says that we broke the treaty by putting the embargo on them.. so it is VERY obvious to all but the ignorant or the U.S. haters that as PC_Madness said.. North Korea is just looking for excuses to build nuclear wepons.

---

Now, now, isn't it also equally VERY obvious to the ignorant AND the US haters that the US is just looking for excuses to attack Iraq?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arc
Korea is pushing for NEW peace talks thinking they can black mail the U.S. with thier nuclear weapons. America will not be black mailed. Can you imagine what a target we would be if we gave in to terorist demands?


Good lord... this Message board is just full of communists.

---

To the best of my information, N Korea didn't make any terrorist demands. And also I don't think any terrorists worldwide, including the Muslim terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, have made any demands from the US except stop meddling with the other/Muslim countries, which doesn't at all seem to be an unreasonable demand, considering the other nations should be allowed to resolve their own disputes without the US poking its long nose into it :p

I have yet to hear any terrorist group demanding the US pay up a couple of trillion dollars for a particular cause.

Good lord, this message board is just full of ignorant Americans thinking they are on top of the world! :rolleyes:

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by siyan
you forget one thing

which ****ing country would have hte balls to attack america? none

they would get eaten alive

---

What exactly happened to your Twin Towers...fresh up my mind...I can't remember....????

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NoteMe
What exactly happened to your Twin Towers...fresh up my mind...I can't remember....????

---

I do believe Saurman was left trapped..

Oh.. :)

True. Australia would fight the US!! We could kick there ass in just a troop battle.... well...as long as it was even numbers. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
I do believe Saurman was left trapped..

Oh.. :)

True. Australia would fight the US!! We could kick there ass in just a troop battle.... well...as long as it was even numbers. :)

---

Norway too....

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHH Its Time For A Cat Fight Is It!!!!!!

YOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWW



Nuclear Weapons Were only ever used once and nobody would dare use them but those who dont understand the implications, this is what worries the western nations, Nuclear weapons are being made in other contries for use NOT as a deterant like in the west. We see the damage they see a weapon that will bring them vistory and settle old scores.


Iraq keeps attacking Israel with suicide bombers does this not concern anyone anymore or what?????:eek: :eek: :eek:

To Attack civilians is to be evil, civilians dont want war and want to live there lives in peace not to live in fear, goverments become forced to strike back and everyone condems it. I am not 100% in support of Israel but they are being attacked, but are condemed when they fight back!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


America should step back from these contries that strike them for helping, after all they have no obligation and should not put there own people in the firing line to help a bunch of people who just want a war!!!!!!:( :( :( :(


Anyhow i am safe and keep my ass out of trouble for now, let them fight there own wars and stop putting yourself in the firing line. :D :D :D :D

Well, on the topic of Israel, I think Israel should get its ass kicked, it shouldn't be in Palestinan Territory.

Secondly, somebody needs to Police the world... and since the UN won't.. who will? Sadly, the US is the only country who activly seeks world peace, through the promotion of democracy. If someone threatens another countries peace, then someone should step in to stop it.


Whats Norways standing army at by the way?

Iraq sends suicide bombers to Israel? I thought that was the Palestinians' job :p

Why did the US help Iraq in the 8-year long Iran Iraq war, then? Why did the US supply arms to the Talibanis to fight the then Soviet army in Afghanistan? If it didn't poke its nose in these countries then, it wouldn't need to start wars now :rolleyes:

US did sh it there, and US has to clean it up. I guess a war with Iraq will help create a better environment too, if Saddam is such an utter fool not to set fire to the oil wells, like he did in the Gulf War. Not to mention the pollution effects of the various bombs and other weapons used by the US. I guess US will be injecting a massive amount of funds to counter these anti-environment effects as well? Also it will also be sending oil to countries which are presently buying oil from Baghdad? Or is it going to hold these other countries to ransom too?

I think most of the nations would just be happy if the US stopped this idiotic wargame. Iraq won't be using nukes on India, for e.g. and as long as we are getting our needs serviced, i.e. crude oil, we wouldn't want to mess with Saddam. He didn't do nuffin' wrong to us. On the other hand, the US declaring war on Iraq will hurt our economic interests, because Saddam won't be in a mood to supply oil to us. He would most probably burn it right away. Or if the US captured the oil wells, we would have to lick the US' shoes to get oil from there. The US has already bullied the developing nations into the WTO agreements and started wrecking our economies. This would be one of the last straws.

C'mon guys, the US certainly doesn't want to safeguard the world from Saddam Hussein. It wants to own the Iraqi oilfields and safeguard its own commercial interests. It doesn't give sh it to anything else. After all the US has done nothing for the economic development of Iraq and Iran. Probably if it had ensured the people in these countries got enough food and other things, they wouldn't hate the US so much and wouldn't think of creating any WMDs.

Bloody policing, when you don't have any proof but still call a guy wrong and want to kill him. I feel like laughing my ass out on this entire farce.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
C'mon guys, the US certainly doesn't want to safeguard the world from Saddam Hussein. It wants to own the Iraqi oilfields and safeguard its own commercial interests.

---

I think that the US simply doesn't like the guy, and the US has been declared the ridder of evil dudes. Besides, stable Oil Prices are in the best interests of whole world, not just the US.

Aside from that, the US could never justify claiming the Oil fields. I think it'll have enough trouble finding to start a war, let alone claim the oil fields.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
I think that the US simply doesn't like the guy, and the US has been declared the ridder of evil dudes. Besides, stable Oil Prices are in the best interests of whole world, not just the US.

Aside from that, the US could never justify claiming the Oil fields. I think it'll have enough trouble finding to start a war, let alone claim the oil fields.

---

If Saddam finds George Bush an evil person, he should be given equal right to remove George Bush from power and establish a government system in the US which Saddam sees fit. Are you ready to give him that much right? At least in theory?

Who decides if Saddam should be allowed to be in power or not? So far as I know, Iraq has done nothing to harm the interests of US directly (read: it has not launched any direct terrorist attacks or military attacks against the US). So I think the people of Iraq should be the better judges of whether Saddam should stay in power or not. The US telling the people of Iraq that Saddam is no good for them, and in such persuasive manner, gives rise to many suspicions in my mind. I can understand the US trying to remove the Talibanis for a suspected support to Al Qaeda suspected to have masterminded the 9/11 attacks, but in case of Iraq the US simply doesn't have any valid reason for talking war in the first place and "regime change" in the second place. The fact that the Iraqi people have chosen to have Saddam as their leader despite the Gulf War says a lot about the situation. And I think it's this very fact which troubles Mr. GWB Jr. Because Mr. GWB Sr couldn't overthrow Saddam's government despite winning the Gulf War. It's more like some personal score to be settled.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
The fact that the Iraqi people have chosen to have Saddam as their leader despite the Gulf War says a lot about the situation.

---

Well... in the last election, Saddam got 100% of the votes. Was he the only member standing, most likely. Democratic? No.
If there was more than one party, I can tell u that the people in the north, who are opposed to Saddam, did not have their votes counted...

Same goes with Zimbabwe.

The Iraqi people are afraid to stand up 2 him. Wouldn't u be?? Nearly 40 years of oppression. I think after the Gulf war, where the Allies ditched the people, who wanted Saddem otherthrown, they'll be less trusting of allied forces.

Aside from the fact, the US isn't doing this alone. It has the backing of Britain, Australia, Canada, the UN(if its demands are meet of course), and I'm sure there are smaller countries that I'm not aware of. Possibly Saudi Arabia now that I think about it... there not willing to pull punches until things get under way...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Well... in the last election, Saddam got 100% of the votes. Was he the only member standing, most likely. Democratic? No.
If there was more than one party, I can tell u that the people in the north, who are opposed to Saddam, did not have their votes counted...

Same goes with Zimbabwe.

The Iraqi people are afraid to stand up 2 him. Wouldn't u be?? Nearly 40 years of oppression. I think after the Gulf war, where the Allies ditched the people, who wanted Saddem otherthrown, they'll be less trusting of allied forces.

Aside from the fact, the US isn't doing this alone. It has the backing of Britain, Australia, Canada, the UN(if its demands are meet of course), and I'm sure there are smaller countries that I'm not aware of. Possibly Saudi Arabia now that I think about it... there not willing to pull punches until things get under way...

---

The same argument can be twisted against the US president too. Very clearly the majority in the US didn't vote for Mr. Bush Jr, but he still came to power. At least Saddam managed it more convincingly :p And why would the US be silent on Pakistan, for that matter, if democracy was the concern? It's claimed widely that the so called national referendum Mr. Musharraf held was rigged. I think even the US experts have doubted its credibility. So when are you going for a "regime change" in Pakistan? Or maybe you won't because it's the key to find bin Laden, right? :p

As far as the Iraqi people are concerned, I doubt they would prefer a US invasion against a Saddam rule. If you are talking about the Kurdish conflict, the US would wage wars against virtually half the world because no country is free from such conflicts. Tomorrow the IRS might claim its voice is not being heard in Britain's politics, so are you going to "liberate" Ireland from the "clutches of Britain"? No Sir, because Britain is your trusted ally (note to Britishers/Irelanders: I am merely using this as an example, beyond that I don't have any interest in the British-IRS ties)

When you talk about the UN support, why did your government have to tone down the initial proposal? Have all those countries which you mention, given their whole-hearted unconditional support to the US mission? What about the documents Iraq has submitted to the UN? Surely the UN would have to go through the declarations first before deciding if Iraq was in breach or not, and surely US couldn't state on its own that the declarations were merely a ploy to buy more time, or that Iraq had breached some UN resolutions? Or is the US government an official spokesman for the UN :p?

I doubt the smaller nations have any interest in the US-Iraq conflict other than staying or getting into the MFN list of US. If they don't support US, they are likely going to be the Most Unfavoured Nations, which they cannot afford given the economic pressures the US can exert on these nations. So I am very very doubtful of the support these nations will offer the US. It will be more of a coercion or economic blackmail than their own free will.

.

ya know it is really sad that all people that are not from the US do is look at negative things...

when you only point out someones faults and short comings... of course it is going to make them look bad... but you point out all the good along with the bad.. and it seems to even out a little better...

ya know without america there wouldn't be a whole ***** load of stuff that ALL YOU people have today...

all you guys that have jobs programming microsoft technologies... what would you be doing today with no United States based companies like Microsoft, Sun, Oracle.. etc...

what about the fact that we let millions of people move to our country to seek a better life? what about that one?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kleinma
ya know it is really sad that all people that are not from the US do is look at negative things...

when you only point out someones faults and short comings... of course it is going to make them look bad... but you point out all the good along with the bad.. and it seems to even out a little better...

ya know without america there wouldn't be a whole ***** load of stuff that ALL YOU people have today...

all you guys that have jobs programming microsoft technologies... what would you be doing today with no United States based companies like Microsoft, Sun, Oracle.. etc...

what about the fact that we let millions of people move to our country to seek a better life? what about that one?

---

No actual offense/insult meant, but if Bill Gates hadn't founded Microsoft, I think someone else would have done it. If there'd been no America, you think there wouldn't have been companies like MS, Sun or Oracle? How old are you? :rolleyes:

If Columbus hadn't discovered America, somebody else would have. Only Columbus did it first. And he would've been whacked by many people today for doing so :D

If you let millions of people to move to your country, that's because of your own needs. Just when you needed the programmers and computer engineers, you opened the doors for them. Now your government talks about restrictions on the BPO because the local US companies can't compete with the non-US companies, on various fronts. It's not a favour your country is doing others, it's merely your need of the moment. I am sure once the need is over, you will not think twice before kicking their arses out of your country. So please don't try to mask it as a favour.

I do agree that we shouldn't only focus on the negative things, but I do think we shouldn't enlarge the good things to a god-like proportion. It's time you realized that your country could perhaps be the cause of the 3rd world war simply because it assumed a self-proclaimed right to decide what's wrong and what's right for others.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BodwadUK

Iraq keeps attacking Israel with suicide bombers does this not concern anyone anymore or what?????:eek: :eek: :eek:

---

This has to be very new news to me...last time I checked Irak and Israel was not attacking each other. But maybe they are...:D

no but my point is you don't know how the world might have been without the US so don't go bad mouthing them.. all this talk is IF IF IF...

well IF the US never existed you have no clue where the world COULD be today.. you might not be sitting in your chair typing your posts...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kleinma
no but my point is you don't know how the world might have been without the US so don't go bad mouthing them.. all this talk is IF IF IF...

well IF the US never existed you have no clue where the world COULD be today.. you might not be sitting in your chair typing your posts...

---

True...
true...
true...
true...


And if it had not been for Europe...there would be no USA.....

i agree.. i think everything has its place... i have respect for EVERYONE in this world except those who threaten my existence.. and if our country decides to bomb the crap out of those people.. then so be it.. thats fine with me..

ill say that oil plays a huge factor on all that goes on in the middle east.. but it isnt the only thing that all this is based on.. if saddam is building weapons over there and was pointing them at your countries.. i bet you would want your government to do something about it.. wouldn't you.. i bet if someone flew planes into your buildings and killed not military.. but innocent civilians.. you would want to do something about it...

Who are you actually talking to when you say YOU????

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NoteMe
Who are you actually talking to when you say YOU????

---

everyone

Yes I'm angry, but do you think I will call your president and ask him to bomb everyone just because someone hit the twin towers with a plane ore two????

Me is confused :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NoteMe
Yes I'm angry, but do you think I will call your president and ask him to bomb everyone just because someone hit the twin towers with a plane ore two????

---

no i wouldn't want you to call OUR president.. but if something like that happened in Norway.. would you want your government to do something about it?

lets say your parents worked in some building.. they go there everyday for work like normal.. and then one day some terrorists fly a plane into it and your parents are now dead... what would you want to be done? You would want your government to sit around and do nothing?

What if it were britons who flew the planes into the WTC (as long as we are talking hypothetically).
Would the US have attacked the UK calling the Blair govt oppressive for harbouring possible terrorists ?

I was people from Norway in that building you know, so it kind of happend to us too. But what I'm saying is that you can't go yo was against countries like Irak without they doing anything wrong at all...

Well, North Korea has been put in the "Axis of evil" by Bush and now they see him trying to find any reason to attack Irak who was also in the "Axis of evil", so it's just normal that they prepare themselves against an attack by building nukes.

well we have not attacked saddam yet..and it is "IRAQ"

but saddam also pushed around kuwait back a few years ago.. and we should have gotten rid of him them.. and our govt admitted that they made a mistake by leaving him in power... he is a dictator and i don't think that dictators should rule any country

Sorry Peeps But Saddam is a dictator and nobody should ever run a contry through dictatorship!!!!!


Has Nobody Seen Star Wars???:D :D :D :D :D

I think every govt deserves the leaders it gets and therefore you are not the judge on how things should be run in Iraq.
They are oppressed, sometimes tortured and generally mislead, that's true but you nor any other country is the judge of that.

If your statements were true you should've invaded half of Africa, Asia and South America by now.

All we ask is, show us proof, do it the democratic way, don't give him any edge where he can say afterwards 'hey, you did this and that wrong'.
If you have the proof, submit it to the UN, get those inspectors in (if needed 500 for all I care) and check out wether your allegations are true. If they're true then you have a case, if they're not then you haven't.
If you're evidence is as good as you claim it is your inspectors will no doubt find everything (or at least traces) they need.
then you have a justification for war.

And has anyone thought about what happens after Saddam ? I don't mean it's not a reason to deal with him but a serious question. You may find yourself in a North Korea situation i.e. forces that will have to remain inside Iraq for decades to come.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kleinma
well we have not attacked saddam yet..and it is "IRAQ"

---

In french it's "Irak".

And I never said dicator should rule any nation.

And if Saddam has to be removed, why did you government support Pinochet in Chile ??