Russia, China could support N.Korea

Do you think the US will Attack North Korea ?

  • Yes, I think so

    Votes: 4 44.4%

  • No, The Americans are too afraid

    Votes: 3 33.3%

  • Since Israel is not involved, they wont

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • Since Oil is no involved, they wont

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .
P

Proud_Syrian

Guest
Moscow, August 15 - Russia's deputy foreign minister said on Friday that Russia and China could support security guarantees in which North Korea is interested.

The official, Yuri Fedotov, said one possible way to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue, the way that is being discussed at present, is through the signing by Russia and China of a document on guarantees to Pyongyang.

To read the full article, click on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting webstie:

http://www.iribnews.com/Full_en.asp?news_id=185916&n=22
 
hehe. You could say that America is too afraid to attack North Korea. But it is more because of our financial crisis, then any real militaristic reason. With the conflict in Iraq tanking and the international market in general in decline, America is going to need every financial resource in its possession to pay off its upcoming debts. And of course, US would only further be seen as the sort of right-wing neo-facist state that it is.
 
that reminds me of a joke:

Japan: hey, americans, remember the billions of dollar$ we lent you?
US: yea, what about it?
Japan: well, that was pretty long time ago. we want it back.
US: uh... we don't have it, dudes.
Japan: what? what did you spend so much money on???
US: nukes
Japan: er... we don't need the money right away...
 
Japan : but as you have wasted the cash on nukes, we will take them as compensation.



making the US the first official arms selling nukes to the first and only country hit by nukes:bugeye:
 
Japan : but as you have wasted the cash on nukes, we will take them as compensation.

US: And we'll be delivering them to you via an ICBM missile.
:D

Making history repeat itself.:eek:
 
Russia and China helping NK? LOL, not directly. I can see China smuggling arms into NK. But nothing unusual.
 
It's not so much countries that are attacked, rather ways of life. The U.S. won't attack North Korea, rather they will attack the people of North Korea because of what they beleive. it seems that the U.S. are against everyone, i.e. the whole world, because the rest of the wolrd beleive in communities, not just individuals. :)
 
All that article says is that Russia and China may be willing to offer a non-aggression oath to North Korea. That's hardly "support". More like ambivalence. Who knows. The US may do the same, if the upcoming talks go well.

Let's be optimistic. Nobody wants a nuclear North Korea, and nobody wants to have to ensure that with a war.

Poll had no relevance. Didn't vote.
 
IMO and the Pentagons Pyongyang has a nuke, at least one. Now her actually delievering one is questionable, but I believe she can. With a nation like NK (which there is no other), with no human resources on the ground, a country totally indoctrinated into a cult worship of the Juche leaders. These ppl's are fanatical, let's hope that war will be avoided. But I am less and less optomisitc everyday.
 
Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
All that article says is that Russia and China may be willing to offer a non-aggression oath to North Korea. That's hardly "support". More like ambivalence. Who knows. The US may do the same, if the upcoming talks go well.

Let's be optimistic. Nobody wants a nuclear North Korea, and nobody wants to have to ensure that with a war.

Poll had no relevance. Didn't vote.
Click to expand...

Why this hypocrisy ? why no one want nuclear N.Korea ? I want to see nuclear N.korea and Nuclear Iran and Nuclear Syria, the world is sick and tired from this disgusting American hypocrisy, it is ok for nazi terrorist state such as Israel to have more than 400 nuclear heads but it is not ok for others to have them !!!!

SICK.
 
Originally posted by Proud_Syrian
Why this hypocrisy ? why no one want nuclear N.Korea ? I want to see nuclear N.korea and Nuclear Iran and Nuclear Syria, the world is sick and tired from this disgusting American hypocrisy, it is ok for nazi terrorist state such as Israel to have more than 400 nuclear heads but it is not ok for others to have them !!!!

SICK.
Click to expand...
The principal difference is because the United States, and other major nuclear powers, are stable powers with solid leadership that have proven themselves responsible custodians of nuclear arsenals over time. North Korea hasn't even developed a veritable nuclear arsenal yet and they're already threatening to vape Japan and immolate Australia. Their petulent rhetoric, while probably not entirely serious, can't be discounted. It belies the delusion of their leadership. Allowing rogue nations to develop a nuclear arsenal is tantamount to handing a psychotic a gun. The powers that be will not allow it to happen.

Just what do you think having a nuclear North Korea, Iran, and Syria would accomplish?
 
Why this hypocrisy ? why no one want nuclear N.Korea ? I want to see nuclear N.korea and Nuclear Iran and Nuclear Syria, the world is sick and tired from this disgusting American hypocrisy, it is ok for nazi terrorist state such as Israel to have more than 400 nuclear heads but it is not ok for others to have them !!!!

SICK.

I think that many Americans wish that Israel did not have nukes either, although their nukes might be what keeps constant wars from happening in the region, and it is a stable government at any rate. But nobody should desire nukes in the hands of unstable regimes, particlarly in unstable regions. In 1998 when Pakistani troops illegally crossed over the LOC, Pakistan and India came perilously close to a nuclear exchange, with inteliigence showing that the Pakistani military were readying their nuke-tipped warheads. We can assume that India was preparing hers as well. Only intense pressure by the Clinton administration on then Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif averted what could have been a horrendous disaster. A little over a year later when Sharif tried to fire Musharraf, his army chief of staff, Musharraf and his loyal military deposed Sharif and jailed him. The world really does not need nukes in the hands of unstable regimes.
 
The problem is that these "unstable" regimes are unstable mostly because of the powers meddling. I mean Iran is unstable economicly because of the American sponsered sanctions, NK is not unstable in the sense that it will fall apart, but rather her leader is questionably sane. But you have to understand why these states want these WMD. I mean they are at a constant state of threat by the US. Pakistan and India having nukes is a bad thing and only to get worse, with the Indian Agni missile, and NK's Taepo Dong 2 possibly going to Pakistan the situation will only get worse. I don't think any state should have nukes in principle. But in reality they have indeed as spyke said kept the peace. I am more worried about the situation in the Indian sub-continent then I am Israel, or SK/NK . That is the region that should be at the top of the nuclear agenda. Also Pakistan has not sayed she will not use the nukes first. India has a no first use policy, Pakistan still reserves that right. More pressure has to be put on Pakistan to back down.
 
These regimes are not stable because you keep interfering in their affairs.

My country, SYRIA is stable with stable government and young British-educated president....So, let us get the nukes...enough is enough.
 
Originally posted by nico
v) who's next?
Click to expand...
That's a slippery slope. You need to explain why Syria, Iran, or North Korea have reasons to fear for their national safety.
Originally posted by Proud_Syrian
My country, SYRIA is stable with stable government and young British-educated president....So, let us get the nukes...enough is enough.
Click to expand...
If I were Syrian leadership, I'd worry about the sorry state of my conventional military first. Anyway, you still didn't answer my question. Why does Syria need a nuclear arsenal, and what would they do with it?
 
You need to explain why Syria, Iran, or North Korea have reasons to fear for their na

The Axis of evil, PNAC, are clear examples why. They have not followed Americanism. They deviants and the Axis of evil is prime evidence of this. Now how are they evil, according to American norms? I would assume 3.7 million dead SE Asians as also being evil. Or the WMD used in Vietnam u know Agent Orange. Also NK has 12 intercontinental bombers poised to strike her at moments noticed in Guam, 37,000 American troops in SK, not giving NK a assurance that she will not be attacked. Iran well 125,000 US troops in Iraq, the rumblings out of the administration, and this poster:

iran-next.jpg


From the US DoD. :rolleyes:
 
Source of the poster? Link to the globalsecuity.org page. That's some cheap photoshoppery of a WWII recruitment poster. I've seen it before with other things written on it. Nice try though.

Anyway, your whole argument is that the sovereignity of these countries is at stake simply because they don't adhere to this "Americanism", whatever you mean by that. That is, of course, complete nonsense. However, I'd like you to elaborate. Define "Americanism" and then explain why any one of those nations' sovereignity is threatened because they don't embodify it.

Lastly, Agent Orange is not a "WMD", and Guam is home to the largest US Air Force base in the PACOM AOR. You need to find better sources for your information, it appears.
 
That is, of course, complete nonsense.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27265

Fristly I suggest you read that.

Agent Orange is not a "WMD",

Is it not a chemical weapon? Thus WMD, also does it not affect a wide area, and does it not cause massive enviromental damage, and medical damage to those it affects?

and Guam is home to the largest US Air Force base in the PACOM AOR

Rumsfeld moved B-1B bombers to Guam to thwart any NK moves.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/04/n.korea.bombers/index.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top