To whom did the US proliferate weapons?

And remember this L'il Jon(g) we're talking about. He'd as soon eliminate yr. pinko-leaning ass, as he would my centrist-leaning ass, or Dalen's right wing ass. The world would remain a better place with him not having nukes, it has long (well, since 1963, right Chase?) been US policy that we would deter other nations from producing nuclear weapons, so yeah, we do have a right to tell this fucker he can't have them, and if you can't see that, I'm done with this argument.

I didn't call you unamerican and his motivations are to stay in power and gain control of South Korea. Tell me how we can possibly change those?

I hate smelly Americans.

we didn't deter pakistan, india or israel from developing them since the treaty, did we? or did we just sell them ours? i really don't know. i think, and correct me if i'm wrong, that you're getting hung up on this question of whether i want n. korea to have the weapons. of course not. i just think that it's easily justifiable in their position.

honestly i don't care if he stays in power or takes over south korea.

And this is why I think your whole basis for argument is off. It would be double-plus-ungood for him to take over S. Korea, and have a serious effect on the world econimy, same with a nuclear strike on Japan.

Like Seamonster said, it has nothing to do with a US attack on them. If we wanted to do that, we'd've done it already, or may just be waiting for China to get fed up with the little monster and take him out themselves.

We actually tried to deter Pakistan and India, but guess what NORTH KOREA SOLD PAKISTAN THE TECHNOLOGY/KNOW HOW. India stole it form somewhere, and ISrael stole it from us. They spy on us almost as much as the Russkies used to.

I'm not only saying its not good for them to have nukes, I'm saying that it is our policy to deter them from getting them , and they are unjustified in having them. I could give a fuck about their sovereignty or anything else when it comes to crazy people getting nukes.

What you are saying is that it is reasonable for bin Laden to pursue nukes, because there'sa $50million bounty on his head. C'mon Chase...

Well enlighten me as to what you do care about.

i just don't get your definition or "unjustified". dude's at war against the imperialism of a nation lead, at the moment, by a guy who he probably considers crazy with nuclear arms, a shit-ton of nuclear arms. i think that objectively pursuing like-minded arms would be reasonable. is it good for me personally? shit no. it's like if country A has nukes and a penchant for invading countries, is it "reasonable" for country B not to have them? it might not be good for our safety but it's the reality of the situation.

i guess that the fundamental disagreement, gar, that you and i are having is that you argue that we have a right to tell kim not ot build nukes because that's been our policy, and i'm looking past that to say that having that doesn't in any way mean that he's going to stop.

Right. because we need to change his motiviations. What I'm trying to figure out is what you think his motivations are and how we can change them. Of course we can only speculate, but that's what bulletin boards are for.

It is part of our doctrine. Attack enemies without WMD and avoid those with a credible deterrent.



But how can other nations take our dedication to non-proliferation seriously when we have the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, are the only country to ever use them on combat, and were the most aggressive country after WWII? We need to give other nations a reason to not fear us because they are basically using the same logic as us for having nukes.

I don't want North Korea to have nukes. I don't want Iran to have nukes. However, they have a legitimate fear of the United States so don't you think it makes sense for them to want nuclear weapons, even if you, like all sane people, don't want them to possess WMD? I mean, a few years ago, portions of a Pentagon document leaked that showed the US was willing to use nuclear weapons against North Korea even after North Korea repeatedly indicated its willingness to negotirate an end to its nuclear programs if the US signed a non-aggression pact guaranteeing the country's security.

You keep going back to a position of defense. Why won't even consider that NK is developing nukes for offensive use and 'Lil Jon(g) is lying? Is the US the only aggressor in the world? I highly doubt it.

THANK YOU.

right on.

dude that's not the issue. the issue is the U.S. needs to change how it deals with the world and it's consistency or lack thereof in its foreign policy if it hopes to avoid other countries using what they deem as "national interest" to conduct policy the U.S. finds uncomfortable. Whether or not NK has bad practices or does things U.S finds distasteful is totally beside the point b/c whatever the fuck the U.S. thinks won't change that at this juncture. what the U.S. has to do is figure out how to prevent countries from feeling the need to horde/develop/want weapons. And this country has way to much fucking power and influence for one to believe that it's unable to act in a way that would negate the pipe dreams of despots.

That's always a possibility, but I personally don't believe it's the main reason they developed nuclear weapons. Either way, North Korea is a major threat to the world just because of the fact that it has nukes.

The idea that North Korea is developing nuclear weapons to launch an unprovoked attack on South Korea is frankly idiotic.

If anyone can post a reason that would motiviate North Korea to trigger an nuclear war which would envitably lead to it's own complete destruction I'd like to hear it.

Contrary to common belief Kim Il Jong isn't actually a Bond supervillian living in a fucking volcano with a Persian cat.

jesus christ that took me for fucking EVER to get through, and about now i'm about ready to develop some nuclear weapons to defend myself from alla you.

North Korea can have the fucking doomsday virus for all i care. If I was in their shoes I probably would want some sort of line of defense from the clouded judgement of our government right now. Shit, the UK should keep an extra missile pointed at us 'cause you never know that the fuck our squirrely asses might try and pull next. Bush has to look just as crazy to their eyes as he does to us.

and why are we assuming that China wouldn't stop NKorea from invading SKorea? they would have just as much to lose in evconomic turmoil.


i think it should be mandatory for all countryies to have them at this point. why the fuck not? we should be so lucky to witness the apocalypse! That's like billions of fantasies in this paranoid-ass country coming true! Besides, it's not like all those othe rocuntries have plastic sheets and duct tape, right?



also, Lil' Jon(g) has managed to become more tired than Mike Jones, Nazr Mohammed, Krylon et al... in an afternoon. Slang is only funny when it's used once and then picked up, not drilled into our head.

While rumor has it that Lil' Jon(g) is pretty much batshit, I am frankly surprised that our friend Tom Arico has managed to inhabit the body of the good Senator Loogar.

No nukes is good nukes, but do I trust that Uncle Sam knows best when it comes to foreign diplomacy? No. Do we write global policy? No. Do I want North Korea to have nukes? No. Are these views mutually exclusive? No. Am I starting to sound like Rummy, with all of these reflexive questions & answers? Yes.

We are becoming (for pretty good reason) viewed more and more as global despots, and a grave threat to all the little parochial despots scattered about (unless they are willingly providing us with oil, of course).

I find this whole argument very depressing, but for the most part, I side with chase, which is weird, because I don't usually side with chase.

PS: I hate America.
PPS: If Uncle sam is watching, I keed!!!

if all countries had nukes and mutual destruction was ensured maybe there would be no more war. maybe that is a horrible idea. maybe I need that beer now.

I never said that.

"Well, I could stop hi-jacking tomorrow . . . if everyone was allowed to carry guns them hi-jackers wouldn't have no superiority. All you gotta do is arm all the passengers, then no hi-jacker would risk pullin' a rod."

Archie Bunker

Any argument I would usually put forth about American arrogance and other nations' right to protect themselves and not be ordered around by the Bush League goes out the window for me when I remember that Jongy-boy is insane. Not just cruel, ruthless, evil and a murdering bastard, but actually, certifiable disturbed, nuts, deranged, mentally ill, iz what I'm talkin' 'bout. He can't be counted on to behave the way a self-protective power mongerer like a Saddam or a Ghadafi would have behaved. Because there's more wrong with the man than just being a fucking asshole.

There are crazy dictators and then then are FUCKED-UP dictators. He's the latter. Il is ill.

seriously, if that's your definition of humor i guess i just ain't funny.



thank you.

i knew enough to only use 'cocksmooch' that one time.

To sum up this thread:

Dalen, LooGAR and Lochness and Frostingspoon think that North Korea is ruled by a maniac who will kill people for fun, and therefore his getting nukes is a bad idea.

Everyone else: Hates Bush so much they think that a dictator who will kill for fun has a right to weapons of mass destruction.

Shiv and Cotton: Know nothing of my predilection for latching on to words or phrases and running them into the ground. Cocksmooches. Also, it is now an established fact that Shiv has no sense of humor.