A Nation Behind Bars

[Danoz]

http://www.glasko.com/northkoreafinal.jpg
"A Nation Behind Bars" sadly, yet realistically reflects the world people in North Korea are forced to live. A completely isolated country of concentration camps and starvation, families only a border away are forever separated. I hope everybody appreciates this image for what it represents, and realize that those of us capable of viewing it freely this very moment are blessed.


<P ID="signature">http://www.glasko.com/glasko2.jpg (http://www.glasko.com)</P>

[Mr. Saturn]

This is awesome. I personally, would like to see it on a much larger scale.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=14><img src=http://gifs.bestgraph.com/jeux-video/sonic/sonic-02.gif></marquee></P>

[Lillymon]

> "A Nation Behind Bars" sadly, yet realistically reflects the world
> people in North Korea are forced to live. A completely isolated
> country of concentration camps and starvation, families only a
> border away are forever separated. I hope everybody appreciates
> this image for what it represents, and realize that those of us
> capable of viewing it freely this very moment are blessed.

Yes, yes, we all know how terrible North Korea is, we know how badly the population are treated, we know they could well be a nuclear threat.

Seeing as we know all this, why has it been utterly ignored in favour of Iraq then?

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> Seeing as we know all this, why has it been utterly ignored
> in favour of Iraq then?

Probably cause nothing can be done about it. If it's true that they have nuclear weapons which can strike the US (or Japan or South Korea), then an invasion is completely out of the question.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Lillymon]

> Probably cause nothing can be done about it. If it's true
> that they have nuclear weapons which can strike the US (or
> Japan or South Korea), then an invasion is completely out of
> the question.

Was it not said (and still is said) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that it could use against other countries? I may be remembering wrong, but I also seem to remember hearing about how some of those could be aimed at Britain or the US.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> Was it not said (and still is said) that Iraq had weapons of
> mass destruction that it could use against other countries?

I think they were certain Iraq didn't have ICBM capabilities and they were pretty sure Saddam didn't have any nukes either. The only claims I remember being made involved things like anthrax and VX gas, but I'm not too familiar with the pre-war intelligence.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Lillymon]

> I think they were certain Iraq didn't have ICBM capabilities
> and they were pretty sure Saddam didn't have any nukes
> either. The only claims I remember being made involved
> things like anthrax and VX gas, but I'm not too familiar
> with the pre-war intelligence.

So they just went in there for humanitarian concerns? Doesn't convince me. Places like Zimbabwe and North Korea are either tha same or worse, yet they have been all but ignored (Haven't new sanctions been imposed on North Korea? Really showing them out commitment, eh?).

Besides, more relevantly for me, Tony Blair stated we were a potential '45 minutes from destruction' with regards to Iraq. Does that not sound like him thinking they have weapons of mass destruction that could hit Britain?

My rather cynical hypothesis is that the US and UK governments never thought Iraq was a serious threat to us and weren't even too worried about the humanitarian concerns (though they did suffice as a fallback excuse). I think the real reason revolves around what Iraq is built on, oil.

Having a puppet nation built on oil that we could use when reserves closer to home run low (which they will) would help prevent nations like Saudi Arabia and other nations of the OPEC (http://www.opec.org/) from holding the US and UK to ransom with their oil if relations ever get too hostile.

Kinda reminds me of Japan and Manchuria in World War II (that'll probably get me flamed).

Of course, I have no proof and Danoz will almost certainly jump in with near-frantic denails of the whole thing. But it fits the evidence reasonably well, and I wouldn't put it beyond either government to do something like this. They know very well that oil will become in high demand in the forseeable future. They're simply trying to ensure their countries keep moving.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> My rather cynical hypothesis is that the US and UK
> governments never thought Iraq was a serious threat to us
> and weren't even too worried about the humanitarian concerns

I agree with you on this, but I don't think oil was the primary concern. I think it was a combination of the following:

1. Fear that Saddam would develop WMDs in the future and either use them or give them to terrorists.
2. Belief that they had the moral high ground combined with the fact that Iraq was an easy target.
3. Revenge for the assassination attempt on Bush Sr. and "finishing the job" that was started in the Gulf War

They knew Saddam wasn't presently a threat. They didn't care about atrocities he had committed. They knew Iraq wasn't a hotbed for terrorist activity. Oil might have played a small part, but Bush was way too absorbed in his sense of self-righteousness to fight a war simply over that.

I can't say much about the UK's reasons, but I think that's how it played out on our end.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Lillymon]

> I can't say much about the UK's reasons, but I think that's
> how it played out on our end.

Tony Blair wants the best relations possible with the US, and he's willing to pay for it with the blood of British soldiers.

A nasty analogy which many will probably disagree with, but elections in Spain brought in a new government which pulled out, and I hope the same will happen in Britain (the British public was never big on the war in Iraq and are even less so now).

As for the rest of your post, I don't think there's much discussion left, since all that's left to debate are the current grey areas. Trying to discuss what neither of us knows would really be pointless.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[icenine0]

Yeah, North Korea is a holdover from the worst of Stalinist communism. It's got http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1136483,00.htmlgas chambers, gulags, severe political repression,</A> a dictator with a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personalitycult of personality</A>, and a http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040803-122618-7502r.htmGDP primarily dedicated to first-strike capabilities</A>.

Scary place.

<P ID="signature">The more often you fail, the sweeter the taste of success!</P>

[SpaceTiger]

> As for the rest of your post, I don't think there's much
> discussion left, since all that's left to debate are the
> current grey areas. Trying to discuss what neither of us
> knows would really be pointless.

Yeah, those are just my impressions based on the information I have. I could give more detailed reasons for why I think those things, but I would still be guessing to some extent.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[D--]

> Was it not said (and still is said) that Iraq had weapons of
> mass destruction that it could use against other countries?
> I may be remembering wrong, but I also seem to remember
> hearing about how some of those could be aimed at Britain or
> the US.

That was different though, Our US military knew that was bullshit or they’d never have invaded. If they knew for sure we'd have stayed the fuck out and tried to negotiate.

That's all nukes are -- bargaining chips. I don't think any country is stupid enough to actually fire one at another country that has them.

<P ID="signature"><img border=0 src=http://www.oakland.edu/~dcsoboda/img/avatar/you_lose.gif>
http://the2d.com/The Second Dimension</a> - 2D games etc</P>

[CEpeep]

> That's all nukes are -- bargaining chips. I don't think any
> country is stupid enough to actually fire one at another
> country that has them.
>

http://www.endofworld.net

<P ID="signature"><hr>
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
-Eisenhower</P>

[IceWolf20]

> That's all nukes are -- bargaining chips. I don't think any
> country is stupid enough to actually fire one at another
> country that has them.

Which is the exact reason why the US doesn't want other countries getting them. Its not that they're worried about them using them, its that they're worried that they'll be less room at the "big boy" table, and they'll have to talk to "rogue" nations that possess them. All it does is make the US lose more of its controll over the world...b/c in reality, if they ever shot one at us, we'd literally obliterate their country with ours....so when they have nukes, that allows them to "negotiate" with us so the US doesn't have to look bad domestically and in foreign policy when it has to retaliate by turning a country into a sheet of glass.


<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>

[SpaceTiger]

> Which is the exact reason why the US doesn't want other
> countries getting them. Its not that they're worried about
> them using them, its that they're worried that they'll be
> less room at the "big boy" table

I'm sure you're right, but there are other reasons to be concerned about proliferation, not least of which is the potential for terrorists to get their hands on them. We can't hit back if we don't know where to nuke.

<P ID="signature">http://qonos.princeton.edu/nbond/tiger5.gif</P>

[Lillymon]

> That was different though, Our US military knew that was
> bullshit or they’d never have invaded. If they knew for sure
> we'd have stayed the fuck out and tried to negotiate.

Ah, so the US and UK governments were lying to us. Glad we got that sorted.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=left scrollamount=8><img src=http://home.graffiti.net/lillymon:graffiti.net/images/keletav.gif></marquee>
!luos ruoy tae lliw stelek ehT</P>

[IceWolf20]

> I'm sure you're right, but there are other reasons to be
> concerned about proliferation, not least of which is the
> potential for terrorists to get their hands on them. We
> can't hit back if we don't know where to nuke.

Oh, I agree completely. If the 'Sum of All Fears' ever came to fruition, then we'd be totally fucked. There's two different approaches to the nuclear proliferation argument. The one of a nation seeking them and one of terrorists seeking them. Both have the same goal tho...leverage in negotiation. If a nation has them, then all of a sudden we have to listen to them, and not treat them like absolute shit b/c who knows, they may use it if they literally feel that they have nothing to lose, but a nation developing nukes, and then using them are slim (...yeah, i know this is a little counterintuitive, but we aren't exactly setting a good example by developing "tactical" nukes...I'm sorry, but there's nothing tactical about them, no matter how small, but that's another argument for another day). As far as a terrorist group is concerned....that's where the problem lies. Like you said, if we get nailed by a terrorist's nuke in a truck....we'd literally be fucked in a sense that we'd have nothing to shoot back at....b/c even if we did know where the group responsible was, we couldn't just start shotting nukes at them, b/c the nation in which they resided would get pissed, as well as the world community.....which could very well inevitably lead to a nuclear war if we start shooting our load all over the world like we're trying to kill a mosquito with C-4.

So, long point short, there are different reasons for wanting nuclear weapons, but it all comes down to leverage and power, and getting the "superpowers" to pay attention to their own atrocities committed in the act of "freedom".


<P ID="signature"><div align="center">http://stuorgs.lvc.edu/acm/_private/ZMD.gif
...the way to be!</div></P>