Damn, dude, if you're going to be an *** and correct grammatical and spelling errors in her post, at least do it right.

ouch

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

------------------
To be, or not to be. That is the question. Or then not. --FastGamerr/Nikumubeki

No. He is a sociopath. there is a difference.

------------------
your curiosity will get the better of YOU one day.
Jon`C:Irony is spelling 'quality' poorly.
Spork:Well I think 'Irony is spelling grammar poorly'
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)-@%

Hardly Ictus, nice try.

You asked for proof, I gave you a bunch of it. I knew you were going to try to say it didn't matter and time stamp it, well, because I know people and how they say things to remain in their ignorance.

Fact is, you asked, I provided. There is just the tip of the iceberg. Proof of the run-arounds for the last 12 years.

Look, if you want to continue to indulge in your silly ignorances, that's fine. Whatever makes you happy. Just understand that due to the facts, it doesn't make you right.

But hey, whatever lie helps you sleep at night...

------------------
*Joren, Legend, Alleged Egomaniac, Thread-Killer, 2-time Ban Recipient, and 6th Grade Spelling Champ*

Joren: One of us is confused. I asked for evidence of Iraq's noncompliance that justified Bush's vigilantism. There's a reason I kept adding "before the invasion" and "before this war". I am quite aware of Iraq's transgressions five years ago.

Again, since the Iraq cooperated fully prior to this war and after the resumption of inspections (just so no one gets mixed up), where was the justification?

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited February 10, 2004).]

You never clarified how long "before the invasion".

My point was that there is a history of being given the run around by Iraq, and that there was no reason to trust them. Quit saying "5 years" also; my latest article is from 2002. I just bothered to show the history behind it, going back to 1996, to make it clear this isn't a "Bush" thing, as some have made it out to be...

------------------
*Joren, Legend, Alleged Egomaniac, Thread-Killer, 2-time Ban Recipient, and 6th Grade Spelling Champ*

Joren: I'm sorry if I was unclear. And your 2002 article simply says that "Iraq objected to inspections of such sites in 1998". That, and its documentation didn't match UN estimates.

So, you would agree that Iraq met every one of the inspectors' demands before this war?

In other words, you have decided to ignore these quotes from the article?





Sorry Ic, but if you are going to believe the administration in Iraq "suddenly cleaned up its act" and was completely open after giving inspectors the runaround for the past 12 years - well, in that case, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I could sell to ya...

------------------
*Joren, Legend, Alleged Egomaniac, Thread-Killer, 2-time Ban Recipient, and 6th Grade Spelling Champ*

just send in 007

------------------
NightFire

Joren: I already responded to both of your questions. But who doesn't like saying the same things over and over again until people grasp the concept?

Here's a quote from Blix's report to the UN on January 27th, 2003.


In what way did Iraq not provide a full account, Joren? In your own words, preferably.

Why has this turned into an arguement over Saddam Hussein's complaince in regards to WMDs? It's pretty much over now... The country's now under Coalition occupation, Saddam is in custody of US forces, and no WMDs have been found(and by now, chances are 0% that there are any).

Anyway, about North Korea...

Kim Jong Il is definitely not a nice guy. He's starved an estimated 4 million North Koreans (the "less loyal") to death, and build himself the world's second largets army (China's is the only larger one), armed to the teeth, and WEL-trained (far better than Saddam's army).

Personally, I think Kim Jong Il is one of the most diabolical dictators ever to appear. He know's he's got the rest of the world in an argument. By now, chances that he has nuclear weapons are about 100% (You must remember that the Manhattan Project took only about 2 years, and there's rumors that Kim got help from Pakistan). The people are definitely in bad shape. He takes any humanitarian aid for those more loyal to him, and would be ready to destroy South Korea if things displeased him (South Korea is a MAJOR United States interest, as much as Japan).

Please take some of this information in mind.

------------------
Nes digs around in the trash can.
Nes finds a hamburger!
Nes puts the hamburger in his backpack.

Hehe, this is Massassi. It happens often with controversial topics.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

a) What, too many facts being tossed at you to make a good argument?

b) Your quote described the prompt turnover of *some* of the info to Blix. They were prompt with a lot of things, yes, but also as Blix stated, and I quoted twice, there are some serious ommisions in the records handed over.

c) In my own words - The U.N. had DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE of WMDs in the vein of Biochem weapons on Iraq in 1998. The glaring ommissions were documents suggesting the destruction of said biochem weapons. Therefore, there is no reason to believe, given Iraq's history of deception and stalling, that such materials were destroyed. Likely, they were buried in the desert somewhere, and given Iraq's size (as large as California), I doubt they will be found other than by blind luck.

THEREIN lies the problem. We have U.N. - as in UNITED NATIONS - Records of WMDs that have been unaccounted for in every inspection done since. Sorry, but I am not going to trust a nation that's been lying for 12 years when they tell me they have properly disposed of them, yet have no proof of it.


d) Enough of my fact-finding, and putting things in their proper context, which you seem to blatantly miss. YOUR turn. Provide credible, reliable, unbiased proof that Iraq DID fully comply, and also keep in mind - a comment or two won't cut it, for as you can see, I am quite capable of piecing things together in their appropriate context, and any attempt by you to do anything to the contrary to simply prove your point will be blatantly called on by me.

After all Ictus, I have been providing my case and defending it, while all you do is write off whatever I say without thinking about it. I want to see if you can really back up your argument, or if you are just being ingnorant, and will either run from this thread or resort to insults now that I am asking you for the burden of proof.

------------------
*Joren, Legend, Alleged Egomaniac, Thread-Killer, 2-time Ban Recipient, and 6th Grade Spelling Champ*

Japan fears an invasion of South Korea, probably more than anyone (excepting S. Korea). South Korea's most southern tip is dangerously close to Japan's most northern.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

Joren: I get such a kick out of your posts. If you don't mind, I'll just respond to the relevant portions.
b) There's been no evidence that Iraq was withholding information (say, the missing documentation in a desk somewhere): if information was missing, it was because it wasn't available.
c) Yes, the UN's documentation didn't reflect reality. Guess which of the two was at fault.
d) Let's break down "Iraq did comply" into its component claims, shall we?
1. Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Negative claim, your responsibility to prove that they did.
2. Iraq allowed unrestricted access to any site in its borders. Positive claim, my responsibility, already proven.
3. Iraq's provided documentation was accurate. Self-evident.
4. Iraq didn't withhold documentation. Negative claim, your responsibility to prove that they did.
5. All of Blix's other requests were met. Just name those you want me to find.
I'm a bit unclear on what precisely you want me to prove: Blix said Iraq was cooperating in process without any qualifications. He had four complaints about cooperation in substance, though, and outlined the actions the Iraqi government needed to take:

Find the Items and Activities
Find Documents
Find Persons to Give Credible Information
Allow Credible Interviews

First, can we agree that Iraq definitely did all but the second since I already proved as much?

Second, it's your burden to prove that Iraq withheld documents.

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited February 11, 2004).]

In a recent poll, it was found that South Koreans feel more threatened by the American troops than North Korea.

Do you have the poll? I believe that South Korea has FAR more reason to fear the North Korean forces... Although Bush is disproved by the majority over the Iraq controversy, virtually all of his claims he made about Saddam Hussein could be made about Kim Jong Il, and be quite true and/or outdated.

Kim Jong Il's DPRK army is one of two armies in the world that outnumber the United States Army, and it's FAR better equiped and more loyal than the excuse for an army Saddam Hussein had.

The DPRK navy possesses multiple submarines, believed to be modern. Although I can't find the article, I also hear that they nearly acquired an aircraft carrier, which would have made them the third country to have one (The U.S. operates 12 today, Russia operate only 1, but has over a dozen others decommisioned).

As for air power, North Korea actually possesses some. They have fighter jets, helicopters, and other air vehichles.

Of course, the most frightening part about North Korea's military is its nuclear force. By now, chances are virtually 100% that Kim Jong Il has succeeded in building his first batch of bombs. It is believed that he possesses bombers large enough to use them, as well as missiles that can reach Japan. Future generations of missiles that are currently being researched by him would be able to reach Alaska, or possibly even the western United States.

Given that North Korea currently has thousands of long-range guns aimed at the South Korean City of Seoul, as well as thousands of troops in the DMZ (DeMilitarized Zone), I would think that South Korea would have more reason to fear Kim Jong Il then George W. Bush, especially that Bush has now indefinitely tied up U.S. forces in Iraq. But, if you have a survey that goes against what I said, please post it, or a link to it.

------------------
Nes digs around in the trash can.
Nes finds a hamburger!
Nes puts the hamburger in his backpack.

[This message has been edited by nottheking (edited February 13, 2004).]

Yes, I was thinking the same, which is why I was very surprised when I read it in a newspaper.

I've found the stats here:
http://216.26.163.62/2004/ea_skorea_01_14.html

It mentions a lot of statistics, showing the stratification of the polling. It's probably a lot more in-depth than the article I read originally.

The only reason North Korea wants nuclear weapons is to secure some negociating power. Kim Jong Il may not be a particularly good politican (it is a mystery why Kim Is Sung chose him to act as Leader at all.. Kim Jong Il never liked politics, and would be much happier as an arts student or something.. I feel sort of sorry for the guy, actually. He just wants to sit at home and watch James Bond. :-) ), but he certainly isn't stupid or crazy. North Korea wouldn't launch an attack on the US, or any other country for that matter, because it wouldn't benefit North Korea at all. However, having nuclear weapons (or even claiming to have them) puts the spotlight on North Korea, and makes other countries take notice of them. In the long term, some sort of settlement will probably be reached, and some (but probably not all) of the demands will be met. North Korea has no benefit from attacking anyone, and the US has no benefit from invading North Korea.