Slashdot Mirror


North Korea's Secret Biochemical Arsenal

mattnyc99 writes "Popular Mechanics has an in-depth report on North Korea's biological and chemical weapons stock, which has been developed in secret and has gone largely unnoticed amidst the country's nuke threat. From the article: 'North Korea's Chemical and Bioweapons (CBW) program appears to be modeled on that of the former Soviet Union, which covertly constructed a massive biological weapons infrastructure within the shell of a civilian research organization called Biopreparat. Inside Biopreparat, the Soviets developed deadly agents that included weaponized forms of anthrax and pneumonic plague. Intelligence reports from the United States and South Korea list anthrax, smallpox, pneumonic plague, cholera and botulism toxins as leading components of North Korea's bioweapons projects.' "

321 comments

  1. Hans Brix to the rescue by DrugCheese · · Score: 4, Funny

    We will be very, very angry with you North Korea and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
    1. Re:Hans Brix to the rescue by exspecto · · Score: 0

      Hans, ya-breakin' my balls here, Hans...ya breakin' my balls!

    2. Re:Hans Brix to the rescue by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Funny

      "My hands were shaking after reading this letter," said Kofi Anan. "I mean, this is a REALLY harsh letter. I think North Korea will disarm by the end of the year. My only concern is that it is too strong. We only want North Korea to disarm. This letter might cause them to surrender their entire country to France. The letter is really that strongly worded. I'm shaking even now just thinking about it." -- Jerhad!com (2006-10-13)

    3. Re:Hans Brix to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call for an immediate invasion of Vietnam, and establishment of a prison camp in Uruguay to hold captured bio-terrorists indefinitely until they are cleared of guilt at the end of eternity^W^W^W^W^W in their potential trials.

      Why Vietnam, you ask? Well, it's very simple to understand if you're not a terrorist sympathizer. Vietnam is in the same general area of the map, and its army once invaded Pearl Harbor riding the backs of killer whales, if I remember my history correctly, so it seems fairly likely -- if not definite -- that Vietnam is secretly harboring North Korea's bioweapon experts.

      Uruguay is the logical choice for establishment of a concentration^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htainment area for suspects.

      Who's with me here?

    4. Re:Hans Brix to the rescue by bmgoau · · Score: 1

      So they can build fission bombs and bioweapons...but...can't feed their own people? What gives?

    5. Re:Hans Brix to the rescue by FirienFirien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can make the same argument about pretty much any "first world" country. They all have problems - maybe health infrastructure problems, violence and other public service issues instead of low food provision, but they all have armies to march to war, weapons to shake and shields to thump on the ground. North Korea isn't much different in that regard.

      --
      Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
    6. Re:Hans Brix to the rescue by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1
      So they can build fission bombs and bioweapons...but...can't feed their own people? What gives?

      Psychotic genocidal dictators aren't the cute little cuddlebunnies everybody thinks they are. They value the appearance of military strength over feeding their own citizens. Apparently, though, his generals are even worse. This is one reason that simply assassinating Kim Jong Ill might not work out so well.

    7. Re:Hans Brix to the rescue by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Well, that worked to disarm Saddam's Iraq. While invading and occupying it has turned Iraq into an actual top-tier threat, and now has turned Saddam into a martyr inspiring crazy morons around the world to kill and die for insanity.

      Back when we were using angry letters backed by "diplomacy" (political pressure on essential economics), we actually got N Korea to stop its nuke weapons development. Then we switched off the diplomacy, and switched on the empty threats. Meanwhile we shipped N Korea a nuke plant with Donald Rumsfeld's name on it, then dismissed the inspection requirements that would have kept it from being abused into weapons development - the same day he paid for it to be built. Pretty good business for Rumsfeld, but a disaster for live humans.

      I used the word "we", but sometimes it was Clinton, and sometimes it was Bush. Guess which one made us safer, and the other threatened us more? Bonus points for guessing which one prizes a Star Wars "antimissile defense shield" above any other military program, and needs more WMD missile threats to scare us into paying for it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:Hans Brix to the rescue by cbacba · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you read it right?

      After all, those cheese eating surrender monkies might have been doing a preemptive surrender strike.

      Well, at least thermonuclear weapons are pretty good at sterilizing large areas.

      Unfortunately, whether or not man develops biowarfare agents, we'll still most likely lose the battle with the bug. Already our minor 20th century victories are leading to our reduced natural fighting abilities and have contributed to strengthening those of the 'bugs'. However, those promoting biowarfare development appear to be traitors to the human race and should be dealt with like their allies.

    9. Re:Hans Brix to the rescue by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      If I were GWB, or his nuthugger, I would say that is sound logic!

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    10. Re:Hans Brix to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. It's relevant that first-world countries don't have widespread "starvation" problems like North Korea does. First-world countries' problems (universal health care, employment rate) don't even approach the crisis levels of the third world. Many countries would kill for "inadequate" FREE US clinics. They frequently aren't the kind of problem that you can solve by just throwing money at it even if it was possible, like "what kind of public education system should we have". This is compared to the third world "we are too poor for public education."

      North Korea has a totalitarian government. If Kim Jong Il desired, the entire government could be mobilized to distribute aid food. Sure, North Korea really, really needs an army--because the country is run by a belligerent asshole and it's pissed a lot of people off. On the other hand, countries like Russia or the USA just plain have a lot more to defend, more land, industry, natural resources, which makes a powerful military for deterrence more necessary. The USA assists in NATO, which contributes to the collective defense of Europe.

      It's the same argument in the sense that both North Korea and (for example) the USA both have problems and both have a strong, expensive military. The important difference is, the money deallocated from the military budget of the USA would not primarily be used for supplying basic human needs and probably would not make an amazing difference in the employment rate--and we do actually need our military. However, any money deallocated from North Korea's dick-swinging military could be used to keep thousands from DYING OF SICKNESS OR MALNUTRITION.

  2. What do you need bio for? by fred911 · · Score: 1

    To intimidate others from attack while you develop your nuclear program? One nuke trumps all the bio.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:What do you need bio for? by d12v10 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not at all surprised that NK has biochemical facilities and research, but I'm more interested in how PM found out specific details about it. That would be a better question.

    2. Re:What do you need bio for? by ajenteks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A nuke is just one egg in a basket. Biochemical weapons do have their advantages, i.e. you can't expose some potential "refugees" with radiation and then have them "escape" from your side of the border to freedom. Give refugees something nasty like small pox though, and hypothetically, that'd be a lot cheaper and possibly more effective than a nuke.

    3. Re:What do you need bio for? by xQx · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, to quote the late Bill Hicks...

      George Bush: "We know they've got weapons of mass destruction"
      Public: "How do you know?"
      George: "Uhh... we looked at the reciept..."

    4. Re:What do you need bio for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically it depends on what your after.

      If your after land and structures, nukes aren't going to win it for you.

      Nukes destroy everything. Biological and you have a way of killing a large population while leaving the infrastructure intact.

      Now if you have the antidote, it allows you to make your people immune and take out a large portion of the enemies population.

      Say you introduce the antidote into your own water supply, ensure all your soldiers are taken care of, give a few months to take root into your people.
      Now, send it to the enemy.

      Most of the population taken out in a short period of time, making take over that much easier.

      However, this is just absolutely perfect for nanomachines to do.

      Say, create a nanomachine with GPS capability, launch it in a balloon over a population, it'll kill everything within a specific geological range.

    5. Re:What do you need bio for? by fbjon · · Score: 1

      But those refugees will go to/through China, and someone might not like that very much at all.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    6. Re:What do you need bio for? by webrunner · · Score: 1

      but I'm more interested in how PM found out specific details about it. They're popular

      The popular can do whatever they want!
      --
      ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
    7. Re:What do you need bio for? by Unlucke · · Score: 2, Funny

      If that happens, imagine the 'Always Low Prices!' at Walmart. They'd skyrocket from dirt cheap to just plain cheap.

    8. Re:What do you need bio for? by Entropy · · Score: 1
      One nuke trumps all the bio.


      On the contrary, if humanity had a full on nuclear war right now it would survive. Sure, we'd lose three or four billion, but we'd still have two or three, and the southern hemisphere would be largely fine. The northern would be okay to repopulate in not too long, as the hotspots would be contained.

      But a few grams of the correct germ, with initial placement for it's full impact? 12 monkeys (or The Stand, or 28 Days Later &c &c ) would look like happy days.
      --
      The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
    9. Re:What do you need bio for? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Maybe the IRS ought to have a look also? :-)

      --
      What?
    10. Re:What do you need bio for? by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      Really? 2 lbs of Botulin toxin is enough to kill every human being on the planet.

    11. Re:What do you need bio for? by antonyb · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...or get rid of all of Courtney Cox's wrinkles.

      ant.

    12. Re:What do you need bio for? by Unlucke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Holy crap, that is so wrong... You're right, I probably should have worded it better. Still funny though. But on a serious note, if NK does collapse, and refugees pour into China who are possibly carrying infectious diseases, you can't deny that the world's economy would take a hit. I mean let's face it, companies are setting up manufacturing plants in China because of the labor force being so cheap (compared to the US, UK, EU, etc.). This whole thing is like firing a gun just to get rid of a bullet, but it's aimed at your head. Sure the gun is now empty, but now you're dead. Either way you look at it, when the situation over there finally gets "solved," no ones going to be a winner.
    13. Re:What do you need bio for? by mvdwege · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now try spreading 2lbs. of botulin toxin across the entire planet.

      Hmmm. You seem to have come up with a new concept: homeopathic bioweapons. Congratulations!

      Mart
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    14. Re:What do you need bio for? by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      And, though I hate to be cynical... do we even know these are actually valid allegations?

      Hmmm, no evidence, sources or names offered in support... I mean, sure Kim Jong Il's a dangerous madman, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's got Chemo-Biological Weapons.

      I mean, Bush and Saddam were both power-hungry madmen, and in spite of all the rhetoric we know now that only the winning madman ever actually had WMDs, right?

      It's kind of depressing these days that when you read about some small country in the arse-end of nowhere run by a nutter researching WMDs, the first thought is:

      "Well yeah, we know the Neocons are itching to go after someone else now. Iran's old hat and public opinion's already against it before they could even started, and Syria's playing ball more now. North Korea's pretty much the only high-profile Axis of Evil member left, and it's tiny and nobody gives a shit about them because KJI's self-evidently insane anyway.

      Now, NK's isolationist, so there's no likelihood of an invasion to provoke us, and the terrorist angle won't really fly after Iraq either. NK's already got nukes, so a nuclear weapons program won't work as a reason. Pretty much the only thing left that's useful as an excuse to go to war is CBWs... and here's a story about NK's secret, hush-hush, here's-why-you've-never-heard-about-it-before CBW infrastructure.

      Hmmm."

      And only the second one is: "Man, if he has them I hope we take them away quick".

      But seriously - can we either have an article with sources apart from vague and unaccountable "intelligence sources believe" or always-truthful "defectors say", or just write this kind of mush off as yet more misinformation, known falsehood and agenda-laden misrepresentation that the USA and UK governments now routinely spew to get the proles on-side for the next war?

      I for one am sick of having to first work out if news is misinformation put out by my own government, or a genuine story that I should pay attention to.

      This is not how a democracy should work.

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    15. Re:What do you need bio for? by Cstryon · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, a nuke will take out a city faster then Bio weapons would. But Bio weapons (Being very dirty at first) is generally easier to clean up after. When the plagues and what not settles down, and the population dies out, Nk's can march in and occupy the city with out having to build anything new. It's all there for the taking. So Say NK drops a dirty bomb on Vegas (Assuming we americans don't try to take vegas back). Everyone in Vegas gets sick, population dies, and NK has a nice pretty city for the taking.

      --
      Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
    16. Re:What do you need bio for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about AIDS type infection transmited by sneazing which doesn't even provoke sneazing? Oh my your temperature is up. Must be a flu.... Take a couple tylenol! Feeling better? Good! (+1000 soon to be dead cariers). By the time someone figures out whole world will be infected.

  3. To quote from B5 by metlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I suppose there'll be a war now, hm? All that running around and shooting one another. You'd think that sooner or later, it would go out of fashion."

    - Londo Mollari

    Great, one more country has one more way of killing several large number of people in one go.

    One would think that sooner or later we'd stop this crap.

    Sorry, just a little frustrated with the fact that every time I have looked at news the past week, there is killing and murder and unrest everywhere. Bah.

    1. Re:To quote from B5 by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Only in the past week? Where is the rock that you live under?

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:To quote from B5 by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that the news is like that every week. I know how you feel, it's very frustrating when all they show is blood, death, gore, and sensationalism. I guess they think that will get them better ratings, I dunno... It only gets worse when they bring in "experts" to "analyze" the situation. Eeesh. I just want the facts so I can make up my own mind, I don't need some crooked politician or retarded movie star trying to tell me what I should be thinking.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    3. Re:To quote from B5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      killing several large number of people in one go.

      Actually, it's been proven time and time again that chemical weapons suck. If you want to kill people, pack your sarin-delivering shell with gunpowder, and it'll kill more people. Subway attacks are the classic best case scenario for chemical attacks and 5 Aum Shinrikyo attacks managed to kill a whopping 12 people.

      Terrorists love it when everyone flips out over them though since they can induce a lot of fear with the minimum of work.

    4. Re:To quote from B5 by metlin · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

    5. Re:To quote from B5 by metlin · · Score: 1

      But not bio-weapons.

      Those are truly scary. Can you imagine an outbreak of a strain of smallpox that cannot be controlled?

      And chemical weapons combined with traditional weapons can wreak more havoc than, say, gunpowder alone.

    6. Re:To quote from B5 by kfg · · Score: 1

      every time I have looked at news the past week, there is killing and murder and unrest everywhere. Bah.

      The solution is simple and obvious; send in the UN Peace Keeping Forces.

      "We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill."

      KFG

    7. Re:To quote from B5 by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
      But not bio-weapons.

      Those are truly scary. Can you imagine an outbreak of a strain of smallpox that cannot be controlled?

      And chemical weapons combined with traditional weapons can wreak more havoc than, say, gunpowder alone.

      Oh my, the sky is falling. We better invade them RIGHT NOW before their heathen commie biologics compromise the purity of our bodily fluids.

      Naw. No oil in North Korea. Our regularly scheduled jihad against Iran is still on...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    8. Re:To quote from B5 by xero314 · · Score: 1
      Can you imagine an outbreak of a strain of smallpox that cannot be controlled?
      Not really an issue unless they get around the CCR5 delta 32 mutation immunization. Well, at least for some of us.
    9. Re:To quote from B5 by bendodge · · Score: 0

      Some of us = almost nobody. Ever since somebody (I think the WHO) declared smallpox exterminated, it has only been known to exist in labs (and maybe the dark jungles of Africa). And now nobody is vaccinated against a disease you can't catch.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    10. Re:To quote from B5 by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > "I suppose there'll be a war now, hm? All that running around and shooting one another. You'd think that sooner or later, it would go out of fashion."
      > - Londo Mollari

      Sooner or later we'll stop this crap? Sorry, we don't get to decide. I'll see your Londo and raise you a Kosh:

      "The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."

    11. Re:To quote from B5 by JM78 · · Score: 1

      One would think that sooner or later we'd stop this crap.

      LOL. A look at the last century of modern warfare and everybody laughs and points in your direction. Really. Human getting over violence? Riiight.

      --
      I am Jack's smirking revenge.
    12. Re:To quote from B5 by damiangerous · · Score: 1

      No, it's not about a vaccination. About 10% of Europeans are immune to smallpox (and resistant to HIV) thanks to the Black Plague.

    13. Re:To quote from B5 by shaitand · · Score: 1

      tsk tsk, it has nothing to do with the oil. Well, okay, maybe it has a little to do with the oil. Alright, alright, maybe it has a lot to do with the oil. But you also have to remember, North Koreans aren't muslims. It wouldn't be a proper crusade if the christians weren't fighting muslims, now would it?

    14. Re:To quote from B5 by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      The weird part is they don't actually show you the blood, death, gore and destruction. Not really. Try watching Al-Jazeera to confirm what I'm saying. They actually show the bloody battles and what the after-effects are. The US candy coats everything with fluffy language and new 'terms' to describe what is taking place, and leaves it to your weak imagination to fill in the details (which is probably why so many people felt so good about the war in Iraq, or at least enough to re-elect the fucknuts we still have in office)

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    15. Re:To quote from B5 by jimicus · · Score: 1
      I like the discussion put forward in the Red Dwarf book (unfortunately never used in the TV series):


      They [humans] disagreed about politics, religion, philosophy - everything. And the reason was this: basically, all human beings believed all other human beings were insane, in varying degrees ...................
      Small wonder, then, that homo sapiens spent most of their short time on Earth waging war with one another.

      For their first few thousand years on the planet they did little else, and they discovered two things that were rather curious: the first was that when they were at war, they agreed more. Whole nations agreed that other nations were insane, and they agreed that the mutually beneficial solution was to band together to eliminate the loonies. For many people, it was the most agreeable period of their lives, because, apart from a brief period on New Year's Eve (which, incidentally, no-one could agree the date of), the only time human beings lived happily side by side was when they were trying to kill one another.

      Then, in the middle of the twentieth century, the human race hit a major problem. It got so good at war, it couldn't have one anymore.

      It had spent so much time practising and perfecting the art of genocide, developing more and more lethal devices for mass destruction, that conducting a war without obliterating the planet and everything on it became an impossibility.
    16. Re:To quote from B5 by ikandi · · Score: 1

      Rubbish. The high kill scenario is using the water fog system in a stadium, hence the extraordinary security around these systems at the Oz Olympics.

    17. Re:To quote from B5 by Raenex · · Score: 1
      Try watching Al-Jazeera to confirm what I'm saying. They actually show the bloody battles and what the after-effects are.

      Do they show the bloody mess caused by suicide bombers in Israel as well? Children blown to bits and all that? Maybe they do, and if so, good for them, but I'm guessing they don't.

  4. Popular Mechanics? by LibertarianWackJob · · Score: 4, Funny

    So could we replace the CIA with the staff from Popular Mechanics?

    --
    What? ®
    1. Re:Popular Mechanics? by iamlucky13 · · Score: 4, Informative

      As someone who grew up on a big stack of Popular Mechanics, I hate to say it, but "in-depth" and "Popular Mechanics" are two terms that haven't worked well together in a sentence for years, arguably decades. A much better source of information is www.globalsecurity.org or fas.org. In fact, looking through their section on North Korea's WMD, I see that the Popular Mechanics author basically paraphrased their write-up, giving his article all the quality and broad research base of any good internet blog.

      Another nice aspect of globalsecurity and the Federation of American Scientists, is that both maintain rather extensive databases of information on weapon systems. For example, if after reading the article, I want to know how far a chemical weapon-equipped Scud could deliver it's payload, I can look that up, too.

    2. Re:Popular Mechanics? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So could we replace the CIA with the staff from Popular Mechanics?

      I agree that if one thought this was actually news, then hearing it from Popular Mechanics might seem a little odd. But this is hardly news. Of course NK has been been doing this stuff for decades. And just like every major intel agency on the planet knew that Saddam was (at various times, in various amounts) hiding stuff, they all know that NK has stuff. Unlike Saddam, NK hasn't yet trotted it out and used it on an ethnic minority at the edge of their country, or decided to try (since the 1950s) to invade south. So we haven't had the disruption of a NATO-ish smackdown (a la post-Kuwait) to slow down their hobby.

      But if you think that the CIA (or MI6, etc) is any more precisely aware of the exact state of these programs in NK than they were about what Saddam specifically had still sitting around (or where, and what was shipped off to Syria, or not), then you're mistaken. NK is notoriously difficult to infiltrate, that way. That place is a horror show.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Popular Mechanics? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I love how everyone shivers at how terrible and evil communist NK is. Their nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare programs ALL pale in comparison to our own. Our weapons grade corrosive sarin's dad could kick their sarin's dad's ass.

    4. Re:Popular Mechanics? by Stephen+Tennant · · Score: 1

      This is pretty late, but Defensetech is pretty sweet too.

      --
      I spend most of my time in bed, darling.
    5. Re:Popular Mechanics? by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I love how everyone shivers at how terrible and evil communist NK is. Their nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare programs ALL pale in comparison to our own. Our weapons grade corrosive sarin's dad could kick their sarin's dad's ass.

      Um, yeah... except that we aren't living in cruel Stalinist dictatorship that's starving its people, running forced labor camps to control population, and threateningly launching missles at and over neighboring countries. The "Dear Leader" is an absolute loon in charge of a vast, starving, standing army. That army is regularly told that it's going to be attacked at any moment (since the Koren War isn't over, really). Much like Iran's regular references to wiping other countries off the map, NK is actively, regularly doing and saying really unsettling. Crazy crap. They counterfeit currency from all of the world and use nationally flagged vessels to carry heroin and other smuggled goods around the world so that the D.L. can buy contraband western niceties from the same western countries that he curses and with whom he makes bogus diplomatic agreements.

      It's really not the same as a country, like ours, that regularly changes out its cilivian and military leadership and has tight military relations with more than one other country. NK's got a luke-warm relationship with the very parasitic NK.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Popular Mechanics? by BluedemonX · · Score: 1

      RE: Um, yeah... except that we aren't living in cruel Stalinist dictatorship that's starving its people,

      No, we're living in a neocon capitalist dictatorship where "the decider" can't seem to clue in most people thinking he's doing a crap job. The Constitution is just "a piece of paper" and what's left in it is being shredded by PATRIOT and other ruses tossed into other bills quietly tucked into some corner somewhere.

      RE: running forced labor camps to control population,

      I wonder if that's more deadly than an inner city ghetto, which various authorities import heroin and crack into, to finance wet ops elsewhere.

      RE: and threateningly launching missles at and over neighboring countries.

      Versus invading a country to boost poll numbers, using a complete web of everchanging lies.

      RE: The "Dear Leader" is an absolute loon in charge of a vast, starving, standing army.

      As opposed to "the decider", an ex-alcoholic ex-cokehead with a nuclear arsenal that could vaporize the planet many times over?

      RE: That army is regularly told that it's going to be attacked at any moment (since the Koren War isn't over, really).

      Versus Republican fearmongering that now, right now, terrorists might have designs on the Stuckey's in Midlanowhere, Iowa, so we'd better tear up the Bill of Rights and open torture camps RIGHT NOW? Because the Iraq war technically never ended either...

      RE: Much like Iran's regular references to wiping other countries off the map,

      Versus our saber rattling in Iran, Syria, Iraq...

      RE: NK is actively, regularly doing and saying really unsettling. Crazy crap. They counterfeit currency from all of the world and use nationally flagged vessels to carry heroin and other smuggled goods around the world so that the D.L. can buy contraband western niceties from the same western countries that he curses and with whom he makes bogus diplomatic agreements.

      That's chicken feed compared to what Western governments sometimes do, I'm sure.

      RE: It's really not the same as a country, like ours, that regularly changes out its cilivian and military leadership and has tight military relations with more than one other country. NK's got a luke-warm relationship with the very parasitic NK.

      Of course, sometimes we replace a middle aged white Skull and Bones member indebted to the military industrial complex for another middle aged white Skull and Bones member indebted to the military indusrial complex. Meanwhile the same spooks and generals and other X-files types run the show day to day while the talking heads change marginally.

      Please keep this up, it's really quite comical.

      --

      --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
    7. Re:Popular Mechanics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot. Seriously. Please kill yourself now and set the universe back into balance.

    8. Re:Popular Mechanics? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot. Seriously. Please kill yourself now and set the universe back into balance.

      You're right. I don't know what I was thinking. The U.S. and other western democracies really are exactly the same as North Korea. Silly me! The universe really would be more in balance if that basic truth were made more clear to kids in grade school. Our imperial colony in Japan, which we rule with an iron fist, should stop fretting about its crazy neighbor on the peninsula, since it turns out we're all the same after all. What a relief!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re:Popular Mechanics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't directed at you. I've read your comments on a few threads and agree with many of the things you say. I was referring to the other guy that was implying some sort of moral parity between America and North Korea. I guess we got mixed up. High fives.

    10. Re:Popular Mechanics? by BluedemonX · · Score: 1

      Posted by anonymous coward. Speaks volumes.

      For the record, the US is responsible for more war deaths this year than North Korea.

      Also for the record, the US is not a democracy, it's a Republic. Get a clue.

      --

      --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
    11. Re:Popular Mechanics? by Milican · · Score: 1

      For the record, you would not know how many people are being tortured and killed in North Korea. In addition, why are these people being killed? For dissention? To be experimented on as the article mentions?

      On forced labor camps, how is that equivalent to the ghetto at all? The ghetto is the ghetto because of a lack of jobs in that community. So its more like an anti-labor camp. So I think the comparison between the two is totally off base.

      We are at war in Iraq so of course there are going to be casualties caused by that. There may be more or may be less than North Korea, but name one other country that spends millions of dollars on one bomb to blow up a mud shack with our enemies in it. We could easily carpet bomb, nuke, or use chemical warfare (as Hussein and Chemical Ali did) the city and it would be way cheaper, but we don't. Why do we do it? Because we're the United States of America and we have the technology, money, and humanity to try and limit collateral damage to civilian populations.

      In the US you do have the right to free speech, and you have clearly exercised that right. You also have a right to a free press and I don't think you are exercising that right enough (do more research on your claims). If you truly feel President Bush and our government is equivalent to, or maybe even more evil than North Korea, I challenge you to move there and see how different they really are.

      I was a little confused on the distinction between a Representative Democracy and a Republic. They seem kinda close in definition. Wikipedia and Encarta are confused too as Encarta calls the United States a Representative Democracy and Wikipedia calls the United States a Republic. So please feel free to enlighten me on the distinction.

      JOhn

    12. Re:Popular Mechanics? by BluedemonX · · Score: 1

      RE: For the record, you would not know how many people are being tortured and killed in North Korea. In addition, why are these people being killed? For dissention? To be experimented on as the article mentions?

      Does it really matter? Does the ideology matter? Do you think some Arab's mother gives a crap about the supposed Fight For Freedom that resulted in the loss of all four of her three year old's limbs? Difference is, Kim Jong Il kills his own people, we kill our own and other people.

      RE: On forced labor camps, how is that equivalent to the ghetto at all?

      Both are necessary, and the people who are in both don't choose to be there. Both have very high death rates, especially infant mortality.

      RE: The ghetto is the ghetto because of a lack of jobs in that community. So its more like an anti-labor camp. So I think the comparison between the two is totally off base.

      For there to be incentive to work demeaning minimum wage jobs, there must be the unemployed to point at and say "this could be you".

      RE: We are at war in Iraq so of course there are going to be casualties caused by that. There may be more or may be less than North Korea, but name one other country that spends millions of dollars on one bomb to blow up a mud shack with our enemies in it. We could easily carpet bomb, nuke, or use chemical warfare (as Hussein and Chemical Ali did)

      With weapons we provided for them. Are you starting to see how much damage we do worldwide?

      RE: the city and it would be way cheaper, but we don't. Why do we do it? Because we're the United States of America and we have the technology, money, and humanity to try and limit collateral damage to civilian populations.

      Are you freaking nuts? We're spending obscene amounts of money to enrich Halliburton, not because we care how many "Hajis" we're killing.

      RE: If you truly feel President Bush and our government is equivalent to, or maybe even more evil than North Korea, I challenge you to move there and see how different they really are.

      Evil? No. Dangerous? Yes.

      RE: I was a little confused on the distinction between a Representative Democracy and a Republic. They seem kinda close in definition. Wikipedia and Encarta are confused too as Encarta calls the United States a Representative Democracy [msn.com] and Wikipedia calls the United States a Republic [wikipedia.org]. So please feel free to enlighten me on the distinction.

      I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands.....

      Dude, this is a Republic. End of story. We have a rule of law and an indirect rule by people (Electoral college????) as opposed to direct running of government, which can and does turn into mob rule. A democracy by definition is direct involvement in government, which we do not have. Ah hell, just read this http://users.law.capital.edu/dmayer/Blog/blogIndex .asp?entry=20050606.asp

      --

      --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
  5. more WMD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to invade! Why not? Look how well it worked against the other member of the axis-of-evil...

  6. Lets go to war... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can see that North Korea has a good deal of intelligence, or wait they just read the newspapers. They realize that at this point the US cannot go to war, as they are so indebted from the 'war on terror'. Now with the threat of war with Iran, if they were to develop a strong weapons program (which they now have), there is nothing the US can do about it, putting them in a good position to do just about whatever they want. Maybe we should stop hunting some guy in a cave and wake up to what is really going on in the world...

    1. Re:Lets go to war... by pinqkandi · · Score: 1

      Are you really suggesting to just stop hunting for Bin Laden? Ridiculous.

    2. Re:Lets go to war... by dreddnott · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're 100% correct that we're fairly strapped for cash because of Iraq, as Bush has spent the combined budget for a full-fledged moon colony and a manned Mars expedition (which he promised in what, 2001? 2002?) in Iraq, with far less impressive results, but do you really think we've been hunting Osama bin Laden for even the last three or four years? Give me a break. Some people believe he may have even died of natural causes in 2002 but that sounds a bit far-fetched.

      Just our luck that Bush's dad "had it out" with the one secular Arab nation in the Middle East, with the most advanced womens' rights, that didn't directly support al Qaeda, the one that didn't have any nuclear proliferation capabilities, as opposed to Pakistan, India, Iran, and North Korea, and as I imagine, many more in the future. Boomers are going to have childhood flashbacks of Bert the Turtle ducking and covering for the foreseeable future.

      It's also worth noting that North Korea has one of the largest armies in the world (bigger than the People's Republic of China if you count reserves!), and if they do indeed possess chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, this would be very different from invading a sandbox that couldn't even fight off Iran (with our help).

      --
      I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
    3. Re:Lets go to war... by Grave · · Score: 1

      Given that there is definitive proof of North Korean WMDs (they didn't fake that nuke test), there won't be a traditional land invasion of that country. If it comes time to take out Kim Jong Il, the attack will consist of special forces and a nuclear backup plan.

    4. Re:Lets go to war... by dreddnott · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm pretty sure it would be impossible for the US to do it any other way, unless North Korea went insane, invaded South Korea and somehow managed to get themselves dug in pretty good within a few days' time.

      I'm pretty sure a lot of people would move to Canada faster than you can say "Hello, Selective Service!"

      --
      I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
    5. Re:Lets go to war... by Bertie · · Score: 1

      Stopping hunting for him would imply that they ever started.

      (Whisper it: he's dead. Has been for years. But they need a bogeyman, an Immanuel Goldstein, and he's the man in the frame)

    6. Re:Lets go to war... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      You're 100% correct that we're fairly strapped for cash because of Iraq,

      Nonsense. The US Federal budget for 2008 is planned to be $2.9 trillion. The US defense budget is only on the order of $400 billion. The incremental cost of operations in Iraq is only another $100 billion. The main budget problem is social welfare spending, not the war.

      the one that didn't have any nuclear proliferation capabilities

      Iraq had a very advanced nuclear program in 1991 with a bomb only 18-30 months away.

      but do you really think we've been hunting Osama bin Laden for even the last three or four years?

      Yes. One man who doesn't use electronics hiding amongst a friendly population in a mountain country full of tunnels isn't easy to find. There are fugitives in the US that go for decades without being caught.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    7. Re:Lets go to war... by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      According to the WP, the FY 2007 bugdet for welfare is only about 600 billions, and being cut all the time, whereas defence and homeland security are being increased. In a few years they will be on par.

    8. Re:Lets go to war... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1


      Take welfare and add in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, etc. The total is huge and will be an increasing percentage of total spending due to the retiring baby boom generation.

      If anything bankrupts the US it will be social welfare spending, not military spending.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    9. Re:Lets go to war... by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      "The Concept of Social Welfare" != "The line item in the budget called Welfare"
      See it's got that word "Social" in front of it that lets you know he's talking about something different.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    10. Re:Lets go to war... by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Read the WP article, I believe the 600 billion cover what you said, but I might be wrong.

      My own take is that military spending is humongous and achieves little (cue Iraq), not to mention its questionable morality (porkbarreling, the shady militaro-industrial complex and the questionable ethics of building armament and using it effectively on civilians). In contrast, the money spent on welfare goes back to the economy via a direct route.

      The babyboomers can well retire, they have contributed to the US economy in an amazing fashion during their productive years. The US is in no immediate danger of losing its workforce, millions are poundings at the gates to get in should the country start producing fewer babies. I wouldn't worry.

      If anything bankrupts the US, it will be thinking it can effectively police the world and start invading a half dozen Iraqs at once. Its economy will be bankrupt and its morals as well.

  7. Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by PateraSilk · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Funny... a bioweapons program in N. Korea? With nukes and everything? Real, tangible weapons of mass destruction? With a prosperous true democracy only minutes away? Where's the sabre-rattling? Why hasn't Colin Powell been dispatched to the UN? How come Condi's not talking about mushroom clouds?

    Yeah, Iraq had nothing to do with Bush's daddy.

    --
    Danke tres mucho, tovarishch.
    1. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The difference is that North Korea has China backing them up. I assure you that if, say, Russia (or any other real threat) had backed up Iraq, we would have stayed out.

      Although, China has been making moves to distance themselves from N.K. recently. but until they do, they'll be off limits. Both of my grandfathers fought in the last Korean war, and as one of them put it "Frequently, we'd run out of machine gun bullets before they ran out of troops to throw at us"

    2. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Informative

      How long 'til Bush Bashing is considered Karma Whoring? God knows that being a conservative is one way ticket to "Troll", "Flamebait" and my all time favorite, "Overrated".

      Back to your comment:
      Funny... a bioweapons program in N. Korea? With nukes and everything? Real, tangible weapons of mass destruction? With a prosperous true democracy only minutes away? Where's the sabre-rattling? Why hasn't Colin Powell been dispatched to the UN? How come Condi's not talking about mushroom clouds?

      Well, if Bush hadn't received so much shit for the last war, he might be a bit more willing to go at it again. I'm sure the last thing the administration wants to give you guys another reason to protest for impeachment.

      Also, and more importantly, there's a boat-load in S. Korea and Japan that are quietly praying the problem will go away. The governments in these countries don't want us to do anything about it right now because they know their cities will either glow in the dark or sit under a cloud of poisonous fumes. On the other hand, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia wanted Saddam Hussein gone and encouraged us to take action.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by nojomofo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, if Bush hadn't received so much shit for the last war, he might be a bit more willing to go at it again. I'm sure the last thing the administration wants to give you guys another reason to protest for impeachment.

      Wait, wait, wait.... You're blaming the left wing (and centrists, too, for that matter) for trying to hold Bush accountable for all of the lying and whatnot? Perhaps if his administration hadn't done it with Iraq, he wouldn't be blamed for it, and he'd be more willing to go after North Korea. Don't try to pass the blame - Bush and his administration are the ones who cried wolf, it's not the townspeoples' fault that they're not rushing in to save him this time.

    4. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, go light on W. He's got a SHITLOAD of your mail to open this week...

    5. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Jtheletter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My thoughts exactly, maybe if any of the myriad and ever-shifting reasons given as justification for the Iraq war were true then people wouldn't be giving this administration "so much shit for the last war."

      Although unfortunately with the situation in N. Korea there is the added problem that S. Korea is basically a hostage (well within missle range), and Seoul with its ten million or so citizens will likely face annihilation should hostilities begin in the region. :/ Still, the hypocracy is deep with this one.

      Also of note, the National Defense Authorization Act passed in October 2006 required Bush to appoint a Policy Coordinator to deal directly with N.K. issues within 60 days, that date has come and gone and the post remains unfilled.

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    6. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wait, wait, wait.... You're blaming the left wing (and centrists, too, for that matter) for trying to hold Bush accountable for all of the lying and whatnot? Perhaps if his administration hadn't done it with Iraq, he wouldn't be blamed for it, and he'd be more willing to go after North Korea. Don't try to pass the blame - Bush and his administration are the ones who cried wolf, it's not the townspeoples' fault that they're not rushing in to save him this time.

      Blame the intelligence services for all of the lying and whatnot as it was more that Bush that thought Iraq had NEW WMD's. (We found plenty of the old ones that had been "destroyed", but not the stockpiles required to make the headlines.) And, quite frankly, it wasn't just the WMD's. It was the soon to be disbanded Oil for food program, the firing on American and allied planes and soldiers, the assassination attempt of a former US President, and the 1.5 million innocent people killed by Hussein. Of course we need not forget Putin telling GWB that Russian intel believed that Iraq was planning an attack in the US. After all the flack that GWB took for not stopping 9-11 when there was intel, no matter how vague (Presidential Daily Brief: Al Qaeda determined to attack in the US), I understand why we attacked Iraq. If you bashed Bush for not stopping 9-11, then you really can't honestly bash him for attacking Iraq.

      Besides, since we have the same intel on N. Korea that we have on Iraq, why would you support attacking N. Korea and NOT support attacking Iraq?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    7. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Even more comforting is that these stockpiles are under the control of a mad man who has gone on record saying something to the extent of "if we are losing a war I'm going to try to destroy the planet and take everybody down with me".

      Why exactly has this nutjob NOT been assasinated yet? If not by the US, then how about by one of the other countries that hate them, such as South Korea, China or Japan? I'm sure the rest of the world would be willing to look the other way. A nice double-tap to the head and a post-it note on his corpse threatening anybody who tries to fill his shoes is all that would be needed.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    8. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Known as the "Zapp Brannigan Manuever"

    9. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might be onto something, except for the daddy thing. We can invade N. Korea next, then Iran and if we come up short on manpower we can manufacture robots to do the invasion for us.

    10. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by nojomofo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So you're drinking the kool-aid and blaming the "intelligence failures" on the intelligence services? Not the administration, who attempted to discredit Valerie Plame's husband and his report that there was nothing to the Nigerian yellowcake story by outing her as a spy? And failed to listen to Hans Blix, who "accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix ). Maybe you should just admit that this was what Bush wanted, he did everything he could to make it happen, and it's his fault.

    11. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      The only people I remember talking about Iraq having WMDs were Bush and Blair. The US intelligence services, once you actually got a hold of the actual briefings, were very circumspect in their analysis. Everything was full of maybe's, there is a possibility, it could be, etc. There never, ever was an intelligence brief that showed a smoking gun.

      As for foreign services talking about WMDs, do you have a quote? All I remember from every international news source (quoting both elected and intelligence officials) is that they thought the WMD charge was bogus.

      Bush deserves full blame for the Iraq war, based on his lying (no other explanation really comes close to explaining his flip-flopping) and the complete absence of an actual reason to invade another country (that he was a bad guy had been known since the days that Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam in the eighties).

      Finally, nobody's talking about invading North Korea. Which is kinda the point.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    12. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      The simple, serious, answer to all your questions is "Seoul".

      Until you understand this, you have no business saying anything at all about any policy towards North Korea.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    13. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by goga_russian · · Score: 0

      all this Condi talk makes me want her more. just for laughs, too many boring stories like "oh yeah we have the reciepts"

      --
      Dont Judge The situation by the Misfortunate. Goga.
    14. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      we have the same intel on N. Korea that we have on Iraq

      I must have missed the memo. When did Saddam Hussein announce the successful test of a nuclear bomb, and when did seismographs worldwide confirm this?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    15. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Insightful
      S. Korea is basically a hostage (well within missle range), and Seoul with its ten million or so citizens will likely face annihilation should hostilities begin in the region.

      Seoul is within *artillery* range of NK and NK has the capacity to bombard it with hundreds of thousands of rounds of artillery *per hour* until that capacity is destroyed. On the first day of fighting, there would probably be more than a million SK casualties. And these would be *first-world citizen* casualties, not third-world casualties taht nobody cares about. This is why there has not been and will not be an invasion of NK. The costs would be too high, even if NK didn't have nukes or bio-chems.

    16. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if Bush hadn't received so much shit for the last war, he might be a bit more willing to go at it again.

      If the only thing keeping Bush from a war with North Korea is the criticism he received with respect to Iraq then that criticism was well worth it. A war with North Korea would be a really really Bad Idea.

      I'm sure the last thing the administration wants to give you guys another reason to protest for impeachment.

      Huh? Since when has the Bush administration even noticed that there were protests?

    17. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by ArcherB · · Score: 1
      So you're drinking the kool-aid and blaming the "intelligence failures" on the intelligence services? Not the administration, who attempted to discredit Valerie Plame's husband and his report that there was nothing to the Nigerian yellowcake story by outing her as a spy? And failed to listen to Hans Blix, who "accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix ). Maybe you should just admit that this was what Bush wanted, he did everything he could to make it happen, and it's his fault.

      You mean this that we should have listened to this Hans Blix:
      Blix said he views the U.S.-North Korea agreed framework as "a way of
      promoting the implementation of the safeguards agreement" which already
      exists between the IAEA and the DPRK. It was Pyongyang's announcement that
      it was withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
      together with its threat to suspend permission for IAEA inspectors to carry
      1ut their safeguards work, that triggered the North Korean nuclear crisis
      in March 1993.

      And from your Wiki Link:
      Hans Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games [3] and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission [4].

      What possible consequences could Blix have been referring to? What "serious consequences" would have worked?

      Frontline had an excellent documentary about intelligence failures. While it was certainly not friendly to the current administration, it told of a meeting between Bush and George Tenet, director of the CIA. The president read the report and said, "Is this all we have?" Tenet responded with, It's a "slam dunk"

      So the cool-aid you claim I'm drinking is backed by PBS. Hardly a bastion of right-wing ideology. Maybe you should look into your own cup and see what's in there.
      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    18. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      The difference is that North Korea has China backing them up

      Where else can China sell oil at above market rates with no competition from anyone else? The two countries trade, but when it comes down to it, China does not like North Korea much and has a lot of troops on the border. However, any military action so close to China would make them very paranoid and if handled the wrong way would get China involved.

      Many (not including the poster above) still haven't learned the blatantly obvious message from Vietnam which has parallels here. There were idiots right to the top that thought Nth Vietnam was run out of the Kremlin and other idiots that thought it was run out of Beijing - while the reality was it was run out of Vietnam by people playing the USSR and China against each other to get help.

    19. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Well, if Bush hadn't received so much shit for the last war, he might be a bit more willing to go at it again

      This has been going on for longer than he has been President so I consider that remark irrevelevent. He also did talk about rogue states when he first came to office.

    20. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Why exactly has this nutjob NOT been assasinated yet?

      Becuase then you may get a worse nutjob with full support of a greiving nation looking for vengance. It's also the sort of idiocy that started WWI and other things.

      Individuals do not count as much as hero worshippers think - as an example the fighting in Iraq has had nothing to do with Saddam since he hid in a hole in the ground a long time ago.

    21. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why exactly has this nutjob NOT been assasinated yet?

      For one thing, it's not clear that he has any real power.

      If any of the three "axis" of evil leaders (Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) were to (have) scale(d) back their military and transitioned their country to democracy they would be heroes throughout most of the world. They could (have) probably even arrange some sort of luxurious hereditary ceremonial position for themselves and their descendants along the lines of the English monarchy. The thing is, of the three, only Saddam Hussein had sufficient power to accomplish such a transition. Ahmadinejad has very little real power at all. Kim Jong Il has more power but if he tried to transition North Korea to democracy he would most likely find himself out of power (and probably dead) at the hands of other communist party and military leaders who are unwilling to give up their own power.

    22. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The president read the report and said, "Is this all we have?" Tenet responded with, It's a "slam dunk"

      Do you seriously believe that a president should make a decision of that gravity on the basis of a single report and a one-liner from a career politician who obviously knows on which side his bread is buttered?

    23. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Phil-14 · · Score: 1

      The point regarding Iraq was to stop them before they managed to get an entrenched detterent, which North Korea already has.

      You speak of South Korea... you realize, should war break out there, the US doesn't have any way of defending South Korea from the use of these weapons?

      --
      (currently testing something about signatures here)
    24. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah ... 007 stuff. See, besides the small issue of it being a crime, the assassination of people in power in a totalitarian system from the outside is difficult and pointless. Despite what you've seen in the movies, or read in the pulp fiction section, neither James Bond, nor the operatives of Jack Ryan have ability to reach into the bedroom of the dictator and finish him there.

      The dictator is protected by a motivated group of people who have the resources of their country to their disposal. To kill the leader, you need to recruit someone else from that motivated group. To recruit them, you'll have to give them something in exchange, propagating the regime; or you have to replace them, which seems to have worked very well recently.

    25. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by toddhisattva · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      If you bashed Bush for not stopping 9-11, then you really can't honestly bash him for attacking Iraq.
      You're expecting honesty from Bush bashers?

      If Bush were to cure cancer tomorrow, the bashers would complain he did it for Halliburton, or his daddy, or his daddy's Halliburton.
    26. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Too true. If one million British people would have had to die to bring down Saddam, rest assured Bush would probably arrange a meeting with the fellow. But if it's Iraqis who are dying, who the hell cares.

      I hate how people go on about how some people go on about how taking Saddam down made the world a better place. In terms of human casualty, probably more Americans and British and magnitudes more of Iraqis have died. But as you put it, rather unfortunately, they are poor third world people, so no one cares. (Except me of course).

    27. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by crabpeople · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Thats quite a bit of revisionist history there. Are you a professional spin doctor or is shilling for bush just a hobby?

      Also please cite where sadam hussein killed 1.5 million innocent people. I havent read any sources that claim anywhere above a few hundred thousand (and even those numbers I would consider high, from what Ive read about him).

      "If you bashed Bush for not stopping 9-11, then you really can't honestly bash him for attacking Iraq"

      How does this shit get modded up? OF COURSE YOU CAN! There was no evidence for the war. None. If your an american, you were decieved and are covering up for the liars now (he didnt mean to hit me, he really does care about me!). Its ok, thats one way people cope with being wrong. Everyone whoes not an american however was not brainwashed into thinking anything of the sort. I remember laughing quite hard at the "Double Wide" moble weapons labs, fake anthrax at the un, the aluminium tubes and even his claimed (by usa) ability to put a nuke in a major american city (I believe they indicated he would some how launch a missle that would hit the USA). Yes they tried to scare you, yes you are a sheep and it worked. Get over it and impeach the bastard.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    28. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by ArcherB · · Score: 1
      As for foreign services talking about WMDs, do you have a quote? All I remember from every international news source (quoting both elected and intelligence officials) is that they thought the WMD charge was bogus.

      Frontline had a pretty good documentary on this the other night. While it was actually a bit slated to left, it explained where much of the intel came from. Here is another example:
      The first of several sensitive reports crossing his desk was from a foreign intelligence service source "who had direct access to Saddam and his inner circle." The source said "Iraq was aggressively and covertly developing (a nuclear weapon)." (Saddam's nuclear weapons) committee members assured Saddam that once fissile material was in hand, a bomb could be ready in 18 to 24 months."


      Bush deserves full blame for the Iraq war, based on his lying (no other explanation really comes close to explaining his flip-flopping) and the complete absence of an actual reason to invade another country (that he was a bad guy had been known since the days that Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam in the eighties).
      Did you read the post you responded to. I listed several reasons for going into Iraq, each of them an act of war (attempting to assassinate a former US president for example). And as to the lying the claim, it's no secret that when Bush asked George Tenet, "is this all we have?" when looking at the Iraqi report, Tenet replied that it was a "slam dunk". Tenet's Wiki article and the Frontline link from above point this out. Don't take my word for it, google "Tenet "Slam Dunk"". You can't honestly call the President a liar for repeating what the Chief of the CIA told him.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    29. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by ArcherB · · Score: 0

      Do you seriously believe that a president should make a decision of that gravity on the basis of a single report and a one-liner from a career politician who obviously knows on which side his bread is buttered?

      This single report was an accumulation of the intelligence we had concerning Iraqi WMD's. So while this was still just one report, it was more like THE report, which is why Bush felt it was a bit thin. Also keep in mind that Tenet was a Clinton appointee, not some politically motivated war-hawk.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    30. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Read this article Bush' Complicit Role in 911 Attack -- HIGH TREASON or any of the many others that claims that Bush should be tried for high treason because he had warnings about 9-11 and did nothing. Do you agree?

      Now read this article Putin says Iraq planned US attack, or any of the many others that say the same thing, and tell me again how Bush lied and there was no evidence for the war.
      You can't say Bush is to blame for doing when supposedly warned about 9-11 and then claim he was wrong for doing something to prevent the next attack.

      Also please cite where sadam hussein killed 1.5 million innocent people. I havent read any sources that claim anywhere above a few hundred thousand (and even those numbers I would consider high, from what Ive read about him).

      According to This Site, millions died in the Iran/Iraq war alone. Other sites claim that 1.5 million died from the "oil-for-food" program because instead of food and medicine, Saddam bought palaces. UNICEF has put the number of child deaths to 500,000.[9] The reasons include lack of medical supplies, malnutrition, and especially disease owing to lack of clean water. (keep in mind, this is just children, and only during the oil-for-food times. There are also several mass graves, gassed Kurds, thousands that just disappeared and the smattering of politicians that stood in his way on his rise to power.)

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    31. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Bertie · · Score: 0, Troll

      Two things:

      1 North Korea has no oil;
      2 North Korea has an army that will fight back.

    32. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point regarding Iraq was to stop them before they managed to get an entrenched detterent,...

      Ultimately, the point was to secure access to Iraq's oil for the corporations associated with the Bush administration.

      The reason WMD came up was because there was the problem that it is a violation of international law (a "war crime") for one country to just go and start a war with another country. There were a bunch of U.N. resolutions that got pretty technical about Iraq and WMD's and inspections and such. The Bush administration figured they could use some technicalities regarding these resolutions to make the war legal under international law (quibbles about "full" compliance with WMD inspections).

      Getting back to your idea about how it's OK for one country to start a war with another country to prevent that country from building up its military capabilities: that sounds real nice if you're the USA and you've already got the most powerful military in the world. It doesn't sound as nice if you're just about any other country in the world. In fact, under international law, that's not a valid justification for starting a war. It's a war crime for one country to start a war with another country unless it is approved by the international community. For the record, the international community was opposed to the US invasion of Iraq at the time of invasion.

      There's also a complicated caveat that a country can start a war as pre-emptive self defense. The vast majority of the time, the international community is the ultimate judge of whether pre-emptive self defense applies. In those cases where the international community is not the ultimate judge, a country would be foolish to start the war pre-emptively. If Iraq had actually had the capability to use WMD against the USA then the USA would have been colossally stupid to invade Iraq.

    33. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does being a "conservative" have to do with Bush?

    34. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by PateraSilk · · Score: 1

      Nice to see I ignited a flamewar. ;)

      What you're doing, ArcherB, is kinda like Monday-night quarterbacking. You're digging for reasons to take Saddam out ex post facto, when there are several other countries who deserve no less of a respite from the despots in power. Why did we choose Iraq? Let's do a simple rundown of the facts:

      The United States invaded a sovereign nation on shaky evidence of wrongdoing, when there were options available to the international community. Also, this supposed wrongdoing was completely separate from a recent attack on American soil, although this attack was conflated to include Iraq in just about all rhetoric we heard. The President of the United States is the direct relation of a man who had history with Iraq and the regime within. Many people whom our President was associated with in his first term regarded the elder Bush's Iraq policy "a mistake". Many commentators have mentioned the rough relationship between these two men (the "Mano y mano" episode). The Vice-President of the United States is a man, with energy industry ties, who quit his job as the head of a large multinational construction company in order to become Vice-President. This construction company received multibillion dollar no-bid contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq, including consolidating the oil fields.

      I don't know how much dispute you can take with this. North Korea? Who the fark cares? Occam's Razor, folks. Occam's Razor.

      --
      Danke tres mucho, tovarishch.
    35. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seoul is within *artillery* range of NK and NK has the capacity to bombard it with hundreds of thousands of rounds of artillery *per hour* until that capacity is destroyed.

      Maybe they should get in touch with Israel and get some plans for building bomb shelters, etc. Or they can be like Lebanon and intentionally let all their citizens die so the world will go boo hoo hoo.

      Or they could just evacuate the civilians, get the job done, and put the city back together. The North Koreans will probably be happy for the chance to work for money to buy food.

    36. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      It was the soon to be disbanded Oil for food program

      Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of corruption (from many different companies and countries, including at least one US oil company), replaced by a billion dollar program that would "pay for Iraqi's reconstruction" with such wonderful things as KBR spending $75 million of our taxes failing to build a pipeline its own consultants said could not be built. And now we have US judges basically green-lighting rampant fraud against Americans by claiming that even if a company has a contract with "The United States of America", the US has no legal jurisdiction to charge companies with fraud when they do things like steal forklifts and sell them to the government. Of course, the US (or the CPA the US created to rule Iraq if you're seriously going to consider it somehow not a part of the US) can't even account for somewhere between 8 and 9 Billion dollars, I guess we're really showing the UN "how it's done".

      After all the flack that GWB took for not stopping 9-11 when there was intel

      Almost all of that flack was fired back when the Republicans started attacking Clinton for not doing anything about it either. Funny how that works, when it's convenient, Republicans call it "wagging the dog", likewise when it's convenient, it suddenly becomes "not doing anything". The same behavior pops up in other situations as well, after all, who needs innocent until proven guilty, except for DeLay?

      why would you support attacking N. Korea and NOT support attacking Iraq?

      Hindsight is 20/20? We know now that the intelligence was incorrect at best (suicides of British naysayers notwithstanding), so there's less reason to support the Iraq war, especially after we dug Saddam out of his little hole and no longer have to worry about those 1.5 million people killed and his planned attacks on America and his WMDs old or new. Now our soldiers are standing around over there, with no apparent plan beyond "surge another 40k troops and hope that the soldiers somehow convince the Sunnis and the Shiites to kiss and make up their centuries of hatred". Most likely, there'll be civil war, and since nobody in our government learns from history, we'll support one side, they'll win, and the other side will be pissed off and start blowing up our buildings while the side we supported uses the weapons we gave them against our allies.

      As for Korea, we can continue this better safe then sorry ideal, but maybe, just maybe, we should talk to South Korea first and make sure they're ready to deal with a northern vacuum. Who knows, maybe we can just walk in, be greeted with parades and flower girls, catch ol' Kim in a few days, and South Korea will just take over from there and the war will cost less than redrawing all the maps. Probably no chance in hell of that though, but why can't we all dream like the Republicans?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    37. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nice to see I ignited a flamewar. ;)

      I honestly try to stay above the flames. Unfortunately BushGood=Flamebait and BushSux=Insightful here on slash. I think I've done a fair job siting everything I've said to others who simply reply with "So you're drinking the kool-aid and blaming the "intelligence failures" on the intelligence services?" (Uh yeah! Should I blame the Highway Dept or HUD? That Kool-Aid comment got modded up, btw)

      As to the rest of your post, yeah, hindsight is 20/20. Unfortunately, most intelligence information isn't released real time so hindsight is only way that those of us without clearance will ever get to see it. I try my best to look back and put myself in the shoes of those in charge. I get my information for sources on both sides. I'm a member of DailyKos as well as LittleGreenFootballs. I watch Fox News and PBS and judge accordingly.

      As to Cheney's ties with Halliburton, yeah, it looks suspicious, damn suspicious. But having grown up in Houston and having know Halliburton employees, I can tell you that they are an energy company like Disney is a theme-park company. They are more of a management company. It's not Halliburton employees rebuilding the water plants in Iraq, it's some other company hired by Halliburton. Halliburton is the only company in the world that can do what they do (like rebuild an entire country). That's why there were no other bids. Cheney worked there, he knows what the company can do and how to get the shit done. While it still looks bad, rest assured that all of Cheney's (and Bush's) money is in a blind trust. It may be in Halliburton, it may not. Most likely, it is in some sort of conservative mutual fund because no trust manager wants to tell the VP that he lost all of his money!

      Again, your comment was well said!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    38. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NK has China as an ally and to some extent Russia as well.

      Iran has Russia as a strong ally and to some extent France and China and numerous other commercial trading partners (i.e. weapons suppliers and buyers). Iran has many friends who pay no attention to embargoes.

      Iraq had Syria and France, and some Russian support. Not too much else.

      So which one did we go after? The weak one, and it's not as though we've really "won" there yet.

      These other two targets are going to be much different, much harder, and victory even more costly and elusive.

      Supposing we win against NK or Iran or both. Then we will have made China and or Russia very very angry, and they can be counted upon to seek out revenge either for their fallen ally or just because we will have to make Russia and China look bad as a consequence of any war. Either or both of them can be expected to retaliate against the USA in the coming decades.

      For example, we take out Iran. Russia waits a few years and takes out Washington and a few other cities and makes it look like a terrorist action. That sort of revenge. Is Iran worth it? Even if Iran wants to kill Israel, is it worth throwing away America by getting in the middle?

      China would prefer the US land to not be radioactive. Makes it easier to resettle all those people they need to bring in.

      Oh well. What will be, will be. I won't be alive to see it and I'm not having kids because I wouldn't want them to have to live through it. The genes of a hundred generations die when I die.

    39. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does this shit get modded up?

      That has got to be the stupidest fucking question I've seen all week. The worst group-think site on the entire Internet, and you ask "How does this shit get modded up?"

      Are you really that blind?

    40. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >On the first day of fighting, there would probably be more than a million SK casualties.

      So the Koreans would shut their loud mouthes and just all kill each other? Remind me what the problem is here.

      Would they get a Darwin award for that too?

    41. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      The nuclear explosion wasn't big enough to be felt worldwide.

    42. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I take it you don't know that the US fought in the Korean War in the 1950s, is still technically at war with North Korea, that a US infantry division is stationed there now on a war footing to reinforce the army of the Republic of Korea, and it wasn't done for oil? The US lost almost as many soldiers there as in Vietnam, but South Korea is a free democracy. But hey, no oil! That doesn't really fit in with that whole "blood for oil" thing, does it? Kind of makes you think.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    43. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you could always nuke the artillery batteries with low-yield weapons. I opposed the Iraq war yet I would feel that would be more than justifiable if it would seem imminent that Kim would start stirring up shit.

    44. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If in your remotest fantasies you are dreaming that china or russia can defeat the united states militarily, you are smoking some class a colombian super crack. Remember that thousand year reich hitler kept going on about? this is it.

    45. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Cstryon · · Score: 1

      Parent got modded as flamebait, but he is right. Someone has to complain about something. And /.ers seem to generally want to complain about Bush. I'm proud to have Bush as our President. Saddam was killing inocent people. He cut the tounge out of a man and left him dying in a street in the middle of his city just because the man felt like the things saddam was doing was wrong. And I agree with the Vagueness of the report that Al Quida was going to attack the US before 9/11. That's it, it was Vague, and Terrorists can be pretty shifty and talk big sometimes without Reprocussions (Spelling??). What was Bush Supposed to do? He could have started Hunting Down Al Quida then, starting a war on Terrorism before the 9/11 attack, but people would still complain saying things like. "He got an intel report that they MIGHT attack but yet he still wants to gun them all down." The Next President, Rep. or Dem. is going to make choices, and get the rest of the government (At least the Majority) to back him up, and things will happen, and SOMEONE will complain. This Freedom of speech stuff can sometimes make me sick.

      --
      Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
    46. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by nojomofo · · Score: 1

      I'm making no arguments about whether attacking North Korea would be good, bad or other. I'm taking exception to you implication that it's the Democrats', media's, or anybody other than GWBs fault that he would have a tough time selling a war against North Korea.

      You are right, he did say that Iraq was playing cat and mouse games. However, GWB did not make his case for the Iraq war based on those cat and mouse games. You'll note that the quote that you posted from the wiki says (emphasis mine): "if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission". A warning from Blix about what behavior not to engage in doesn't constitute valid rationale for a war.

    47. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      Now read this article Putin says Iraq planned US attack, or any of the many others that say the same thing, and tell me again how Bush lied and there was no evidence for the war.

      Maybe Putin wasn't acting with the best interests of the US at heart?

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    48. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this is why the administration was looking at "Tactical Nukes". The artillery is fortified in mountainsides just across the border and virtually impenetrable to bunker busters.

    49. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      NK is the reason the US should have perfected the Neutron Bomb.

    50. Re:Hmmmm... Where's Bush on All This? by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      Also keep in mind that Tenet was a Clinton appointee, not some politically motivated war-hawk.

      Those two are in no way mutually exclusive.

  8. Evil Dictator has WMD! (maybe...) by fantomas · · Score: 5, Funny

    remind me, is this a dupe posting?

    1. Re:Evil Dictator has WMD! (maybe...) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno. Are you having a feeling of deja moo?

  9. This gets so old by Rooked_One · · Score: 1

    I mean come on... so they have a nuke (or claim to), why overkill? But, on the conspiracy side of things, they could have some super bug that the public won't be told about, and use that as some sort of leverage. God knows that science in the US has been declining. (I gotta wonder if god will give me brownie points for that statement)

    1. Re:This gets so old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a Shepherd Boy who tended his sheep at the foot of a mountain near a dark forest.

      It was lonely for him, so he devised a plan to get a little company.

      He rushed down towards the village calling out "Wolf, Wolf," and the villagers came out to meet him.

      This pleased the boy so much that a few days after he tried the same trick,
      and again the villagers came to his help.

      Shortly after this a Wolf actually did come out from the forest.

      The boy cried out "Wolf, Wolf," still louder than before.

      But this time the villagers, who had been fooled twice before, thought the boy was again
      lying, and nobody came to his aid.

      So the Wolf made a good meal off the boy's flock.

    2. Re:This gets so old by shaitand · · Score: 1

      As if we haven't got dozens of super bugs packed away in the biological warfare and chemical weapons facilities we don't have.

  10. Ob. Team America by 93,000 · · Score: 1

    When asked for comment Kim Jong declined to give details, respoding:

    "You have any idea how fucking buzy I am?"

  11. mmm hear those drums? by Phil246 · · Score: 1

    Those are war drums i hear beating. The propeganda offensive has been underway for years - The military one cant be too far behind.

  12. the question is... by lordvalrole · · Score: 0

    Is there anything that the US or other nations can do to North Korea? We can sanction the crap out of them, but sanctions are just as deadly as an biological or chemical attack. Sanctions hurt countries and hurt the innocent people that aren't mixed up in this crap. North Korea is going to do what they want and no one is going to stop them. The US is so bogged down in the middle east that we can't do anything to NK, short of nuking them or causing harm on them.

  13. What about my flying car? by Fysiks+Wurks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Popular Mechanics is known for its deep knowlege North Korean technology.

    By the way Popular Mechnaics, where is my flying car or personal submarine?

    --
    P226
    1. Re:What about my flying car? by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      Yes, Popular Mechanics is an excellent source for far eastern intelligence. I also often consult Cycling Today and Good Housekeeping.

    2. Re:What about my flying car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way Popular Mechnaics, where is my flying car or personal submarine?

      You'll see pictures of them when you subscribe. BTW, don't forget to drink your ovaltine. -PM

    3. Re:What about my flying car? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1


      Popular Mechanics is known for its deep knowlege North Korean technology.

      By the way Popular Mechnaics, where is my flying car or personal submarine?


      There are plenty of flying cars and personal submarines available. You just have to pay for your toys. (Or is it work related... for the new paper route?) :D

      FWIW, they did a great job on their book: Debunking 9/11 Myths. I highly recommended it if you have seen a movie or web site that claims to show evidence that 9/11 was a US governemnt plot with controlled demolitions, or suggestions that the World Trade Center wouldn't collapse because the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel, and you aren't sure what to make of it. This book will help get you on solid factual and scientific ground.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:What about my flying car? by demachina · · Score: 1

      " 9/11 was a US governemnt plot with controlled demolition"

      Controlled demolitions, WTF? If you are gonna do conspiracy theories at least try to start with PLAUSIBLE conspiracy theories. When you have video of the fact the towers were hit by hijacked jets loaded with fuel, burned profusely and the collapse started at the burning floors I think you can take it as a given the towers collapsed because hijacked planes were flown in to them,

      If you want to hatch conspiracy theories it is entirely plausible that some nefarious intelligence agency penetrated some cell of Islamic radicals and directed them to launch this attack thinking they were doing it for Bin Laden. It would take some serious mental illness to justify initiating such an attack against your own country, to advance your political aims, so I would rate this as not a very plausible conspiracy theory.

      A far more plausible conspiracy theory is some intelligence agency was well aware of the Al Qaida directed plot, before it happened, and the powers that be decided to look the other way because they saw the enormous potential in a new "Pearl Harbor" to allow them to:

      A. dramatically expand their hold on power in the U.S. and justify repressive measures like the Patriot act and various domestic spying programs
      B. to justify military adventures like the invasion of Iraq, which would NEVER have flown with the American people before 9/11. In a world of increasingly tight oil supplies dominating the Middle East militarily sure had to have some appeal to a bunch of oil men and the Saudi's were getting tired of hosting U.S. bases.
      C. a great tool to win future elections

      It is more than a little prescient that the neocon cabal behind The New American Century which includes Cheney and Rumsfeld had already openly extolled the virtues of a modern Pearl Harbor to futher their goals.

      The precedent for this kind of conspiracy already exists. The U.S. basically did exactly this before the original Pearl Harbor. The U.S., Britain and the Dutch decided to embargo oil shipments to Japan to counter their aggressive war against China. The Japanese military and industrial complex was massively dependent on oil imports especially from Dutch and British oil fields in Indonesia. The embargo painted Japan in to a nasty corner, and their one way out without capitulation was to do exactly what they did, seize the oil fields in Indonesia, and while they were at it launch preemptive blows at the feeble British and American military assets in the Pacific in the hope they would capitulate.

      During this period the American people and a lot if its political leaders were isolationist and had no interest in getting entangled in a second World War in Europe. Roosevelt rightly saw an enormous danger from Nazi Germany to Britain and eventually to the U.S. and he needed an excuse to drag the U.S. in to the war before Britain was invaded. Provoking an incident with Japan worked perfectly. Now perhaps Roosevelt and the U.S. military didn't know exactly where or when the attack would be but they KNEW a Japanese attack was almost inevitable, and they could guess at least some of it would be aimed at the Phillipines or the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii. It wasn't exactly an accident that the Navy was keeping its precious carriers at see so they weren't as vulnerable to attack. General Billy Mitchell had years earlier accurately and presciently outlined the plan for a Japanese torpedo attack against the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor.

      It is entirely plausible the Pearl Harbor on 12/7 and the one on 9/11 were not entirely unwelcome events to the Machiavellian powers that be.

      --
      @de_machina
  14. And? by mpapet · · Score: 1

    While this is unfortunate and *may* add to instability in the region, I smell a couple of rats.

    1. Now that today's bad guy is doing it how is it different than say (insert former bad-country-now-fighting-the-war-on-terrr here) doing it?

    2. What special inroad does popular mechanics have in NORTH korea? Most objective analysts would have a hard time verifying it and I'd like to hear it from them.

    3. Does anyone recall the long and sordid history of planted stories, media contacts and testimony in the U.S. in order to achieve a political end?

    I'm weary of propaganda posing as stories to the point of disbelief. This one is a perfect example.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  15. Definitely not in-depth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, a 1300-word article filled mostly with semi-educated guesses and generalized fear-mongering? Not so in-depth. The eye-witness reports from "defectors" are the most concrete evidence reported, but even that kinda reminds of the Iraqi "defectors" who helped get the US in the huge mess it is now.

    You know, Popular Mechanics has never really been about in-depth anything, but rather more about gee-whiz military and auto technology. The funniest line is describing Kim Jong Il as "the world figure who has come, perhaps more than any other, to symbolize the dangers of WMD proliferation". No, that world figure would most definitely would be Saddam Hussein. And it turned out he didn't have any. ANY. So now PM is helping the US redirect its paranoia towards North Korea. Thanks, guys.

    No question Kim Jong Il is another Stalinistic nut job who's willing to do just about anything to his own people, but that's not to say he's a threat worthy of military action. This is the kind of article that gets people supporting stupid and intractable military actions.

    KC

  16. NK's WMD PR Dept. by delire · · Score: 1
    North Korea's Chemical and Bioweapons (CBW) program
    Wow, not only is their super secret enterprise in English, but they even use provide an easily recallable acronym that's constructed in a way that makes sense to our English minds! Very Handy!
    1. Re:NK's WMD PR Dept. by xQx · · Score: 1

      And it's posted on slashdot!!!

      Damn, the North Korean secret minister for secret affairs must be having a pretty bad day.

  17. Just like Usians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    the Soviets developed deadly agents that included weaponized forms of anthrax and pneumonic plague

    Usians have chemical weapons too:

    A 1994 United States Senate Report, entitled "Is military research hazardous to veterans health? Lessons spanning a half century," detailed the United States' Department of Defense practice of experimenting on animal and human subjects, often without a latter's knowledge or consent. This included:

    * Approximately 60,000 [US] military personnel were used as human subjects in the 1940s to test the chemical agents mustard gas and lewisite.[7]

    * Between the 1950s through the 1970s, at least 2,200 military personnel were subjected to various biological agents, referred to as Operation Whitecoat. Unlike most of the studies discussed in this report, Operation Whitecoat was truly voluntary.[8]

    * Between 1951 and 1969, Dugway Proving Ground was the site of testing for various chemical and biological agents, including an open air aerodynamic dissemination test in 1968 that accidentally killed, on neighboring farms, approximately 6,400 sheep by an unspecified nerve agent.


    1. Re:Just like Usians by PreacherTom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, please. The stuff we have stashed away makes standard weaponized anthrax and plague look like Romper Room.

  18. Popular Mechanics and Iraq by Socguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't popular mechanics have a feature article on Iraq's WMDs a few years ago?

  19. Different uses. by khasim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Biological - Not really all that useful. There's too much danger of it infecting your people.

    Chemical - Used to restrict the enemy's access to terrain which forces him to attack along routes you've selected or require him to attack wearing protective suits. Chemicals can also be used to "soften" a target before your own troops attack.

    Nuclear - Big boom. Lots of damage.

    So, I can see them working on chemical weapons and nukes. But biological weapons make no sense for them. Particularly when the "enemy" is only 10 miles across the border from them.

    1. Re:Different uses. by endianx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Biological - Not really all that useful. There's too much danger of it infecting your people. Not a problem if you don't care about your people.
    2. Re:Different uses. by jcgf · · Score: 1
      Biological - Not really all that useful. There's too much danger of it infecting your people.

      But you still have danger to your people from radiation or chemical spills with the other 2.

    3. Re:Different uses. by WindBourne · · Score: 1
      Biological - Not really all that useful. There's too much danger of it infecting your people.

      Boy, are you clueless. First, nearly all nations who have an army already have Bio and Chemical units. Why? Because they are low cost and trivial to do. In fact, Biological warfare has been done forever. Smallpox has been very useful.

      But Biological is even easier then the others. First, you can create virus that target a specific genome. If you are China and decide to target America, you simply go after white and perhaps black. There are differences from white/black vs. Asian that can be used to wipe out Africa, Europe, Canada, Russia, and of course, America. But suppose that you are Arabic and wish to target Israel (which is actually going on in several countries). Since they share a very similar background, it will be next to impossible to create one. No Problem. Create a vaccine and admin it to your people during their inoculations. It would be trivial to slip it in, if you produce your own. Have you noticed that a number of countries in the middle east are now doing that? Interestingly, so is China. America accepts vaccines from elsewhere but it is pretty much only very friendly countries (western Europe countries, canada, japan, and I believe Israel). Over all, we make our own.

      And yes, the next time a real Biological attack occurs of a derived virus nature, it will make a HUGE dent in the human population. With nucss, only 2 countries have that capability.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Different uses. by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Bio makes even less sense for NK than for most places. They have an awful lot of starving people there. Malnutrition leads to increased disease vulnerability, particularly for airborne pathogens such as Smallpox or Anthrax. Even if the NK government is willing to write off a lot of the peasants in the countryside, those people are a huge reservoir of infection that means the Korean armed forces, and the politically prominent and educated types would get lots of exposure so they would be at greatly increased risk too. Except for possibly a few parts of central Africa, NK is the most vulnerable country on Earth to massive damage from any bio-release, from any source internal or external, that makes it into their general population. The only thing that keeps them from being a solid number one is generally cold weather.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  20. i actually like the idea by namekuseijin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come to think of it, i like biochemical weapons a lot more than nukes: this way, we can wipe our shitty selves out of this world while still maintaining it intact, since other life forms don't really give a shit to Ebola, AIDS or other dumb monkey weapons...

    --
    I don't feel like it...
    1. Re:i actually like the idea by xero314 · · Score: 1
      i like biochemical weapons...this way, we can wipe our shitty selves out of this world...
      If you like the idea of wiping out mankind you should show your support by starting with yourself.
    2. Re:i actually like the idea by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
      i like biochemical weapons...this way, we can wipe our shitty selves out of this world...

      If you like the idea of wiping out mankind you should show your support by starting with yourself.

      Nonononono.

      First, the heavy metal band.

      THEN their parents

      THEN themselves.

      If you're gonna paraphrase Denis Leary, at least try to get it close.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    3. Re:i actually like the idea by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

      No, I like myself very much, thank you.

      I was thinking more of Bush or the North Korean dictator of the day or any other dumbasses... it's a shame millions will suffer until one of them die or chage place with another dumbass...

      --
      I don't feel like it...
    4. Re:i actually like the idea by xero314 · · Score: 1
      If you're gonna paraphrase Denis Leary, at least try to get it close.
      My apologies to Leary, I hadn't actually realized he said it first, though I know I wasn't the first one to think of it.
    5. Re:i actually like the idea by vishbar · · Score: 1

      ...other life forms don't really give a shit to Ebola, AIDS or other dumb monkey weapons...

      I may be wrong, but weren't both AIDS and Ebola contracted from monkeys?

      --
      Ride the skies
    6. Re:i actually like the idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I honestly support him however. I mean if our alternatives are Nukes vs BioChem vs Peace I'd obviously take peace, but if that wasn't an option I'd go for bio-chem ...

      Even though it would likely be far more painful... At least the planet isn't radioactive for the next few hundred years, yanno?

    7. Re:i actually like the idea by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Oddly enough, I would be in no way surprised to learn that you got your +5 Insightful for speculating favorably on humanity self-exterminating from people who go apoplectic over Christians who believe in and look forward to the second coming. ... I guess it takes all kinds.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    8. Re:i actually like the idea by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

      they are just hosts, they don't die from it. Although there's a similar disease for monkeys, it isn't by the same virus that affects humans so drastically.

      --
      I don't feel like it...
  21. Close, but yes. by anti-human+1 · · Score: 0

    WMD wasn't a buzzword yet. At least, not like it is now.

    1. Re:Close, but yes. by xQx · · Score: 1

      Fine :), the exact quote from wikipedia (he was talking about desert storm)...

      You know we armed Iraq. I wondered about that too, you know. During the Persian Gulf war, those intelligence reports would come out:

      "Iraq: incredible weapons - incredible weapons."
      "How do you know that?"
      "Uh, well ... we looked at the receipts."

  22. pneumonic plague by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A pneumonic plague? Well that one oughta be easy to remember. har har har!

    Oh come on guys, you thought it was funny too. Right? Where are you going?

  23. everyone's at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Detrick

    It's not just the Soviet Union and the North Koreans that develop biological weapons. After all, the relevant treaty permits production of biological agents in quantities necessary to develop protective measures, and that's not likely to be misused, is it?
    On the bright side, no-one has deployed any (that I know of) for quite a while, mainly because they are not a very effective tool of war in most circumstances.

    I'd say the people who have the most at stake here are the Chinese, and if they feel threatened I very much expect them to act, there's really no reason for the US to put its forces in harm's way yet again over postulated WMD's.

    1. Re:everyone's at it.. by deadweight · · Score: 1

      I went to Fort Detrick once on a contract for a few days. We washed our hands about 5 times before lunch and NEVER opened the fridge that said NOT FOR FOOD.

  24. Re:Sure... by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yet there it is again. More lying claims of WMDs designed to incite the US into waging an unjustified war against (insert country name here).

    You'd have a point, except it is China, Japan and S. Korea making the claims. Are they all lying too?

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  25. Re:Sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are, at most, seven people in the US that wouldn't like to blow the fuck out of North Korea. And they're all in Texas.

  26. You bet. by anti-human+1 · · Score: 0

    It really is a shame there isn't a big glass cased red button for that. I'd imagine its related to the doctrine that mankind is the sole owner of the earth, save for (deity). Thus all else, vertibrates and otherwise, get the big fuck you.

    Hindsight is 20/20, and I wish I had a time machine to see if I needed to militantly start changing things now, ya know?

  27. War propaganda, not science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Revolutionaries stand for the unconditional defense of the DPRK against US imperialism. Drive the US out of Korea!

    1. Re:War propaganda, not science by NiteShaed · · Score: 1
      Drive the US out of Korea!

      It'd be a long, wet drive home.....flying or maybe a nice cruise sounds more appealing.
      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
  28. We should attack!! by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

    Before the proof of WMD comes in the form of a cough and runny nose.

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    1. Re:We should attack!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That should read:
      Before the proof of WMD comes in the form of severe rectal bleeding.

      The image is finally applicable to a discussion! w00t!

  29. Compared to, say, the US ... by vandan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How does their alleged stock ( in much the same vain as Iraq's alleged stock ) compare to the real stockpile that the US actively develops?

    The simple fact is that all countries see these kinds of weapons as not only useful deterrents, but necessary deterrents. Consider, for example, how things would have played out differently if Iraq had possessed the nuclear ( or newkilla weapons as Dubya and half of the US pronounce it ), chemical and biological weapons that the US was claiming they had. The would have been no invasion, or if there had, there would have been very, very serious consequences, not only for US and coalition-of-the-killing troups, but for US citizens as well.

    This is what proliferation is all about. This is why the US is so hypocritical when it demands that all others renounce WOMD, terrorism and such. They are the biggest perpetrators, and force everyone else's hand. Whether you agree with the politics of the other states involved or not ( and I'm certainly no fan of North Korea ), you have to look at it from their point of view. Having a US armed to the teeth with WOMD, and being the biggest terrorist around, it makes good sense to get some serious arsenal of your own. What's good for the goose ... ( and Dubya makes a fine goose ) ...

    1. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "How does their alleged stock ( in much the same vain as Iraq's alleged stock ) compare to the real stockpile that the US actively develops?"

      It's stored and contained by a relatively responsible and sane government with no intention of using it. Iraq's stockpile of WMDs was not alleged - it was filmed and documented by United Nations weapons inspectors and it was actively used against Iran and the Kurds. North Korea's stockpile isn't alleged either - they've admitted on numerous occassions that they have weaponized Uranium and have working nuclear weapons. Furthermore, they've threatened to actually use those weapons against those they perceive as conspiring against them (ie "sea of fire...").

      In your rush to condemn the United States and its government, you seem to have lost track of the fact that Iraq murdered hundreds of thousands of its own citizens and attacked its neighbors, and North Korea is threatening nearby democracies with nuclear destruction while its citizens starve en masse in an Orwellian police state. The world is not black and white as we would like, and it's time for people who delude themselves into believing it is to grow up.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    2. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by vakuona · · Score: 1

      People like Saddam did spread fear through their population, but he did not kill hundreds of thousands of his own people. That 'honour' belongs to the USA.

      Saddam didn't need to kill that many. The downfall of a leaders is applying excessive force. You apply enough force to instill fear, but not too much so that people believe that they can avoid your attentions. If you kill wantonly, they will revolt, because they will not have much to lose. In terms of civil liberties, and modernisation Iraq was actually ahead of all its counterparts in the region. They just had a megalomaniac for a president who erred in judgement and attacked Kuwait.

    3. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by vandan · · Score: 2, Informative
      Iraq's stockpile of WMDs was not alleged - it was filmed and documented by United Nations weapons inspectors

      Unfortunately a lot of Americans still believe this. You need to turn off Fox news and get your information from elsewhere. The UN categorically stated, time and again, that they found no evidence of any WMD program in Iraq. This is why Dubya had to act unilaterally and go directly against the wishes of the UN ( and the security council, no less ) in invading Iraq.

      and it was actively used against Iran and the Kurds

      As others have pointed out, Iraq didn't use their own chemical weapons in these cases, as they had none. They used US stocks. The CIA supervised Saddam's use of these weapons, documenting their effects. No-one is disputing the fact that Saddam used these weapons, but the sad reality is that their used was very much approved by the US, and in particular, Donald Rumsfeld.

      North Korea's stockpile isn't alleged either - they've admitted on numerous occassions that they have weaponized Uranium and have working nuclear weapons.

      So? The recent nuclear test proves otherwise. They achieved a nuclear 'event', but no-where near what's required to produce a nuclear bomb. It was a fizzle. And the article wasn't talking about nuclear weapons. It was spreading unsubstantiated crap about chemical and biological weapons, and then neglecting to put these allegations in the context of the US's chemical and biological weapons programs.

      Furthermore, they've threatened to actually use those weapons against those they perceive as conspiring against them (ie "sea of fire...")

      Welcome to the world of diplomacy. As I argued in my original post, this is required by North Korea, to fend of continual threats from the US. They are merely reacting. Do you expect them to sit and take it?

      In your rush to condemn the United States and its government, you seem to have lost track of the fact that Iraq murdered hundreds of thousands of its own citizens

      Oh bullshit! Thousands, yes. But hundreds of thousands? No. That honour goes to the US. And once more, Saddam was only able to do this with explicit US backing.

      and North Korea is threatening nearby democracies with nuclear destruction while its citizens starve en masse in an Orwellian police state

      More bullshit. North Korea is threatening no-one. They have no expansionist agenda, unlike the US. When is the last time North Korea invaded someone? And when was the last time the US invaded someone? North Korea's weapons are a joke compared to their neighbours', hence the current push to get nuclear weapons. They are seeking weapons as deterrence. As for the 'Orwellian police state', have a look at the US. Sure, North Korea is not innocent in this respect, but the scale of development of the US police state dwarfs North Korea incredibly. You need to get some context into your analysis.

      The world is not black and white as we would like, and it's time for people who delude themselves into believing it is to grow up

      I agree with you on that one.
    4. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "People like Saddam did spread fear through their population, but he did not kill hundreds of thousands of his own people. That 'honour' belongs to the USA."

      The Kurds would tend to disagree.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    5. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ho ho, holly crap...

      I don't which one of you propagandist brainwashed retard's deaths to hope for first.

      What an interesting coloration of half-truths and assertions you've got going on there.

    6. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "It's stored and contained by a relatively responsible and sane government with no intention of using it."

      According to whom? Your trust in a government that has done little else but snowball its populace for the past 200 years or so is not only astonishing, it is unfounded. It is the same as those who dismiss conspiracies simply because they are conspiracies. It is true that some things would require lots of participant's and are highly unlikely, but dismissing conspiracies within a government that has been caught with its hands inside the conspiracy cookie jar again and again is a bit naive.

      "Iraq's stockpile of WMDs was not alleged - it was filmed and documented by United Nations weapons inspectors and it was actively used against Iran and the Kurds."

      Lets stay within the GP's implied time line. I believe he was referring to the alleged stockpile present when the US invaded. That was not merely alleged, it was an outright lie spoken by a president who had been fully briefed time and again on the fact that Iraq did not have and was not constructing those weapons.

      "North Korea's stockpile isn't alleged either - they've admitted on numerous occasions that they have weaponized Uranium and have working nuclear weapons. Furthermore, they've threatened to actually use those weapons against those they perceive as conspiring against them (ie "sea of fire...")."

      I can do that one.

      The United States stockpile isn't alleged either - they've admitted on numerous occasions that they have weaponized Uranium and have working nuclear weapons. Furthermore, they are the only nation to have irresponsibly used those weapons and have done so on multiple occasions.

      Any impartial observer would be forced to admit that the United States is more likely to use nuclear weapons than any other nation. We have instigated or gotten ourselves into the middle of bloodshed all over the globe and continue to do so as an active process. Since we tasted blood in WWII the United States has been in an almost constant unending state of undeclared war. The United States has slaughtered MILLIONS of its own people. The United States also had a Eugenics cleansing program not very different from what the Nazi's did with Jews, the program did not completely die until the 70's.

      Before our chemical weapons programs went underground the weapons were tested extensively on our own soldiers on a large scale and without consent.

      "Iraq murdered hundreds of thousands of its own citizens and attacked its neighbors"

      As said previously the United States has killed millions of its own citizens. I believe your Iraq numbers are also exaggerated propaganda. As for attacking neighbors, Kuwait at least was believed by Iraqi's to rightfully belong to Iraq. The invasion of Kuwait was a rescue mission to liberate and reclaim that lost part of Iraq.

      But then, lets not pretend that any war mongering Iraq perpetuated could possibly compare to the war mongering of the United States. The United States assaults and conquers nations under the guise of a liberator, spreading democracy. What the United States really spreads are puppet governments to mop up the rivers of blood we leave.

      "North Korea is threatening nearby democracies with nuclear destruction while its citizens starve en masse in an Orwellian police state"

      Maybe, maybe not. The United States is notorious for spreading lies and propaganda about its enemies. This is especially true if the government is communist. God knows a ongoing attack against the evil adherents of an opposing economic system is justified. Surely, everyone who strives for that sort of economic system where everyone has what they need is vile and evil. Also, a police state does not mean the citizens are starving. The United States has was one of the worst concentrations of wealth among an elite class in the world. Something like 95% of the nations wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. Now the United States has a great deal of wealth, and 5% provides a decent standard of living relative to the rest of the world but that is hardly the result of being good, pure, or right.

      That isn't to say we are the bad guys, but we certainly are not the good guys. It is all a matter of perspective.

    7. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "They just had a megalomaniac for a president who erred in judgement and attacked Kuwait."

      Indeed. Actually among Iraqis attacking Kuwait was a popular choice since Iraqis believed that Kuwait is stolen Iraqi territory. The error was forgetting that an oil tycoon was at the helm of the United States and stood to lose millions if not billions.

    8. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 1

      How about disproving rather then just spouting some accusation?

      Incidentally all they found in Iraq was paperwork for WMD, and old paperwork at that. Want to know what the Republican party did then? Posted it all on the fricken internet so any crackpot can learn how to make their own weapons.

      Don't believe me?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9VjzpUu_2s&eurl

      Your turn. Put up or shut up.

    9. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by vandan · · Score: 1

      I will now respond to all of your valid points:

    10. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by Grym · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So? The recent nuclear test proves otherwise. They achieved a nuclear 'event', but no-where near what's required to produce a nuclear bomb. It was a fizzle. And the article wasn't talking about nuclear weapons. It was spreading unsubstantiated crap about chemical and biological weapons, and then neglecting to put these allegations in the context of the US's chemical and biological weapons programs.

      So, what's the plan? Do we hold off on diplomatically confronting them until North Korea has a nuclear weapon small enough to fit on their missile platforms or until a "nuclear fizzle" happens on Seoul?

      Welcome to the world of diplomacy. As I argued in my original post, this is required by North Korea, to fend of continual threats from the US. They are merely reacting. Do you expect them to sit and take it?

      So, we aren't supposed to believe North Korea's statements when it comes to their illegal nuclear weapons program and explicit threats against South Korea, but we are supposed to believe their ridiculous claims that U.S. aggression is the cause of... their nuclear weapons program, that we aren't supposed to believe exists. Right...

      But back to the facts: there was NO chance that the United States was going to do any aggressive military action in the immediate future against the DPRK when it decided to do its nuclear test. NONE. So why did they do it knowing the international condemnation that would surely follow?

      This line that the United States is the bully that's left the poor DPRK no choice but to respond needs to stop. It's utter bullshit. If North Korea were truly trying to prevent conflict, why would they make provocative statements and aggressive actions at times when they are being, by and large, diplomatically ignored--not threated--by the US?

      More bullshit. North Korea is threatening no-one. They have no expansionist agenda, unlike the US. When is the last time North Korea invaded someone? And when was the last time the US invaded someone? North Korea's weapons are a joke compared to their neighbours', hence the current push to get nuclear weapons. They are seeking weapons as deterrence. ... You need to get some context into your analysis.

      If you're going to try to play the DPRK's champion, you should at least abandon your willful ignorance of their country first.

      North Korea has the fifth largest military in the world in an area slightly smaller than Mississippi. It spends about 25% of its GNP on its military, by proportion, the most in the world. It has a standing army of just over one million men, most of whom are, incidentally, black-belts in TaeKwonDo.

      Quoth a military assessment of the North Korean situation: "Seoul, the South Korean capitol, lies within range of North Korean long-range artillery. Five hundred 170mm Koksan guns and 200 multiple-launch rocket systems could hit Seoul with artillery shells and chemical weapons, causing panic and massive civilian casualties. North Korea has between 500 and 600 Scud missiles that could strike targets throughout South Korea with conventional warheads or chemical weapons. North Korea could hit Japan with its 100 No-dong missiles. Seventy percent of North Korean army ground units are located within 100 miles of the demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea, positioned to undertake offensive ground operations. These units could fire up to 500,000 artillery rounds per hour against South Korean defenses for several hours." In short: they not to be fucked with. [Source, Source, Source]

      Those facts say nothing, of course, about their well-documented kidnapping campaign against South Koreans and the innumerable paramil

    11. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      The Kurds are probably just trouble makers 'cos I think Turkey wants to settle some scores with them just as soon as everyone is looking elsewhere.

    12. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by vandan · · Score: 1

      So, what's the plan? Do we hold off on diplomatically confronting them until North Korea has a nuclear weapon small enough to fit on their missile platforms or until a "nuclear fizzle" happens on Seoul?

      Merely stating that this is North Korea's intention doesn't make it so, though I agree that if it were so, then it would slightly strengthen your case. You are completely dismissing my arguement that North Korea is using their nuclear weapons research as a deterrent, and instead claiming that you somehow know that their motivations are to attack South Korea. Why the hell would they want to do that? Oh yeah ... to spread their evil, baby-eating, freedom-hating, devil-worshiping ideology. That's the only line that gets the attention of you idiots these days, right?

      So, we aren't supposed to believe North Korea's statements when it comes to their illegal nuclear weapons program and explicit threats against South Korea, but we are supposed to believe their ridiculous claims that U.S. aggression is the cause of... their nuclear weapons program, that we aren't supposed to believe exists.

      Again, this is what diplomacy is all about. They are pushing for trade concessions, largely consisting of the lifting of trade bans that the US imposed, and also after some guarantees that they won't be the target of the next regime-change expedition. You'd have to be pretty gullible to believe that they actually intend to attack anyone. The world would simply not allow it. It would be completely impossible logistically to pull off. You really need to have a look at the state of development of N / S Korea and have a think about what allies each side has, and consider who is going to win any war between them. They are bluffing. Anyone but a fool can see this.

      But back to the facts: there was NO chance that the United States was going to do any aggressive military action in the immediate future against the DPRK when it decided to do its nuclear test. NONE.

      Well, there was actually. North Korea was branded a part of the infamous 'Axis of Evil'. This puts them on warning. It is prudent for North Korea to acquire a deterrent.

      So why did they do it knowing the international condemnation that would surely follow?

      As a deterrent against a US invasion, and to get some trade bans lifted.

      This line that the United States is the bully that's left the poor DPRK no choice but to respond needs to stop.

      It's hard to keep down the truth, eh?

      If North Korea were truly trying to prevent conflict, why would they make provocative statements and aggressive actions at times when they are being, by and large, diplomatically ignored--not threated--by the US?

      Dyslexia, eh? See above answers to these questions that you continue to ask ad-nauseum.

      If you're going to try to play the DPRK's champion, you should at least abandon your willful ignorance of their country first.

      I'm no champion of North Korea. I think both North Korea and the US stink to high heavens. But lets be clear: there is an international bully in the mix and it isn't North Korea.

      North Korea has the fifth largest military in the world in an area slightly smaller than Mississippi.

      Yes but with shit technology and a demoralized, conscripted constitution.

      It spends about 25% of its GNP on its military, by proportion, the most in the world.

      1) 25% of almost fucking nothing is a very small amount indeed. A percentage figure in this case is meaningless. A dollar figure would paint a very different picture.
      2) By proportion, 25% puts is at about 4th. The US comes in at No 1

    13. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by mqduck · · Score: 1
      It's stored and contained by a relatively responsible and sane government with no intention of using it.


      I'm really sick of these statements. WE can have horrible weapons because WE are responsible. We DESERVE to have more rights than other nations, because we're more powerful and therefore BETTER. Note that WE are the only nation in history to USE nukes, on a nation that was already ready and in fact TRYING to surrender. Now that WE have them, we should ban their production worldwide.

      Please show me where North Korea has used any weapons at all. Please show me when North Korea stopped insisting that their nukes were for deterrent purposed. Please explain to me why we shouldn't believe that claim. Please don't resort to name-calling like "crazy" and "evil".

      (As a side note, having the nuclear deterrent will allow them to spend less of their very limited resources on the military. But don't expect them to feel safe enough to do this as we step up our threats, like we did to deal the final economic blow to the Soviet Union. And while we're talking about this, they wouldn't be building these weapons or "starving their people", as we so often condemn them for, if they weren't being subjected to the very cruel "Soviet Treatment" by the US.)
      --
      Property is theft.
    14. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by Delifisek · · Score: 1

      No, not just Turks, everyone other than Kurds in Middle East.

      --
      [My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
    15. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      "Sure, North Korea is not innocent in this respect, but the scale of development of the US police state dwarfs North Korea incredibly."

      Not to say that the US is innocent (I'm one of the first here to attack it on threads like this), but you really need to take a better look at that. US situation is by no way worse than NK.

    16. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons against another.
      And the US does have chemical and biological weapons, despite treaties we have signed.

      The US media (newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, etc.) have advocated nuclear pre-emptive strikes against Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea in the past few years. There is talk of invading Iran, Syria, and/or North Korea. (We are talking conventional warfare, I think. But who wants to join up now?)

      With that type of threat from the world's superpower, I don't blame other countries from wanting NBC weapons and long-range delivery systems as a deterrent.

    17. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by smithmc · · Score: 3, Insightful

        They are seeking weapons as deterrence. As for the 'Orwellian police state', have a look at the US. Sure, North Korea is not innocent in this respect, but the scale of development of the US police state dwarfs North Korea incredibly. You need to get some context into your analysis.

      And you need to get some into yours. The scale of development of the "US police state" is large, sure - because the US has a large population and a huge economy and ready access to high technology. The scope of the "US police state", however, in terms of the degree to which it actually affects the life of the average American citizen, simply pales in comparison to that of North Korea. This comparison is so ridiculous as to almost not bear scrutiny. For all the discussion and concern raised in the Slashosphere and elsewhere, the "US police state" is at most a minor issue or annoyance to the vast majority of the American people, whereas the North Korean government not only is far more intrusive and oppressive, but it's willing to fund that totalitarian regime even at the expense letting its own people freeze and starve to death, all for the glory of the Exalted Leader. Look, I'm about a libertarian a guy as you're likely to find on Slashdot, and as such I have plenty of criticisms of the US government, but to seriously compare it to North Korea is simply preposterous. [Waits patiently for the minus points...]

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    18. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      It spends about 25% of its GNP on its military, by proportion, the most in the world.

      1) 25% of almost fucking nothing is a very small amount indeed. A percentage figure in this case is meaningless. A dollar figure would paint a very different picture.

      2) By proportion, 25% puts is at about 4th. The US comes in at No 1 place, but manages to avoid this ranking because of all the different ways their military budget is hidden.

      Umm, the US military budget is about $400 billion. It's GNP is about 12,000 billion. 400/12000 is considerably less than 25%. Note that the 25% figure was NOT 25% of government budget, but 25% of GNP. That is, 25% of EVERYTHING made in your country. The USA would have to have a military budget more than seven times as high as it is to match that figure.

      This is not to imply that DPRK's military budget is all that large by US standards. I think the NYPD has a bigger budget (that's only a slight exaggeration - the NYPD budget is nearly $4 billion. the DPRK GNP is less than $23 billion).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    19. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by vandan · · Score: 1
      Umm, the US military budget is about $400 billion.

      Re-read what I said about the US military budget. Most of the current military expenditure ( eg Iraq and Afghanistan ) is not counted .
    20. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by xeno-cat · · Score: 1

      "Again, this is what diplomacy is all about. They are pushing for trade concessions, largely consisting of the lifting of trade bans that the US imposed, and also after some guarantees that they won't be the target of the next regime-change expedition. You'd have to be pretty gullible to believe that they actually intend to attack anyone. The world would simply not allow it. It would be completely impossible logistically to pull off. You really need to have a look at the state of development of N / S Korea and have a think about what allies each side has, and consider who is going to win any war between them. They are bluffing. Anyone but a fool can see this."

      Ironicaly with the failure of the US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan it is now _more_ likely that North Korea could get away with an invasion of the South in an effort to unify the last divided country on the planet. The US military would have to close down one of it's fronts in order to address the Korean situation and it is unlikely that the UN or EU could do anything. By the time the world had the ability to respond, the facts on the ground would dictate much of what would be possible and that would be in North Koreas favor.

      Not that it is at all likely, just saying that current US actions have made it more likely that it could happen and would succeed than before.

      Kind Regards

      --
      "A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
    21. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      Re-read what I said about the US military budget. Most of the current military expenditure ( eg Iraq and Afghanistan ) is not counted .

      Umm, no. The part that is counted is $400 billion. I seem to recall guesstimates of a total cost of $1 trillion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (total, over the last five years). If that entire $1 trillion were part of the THIS YEAR's military budget, then our budget for the year would be 1400 billion. Which is about 12% of our GNP. Please note that 12% is less than 25%.

      Our military budget for the last five years, plus the trillion for Afghanistan and Iraq, total out at about $2700 billion. If that five year expenditure were all spent THIS YEAR, we'd be talking 22.5% of GNP. Which is still less than 25%.

      So, to put things in perspective, the DPRK's PEACETIME military expenditures are more than five times as high as our WARTIME expenditures as a percentage of GNP.

      Note, again, that 25% of the DPRK GNP isn't really all that much. It really is comparable to the NYPD budget. But it still indicates a level of militarism that is appalling beyond belief. Especially given that it hardly matters a hill of beans - there's nothing so expensive as the second-best military. And their's isn't even second-best in the region, much less the world. It may be better than the Japanese military, but it's certainly behind every other regional power (China, ROK, Russia) over that way.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    22. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by vandan · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of 'black holes' other than these 2 wars. The CIA's budget is separate, and itself is broken into visible and hidden components.

      NASA's budget is separate, and while previously you might have gotten away with arguing that NASA is about science, under Bush, NASA is about finding new ways of delivering WOMD ...not to mention channeling funds to Bush's buddies in the weapons manufacturing business ( Northrop Gunman, Boeing etc ).

      Then there's the 'war on terror', which also has a plethora of it's own visible and hidden components, all basically coming down to an increase in the police state.

      These are 3 direct examples off the top of my head. Then there's the more blurred areas such as:

      - the US directly employing private 'security contractors'
      - the US giving trade concessions, aid, loans and other incentives to countries who sign up to their military adventures - basically another way of subcontracting their wars

      Though I haven't been motivated to actually add everything up, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the US spend close to 50% of it's GDP on war. Why do you think health care, social security, and public education is so embarrassingly gutted in the US? Compare the situation there to here in Australia. Our public health system is certainly underfunded, with an acute lack of nurses, etc, but at least people can actually get access to health care ... after a long wait. At least here when you've been 'structurally adjusted' out of a job, you can fall back on social security and not have to turn to selling drugs or theft to get by. And at the moment ( though this is on it's way out ), at least you can get public education that can propel you into a profession other than selling French fries ( sorry ... Freedom Fries ). The secret is that our military budget isn't yet the runaway train that the US's has become.

    23. Re:Compared to, say, the US ... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      Though I haven't been motivated to actually add everything up, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the US spend close to 50% of it's GDP on war. Why do you think health care, social security, and public education is so embarrassingly gutted in the US?

      Let's try this part. The government's budget for 2005 amounted to 16.6% of GDP. Add another 3.3% of GDP for off-budget items (both these figures from the appropriate documents found at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/hist.html). 19.9% of GDP. Which includes Health Care, Social Security, and Public Education.

      In order to have ~50% of GDP be spent on war, we'd need to be spending 2.5 times as much as the admitted on/off budget items. Which amounts to ~5 trillion dollars per year. Or $25 trillion over the last five years. Oddly enough, our public debt (not deficit! that's a different thing entirely) is ~$8.7 trillion as of the beginning of the year. Do you have some evidence other than your idle speculations as to the nature of reality to support the opinion that the US Federal debt is really ~$30 trillion rather than the $8.7 trillion that is admitted to. Which latter is based on things like total value of T-Bills outstanding....

      I should also note that we didn't spend 50% of our GDP on World War 2, the last war we were really serious about fighting.

      As to the "embarrassingly gutted" Health Care, Social Security, and Public Education. I take it you are unaware that these items have NEVER had their budgets reduced. Not once. Not even under Bush (senior or junior).

      Our public Health Care budget was increased rather dramatically under Bush for Medicare Part D.

      Our Public Education budgets (yes, budgets - public education is mostly dealt with at local and State levels, with minor input at the Federal level, so there are thousands of public education budgets in the USA) are the highest in the world, on a per student basis ($7552 per student, plus more for "special education" students). With a growth rate over twice as high as inflation - 6% per year.

      Social Security didn't get any major new largess under Bush (or at all under any President since they started adjusting Social Security for Cost of Living back in the seventies). But it didn't suffer, either. It wasn't reduced, either on a per person basis or as a lump sum. It didn't grow at rates less than inflation - rather more, in fact.

      So, just where did you get the idea that these items had been "embarrassingly gutted"?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  30. Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm just waiting on Bush to tell us we need to invade because they have WMDs ^^

    Just because it's probably true this time doesn't excuse the last one though... And it doesn't make it right.

    I doubt he will though.... how much oil does NK have? ;)

  31. Re:Sure... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You apparently haven't seen the list of countries that thought Iraq had WMD, too. The looney left isn't impressed by that; GWB is the cause of all the world's problems.

  32. Re:war is never going away by spickus · · Score: 3, Funny

    "more IUDs and bomb belts."

    That does sound nasty, where exactly are they sticking those IUDS ?

    --
    Indecision is the key to flexibility.
  33. Re:Sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's not rewrite history. France and Russia were also convinced that Saddam had WMD. They just disagreed with the US on how to deal with it. And not from any sense of right or wrong but because they had significant "Big Business" interests in Iraq.

  34. You Should be Concerned by allscan · · Score: 1

    As someone who works as a systems contractor destroying the U.S. chemical weapons stockpiles, I can tell you it doesn't take much of this stuff to take out large portions. Even if they don't achieve total lethality, they will permanently disable huge portions of the population should they perfect their ICBMs. I will make a prediction that if we ever get out of Iraq, it will be time for a second Korean war.

    1. Re:You Should be Concerned by SylvesterTheCat · · Score: 1
      Generally speaking, I agree with you.

      I spent a year of my life mobilized for active duty to guard some of that stuff while contractors (like you) were building a de-mil facility to destroy some of these materials.

      I can tell you it doesn't take much of this stuff to take out large portions. That is very true, especially under the right conditions. I also want to point out that tactical employment of chemical and biological munitions is not as easy as it might seem. The effects of weather and terrain are very important considerations and can make it very difficult to get the desired results, unless you have an awful lot of it and have a delivery method to put it there.
  35. Nuke The Motherfuckers into Oblivion by littlewink · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's no alternative. We must hit North Korea with a surprise nuclear attack. Many nukes will be required to take out all chemical and biological facilities and sterilise them.

    It will be a short and simple war, unlike Iraq. We won't send a single person into combat. But 100-200 nuclear MIRVs will be sent on the first strike.

    The longer we wait the more dangerous NK becomes. They have probably already moved CBW to U.S. and European cities.

    Time to strike.

    1. Re:Nuke The Motherfuckers into Oblivion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I didn't realize Tom Clancy had started promoing his new book...

    2. Re:Nuke The Motherfuckers into Oblivion by SeanMac · · Score: 1

      Because there won't be any negative 'fallout' from that one... Right. (Saying this as someone about ot be deployed to S. Korea). Nothing of note will happen in terms of military conflict between the US and N. Korea in the next 5 years. if it does. It won't be between N Korea and the U.S.. It'll be between China and the U.S....

    3. Re:Nuke The Motherfuckers into Oblivion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that sounds like a perfect asshole....don't be so proud of ur nukes...ur armies are getting fucked deep into their ass in Iraq...were much worse in Vietnam, where USA's fighter planes were dropping coca-cola to cheer up their army (rather than dropping nukes)...i m not able to understand why the fuck few fucking ppl like u r so shit-headed. Be prepared that if NK is attacked by nukes, USA will also b attacked back by same thing (not only by NK, but, may be, by China as well because nuke attack on NK is going to affect, may be indirectly, Chinese territories also in bad manner and China wont let it happen at any cost)...and ur mom and sis, both will b fucked simultaneously right in front of ur eyes....but u can't do anything because u will also be getting fucked at the same time...

    4. Re:Nuke The Motherfuckers into Oblivion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they have already moved CBWs to US and European cities then it is *NOT* the time to strike...

    5. Re:Nuke The Motherfuckers into Oblivion by smoker2 · · Score: 1
      McCarthy - is that you ?

      It's China next then ?

    6. Re:Nuke The Motherfuckers into Oblivion by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      There's no alternative.

      Sure there is. Convince S. Korea to open their borders and let the N. Korean troops enter. Chances are, after seeing how good the South had it for the past 50 years, the N. Korean people will force Kim Jong Il to assume his rightful place in the world - in front of a firing squad.

      -b.

    7. Re:Nuke The Motherfuckers into Oblivion by JonathanR · · Score: 1

      If you nuke the North Koreans, then you'll destroy all those citizens who are itching to welcome the liberators...

  36. Far fewer. by khasim · · Score: 1
    But you still have danger to your people from radiation or chemical spills with the other 2.

    Biological weapons can (usually) be transmitted from person to person. Infect 1 person and he can infect 1,000 others. The disease breeds inside the victim.

    Radiation is only a threat to those handling the materials.

    Chemicals are a bigger threat than radiation, but less than biological. And chemical spills are usually easy to see or the effects are noticed quickly. Chemical weapons are very similar to the pesticides that we use.
  37. Chicken Shit by Delifisek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where is that f*cking evidence...
    The uber responsible goverment of USA sell that chemical weapons to Saddam to take down Islamic Iran Regime in 1980's. That chemical weapons used against Iran and Kurds sell by Rumsfield himself...

    There was no chemical weapon production plant in Iraq, no one found it. If they found it where is the evidence ?

    USA goverment broke down the IRAQ goverment, if you haven't got instant replacement, you cannot change goverment like this. Entire country will collapsed...

    Current status of IRAQ was CIVIL WAR and this was generated by Responsible George W. Bush regime.

    Pleas, do not F.U.D us. No one takes...

    --
    [My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
    1. Re:Chicken Shit by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "Where is that f*cking evidence..."

      Of? Iraq's killing of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens? Well, I can't very well drop all the corpses on your desk, but would you like pictures of the bodies laying in the streets and in mass graves? Careful - seeing dead children is a little startling.

      "There was no chemical weapon production plant in Iraq, no one found it. If they found it where is the evidence ?"

      Ok, they had no chemical weapons production - the chemical weapons they used in Iran and in northern Iraq to kill hundreds of thousands of people magically appeared from behind Saddam's left ear during a magic trick.

      "Current status of IRAQ was CIVIL WAR and this was generated by Responsible George W. Bush regime."

      Iraq has had free elections and is in the process of rebuilding itself after decades of dictatorship and former colonial rule that didn't work out very well.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    2. Re:Chicken Shit by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Ok, they had no chemical weapons production - the chemical weapons they used in Iran and in northern Iraq to kill hundreds of thousands of people magically appeared from behind Saddam's left ear during a magic trick."

      Nice dodge, completely ignoring the part where he explained where Iraq DID get its weapons... from us. That Iraq got weapons and money from us is documented fact, whether they EVER had a plant of their own I couldn't say. But of course there were no plants operating when the united states invaded.

      "Iraq has had free elections and is in the process of rebuilding itself after decades of dictatorship and former colonial rule that didn't work out very well."

      Free elections is a question of semantecs. You believe that is better, that doesn't mean Iraq does. Iraq was a stable country and had a strong economy before US involvement. You can claim Saddam was cruel to his people, but the idea that the nation was not stable under him is a lie. Economic sanctions brought about the poverty in Iraq, and 10 years of US bombing destroyed the infrastructure. It is the massive devestation caused by the United States that Iraq is rebuilding. The puppet government put in place there may be better than saddam for the people but that doesn't change the fact that US had no business invading the sovereign nation of Iraq in the first place.

      There were no WMD's, not that Iraqi WMD's are a US concern. There was no connection between Osama bin Laden and Iraq. The manhunt for those reponsible for 9/11 that the American people supported did not include a war against every intimidator in the world, or a holy crusade against aggressive muslims. It included only Osama bin Laden and those responsible.

    3. Re:Chicken Shit by Delifisek · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry man, your politics failed in IRAQ like Vietnam, your goverment create Saddam (to fight Iran regime), your goverment sell that Chemical weapons to Saddam (to use against Iran Regime and please look Mr.Donal Rumsfield biography), your goverment fool the Saddam to invade Kuvait (because of the create enough excuse to attack IRAQ), then your goverment Invade IRAQ, your goverment ignite that CIVIL WAR.

      Responsibility of killing IRAQ's civils was yours, because you elect that Bush. And your respect against IRAQ civils seen in pictures which in taken by USA Soldiers in IRAQ prisons.

      Then could you tell me how can you do free elections when you land invaded by foregin soldiers.

      And your stupit politicans make that Saddam underdog. After his execution, he became hero and 40 years after he became next CHE.

      Also you may want to know, I'm Turkish and every Turkish man have to complete his military duty. I done mine and I see enough dead body.

      --
      [My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
    4. Re:Chicken Shit by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1
      The uber responsible goverment of USA sell that chemical weapons to Saddam to take down Islamic Iran Regime in 1980's. That chemical weapons used against Iran and Kurds sell by Rumsfield himself...

      Document or retract.

    5. Re:Chicken Shit by Delifisek · · Score: 1

      Like US do in IRAQ ?

      anyhow here your uber secret document about Mr.Rumsfield.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfield

      And guess what? He also sold two light Nuclear Rectors to North Korea...

      --
      [My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
    6. Re:Chicken Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh - Saddam was around when Iran was our close ally against the soviet empire.

    7. Re:Chicken Shit by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1
      The Wikipedia article does not say that the U.S. supplied Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons.

      The Wikipedia article does not say that Donald Rumsfeld had any power over the sale of nuclear reactors to North Korea, which was done as per the 1994 Agreed Framework under the Clinton administration.

    8. Re:Chicken Shit by Delifisek · · Score: 1

      Nixon doesn't do water gate scandal, Clington doesn't give blow job to Jessica, hell what did u want ? Maybe you want them confess in FOX news ?

      I believe your english better than me, please read carefully lines...

      --
      [My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
  38. But those are the ones protecting you. by khasim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An accidental outbreak of smallpox in your army and you're suddenly far more vulnerable than before.

    1. Re:But those are the ones protecting you. by Phil(i+think) · · Score: 1

      meh. You only ned one guy to press the button.

    2. Re:But those are the ones protecting you. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1


      The North Koreans probably consider it just the cost of doing business. The Soviet Army used to routinely kill or injure a certain percentage of their soldiers while training with live chemical weapons. As it is, the North Koreans don't seem to be bothered by large numbers of their population starving to death or suffering severe malnutrition right now, just so long as they can keep spending their hard currency on moving their nuclear weapons and missile programs along. They know what they are doing since they conduct experiment on prisoners with lethal agents in their death camps. (They do both chemical and biological experiments.)

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  39. You mean the Kimchi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be very afraid!

  40. A joke which is far from new: by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    "We don't want you to fight, but by Jingo, if you do,
    We shall probably issue a Joint Memorandum suggesting a mild disapproval of you!"

    -- Punch magazine, in 1935, on the ineffectual response of Britain and France to the Abyssinian crisis The cartoon, found on an ebay auction

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  41. Re:Hans Blix to the rescue by crabpeople · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah! I mean if americans had listened to him, they wouldn't have even GONE to iraq. What a dumbass!

    --
    I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
  42. unfunny movie alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NEWSFLASH: Trey Parker and Matt Stone laid a stinker. Maybe next time they will actually TAKE A FUCKING STAND on something instead of just cynically (amd lame-ly) mocking everyone.

    1. Re:unfunny movie alert! by 93,000 · · Score: 1

      You are bitching about others not having the balls to take a stand. You are posting as AC. Nice.

  43. North Korea is also prepping a new nuke test... by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Interesting
  44. N.K. is more of an indirect threat than direct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Frankly put, although North Korea could make a mess of South Korea and maybe northern areas of Japan - any offensive act on their part would be suicidal. Odds are pretty good that there's plenty of artillery in the south that would respond to any attack. Not to mention there are probably at least a dozen subs that can deliver to Pyongyang on one phone call in less time than needed for a typical pizza delivery. This could then be followed up by any Pac-fleet carrier group, and B-52s from Alaska and Hawaii if there are any left-overs. So N.K. can collect all the toys they want, they just can't realistically consider using them and expect to come out winning.

    So it's not North Korea that we should worry about in a direct sense, rather the country presents a very real problem in the indirect sense. Who are their potential customers? Those fancy weapons would be pretty suicidal for them to use, but they'd certainly make a nice source of revenue to keep Kim and his nutter regime propped up.

  45. dangerous, but they don't have ICBMs or B52s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These weapons are more of a worry for China, Russia and Japan.

    We should be concerned, but these threats are over blown in a military sense. Even China can't hit the US with a *guided* ICBM. The types of warheads N. Korea can produce could not be launched by their missiles and their air force is powerless.

    There are ways they could deploy these WMD, but their chance of success is very low.

    Also, most countries -- even N Korea -- understand using bio/chem weapons could face a nuclear response.

    This news story is likely a plant to increase pressure on N Korea.

  46. The US does not have these weapons by Simonetta · · Score: 1

    The USA does not have offical stocks of biological weapons. All development of biological weapons was stopped by President Nixon in 1969.

        One may argue that the various psychopathic presidents that we have had then have reactivated the biowarfare programs secretly. But I don't believe that this is so. Millions of people in the military and private defense industries don't like bioweapons and wouldn't keep secret programs operating secretly. It has been alleged but never proven that AIDS was the result of a secret biowarfare program in the 1970s. If this were so then there would be proof independent and verifiable available by now.

        The Soviets, on the other hand, have had secret and illegal (violation of international treaties) biowar programs such as BIOPREPARAT in operation until the late 1980s. British PM Thatcher demanded that they be ended and dismantled under international supervision. The Soviets and the Russians after the end of the USSR have complied. There may be remaining stockpiles that weren't destroyed of anthrax, plague, and, worst of all, smallpox in private hands. But these stockpiles, should they exist, are illegal and the current Russian government would not hesitate to kill anyone that they found possessing them.

        The Cold War is over and it is time to leave the Cold War mentality behind; even as a joke. Such thinking that it is OK to possess or create weapons of unbelievable destructive power because the evil other side has them is a perfect example of Cold War mentality that must be left in the horrific history of the 20th century.

        Psychopathic morons like the rulers of North Korea belong back in the 20th century also. Or allowed to reign over their own little patch of hell until the time comes that they pass from the earth.

  47. Deja-vu by doktorstop · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Am I the only one who has this feeling of deja-vu? Wasn't Irq suppsed to have massive amounts of biowepons not so long ago?

    --
    http://www.automatiq.se
  48. What do we get from NK ? by Joebert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I really don't want to read in the news one day that North Korea has been systematicly poisoning our kids with Happy Meal toys fabricated from some sort of "new" plastic.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    1. Re:What do we get from NK ? by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      So close! Actually it's not the plastic toys that kill, it's the fat in the meat that leads to a slow death of the US.

    2. Re:What do we get from NK ? by smithmc · · Score: 1

        Actually it's not the plastic toys that kill, it's the fat in the meat that leads to a slow death of the US.

      Oh, yeah? Well, at least it ain't no damn North Korean meat. (Actually, I'd imagine that there are quite a few million North Koreans who wouldn't mind getting a taste of some mean, evil, nasty meat right about now...)

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  49. What a lovely country. by Txiasaeia · · Score: 4, Informative
    Revealed: the gas chamber horror of North Korea's gulag
    The hidden gulag: Reports leak out of atrocities at North Korean labor camps
    Auschwitz Under Our Noses
    A WELL-FOUNDED FEAR: PUNISHMENT AND LABOR CAMPS IN NORTH KOREA
    Death and terror in North Korea's gulags
    Comparative Analysis of Concentration Camps in Nazi Germany, the Former Soviet Union and North Korea
    An Auschwitz in Korea

    It's baffling to me why a country that has consistently and fairly been compared with Nazi Germany, to the point of concentration camps and illegal medical experimentation, has been allowed to exist for this long. Drudge reported this morning that they're prepping another nuke test, and it's a well-known fact that they've been developing chem and bio weapons for years. A new Hitler has risen, and we are so busy looking elsewhere that we either haven't noticed or don't care.

    --
    Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    1. Re:What a lovely country. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Informative
      A new Hitler has risen, and we are so busy looking elsewhere that we either haven't noticed or don't care.

      Actually worse than Hitler. Hitler actually brought prosperity to the non-Jewish, non-dissident, non-... part of Germany before WW II. All Kim Jong Il has done is supervise the slow starvation of his country. I bet that if North Korean troops saw what was south of the border, he'd have a mutiny on his hands within a month.

      -b.

    2. Re:What a lovely country. by jinieren · · Score: 1, Interesting

      From what I recall from my European history class, Hitler actually refused to use chemical weapons. He had faced them during combat in World War 1 and knew enough about their effects that he was terrified of the thought of using them in trench warfare again.
      Although that didn't stop chemical weapons from being used in some degree in the concentration camps.

    3. Re:What a lovely country. by shudde · · Score: 1

      It's baffling to me why a country that has consistently and fairly been compared with Nazi Germany, to the point of concentration camps and illegal medical experimentation, has been allowed to exist for this long. Drudge reported this morning that they're prepping another nuke test, and it's a well-known fact that they've been developing chem and bio weapons for years. A new Hitler has risen, and we are so busy looking elsewhere that we either haven't noticed or don't care.

      Concentration camps... illegal medical experimentation... a new Hitler.

      So after NK is pacified, America has replacements for all the Nazi scientists that died of old age? Remind me to invest heavily in American bio-tech and weapons development over the next 30 years.

    4. Re:What a lovely country. by Pentagram · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's baffling to me why a country that has consistently and fairly been compared with Nazi Germany, to the point of concentration camps and illegal medical experimentation, has been allowed to exist for this long.

      Because they have an enormous army and loads of missiles aimed at one of the world's densest population areas?

      Just about every regime in existence thinks NK is a scar on the face of the world but no one is able to do anything about it.

    5. Re:What a lovely country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't baffle me at all, quite to the contrary.

      First off I have to correct you; we've been noticing, worrying and trying just about everything except war for decades. "We" as in the international community although for the most part it has been the US with the rest of the security council dragging them down. Don't believe me: go read the transcripts of sessions and statements of diplomats from the big players involved. If you really want to why not read all the way back to the start of the Korean war?

      If you do that then here's a question for you: is the United Nations (yes the UN not the US) still at war with North Korea? Why is it/is it not? Which consequences does this have? Change the answer to the first question (if you found that it isn't then presuppose that it is and vice versa) and answer the following questions again*

      Second; any such Hitler comparisons are of course wrong even though they do illustrate many points; one very big and important difference is that North Korea hasn't invaded any country. The entire North Korea is in effect a death camp and it's probably about time to stop using Hitler as an example of ultimate evil since so many have beaten him in various ways; Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim's.

      Now a few reasons...

      First a list of hostages:
      - Seoul (by conventional means if neccessary - personally I don't think they even need artillery as they have enough bodies)
      - all the major population centers in China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan by long-range missiles (I would have listed Russia too but I doubt they are of any particular interest to the North Koreans)
      - quite a few big cities on the US pacific coast (once again using long-range missiles) however the intercept time is rather plentiful so it's doubtful North Korea would succeed with such attacks.

      For all the "quiet" surrounding the topic China is desperately trying to hold their own country together and not go belly-up like the USSR. The last thing China needs right now is more instability. Of course the bad thing for China (and they know it) is that with North Korea they're not going to be able to uphold the status quo no matter which approach they take. I believe this will ultimately force China's hand into a stance against North Korea (they're not there yet) and I believe things will move very fast once they come to these conclusions (war first, talk later). The alternative is to hope that North Korea implodes but that option is, and has always been, running out of time.

      The US cannot solve the Korea problem on its own and this has been true since before the Korean war, yet it isn't getting any real support. By the way; recognizing that the Iraq situation was developing into a copy of the North Korean situation was the primary mover for that conflict, it's what preemption is all about - not that they got much support there either but at least the primary objective was met (and swiftly). Now Iran is betting they can slip by in cover of all the noise and achieve the same.

      Across the world there is absolutely no shortage of the simpleminded cynical or naive apologists and detractors (the kind of people who usually love to call themselves "the peace movement"). You will find plenty of them posting right here so look at the total of this thread.

      Now that last point I agree can be seen as a detraction from the issue however unlike in North Korea the opinions of people in the US, South Korea, Japan and other democracies actually do matter because it influences votes which in turn explain such oddities as the Sunshine Policy (did we ever send food and other aids to Hitler on a massive scale? We did to Saddam and we still do to Kim and it's always the same people supporting it and they always end up prolonging the horrors).

      So... exactly who is it that have been looking elsewhere? Almost (I do say almost) everyone except the kind of people who are currently portrayed as unpopular. What is to blame for the whole shebang? Communism, which has always lead

    6. Re:What a lovely country. by g253 · · Score: 1

      It's baffling to me why a country that has consistently and fairly been compared with Nazi Germany, to the point of concentration camps and illegal medical experimentation, has been allowed to exist for this long.

      Well, I believe that's because they don't have an expansionist policy.

      Here's a question to think about : if Nazi Germany had not attempted to invade / conquer surrounding countries and had quietly gone about its slaughtering business within its boundaries, how much do you think the world would have cared? What actions do you suppose other countries would have taken?

    7. Re:What a lovely country. by Kismet · · Score: 1

      Well, I believe that's because they don't have an expansionist policy.

      You have a persuasive argument, however my intuition also suggests that it's because North Korea doesn't have any economically viable assets that need liberating. In spite of the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric, the greatest threat to Western Security isn't a nuclear bomb or a germ.

    8. Re:What a lovely country. by g253 · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course. I'd say that the lack of expansionism is the reason nobody cares, and the lack of oil is the reason nobody even pretends to care...

    9. Re: What a lovely country. by gidds · · Score: 1
      I don't think anyone's saying NK is a lovely country. But that's FAR from saying it should be destroyed.

      Firstly, there's the moral question. How bad must a government be before military action is justified? No government is perfect; even those of relatively liberal and democratic countries like mine commit acts that are outrageous and criminal from time to time. Come to that, my country has nukes, and even has the distinction of having pretty much invented the concentration camp, while fighting in South Africa, and has performed tests on chemical weapons. How much worse must a country be before we're morally justified in military action? What makes NK qualitatively different?

      Closely allied to that, what gives us the right to change the NK government? There's no such thing as a World Policeman. Much as the USA might have delusions of grandeur (and of objectivity, and of invincibility), it's just another sovereign country. If every sovereign country who didn't like another one tried to invade, none of us would be here at all. What gives us the right in this case?

      And thirdly, do we have the ability? I think the débâcles in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that enforced régime change is hard; even massive military intervention cannot force a government upon a people who don't want it. Are we so sure that all the people of North Korea would be immediately convinced of the moral rightness of an invasion, and give their full support to it? (Or, if not, do we have the military power to invade against their wishes and install a government of our own that would be just as despotic?)

      Then, of course, there would be the question of means: with UN and US forces overstretched in Iran, Afghanistan, and many other places, could anyone spare the forces needed?

      I don't pretend to have the answers to all of these questions. But they do need to be answered. You can't just use 'It's not a nice place' as an excuse for military action. As Douglas Adams put it in So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish:

      "But that's terrible," said Arthur.

      "Listen, bud," said Ford, "if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin."

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    10. Re: What a lovely country. by Txiasaeia · · Score: 1

      Firstly, there's the moral question. How bad must a government be before military action is justified? No government is perfect; even those of relatively liberal and democratic countries like mine commit acts that are outrageous and criminal from time to time. Come to that, my country has nukes, and even has the distinction of having pretty much invented the concentration camp, while fighting in South Africa, and has performed tests on chemical weapons. How much worse must a country be before we're morally justified in military action? What makes NK qualitatively different?

      1. Mass starvation due to governmental policy.
      2. Closed door to Red Cross and other humanitarian groups.
      3. Illegal (by international standards) testing on its own citizens.
      4. Operation of concentration camps that are equivalent to those operating in WWII Germany - camps for which people were put to death in the Nuremburg trials.

      For all four of these reasons together, something needs to be done. In my mind, this includes military action. The fact that North Korea isn't expanding is meaningless; their dogged pursuit of nuclear weaponry makes them a global threat to peace. That enough of a justification for you?

      Closely allied to that, what gives us the right to change the NK government? There's no such thing as a World Policeman. Much as the USA might have delusions of grandeur (and of objectivity, and of invincibility), it's just another sovereign country. If every sovereign country who didn't like another one tried to invade, none of us would be here at all. What gives us the right in this case?

      I'll forgive you for the assumption that I'm American. The question isn't "What gives our nation the right to impose our will on another nation," but "As fellow human beings, how long can we stand a government that tortures, rapes, and kills its own citizens?" Standing behind borders of nationality and rationalising inaction because of this is petty. People are dying because a madman lacks the fortitude to recognise that some of his citizens disagree with his methods and his results. This alone should give us the right to invade.

      And thirdly, do we have the ability? I think the débâcles in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that enforced régime change is hard; even massive military intervention cannot force a government upon a people who don't want it. Are we so sure that all the people of North Korea would be immediately convinced of the moral rightness of an invasion, and give their full support to it? (Or, if not, do we have the military power to invade against their wishes and install a government of our own that would be just as despotic?)

      This is your best point. Currently, an invasion of North Korea would almost certainly lead to the deaths of every citizen of Seoul, the capital city of South Korea (~14 million), as NK has thousands of artillery pieces pointed at the city. Even if the regime were to be toppled, we're talking about a country that has been propagandised for half a century and a citizenry that has known only two de facto leaders. I completely disagree with you that an installed regime would be as despotic as the one it would replace: when the allies finally conquered Germany in WWII, was the occupying government as despotic as Hitler's? Also, regardless of whether the NK people are convinced of the moral rightness of an invasion or not, it is in their best interest to ensure that Kim Jong-Il not continue his campaign of terror and brutality against his own people.

      The situation in North Korea is very, very similar to that of WWII Germany, the worst excesses of Stalinist USSR, Pol Pot's regime, and so on. North Korea needs a regime change more than Iraq did. From your post, I'm pretty sure you didn't read the links I provided in an earlier post.

      I don't pretend to have the answers to all of these question

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
  50. Re:war is never going away by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Whilst many people who do the fighting passionately belive in a cause/ideology that is pushed by their leaders. The wars themselves are (as they have always been) about territorial influence (a democratic ME, one China, ect) and control of resources (oil in particular). The difference today is found in the efficientcy of the weapons. "All out war" between two modern and well armed nations is likely to vapourise the primary warmongers on both sides within the first few hours/days.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  51. Re:Sure... by bronzey214 · · Score: 1

    Actually there's this saying we have in Texas. Fool me once... shame on you. Fool me twice... and you can't get fooled again.

  52. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  53. Invading North Korea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to invade! Why not? Look how well it worked against the other member of the axis-of-evil... Invading North Korea isn't going to happen for a number of reasons starting with the fact that the USA has it's hands full in Iraq. Another reason is that experience from the last Korean war shows that if the USA managed to lose the equivalent of a brigade of troops in Iraq they will probably lose entire divisions in any war with North Korea plus they have completely lost any credibility when it comes to starting wars over WMDs. The American public may be willing to lose a regiment or two of troops over a few years of combat, occupation and COIN operations in Iraq but they will not put up with having entire divisions gutted in a war on the Korean peninsula over the span of, say... a year. Modern democracies are rather intolerant when it comes to war casualties. Then there is of course the fact that moving against North Korea will piss off China which might very well lend support to North Korea despite the latter's ugly reputation just to make a point about it's 'sphere of influence' much like the USA has in the past supported some really cruel dictators just because they were anti Communist and the US leadership wanted to make a point about the proliferation of Communism in the it's 'sphere of influence'. Chinese support might actually reach a the point where regular troops of the Chinese PLA would be injected into the fightitng in support of North Korea. Basically neither the USA nor anybody else will make a move against North Korea without China's blessing.
    1. Re:Invading North Korea? by Metasquares · · Score: 1

      It doesn't behoove China to have a maniac developing WMDs on its doorstep either.

    2. Re:Invading North Korea? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I guess they're not too keen on that idea but I'm sure there even less keen on the idea of having huge portions of the US military camped out on their doorstep.

  54. Popular Mechanics as a propaganda rag? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    It might seem a weird magazine to pick to disseminate lame 'debunkings' (re, their many-holed 9-11 article), and propaganda, until one considers who it is aimed at.

    I have always said that tech geeks are the lynch-pins and keyholders of perceived reality in this world. Engineers and scientists and smart people who have a vested interest in the use of critical thinking and analysis, are the ones who determine what we believe in as a culture, they determine our technology and therefore the very shape of our reality. As such, ENORMOUS amounts of mind-programming are aimed at the scientifically inclined. (They already have the religious bagged up for delivery.)

    It starts in school, where the paradigm is set up to make sure that geeks are inhibited through social punishment. This makes them seek love from teachers and to define themselves by their accomplishments in knowledge. The problem with seeking approval from the gate keepers of knowledge, (teachers), is that teachers have state-implemented curriculums to teach, filled with lies and various bits of twisted and highly limiting 'knowledge'.

    Thus, with the geek's sense of self-worth tied almost inextricably to the little gold stars they received for agreeing with authority, huge blind spots are hard-wired into their awareness from a young age. It is thus possible to direct the path, not just of technology, but of the science and research which are the underpinnings of our whole reality.

    If you don't want people to be aware of the spirit or of energy or of UFO's or of our ancient history, (do you feel that jolt of internal revulsion which accompanies the reading of each of those terms? That's your programming talking.), then you implement a social engineering system to lock down the very people who could take that knowledge and study it properly according to the tenets of science. Because if you do not, the knowledge uncovered gives the power to become aware of our hidden oppressors and to resist them; not with cool laser guns, but with the simple awareness of higher realms of existence and the ability to choose our daily actions with knowledge and thus make decisions which benefit humanity and not those who farm humanity, sowing suffering. Because in the end, it's all about the soul, and they do not want you to even believe you have one, let alone realize that to work on strengthening it is the way to oppose them.

    So Popular Mechanics is a logical choice for propaganda. Everybody else in our culture is far easier to lie to and lead into war and general stupidity. So they use a magazine which us geeks loved as kids, (who didn't want their own personal submarine or flying car or pocket computer?), to feed us the critical lies at the critical times.

    Fortunately, the population isn't so dumb these days, but the imbeciles over at Popular Mechanics can be counted on to use the most retarded and easily refuted logic. Bad guys are selfish, they always take the route of least resistance, which means they don't push themselves to become smart enough to fool people who do push themselves to learn. Funny that.


    -FL

    1. Re:Popular Mechanics as a propaganda rag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You believe engineers and scientists give any creedence to Popular Mechanics? A glossy magazine aimed at children and uneducated adults for them to read while taking a dump? I can't say I've seen more than one or two issues but is there ever anything but gossip and fluff in there? Isn't it like a very much dumbed down version of Wired (which itself is mostly a glossy gossip rag and I say that as it is my current choice of lavatory litterature - Foreign Affairs give me constipation) only not so much about computing and related?

      Hehe you almost got me there Fantastic Lad, you joker you, let's talk about the educational nature of Penthouse next ^_^

      Lots of love; you made my day :) (I am not being sarcastic or mean in any way, you really did)

      p.s. on a serious note look at which sources PM mangled to make their fluff
      p.p.s. I wonder what Slashdot is to you

    2. Re:Popular Mechanics as a propaganda rag? by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      For more on your theme, see John Taylor Gatto:
          "Underground History of American Education"
          http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.ht m
      "The shocking possibility that dumb people don't exist in sufficient numbers to warrant the millions of careers devoted to tending them will seem incredible to you. Yet that is my central proposition: the mass dumbness which justifies official schooling first had to be dreamed of; it isn't real."

      But, lest you think this is a conspiracy:
          http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc5.ht m
      " A Conspiracy Against Ourselves: Spare yourself the anxiety of thinking of this school thing as a conspiracy, even though the project is indeed riddled with petty conspirators. It was and is a fully rational transaction in which all of us play a part. We trade the liberty of our kids and our free will for a secure social order and a very prosperous economy. It's a bargain in which most of us agree to become as children ourselves, under the same tutelage which holds the young, in exchange for food, entertainment, and safety. The difficulty is that the contract fixes the goal of human life so low that students go mad trying to escape it."

      See also:
          http://www.homeschoolnewslink.com/homeschool/colum nists/gatto/aconspiracy.shtml
      "I'll bring this down to Earth. Try to see than an intricately subordinated industrial/commercial system has only limited use for hundreds of millions of self-reliant, resourceful readers and critical thinkers. In an egalitarian, entrepreneurially-based economy of confederated families like the one the Amish have or the Mondragon folk in the Basque region of Spain, any number of self-reliant people can be accommodated usefully, but not in a concentrated command-type economy like our own. Where on earth would they fit? In a great fanfare of moral fervor some years back, the Ford Motor Company opened the world's most productive auto engine plant in Chihuahua, Mexico. It insisted on hiring employees with 50 percent more school training than the Mexican norm of six years, but as time passed Ford removed its requirements and began to hire school dropouts, training them quite well in four to twelve weeks. The hype that education is essential to robot-like work was quietly abandoned. Our economy has no adequate outlet of expression for its artists, dancers, poets, painters, farmers, film makers, wildcat business people, handcraft workers, whiskey makers, intellectuals, or a thousand other useful human enterprises--no outlet except corporate work or fringe slots on the periphery of things. Unless you do "creative" work the company way, you run afoul of a host of laws and regulations put on the books to control the dangerous products of imagination which can never be safely tolerated by a centralized command system. Before you can reach a point of effectiveness in defending your own children or your principles against the assault of blind social machinery, you have to stop conspiring against yourself by attempting to negotiate with a set of abstract principles and rules which, by its nature, cannot respond. Under all its disguises, that is what institutional schooling is, an abstraction which has escaped its handlers. Nobody can reform it. First you have to realize that human values are the stuff of madness to a system; in systems-logic the schools we have already the schools the system needs; the only way they could be much improved is to have kids eat, sleep, live and die there. "

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    3. Re:Popular Mechanics as a propaganda rag? by smithmc · · Score: 1

        If you don't want people to be aware of the spirit or of energy or of UFO's or of our ancient history, (do you feel that jolt of internal revulsion which accompanies the reading of each of those terms? That's your programming talking.), then you implement a social engineering system to lock down the very people who could take that knowledge and study it properly according to the tenets of science. Because if you do not, the knowledge uncovered gives the power to become aware of our hidden oppressors and to resist them; not with cool laser guns, but with the simple awareness of higher realms of existence and the ability to choose our daily actions with knowledge and thus make decisions which benefit humanity and not those who farm humanity, sowing suffering. Because in the end, it's all about the soul, and they do not want you to even believe you have one, let alone realize that to work on strengthening it is the way to oppose them.
       

      Wow, I'm not even sure where to begin. Just what do "the tenets of science" have to say about "the spirit", or "UFOs", or "the soul", or "higher realms of existence", anyway? And what does "the ability to choose our daily actions with knowledge and thus make decisions which benefit humanity" have to do with any of those things? Why does a person have to believe in religious mysticism in order to not want to hurt people? And who are these "hidden oppressors" of whom you speak? Seems to be that Bush & Co. are being pretty public about it, these days...

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  55. Good by ChameleonDave · · Score: 2, Insightful

    North Korea's military capabilities (and in particular its nuclear, biological and chemical capabilities) are irrelevant, because they will never be used against NK's immensely richer and more powerful neighbours and rivals.

    All that matters is what these capabilities are perceived to be, and how these perceptions are utilised in propaganda.

    It is clear from history (particularly recent Iraqi history) that there are three possible scenarios:

    1. If NK is perceived to have a very small arsenal, then the US will not be able to present it as a threat, and NK is therefore safe. (This is the pre-9/11 scenario)
    2. If NK is perceived to have a modest arsenal, then NK is at considerable risk of invasion because it will be too weak to defend itself, and yet the public will be able to be terrorised and manipulated by talk of WMDs. (This is the Iraq scenario)
    3. If NK is perceived to have a significant arsenal, then it will be safe because the country will be able to defend itself from US aggression. (This is the Cold War scenario)

    From this, we can see that if NK wants peace, they need to appear to be in scenario 1 or 2, that is to say, to appear to have very few weapons or very many. Of these two options, the cheapest is number 1.

    However, Iraq shows us that having no WMDs and not being a threat is no guarantee of not being perceived as a threat. Intelligence will simply be fabricated. There, option 1 is taken away from the NK régime.

    This leaves scenario 3 (Cold War) as a way of securing peace. Therefore, the NK régime should logically build up as large an arsenal of dangerous weapons as it possibly can. Since war is bad for the world in general, it follows that all responsible world citizens should want the terrible NK régime to accumulate such a stockpile, as it is the only thing that will stop Washington hawks initiating a bloodbath.

    Furthermore, the NK régime should build this stockpile as fast as possible, in order to shorten as much as possible the intermediate stage in which they have enough weapons to be presented as a threat, but don't actually have enough to defend the country.

    The US military is tied up in Iraq maintaining the puppet state that it has established there, and public support for another aggressive war would be very low right now. If the NK régime waits another five or ten years, the US régime may have been able to recover from Iraq in financial, military and propaganda terms, and be ready to liberate NK by means of mass annihilation. For these reasons, rapid armament for NK is particularly urgent and important for world peace.

    Seoul is within *artillery* range of NK and NK has the capacity to bombard it with hundreds of thousands of rounds of artillery *per hour* until that capacity is destroyed. On the first day of fighting, there would probably be more than a million SK casualties. And these would be *first-world citizen* casualties, not third-world casualties taht nobody cares about.

    Yes, this is a major reason to have hope. It may be that NK already has enough conventional military capacity to be perceived to be too dangerous to attack. However, is it enough to stop the maniacs who smashed Iraq? I would advise NK to accumulate a bit more conventional weaponry, and perhaps make a nuke or two, plus several fake nukes. Bio-chemical weapons are probably not worth making, but they would benefit from publicly announcing that their agents have planted anthrax, plague, sarin gas, etc in remote-controlled devices in every South Korean city, and that these would detonate even if the US wiped out all NK artillery (and population) in a surprise attack.

    Nuke The Motherfuckers into Oblivion
    There's no alternative. We must hit North Korea with a surprise nuclear attack. Many nukes will be required to take out all chemical and biological facilities and sterilise them

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. The greatest threat to world peace is the huge military might of the United States. What military might. That may be true the threat to world peace may be the US, but there is nothing mighty about their military. If there is I haven't seen anything yet.
    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once this is achieved, international law can be fully implemented for the first time in history, resulting in the abolition of war, the strengthening and democratisation of the UN, and a new age approaching true civilisation, instead of the current barbarism.


      You actually believe this? Sorry, can't type anymore, I'm about to fall over laughing again.

    3. Re:Good by ChameleonDave · · Score: 1
      You actually believe this? Sorry, can't type anymore, I'm about to fall over laughing again.

      You're using the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule.

      But let's pretend you made an honest enquiry into the feasibility of what I mentioned.

      There are various things to understand in the sequence of events given. Firstly, I stated that the rule of law will extend to the international arena at some point in the future. This comes from a general observation that the rule of law is a concept that has been growing over the last few centuries, and has made rapid progress in the last hundred years or so with things such as the Geneva Conventions. I forecast that this progress will continue unless blocked.

      It is clear that this progress is currently blocked by the fact that the world superpower can veto any international decision by means of (1) overwhelming military (and also economic) might, (2) its Security Council veto.

      Therefore, breaking US hegemony is likely to permit the international rule of law.

      Aggressive war has already been abolished de jure by the Geneva Conventions; therefore, stronger international law will mean a de facto abolition of war.

      Removing the main bully from the equation will give the UN a chance to reform and democratise itself under popular pressure. With luck, this will them happen.

      The de facto abolition of war is a precondition to civilisation according to the strict criteria that I apply, because I consider mass murder to be uncivilised — to say the least. Therefore, the advances that I describe are in my estimation more than sufficient to mark a new era — they are far more important than recognised era-changes such as the fall of the Roman empire.

      If you want to reply to this, I ask you to contradict some particular point instead of using a general appeal to humour or ridicule.

    4. Re:Good by ChameleonDave · · Score: 1

      What military might. That may be true the threat to world peace may be the US, but there is nothing mighty about their military. If there is I haven't seen anything yet.

      It is generally accepted that, on the military, the US spends sums of money roughly equal to the rest of the world combined. With this come forces that are roughly equal in power to the rest of the world combined. See this list. Even if we assume mind-boggling waste and incompetence in the US military and comparative excellence elsewhere, this still means that the American military machine clearly outclasses any other in the world.

      You are perhaps referring to military failures in Vietnam and Iraq that are to do with stupid decision-making. That is a separate question.

      P.S. My recommendation for a 90% reduction in the US military budget was an underestimate. 90% would leave the US tying for first place alongside the UK. A 99% reduction would be much better, leaving the US spending "only" as much as the huge sums that Israel spends on its army. Note that we are talking about annual expenditure. I'm not even suggesting a reduction in the American WMD stockpiles, which also outclass anything else in the world.

    5. Re:Good by smashin2345 · · Score: 1

      "Indeed. The greatest threat to world peace is the huge military might of the United States. After weaker states protect themselves in the short term by stockpiling weapons, the long-term goal of peace can only come about by international pressure on the US to scrap up to 90% of its military capacity, and bring it down to levels compatible with defence rather than aggression. Once this is achieved, international law can be fully implemented for the first time in history, resulting in the abolition of war, the strengthening and democratisation of the UN, and a new age approaching true civilisation, instead of the current barbarism."

      So what is the difference between "peace-keeping missions" and wars of aggression? Since we are on the topic, the first Korean war was technically a "peace-keeping" mission since it was a UN lead war. In reality it was very similar to a war of aggression where the UN invaded to stop the spread of Communism. So I do ask you, whats the difference between those 2?

      While you are thinking about that, think about another fact. Wars of aggression will happen whether we want them to or not. South Korea is much richer then N. Korea, so what happens when the communist state decides to invade SK? Do we sit here and debate it in the UN and talk about how warfare is illegal and that NK is breaking the law? I mean seriously, how can you illegalize war unless your willing to use warfare in the first place. And does that make the UN any better just because they can call it a "peace-keeping" mission when they do resort to warfare to preserve the status quo? There goes illegalization of warfare.

      I am not trying to say that your ends are bad. I would love to see warfare become a thing of the past, but reality dictates different things. Invading Iraq was a HUGE mistake, and the US should be faulted for making a terrible decision...but that doesn't mean we should say that ALL military action is bad.

      Do I think for a second we should invade North Korea? NO.

      But that doesn't mean we should cut off our balls and make a blanket statement that gives NK a blank check to do whatever they want. Genocide is not the answer but on the other hand the situation should be monitered and international pressure SHOULD be put on NK to follow international norms. Norms such as not developing chemical/biological weapons assuming this report is true.

      We aren't talking about nuclear weapons, but on the other hand, do you really think its a good idea to let every power hungry man out there have weapons that could kill millions of people? I don't like the fact that these weapons exist period, but I think the less people that have them, the better.

      It only takes one nut with these to kill a million people or perhaps the world.

    6. Re:Good by ChameleonDave · · Score: 1

      International law allows warfare only when authorised by the UN, or in self-defence against an imminent threat when there is no time to go to the UN.

      This is much like the situation with domestic law. If I have a quarrel with someone (e.g. they have robbed me, or I believe they are going to kill me) I can go to the relevant authority (the police) and have them deal with the problem with force. If there is an imminent threat (e.g. he's coming at me with a knife), I can use violence to defend myself. If I abuse the right to self-defence (e.g. by attacking pre-emptively), I myself will be charged with an offence.

      Pretty much everyone in the 21st century accepts that this is justice in the domestic sphere. We will have reached a higher level of civilisation when exactly the same is accepted in the international sphere. At the moment, Bush is a war criminal according to the Geneva Conventions because he committed the supreme crime of aggression. The fact that only a minority of people recognise this is an indictment on our society in the same way that toleration of amphitheatre deaths was an indictment on Roman society.

      If North Korea invaded the South (which could not possibly happen), the situation would not be as you describe. The UN would instantly pass unanimous resolutions condemning the invasion and authorising defensive action. Some defensive action would obviously have been already carried out by South Korea, and the UN would retrospectively recognise that action as legal self-defence. The idea of South Korea burning whilst suits debate in the UN is pure fiction.

      I do agree that NK should be held to international norms of non-proliferation, but NK cannot be the only country held to such norms, otherwise they are not international. First and foremost, the global superpower, the country with the largest stockpiles of WMDs, and the only country to have nuked cities, must adhere to such standards, and force their client states (e.g. Israel) to follow suit. Only then can they credibly put pressure on NK to do the same.

      Now, it's perfectly possible for an aggressive war to be disguised as a legitimate peace-keeping or liberating force by intimidating the international community into giving a UN mandate (the US nearly managed to make them happen over Iraq). And the UN can also fail to act when it should act. In the same way, it is possible to find lazy cops and bribable judges. There are miscarriages of justice. However, few would say that this means that the essential principles of the justice system and the concept of the rule of law itself need to be abandoned. Few would say that there is such a fine line between criminal and legal acts that it is pointless to bother distinguishing.

      No, we all recognise the many flaws in the domestic justice system, and yet all civilised persons recognise that it is proper to go to the police to deal with crime, and not take things into their own hands. All I am saying is that this same level of civilised behaviour should reign in international affairs.

      I agree with your basic sentiment that the fewer weapons there are the better, but it is important not to be naïve. When there is a huge imbalance in possession of weapons, the states with the most weapons should be called upon to reduce them first, then those who have hardly any in comparison.

      Again, this is something that even a child would understand in another context. If we live in a Wild West environment where everyone carries a gun, what should Sheriff UN do? Should he go over to crazy slanty-eyed Kim Jong-Il's ranch and take his six-shooter and anthraxy sheep off him, or should he try to tackle the heavily-armed gang of bandits who have been burning down ranches everywhere, most recently old Hussein's ranch, who turned out not even to have a pistol?

      I don't any of the ranch-owners should be allowed to keep their guns in the long term, but in the short term they really need some self-defence, until we throw the bandits in jail.

    7. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Firstly, I stated that the rule of law will extend to the international arena at some point in the future. This comes from a general observation that the rule of law is a concept that has been growing over the last few centuries, and has made rapid progress in the last hundred years or so with things such as the Geneva Conventions. I forecast that this progress will continue unless blocked.

      It is clear that this progress is currently blocked by the fact that the world superpower can veto any international decision by means of (1) overwhelming military (and also economic) might, (2) its Security Council veto.

      Therefore, breaking US hegemony is likely to permit the international rule of law.

      Aggressive war has already been abolished de jure by the Geneva Conventions; therefore, stronger international law will mean a de facto abolition of war. "

      You make the false assumption that if the "rule of law" as you put it is allowed to grow, that if America loses its "veto", that war will somehow stop. What you've left out of your equation is the fact that THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

      In fact, it is very difficult to find even a 50 year period of time where the world was at peace EVERYWHERE in the world. Please cite an example if you can.

      All it takes for war to break out is one member state deciding to attack another. Ooops, now there is war again... perhaps by your definitions an illegal war, but war nonetheless. So what would this super one world government you envision do about it? Presumably, they would have to stop it by force - in other words, engage in warfare, or let that war continue illegally. And where would they get the troops to do it? Will this new "rule of law" provide for the drafting of conscripts from member nations?

      All of your arguments boil down to a premise that a government, particularly a world government, would be benevelent... What you don't account for is the fact that all government is coercion. Without coercion, government cannot function, and thus your "rule of law" becomes a paper tiger...

    8. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing that you used the word "whilst", I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that you are either from the UK or part of the former British empire.

      The US has done exactly what you suggest we do in the past. Prior to WWI, we stayed out of world affairs. The Europeans then ignited a world conflict, one that the US finally had to enter to help end. And we entered on the side of the UK, even though the US has a large ethnic German population.

      The US then went back to doing exactly what you ask of us again. We decommissioned huge parts of our navy, reduced our army to subsistance levels, and generally let the world do what it wanted again... we largely stayed out of it.

      Then the Europeans, namely the Germans and Italians started up the mess again, assisted by the Japanese in Asia and the Pacific. Still we stayed out.

      It wasn't until the US was bombed at Pearl Harbor, in a sneak attack, that we entered that war. We then proceeded to largely win WWII on behalf of the UK, with a huge amount of help from the USSR. We finished the war by dropping nukes on Japan, as you point out - the only country to have used nukes, but far from the only country to have used WMD's (that was a tradition started by the British, French, and Germans in WWII)

      This time, with the USSR poised to expand it's own empire, we didn't just disarm as we had in the past, and in doing so ensured that Western Europe, the UK, and the Asia/Pacific region could enjoy freedom and democracy.

      You seem to think the US has served its usefulness to the world. At this point, you've convinced me. I too think we should remove our troops... from South Korea, from Iraq, from Western Europe... everywhere. Let the world burn down. Let the Saddam Heussains and Kim Jong Il's of the world have at it.

      Perhaps you're right. Maybe the world will be a better place with US forces policing the world anymore. We can stay home, and when the carnage and humanitarian crises of the world begin to pile up, just give us a call. Leave a message at the tone. Beep.

    9. Re:Good by ChameleonDave · · Score: 1
      Prior to WWI, we stayed out of world affairs. The Europeans then ignited a world conflict

      We, we, we? You didn't do anything. It was the US administration of the time.

      Europe, Europe, Europe? Europe didn't do anything. It was the fascist powers of the time.

      The US régime of the time did what it saw as best defending its interests in the face of a fascist threat, and France, Britain, etc did the same. No need to build it up into some Clark Kent America saving some Lois Lane Europe, in order to make some nationalistic point.

      During the Cold War, Western might was as important in holding back Soviet imperialism as Soviet might was in holding back Western imperialism. Nobody is denying that, although it would be good to acknowledge that the Soviet bloc was at a military disadvantage most of the time and therefore would have been keen on entering into more disarmament talks than the US was willing to enter into.

      Maybe the world will be a better place with US forces policing the world anymore. We can stay home, and when the carnage and humanitarian crises of the world begin to pile up, just give us a call.

      That reflects a twisted view of the world. Only the forces of international law (the UN) can "police the world". The US merely prowls the world like any other predator, just as the British Empire did before. Humanitarian crises are largely piling up because of the US, not despite it. For example, well over .6 million people have been killed in Iraq by US actions. Palestinian society is collapsing into civil war due to the actions of the US's Middle Eastern client state, Israel. You mention Saddam Hussein as though he supports your point, whereas in reality he was an example of a dictator backed by the US for many years.

      Now, the US could maintain a modest force which it could use as a general deterrent plus a tool to be used to uphold international law at the command of a reformed UN. I suggested before a cut to just 10% of current spending, which would not even knock the US off the top spot (it would tie with the UK at approximately US$48 billion). This would allow about US$400 billion a year to be assigned to healthcare in the US, thus greatly improving life for ordinary people. It would also at a stroke remove all the main reasons for the existence of Al-Qaeda, thus greatly increasing security for ordinary people in America.

    10. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The US régime of the time did what it saw as best defending its interests in the face of a fascist threat, and France, Britain, etc did the same. No need to build it up into some Clark Kent America saving some Lois Lane Europe, in order to make some nationalistic point."

      The fact of the matter is that Europe was saved by the US several times now. And seemingly each time the US left Europe to its own devices, the continent was again set ablaze with war. When the US stayed in Europe via Nato after WWII, it checked Soviet expansionism. Even though you choose to ignore it, I'll say it anyway. You're welcome.

      Recent history backs this up... European nations were seemingly oblivious to the atrocities happening in the Balkans and allows yet another genocide/"ethnic cleansing" to take place on the continent. It wasn't until the US finally pressed the issue that Nato got involved and "policed" the situation. Europeans are seemingly content to let other countries go up in flames provided that it doesn't hurt them directly, even when such aggressions happen in your own back yard.

      "During the Cold War, Western might was as important in holding back Soviet imperialism as Soviet might was in holding back Western imperialism."

      Show me the US imperialism in the last 100 years? We fought to free Europe twice in that time. We did NOT create an empire out of that, we gave France back to the French... We gave Germany back to the Germans... Hell we even gave Japan back to the Japanese! When we fight, we fight to destroy enemies or to liberate countries, then we are content to go home, unless such countries remain under external threat, ie South Korea, Western Europe, etc. This is a far cry from Soviet imperialism where puppet governments are created or whole countries are swallowed into the Empire. It is a marked difference from the imperialism of the 19th century, a history that the US was not absent from and for which we should be ashamed.

      "Now, the US could maintain a modest force which it could use as a general deterrent plus a tool to be used to uphold international law at the command of a reformed UN."

      You are truly a dreamer. If you think that US troops are going to be put under the command of a reformed UN to police the world, you are sadly mistaken. Most people in the US have NO INTEREST in policing the world. By and large we want to be left alone. We allowed Muslim extemists to blow up our embassies, destroy naval vessels (USS COLE), even take hostages and slice their heads off, all without invasion of the client countries supporting them. We didn't commit troops to the middle east until our civilians were incinerated on our own soil using our own airliners. To sum up my points on this topic, I'll post the comments of Colin Powell, when asked by the former Archbishop of Canterbury if the US wasn't just trying to extend its colonal powers via imperialism...

      "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we've done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in" - Colin Powell

      I for one am tired of the sacrifices we have to make to keep the West comfortably able to criticize and heckle us at every turn.

      BTW - you never said if you are from the UK, while I'm obviously a American. Are you indeed living comfortably off our sacrifices?

  56. Don't you believe it!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a ruse, spread by Halliburton!

  57. No war cause there's no oil by blanchae · · Score: 1

    The US is not interested in a war with North Korea because there is no oil or motiviation to go there.

    1. Re:No war cause there's no oil by Alchemist253 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I had a political science prof in college who made an interesting point about the war in Iraq. He argued that the war is NOT about oil and never was, reasoning that we could access the oil by corrupt dealings and underhanded collaboration with Hussein.

      Instead, he believed that Bush genuinely believed that God told him to bring democracy to the country, and that he was obligated to obey.

      I don't know whether I agree with the professor, but if this is true then that mindset is far, far scarier than an invasion for oil.

    2. Re:No war cause there's no oil by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      I think we ought to impeach Him (capitals intended) on grounds of insanity.
      Any guy who goes around rambling God speaks through him needs to be put into a lunatic asylum and administered treatment (like water boarding, etc) unless he is sane.
      Your professor was right.
      If you read Bush at War series you will learn more about how they had thoughts of bringing in Iraq as a 52nd state.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    3. Re:No war cause there's no oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Bush sent in US troops to Liberia and Hati ... and they don't have any OIL!

      Sorry, to punch a hole in your looney-left theory

  58. Vaccinate the army, and only the army. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not hard to vaccinate your army against smallpox. I'd be surprised if even North Korea doesn't do it. It's not exactly a high-tech vaccine these days.

    In fact, if you're a country looking to get rid of some "surplus" population, not to mention keep your military's grip firm on the populace, a carefully engineered outbreak wouldn't be a bad way of doing it. You vaccinate the folks you want to keep around, and let God sort out the rest.

    Of course, North Korea's government seems to do just fine using famine as it is, so I doubt they really need smallpox. Why bother, when you can just starve the peasants into submission?

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  59. Secret? by Elitist · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm glad they managed to uncover this secret which has gone largely unnoticed in the wake of their recent nuclear ambitions... Though it has been public knowledge that nK has been working on both Biological and Chemical weapons since the 1960s!

    Note:
    South Korea: Monthly on DPRK Weapons of Mass Destruction : FBIS-EAS-98-325 : 21 Nov 1998

    Or don't even bother with the South Koreans and let's see what the official US government stance on this issue is:

    "As we have indicated before, it is our assessment that North Korea has an active biological weapons program and is capable of producing and delivering via munitions a wide variety of chemical and biological agents, in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention."
    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/15114.htm
    Released on November 13, 2002

    I know a secret as well, don't tell anyone, but the Soviet Union fell!

  60. Here we f-ing go again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's especially interesting is that the magazine Popular Mechanics is well known for being the governments bitch when it comes to misinformation. They tend to have many stories in their mags that are either quite far off from the truth, or just plain lies.
    I don't read that magazine anymore, because of all the stupid BS written in it. I also don't like reading a magazine that is half advertisements. Most of which are ad's for shitty american products like chevy and such.
    What happened to stories about cool upcoming tech and ridiculously far-fetched ideas for spacecraft and shit?

    Bottom line: They're probably bullshitting like with Iraq. Any magazine with pro nationalist crap is not worth reading.

    Yeah yeah, troll moar. I'm not joking though.

  61. Re:war is never going away by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Hardly. Most modern wars are about ideology. Starting with WW2. The land captured by the Germans in that war was definitely a welcome bonus, but they didn't fight for land. They fought for the ideals of the Nazi party. Just like todays terrorists don't fight for land or resources, they fight for the ideals mandated by their perversion of Islam.

    There's a big difference between organizations which fight for land or resources, and ones who fight for ideology, and they're usually very easy to see. Look at the IRA. They fought for only one goal - the right to self determination within their homeland. Compare them to modern Islamist terror attacks, which are occurring not only on US soil, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in other parts of the middle east as well as, Europe, Asia, and parts of Africa. THAT is an expansionist Ideology. Groups fighting for land or resources usually (these days at least) have modest goals in mind. Groups fighting for ideologies will stop at nothing short of total domination.

  62. Re:war is never going away by Artifakt · · Score: 1

    That's the trouble with TLAs. Even if the poster really meant IEDs instead of IUDs, we can only hope the distinction between "intra" and "improvised" is as clear. Intercontinental Unitarian Depilators? (Eeewwww!) Irridescent Ursine Dancers? (for all the Grateful Dead fans).

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  63. Sure elt us not rewrite it by aepervius · · Score: 1

    All the "convincing" came from US & UK intelligence.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Sure elt us not rewrite it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit of research will show that you are incorrect on this point. I happen to hate Bush and where we have ended up, but I don't let this hatred distort history for me.

      A simple place to start for some supporting evidence would be wikipedia, but you have to be careful about biasis and accuracy. However, it does lead to primary source material which probably can be relied upon.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_cris is_timeline_1990-1996
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_cris is_timeline_1997-2000
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_cris is_timeline_2001-2003

      Interesting things that seemed to have been forgotten by many include (1) Clinton also believed in WMD based upon US, UK, French and Russian intelligence and planned an full attack on Iraq in addition to the limited strikes which did take place; losing the election is probably the only thing which prevented him from being the "war president" (2) UNSCOM constantly observed first hand iraqi behavior that suggested they were hiding unaccounted for WMD which they posessed after the first gulf war and were meant to have destroyed (3) France and Russia had significant business dealings with the Baath party and were afraid of losing these privledged business relationships should a change of power occur.

  64. Re:Hans Blix to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What does Hans Blix have to do with why we went to Iraq? We went there to spread democracy, not look for weapons of mass destruction. Anything else is liberal propaganda.

  65. So, when do the blitzkriegs start? by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

    BTW, what makes this guy so much worse than pol pot, or pinochet?

    I'm sure plenty of people compared them to hitler too, no invasions ever occurred there though.

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
  66. In 1993, I spent alot of time in a gas mask by Rank_Tyro · · Score: 1

    North Korea's chemical arsenal has been well known for DECADES.

    Chemical weapons are EFFECTIVE....

    Biological weapons on the other hand, not so much.

    Bio-weapons are more FUD than anything else. With proper safeguards Biological weapons are easily countered.

    Inoculations, hygiene, medical care, gas masks and chem suits will limit the usefulness of germs in warfare.

    The great Spanish Influenza pandemic of 1918 killed between 50 and 100 million people. Poor sanitation and lack of health care, (not to mention the first World War), had a lot to do with that.

    Germ warfare is scary, but is ultimately inconsequential compared to the horror of nerve gas.

    --
    Today's show is brought to you by the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: 25
    1. Re:In 1993, I spent alot of time in a gas mask by sbillard · · Score: 1

      Counterpoint
      Germs have potentially much greater reach than chemical or even nuclear weapons. If one is indiscriminate about their target and just wishes to create as much death and suffering as possible, send infected people to major airports around the world and have them sneeze and cough all over everything. The thing about bio-weapons is that germs can self-replicate and spread unlike the other, more localized types of WMDs.

  67. Re:war is never going away by Znork · · Score: 1

    Few people engage in violence _for_ a cause. They engage in warfare _against_ an enemy.

    Take a look at the propaganda constantly thrown at us; it's not intended to make us engage in war _for_ something. It would be almost impossible to align a large number of people for a specific cause when they're around eachother and would have to discuss the actual contents of the cause (heck, even us western democrats can hardly agree on how a country should be governed).

    It's much easier to demonize the enemy, claim they're a threat and claim they want something evil for you. Few can question the demonization, as that brands _you_ a sympathizer, anti-defender, not to mention that as most people arent able to actually verify or disprove the claims, they'll have to take the propaganda at face value.

  68. Imperialism by mqduck · · Score: 1
    Intelligence reports from the United States and South Korea list anthrax, smallpox, pneumonic plague, cholera and botulism toxins as leading components of North Korea's bioweapons projects.


    I can't believe the posts I'm reading in response to this article/summary (wait... they're not the same thing?). Why would any thinking person take the validity of US intelligent reports on "Axis of Evil" countries for granted? Actually, anyone who's been paying any attention to publicly discussed "intelligence reports" since we had "intelligence" agencies should have no reason to take anything said by the US for granted.

    Also, has anyone else noticed how the US only started worrying about biological weapons once and where it became politically useful?
    --
    Property is theft.
  69. "We went there to spread democracy" by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    And Lo, behold ! Democracy was spead so thin there was hardly any of it left everywhere you went....

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
  70. Pol Pot's cambodia brought down by Vietnam by fantomas · · Score: 1

    Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea (funny how evil dictators love the word "democratic", eh?) was invaded in the end by Vietnam. Feel free to correct me but I think it was brought on by Pol Pot and his folks carrying out attacks into Vietnam. I'm not too sure of the details but Vietname and Cambodia's relationships have been pretty thorny over the years. Pol Pot was definitely a nasty piece of work.

  71. Here is a way to neutralize them. by master_p · · Score: 1

    Why don't we send an elite group of special forces to assassinate Kim Yong? ...or we can send Chuck Norris! that will show'em!

  72. the past week by wiredog · · Score: 1

    And throughout human history.

  73. Yell to the wolf too much, and no one listens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For my 2 cents, any new claim from an united-stater that there are MD weapons somewhere will fall in the void...
    Any of you remembers Irak ?....

  74. it was never about oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this was just about oil. would have been much easier.

    bush: "secure the oil fields"
    army: "ok, oil is pumping now"

    war is won.

  75. Re:Hans Blix to the rescue by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

    I hope you don't write any history books.

  76. Weapons by certel · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty surprised that we don't pay more attention to the chemical weapons. Reading this is actually quite frightening.

  77. I actually had the opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to speak with someone who defended an airbase during the Tet Offensive. He described how he and is fellow soldiers in defending the base (and their very lifes, for that matter) endlessly emptied machine gun cartridges as waves of attackers rushed the surrounding boundry fence throughout night, night after night, after night, after night. During the daytime, bulldozers were used to clear the bodies. And as night fell, its started again.

    1. Re:I actually had the opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrong war, dude. Tet Offensive happened during the Vietnam War. The original poster was talking about the Korean War.

  78. Moller Skycare == Perpetual Development by Fysiks+Wurks · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of flying cars and personal submarines available. You just have to pay for your toys. (Or is it work related... for the new paper route?) :D

    The Moller Skycar has been in perpetual development, from your referenced article,"..his efforts have amounted to very little since he began developing it in 1983."

    The Volante aircart may be flying but at the Volante site states,"...This production kit version of the flying car will have to remain proprietary for the moment." Add to that the ugly form factor for the Volante, hard sell in my opinion.

    With regard to the submarine, yes tourist submarines do exist in limited quantity, but the luxury sub at the top of the site is described," The initial design was originally executed for a client and now awaits a buyer. As proposed, the submarine would constitute the single largest private undersea vehicle ever built, and arguably, one of the most significant personal transportation devices of the century."

    My understanding of the magazine's use of the word "popular" is "in wide use" or "available to all." I don't consider any of the sited examples as being widely available to the populus.

    --
    P226
  79. Re:war is never going away by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    The "cause" is usually along the lines of, "These people are the root of our problems, let's get tough". Once you are on the battlefield the "cause" is your own survival. What people normally think they are going to war "for" is "a better world".

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  80. Re:war is never going away by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    "The land captured by the Germans in that war was definitely a welcome bonus, but they didn't fight for land."

    Ok my history is a bit shakey here, but Hitler's early propoganda machine was all about how Germany "was robbed" by the treaty that ended WW1. That early propoganda enabled him to walk into Austria as a hero without the need to fight, it was a huge publicity coup.

    "They fought for the ideals of the Nazi party."

    So what were their "ideals"? Hitler was leading using a "cult of personality", as do most despots.

    "an expansionist Ideology"

    Yes, and influence over territory and control of resources (including human resources) is what they stand to gain with this expansion.

    Most modern wars are about ideology. Starting with WW2.

    WW2 was about the axis powers attempting to exert control over the entire globe, in fact the 20th centrury saw a few people make a decent attempt at becoming the first "ruler of the world". All sides in WW2 used ideology and propoganda as "spot the enemy" trainning material for the general population.

    "[The IRA fought for] the right to self determination within their homeland"

    Yes, they sought to remove Britsh control over a chunk of territory so they could exert influence over it themelves.

    The most entertaining explaination I have ever heard as to why "the general population" not only tolerates this destructive behaviour from their leaders, but actively partcipates in it, is give by the monkeysphere

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  81. Popular Mechanics by m1bxd · · Score: 1

    They wouldn't be the same media centre who also happend to know about buildings the drop at 1g by themselves?

  82. This Ain't Your Grandfather's China by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Although, China has been making moves to distance themselves from N.K. recently. but until they do, they'll be off limits. Both of my grandfathers fought in the last Korean war, and as one of them put it "Frequently, we'd run out of machine gun bullets before they ran out of troops to throw at us"

    China's not the same country it was 50 years ago. The people there have been getting a taste of the good life, and it seems like they want more and more. They might not be willing to spill out onto the battlefield by the millions, the way they used to back when they had nothing better to do. If the US were to get crazy enough to mess with North Korea, the Chinese just might decide to sit back and watch the fireworks...

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  83. Re:war is never going away by c6gunner · · Score: 1
    So what were their "ideals"? Hitler was leading using a "cult of personality", as do most despots.
    Well, death to jews, master race, god, and glory of the fatherland sound familiar, but I'm sure they had nothing to do with it....
    Yes, they sought to remove Britsh control over a chunk of territory so they could exert influence over it themelves.
    That was my point. They're an example of a group fighting for land. They have small, focused goals, and they stop once they reach them. They had no desire to take over the globe, kill off all the Brits, or make everyone Protestant. There's a big difference. I dson't know how to explain it to you any better than I already have.
  84. Re:war is never going away by easter1916 · · Score: 1

    The Monkeysphere is just wonderful. It explains everything -- I'm adopting it as S.O.P. henceforth. It is also one of the funniest things I've read in a long, long time. Cheers man!

  85. Re:war is never going away by easter1916 · · Score: 1

    The modern IRA is nothing but a bunch of power hungry, violent gangsters. I make no distinction between them or their cohorts in Sinn Fein. Please don't hold them up in that nice idealistic light. They're just fucking thugs using politics as an excuse to indulge their blood-lust wankology, as are far too many groups in Northern Ireland.

  86. Re:war is never going away by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    I'm glad you liked it, it's one of my favorites.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  87. No more replies to Anonymous Cowards by ChameleonDave · · Score: 1

    The fact of the matter is that Europe was saved by the US several times now. And seemingly each time the US left Europe to its own devices [...]

    That is a fiction. The US administration took cynical advantage of WWII in order to establish a huge network of military bases that it still uses to control the world. Knowing that the USSR would rebuild shattered Europe if allowed to, the US launched the Marshall Plan to keep Western Europe in its sphere of influence, and so it has remained ever since.

    You're welcome.

    As I pointed out before, you didn't do anything. Are you going to dole out or ask for thanks for every other event in history which you had no part in?

    Recent history backs this up... European nations were seemingly oblivious to the atrocities happening in the Balkans and allows yet another genocide/"ethnic cleansing" to take place on the continent. It wasn't until the US finally pressed the issue that Nato got involved and "policed" the situation.

    The US, like all other countries, desired stability in the region, and international action was carried out after discussion. This is exactly the sort of thing that I am advocating, except for the fact that most of the players were acting out of self-interest and carried out actions that often increased rather than decreased ethnic cleansing. Noam Chomsky notes, "The bombing was undertaken with the anticipation explicit [that] it was going to lead to large-scale atrocities in response. As it did. Now there were terrible atrocities, but they were after the [NATO] bombings." The NATO action should have been subject to greater international democratic control and been accountable.

    Show me the US imperialism in the last 100 years? We fought to free Europe twice in that time. We did NOT create an empire out of that, we gave France back to the French... We gave Germany back to the Germans...

    You are limiting imperialism to annexation. It is generally accepted that these are not synonymous. The US is at the same stage as the late Roman empire, which first went through a period of annexation, reached natural limits, and then went through a period of establishing puppet régimes beyond its borders to form a two-tiered empire. The US finished its annexation phase about 100 years ago with Hawaii (although it didn't become a state until comparatively recently).

    You are truly a dreamer. If you think that US troops are going to be put under the command of a reformed UN to police the world, you are sadly mistaken. Most people in the US have NO INTEREST in policing the world.

    After demanding thanks and praise for being a marvellous world cop, you now claim that "you" will never do such a thing because the US is isolationist.

    There is in fact quite a strong mandate for international action from the US population. Huge numbers of people supported the Iraq adventure when it was presented to them as police operation to remove dangerous terrorists who had hurt them on 9/11. If the people can be mobilised for a pack of lies that caused thousands of American military deaths and hundreds of thousands of foreign civilian deaths, imagine the support that could be garnered for actual humanitarian missions costing a fraction of the money!

    Even if we accept the idea of there being no current mandate, it is extremely myopic to suggest that the US population will never attain the level of civilisation to do such a thing. At a certain point in mediaeval Europe, local barons would no doubt have thought it a silly dream to imagine that their local garrisons and those of other nobles would one day be gathered together in national armies, instead of fighting in local squabbles... but it happened.

    We didn't commit troops to the middle east until our civilians were incinerated on our own soil using our own airliners.

    It is known that the atta

    1. Re:No more replies to Anonymous Cowards by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      You, sire, are devastatingly accurate and blunt. I wish i had not posted in this discussion earlier so that i could i have modded you. Especially for your last sentence:

      "every empire has had patriotic fools who believe that their empire is the true enlightened one."

      Are you an English/History professor? Your grasp of the language is amazing.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    2. Re:No more replies to Anonymous Cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's kind of you.

      I teach English, French, Spanish and Italian.

      Posted as AC because this is getting off-topic.

  88. No more replies to Anonymous Cowards by ChameleonDave · · Score: 1

    You make the false assumption that if the "rule of law" as you put it is allowed to grow, that if America loses its "veto", that war will somehow stop. It is not false, or even an assumption. It is an argument. I pointed out that aggression is illegal and that it would therefore be stopped or curbed if there is greater rule of law. This is almost self-evident. For example, this city used to be covered in dogshit. Then they brought in a law that gave harsh fines to people who let their animals foul the street. Because the rule of law is strong, there is now virtually no fouling here.

    What you've left out of your equation is the fact that THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.

    In fact, it is very difficult to find even a 50 year period of time where the world was at peace EVERYWHERE in the world. You seem to have missed the point that I am not talking about a common past occurrence. I am talking about a new age dawning. Can you find any 50-year period before the 20th century in which there was a UN? In which there were several strong Geneva Conventions? In which there were millions of computers? In which there were nuclear non-proliferation agreements? No. We are at the end of an era, and everything is changing. We are reaching new levels of civilisation. If I look at TV programmes from as recent a period as the 1960s, the attitudes I see portrayed are often quaint or even offensive in their old-fashioned backwardness.

    We will soon (in 50-100 years) see a new era in which 2007 is remembered as a stupid, violent time to live.

    Presumably, they would have to stop it by force - in other words, engage in warfare, or let that war continue illegally. And where would they get the troops to do it?

    During an intermediate period of many decades, member states would be allowed and even encouraged to have significant national armies. For example, the US could be allowed to have a massive military machine with 10% of its current budget. These armies would then be called upon by the UN to resolve occasional problems caused by rogue states.

    In time, these standing armies would slowly dwindle. Within a couple of centuries they could probably be abolished, with the occasional peace-keeping role carried out by police.

    All of your arguments boil down to a premise that a government, particularly a world government, would be benev[o]lent...

    You've almost got it. My premise is that democratic government, particularly international democratic government, is preferable to warlordism as it is more likely to be benevolent.

    your "rule of law" becomes a paper tiger... The alternative to the rule of law is the rule of might. It is an elementary principle of civilisation that the former is preferable.
  89. Re:war is never going away by metlin · · Score: 1

    They had no desire to take over the globe, kill off all the Brits, or make everyone Protestant. There's a big difference.

    Yet.

    Size and scale.

  90. Re:war is never going away by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    I didn't mean to make them sound "nice", and I apologize if that's the way I came across. You're right, they are "gangsters", and that's part of what I was saying. Thugs fight for property and land. They don't fight for an ideology.

  91. Re:war is never going away by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Ummm, the British supporters were the Protestant's but let's not get bogged down in details, read the link to the monkeysphere, if nothing else it's amusing.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  92. Re:war is never going away by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    I did. "If nothing else" is right.

  93. Re:war is never going away by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Not everyone "gets" the monkeysphere or it's less articulate predesessors, many people belive they are immune to the tribal instincts that have allowed humans to evolve in the first place and that they themselves are somehow incapable of being lead into the murky depths of "inhumanity", unfortunately they often carry guns and ideologies.

    BTW: At the end of the WW2 50% of the German population had spent some time in a nazi concentration camp. I agree Jews and Gypsies were a primary target of Hitler's propoganda but does the word "scapegoat" also mean nothing to you? If you look very carefully you will find that the nazi's were nothing more than "cheap labour" capitialists backed by other capitalists residing in the US, some of these financial supporters were themselves Jews.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  94. Re:war is never going away by easter1916 · · Score: 1

    Sorry, touchy subject. Got well sick of being strip-searched going through Heathrow in the late 80s because I was Irish, male, under 30 and single. Apparently I fit all kinds of fucking profiles generated by those assholes.

  95. Re:war is never going away by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    That was truly the most Orwellian thing I've read in a LONG time. I'm sorry, I can't help you.

  96. Re:war is never going away by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Yes, it seems that way when you look at Jews, Nazis, Capitalists, ect, and fail to see humans.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  97. Re:war is never going away by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    PS: I'm also not asking for your "help" but thanks anyway.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  98. Re:war is never going away by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    The IRA are the simply the last PITA remnants in the battle for control of territories on the British Isles that predates the Norman invasion. The ideological propoganda used to drive a wedge into the happless population was "Orange" vs "Green".

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.