N. Korea admits to having nuclear weapons
Moderator:Æron
Yep. <a href='http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... rnational/' target='_blank'>North Korea has officially announced that it has nuclear weapons</a>. Their claim is that they are needed for defense given the increasingly hostile attitude from Washington. Also, they will not be reentering disarmament negotiations in the forseeable future.<br><br>So... we've now managed to irritate countries that actually have weapons of mass destruction. And we didn't even have to go invade them. Oh, crud.
<i>Hold the newsreader's nose squarely, waiter, or friendly milk will countermand my trousers.</i>
- Steve the Pocket
- Posts:2271
- Joined:Wed May 19, 2004 10:04 pm
- Henohenomoheji
- Posts:2814
- Joined:Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:44 am
- Location:to
- Contact:
Must... Resist... Urge... To... Post... AYB... jokes... unh.<br><br>
Miyo! Chikara no chizu!<br><br>Living proof that Ninja and Pirates can live together in peace, harmony, and fun at the expense of ye hapless townsfolk.<br><br>"<br>< e<br> -|-|-/ < <br>< e <br>_________/ <br>-------------------------<br><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Hey... On page 375 it says "Jeebus"...</span>
<!--QuoteBegin-GhostWay+Feb 10 2005, 11:55 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (GhostWay @ Feb 10 2005, 11:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Yep. <a href='http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... rnational/' target='_blank'>North Korea has officially announced that it has nuclear weapons</a>. Their claim is that they are needed for defense given the increasingly hostile attitude from Washington. Also, they will not be reentering disarmament negotiations in the forseeable future.<br><br>So... we've now managed to irritate countries that actually have weapons of mass destruction. And we didn't even have to go invade them. Oh, crud. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> yeah, I guess that blows Mr. Ws plans on invading N. Korea to prove they have nueclear weapons.<br><br>He deserves it!<br><br>Frankly, I think they had every right to build those weapons after Bush sent all those threats to them.
<!--QuoteBegin-FelixSoftpaw+Feb 10 2005, 09:54 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (FelixSoftpaw @ Feb 10 2005, 09:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> And yet, somehow a country that posed no threat to us whatsoever was somehow the primary target? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Sure, we knew the Iraqis didn't have much of a chance of flinging nuclear weapons into Seoul and killing ten million people.<br>
Made by Angela.
<!--QuoteBegin-Zaaphod+Feb 11 2005, 12:48 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Zaaphod @ Feb 11 2005, 12:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> They probably had those weapons before Bush was president. Wouldn't surprise me if they did, anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Yes, but according to protocol of deplomacy, having a weapon in you're reserve, and saying you have it are two different things entirely.<br><br>If you admit you have it, that is a vauge undirected threat. It means that "we are no longer hiding that we have been developing" by saying "We have been developing." This means they want to imply that they could use them, however I doubt they would be that stupid; it is still a very aggressive move, and to accuse Bush of being the one of drawing the method, they are in-turn declaring a mexican standoff, so to speak.<br><br>In International politics one has to read between the lines.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests