Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 68

Thread: North Korean Nukes

  1. #31
    So what? India has had more wars than North Korea... And the Unites States which is to promote freedom and democracy has supported coups and installations of dictators such as the one in Chilé.


    Who cares about food? The US is depriving the NK of it's abillity to produce fuel and power without nuclear technology. Since it has an oil embargo against the country. NK's army, cars, air-fleet, navy, powerplants, everything is running on low while the US is using it's fuel to kill people in Iraq. What sort of useless country are you if you are dependent on aid? Let North Korea develope itself...Perhaps the people will have it better then aswell.


    So just cause North Korea is communist (which it by no means is - not even according to themselves) makes it okey to put sanctions on an already poor nation, deprive them of their right to develope peacefull (what they wanted at first) nuclear power and now nuclear weapons.

    You still haven't answered my question:

    How is the United States an more responsible nation to carry around nukes compared to North Korea?







    Oh and I am not even sure if I should reply on this but: Where in the name of god have you heard of one single peasant starving in the Soviet Union? This compared to the age of the Tsar when many were starving - even the army. So don't come here and talk rubish about the USSR. Russia was one of the least developed countries at the start of World War 1. At the end of world war 2 (even though it suffered the greatest manpower and economic losses in both wars) it was one of the most developed.

    Stalin did some bad **** but if you are going to start lying that those people who'm he didn't massmurder (which is like 98% of the population) that they were starving or having it any less good than those in the west then you should at least put some facts out to support your statement.
    If you have time teach me I\'m eager to learn.

  2. #32
    They call me the Hunted foxyloxley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    3rd Rock from Sun
    Posts
    2,534
    At the end of world war 2 (even though it suffered the greatest manpower and economic losses in both wars) it was one of the most developed.
    ROFL
    all the soviet could do was build walls
    and for the first time in history the walls were designed to keep their own people IN
    NOT to keep the enemy OUT

    the soviet would have had NOTHING without US aid
    all delivered to them by merchant navy convoys to murmansk

    go back to your 'glorious' war pictures of the 'victorious' red army
    look again at the armour
    look at the christie suspension units
    they only got advancement through stealing


    it was the allied aid that allowed them to relocate their factories and start over
    but they were never, and have never been at the fore front of anything 'developed'

    what a crock of **** you are spouting
    but if your nic is an indicator of origin
    then maybe it could explain a few things

    but really
    the soviet - developed - LMAO
    so now I'm in my SIXTIES FFS
    WTAF, how did that happen, so no more alterations to the sig, it will remain as is now

    Beware of Geeks bearing GIF's
    come and waste the day :P at The Taz Zone

  3. #33
    AOs Resident Troll
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    3,152
    I think Tedob1 pinned it in his first response

    Governments would rather spend monies on warfare than their own people.......just look at the US

    lets kill IRAQies ....and try and gain control of the oil........who cares about New Orleans.

    Its all about the Bushypoo friends...kinda like Linden B...and his helicopters friends and Viet Nam

    enuf said

    MLF
    How people treat you is their karma- how you react is yours-Wayne Dyer

  4. #34
    Disgruntled Postal Worker fourdc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    797
    Eons from now the human race may not be around for whatever manmade disaster or natural cause that could come about.

    The sad epitath that a discovering race would make would be that our greatest achievment was how good we became at killing each other.

    I won't go into the politics of the situation. Yesterday I attended a funeral for a 19 year old Marine that was killed in Iraq. My children worked with this kid at scout camp. He was a good scout. He leaves a widow and a grieving community. RIP Lance Cpl Edward Garvin, or Eddie as we knew him.

    Every number, every name that is attached to the dead belies that this is a person, there are connections between this person and others. As a race our survival is going to be based on how well we all work together.
    ddddc

    "Somehow saying I told you so just doesn't cover it" Will Smith in I, Robot

  5. #35
    That's true. The really sad thing is that it's politics that kills. Back long ago you had them tribal wars and then it was about power or resources. Now it's just about who's right. And while the politicians are debating we are getting slayed.
    If you have time teach me I\'m eager to learn.

  6. #36
    The ******* Shadow dalek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,564
    Oh and I am not even sure if I should reply on this but: Where in the name of god have you heard of one single peasant starving in the Soviet Union? This compared to the age of the Tsar when many were starving - even the army. So don't come here and talk rubish about the USSR. Russia was one of the least developed countries at the start of World War 1. At the end of world war 2 (even though it suffered the greatest manpower and economic losses in both wars) it was one of the most developed.
    Your arse is talking rubbish...

    The Plan to Modernize the Soviet Union

    Once Stalin felt secure in his position as leader of the Party, he began to outline his plans for the USSR. The USSR held tremendous potential in terms of human and natural resources, but both were very undeveloped. Stalin believed that under a five-year economic plan, the USSR would industrialize, and become stronger than any nation in the West.

    Unfortunately, the USSR was made up mostly of poor peasants who farmed small plots of land. In most cases, these peasants still harvested crops by hand and used wooden plows. Therefore, to make the plan successful, he would need to make changes to the peasant way of life. Two things were required of the peasants by Stalin: the peasants would have to be taxed heavily to pay for his new factories and secondly, the peasants would have to produce more food for all of the new factory workers in the cities.

    Collectivization and the Kulaks

    In 1929 Stalin announced the "collectivization" (joining together) of all farms in the country. This meant that hundreds of small farms were forced to join into larger ones, and the peasants had to work together in order to make the bigger farms successful. The large farms would be about 450 hectares in size, with anywhere from 50 to 100 families working on them. The new farms were supposed to receive new tractors and other modern equipment to help modernized and increase the production of food.

    Stalin wanted all of the roughly 100 million peasants to join his planned collectivization program although he realized that the peasants would not necessarily like the new system. The people most likely to resist the change would be the ones with the most to lose. In the USSR, the Kulaks (translated to "fists") were the richest farmers. They owned two or more horses, several cows and had larger farms than most peasants.

    The solution for Stalin was simple. The five million Kulaks who existed within the USSR were to be liquidated as a social class. By using his powerful secret police, Kulaks were murdered, exiled to Siberia, and robbed of all possessions. Approximately 1.5 million Kulaks died as a direct result of Stalin's policies.

    Many peasants showed their displeasure to collectivization by not planting crops or by killing all of their animals. Stalin had hoped to eliminate the problem of food production, but the opposite happened. A lack of food became a major problem in the cities because of the peasants resistance to collectivization. Stalin was forced to send the police into the countryside to raid farms for food and ultimately, the army was used to force the peasants to work and send food to the cities. Furthermore, as a punishment for not collectivizing, the farmers were given little or no food. Mass starvation occurred during this period, with close to 30 million peasants starving to death.

    Eyewitness Account:

    A little market town in the …North Caucasus suggested a military occupation; worse active war. There were soldiers everywhere… all differing notably from the civil population in one respect. They were well fed, and the civilian population was obviously starving. I mean starving in its absolute sense; …having had for weeks next to nothing to eat. Later I found out that there had been no bread at all in the place for three months, and such food as there was I saw for myself in the market… there was black cooked meat which I worked out, I calculated, at a ruble [Soviet money] for three bites. "How are things with you?" I asked one man. He looked round anxiously to see that no soldiers were about. "We have nothing, absolutely nothing. They have taken everything away," he said, and hurried on.

    Go back to History class, 30 million people starving to death is more then "1" single peasant.

    The Soviets did everything in their power to deny the existence of the famine. When the London Daily Express reported that the Soviets had purchased even a modest 15,000 tons of wheat abroad in order to alleviate the shortage of bread at home, Pravda on May 27, 1933, published an indignant denial. Had the Kremlin acknowledged the famine, it would have been expected not to sell grain, for want of which its own people were dying. Stalin denied the existence of famine and continued to export grain, albeit at a lower rate. In 1931, the USSR exported 5.06 million metric tons of grain. In 1932 this fell to 1.73 million and in 1933 to 1.68 million.
    Source

    I remember Canada being one of the few countries that for years donated thousands of tons of wheat each year to the USSR.

    How is the United States an more responsible nation to carry around nukes compared to North Korea?
    It's called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and I would certainly prefer the US to have nukes then some twit in say.....Yugoslavia, read up on the 60's and 70's about the cold war. Your defence of a crackpot places you in the minority, and if your happy being there, then maybe you can immigrate to North Korea and take your feelings to Kim and his people, show him your support.
    PC Registered user # 2,336,789,457...

    "When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats."
    Claude Swanson

  7. #37
    If you have time teach me I\'m eager to learn.

  8. #38
    Besides.. You come from Canada... You takl english there...
    If anyone understood this/these sentance then please explain it to me cause I didn't: It's called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and I would certainly prefer the US to have nukes then some twit in say.....Yugoslavia, read up on the 60's and 70's about the cold war. Your defence of a crackpot places you in the minority, and if your happy being there, then maybe you can immigrate to North Korea and take your feelings to Kim and his people, show him your support.



    By the way that thing about bread? What does this actully show. Is this proof of a famine? Maybe the Russians just wanted some extra food. But it doesn't matter. It shows that the Russians at least managed to have some kind of own production while not needing to buy food all the time while you in the west bought cheap food from cheap labour in Africa while the whole continent was starving. Not to mention that Europe had Africa conolized before and even the years after WW2.
    If you have time teach me I\'m eager to learn.

  9. #39
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,188
    Why has no-one asked the obvious..............what the hell do the North Koreans want atomic weapons for? (assuming that they could get one to work )

    The whole idea of atomic and the later nuclear weapons is as a deterrent ? so who are the North Koreans kidding themselves into thinking that the primitive devices they are capable of building would deter?

    The Chinese?................they would run through the country and kill the lot of them inside 24 hours, even if North Korea spent their entire GNP for the next 100 years on weapons!

    The South Koreans won't attack them, the Japanese couldn't care less about them so long as they behave............same for India and Pakistan.

    If they piss with the British and/or Americans they will be dead from a distance within 24 hours.............. they actually have NO NATURAL ENEMIES IN THE REGION?

    This whole exercise is a gross waste of national resources

    People who do things that illogical are a potential danger to everyone....... like what happens when the revolution happens (and IT WILL ) and insurgents find these things in arsenals around the country?

  10. #40
    Uhm I think I've answered on that. They want it to bargain with. Like "ok we got nukes, don't put sanctions on us and let us make nuclear energy" stuff :P Maybe later they also will trade their nuclear weapons program for better diplomatic relations and stuff.


    You mean a contra revolution against Kim? Well what happend when the Russians had a revolution? : ) Maybe a few nukes found themselves on the Black Market but obviously they weren't used. I don't think anything will happen to NKs nukes.
    If you have time teach me I\'m eager to learn.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •