*checks Twitter*
This is all fine.
I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,943
Excuse my scepticism but we were fed incorrect information a while back about a countries ability to wipe the world out.
And we all know how that went.
The USA is the only nation in history to actually nuke another country...
France and Polynesia?
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 8th August 2017, 10:02 PMExcuse my scepticism but we were fed incorrect information a while back about a countries ability to wipe the world out.
No we weren't. If that's how you remember it, then you should read up on what really happened.
The Iraqis had a well-documented chemical weapons program that eventually came under inspection by the international community, although inspections were stymied at every turn by Saddam Hussein. He claimed that they had just dumped them all in the desert, and although some were found after the invasion, nobody really knows what happened to his entire arsenal. My money is on Saddam shipping much of it to Syria.
Let's not forget that Saddam actually used chemical weapons against Iran, and his own people. He also built a nuclear reactor in an attempt to acquire atomic weapons, but the Israelis destroyed it 35 years ago. They also destroyed a North Korean-designed reactor in Syria 10 years ago. It's too bad that North Korea isn't in Israel's neighborhood, or their facilities would already be smoking craters.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 8th August 2017, 10:02 PMThe USA is the only nation in history to actually nuke another country...
Only because we got one before the Japanese and Germans did, and the United States hasn't tested an atomic weapon in 25 years. The North Koreans have tested 6 in the last few years, while testing ICBMs and constantly threatening the United States, South Korea and Japan with nuclear strikes.
The risk of a rogue nation with deliverable nuclear weapons is too great to ignore, and if they are to be stopped it needs to be in the early stages. President Obama made the world a more dangerous place by allowing the Iranian nuclear program to continue, while also allowing the use of chemical weapons in Syria. These actions (or the lack thereof) make the world a much more dangerous place. Already we are hearing murmurs about the Saudis and other Iranian neighbors pursuing nuclear weapons of their own, and now Japan and South Korea are doing the same. No good will come of it.
The United States and its allies should threaten to shoot down any North Korean ICBM launch, with a further warning that another nuclear test would open the door for an attack against their facilities. Chubby Kim likes to talk tough, so we should speak to him in his own terms.
Your history books must be different to mine.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 9th August 2017, 7:25 AMYour history books must be different to mine.
I'm not relying on a history book, but rather my own memory. I've been following events in Iraq very closely since 1990, as I was newly discharged from the Army and I had quite a lot of friends who took part in the war. But I'd be interested in hearing about which history book claims that "we were fed incorrect information a while back about a countries ability to wipe the world out." The discussions about Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear programs centered around their dangers as WMDs, but I don't recall anyone claiming that Iraq was intent on, or capable of, wiping the world out.
Here's the opening section of Wikipedia's entry about Iraq's WMD programs. It follows closely with what I posted earlier:
The fifth president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was internationally condemned for his use of chemical weapons during the 1980s campaign against Iranian and Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran-Iraq War. In the 1980s, Saddam pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built.
After the Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction. In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox. The 1999 disarmament report by UNSCOM listed large quantities of WMD material that was unaccounted for.
The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted between November 2002 and March 2003, under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, shortly before his country was attacked.
In March 2003 Chief inspector Hans Blix stated that Iraq had made "significant progress" toward resolving a number of key disarmament tasks, noting the "proactive" but not always "immediate" cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. In the event of proactive Iraqi cooperation, he said it would take "but months" to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks. However, in his May 2003 report to the U.N., Blix said that his team had made "little progress" accounting for other materials which Iraq claims to have unilaterally destroyed. The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441, but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.
Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress, President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War. Later U.S.-led inspections found out that Iraq had earlier ceased active WMD production and stockpiling. The report also found that Iraq had worked covertly to maintain the intellectual and physical capacity to produce WMDs and intended to restart production once sanctions were lifted.
In 2015 it was learned that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had not been fully accounted for by UN inspections. Ten years after its inception, Operation Avarice was declassified and it was learned that there were stockpiles of warheads and rockets containing degraded chemical agents similar to those used in the Iran-Iraq War. From 2005 through 2006 military intelligence discovered that the weapons--many in poor condition, some empty or containing nonlethal liquid, but others containing sarin with unexpectedly high purity--were in the possession of one Iraqi individual who remained anonymous. Operation Avarice, headed by army intelligence and the CIA, involved the discreet purchase of the weapons from the unidentified individual to keep them off the black market.
Stephen's point was about the trumped up charges of "wiping the world out.". Clearly Saddam did not have this capability neither does Kim. America does, that is why Trump is considered such a threat to world peace, as he is now demonstrating. Why have a chest beating competition with Kim ? At the rate he puts on weight, he'll explode soon enough.
This does look like diversion tactics from a President under investigation.
Quote: Firkin @ 9th August 2017, 4:50 PMStephen's point was about the trumped up charges of "wiping the world out.". Clearly Saddam did not have this capability neither does Kim.
If you'll reread my post, you'll see that I asked about the "wipe the world out" claim, because I have no recollection of it. I'm fairly certain that such a claim was never made by anyone of importance because, as you said, Saddam was not capable of wiping out the world. Neither is Kim and, for what it's worth, neither is the United States.
Quote: Firkin @ 9th August 2017, 4:50 PMThis does look like diversion tactics from a President under investigation.
No, it looks like the typical bellicose rhetoric from North Korea, but with the notable exception that this time they apparently have the means to make good on their threats of killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, South Koreans, Japanese, or anyone else within range of their missiles. Kim will likely back down after being offered copious amounts of money/aid/food, since that's typically what they have sought in the past. But his potential targets are unlikely to wait much longer. It would probably take 3 to 6 months to amass the appropriate number of troops/weaponry and evacuate all the American servicemembers' families from South Korea, so that's probably the maximum time frame for resolving the crisis.
This really isn't about Doomsday scenarios, it's about deciding whether/how to respond to a threat: what are the risks of acting, versus what are the risks of not acting?
If some old crackpot stands in Glasgow's town square every Sunday morning and shouts "You're all going to die!" the authorities will speak to him, caution him about the consequences of his words, and perhaps throw some legal punishments at him while keeping an eye on him -- just like we've done with North Korea for almost 70 years. But if the authorities discover that he's purchased a few tons of explosives and surveillance reveals that he's packing a large truck trailer with suspicious packages, things will ramp up quickly. Police will determine that the risk to the public is too great and they'll go in fully armed, intending to kill if necessary to protect the public from what they have determined to be a grave and immediate threat.
Quote: Hercules Grytpype Thynne @ 8th August 2017, 10:52 AMSo some slapper pretends to be kidnapped and sold as a sex slave on eBay - pathetic publicity. If she's no f**king good a modelling she should go and get a job at the local Coop.
So..... you've started to do it too!
It's such a bizarre story and the only pictures being shown are ones she made earlier in the year of vomit inducing selfies or from post-rescue looking like nothing has happened and with make up and hair styled to perfection. The Great British public want proof that she actually suffered a bit and was in real danger before we show any concern. I can understand why it's being seen as a publicity stunt by a wannabe if she's not even going to break down in tears on TV. Of course I'm glad that no serious assault took place and wouldn't wish that on anybody but after such an ordeal it seems odd that she's taking everything in her stride.
They didn't give me a choice; war is not my voice.
I saw Trump giving a statement about North Korea on the news and he kept using the word 'them' instead of North Korea and 'him' or 'he' when referring to Kim Jong un and how can any president use such vague language when talking about something so serious. The cold war between nations has been going on for more than 50 years and in his first year it's never been so close to a declaration of war. His 'we will crush you' attitue is astounding and he doesn't have a clue about diplomatic talks and respect for leaders of other nations. In a conflict like this the more powerful side should be trying the hardest to avoid it escelating but everything from Trump is making the situation worse. I also wish he would stop using Twitter and stick to the official Whitehouse channels.
Why is this clown tweeting "hilarious" pics instead of doing his job?
Another Chapman stirring things!
Quote: Paul Wimsett @ 15th August 2017, 5:08 PMAnother Chapman stirring things!
I can hardly understand what any of that means?