|
korea
Jul 5, 2006 0:49:28 GMT -5
Post by alice on Jul 5, 2006 0:49:28 GMT -5
so how about those tests?
hard thing is that though we are told that their test failed, we may not ever know what has actually happened
what are your oppinions
|
|
|
korea
Jul 5, 2006 10:12:47 GMT -5
Post by tommynt on Jul 5, 2006 10:12:47 GMT -5
bleh USA should really get rif of their government (they d if korea had oil resources)
it s same bad as taliban - let own people starve to buy weapons. these military dictatorships are really hard to accept but also hard to counter in modern world
|
|
|
korea
Jul 5, 2006 10:45:00 GMT -5
Post by whiplash on Jul 5, 2006 10:45:00 GMT -5
It's a huge act of defiance. No coincedence it happened on July 4, the anniversary of American Independance.
This government is like an eight year old kid with an AK-47. I'm not sure if Tommy is being serious when he says that the US should take out that government. I think China and Russia, who both border NK, are in a better position to do that.
|
|
|
korea
Jul 5, 2006 14:02:23 GMT -5
Post by lporiginalg on Jul 5, 2006 14:02:23 GMT -5
the usa doesn't buy weapons while they're people starve? usa military budget is something like 1.6 billion dollars PER DAY. at least that's what i heard on the Colber Report a while ago.
|
|
|
korea
Jul 5, 2006 15:57:20 GMT -5
Post by Canucksoldier on Jul 5, 2006 15:57:20 GMT -5
Yes invading NK is not small risk, China could not let NK be a US vassal state, a risk that iraq did not have. And NK is really posturing to get a better deal like Iran is in the process of doing. I mean there unproven long range missle failed, so Japan an the US are in no true threat atm.
CS
|
|
|
korea
Jul 5, 2006 17:13:13 GMT -5
Post by tommynt on Jul 5, 2006 17:13:13 GMT -5
I dont think that NK is a threat but how it s governmet acts should not be possible in modern world - i wonder whatfore we got UN - if like 195 out of 200 countires d vote that NK government dont act in it s people s interest there should be a way to get rid of em
i d not propose to invade but to either make leaders step down or eliminate em
|
|
|
korea
Jul 5, 2006 17:23:18 GMT -5
Post by whiplash on Jul 5, 2006 17:23:18 GMT -5
It seems like the North Koreans need Viagara to get it up. ;D
|
|
|
korea
Jul 5, 2006 22:18:27 GMT -5
Post by Avogadro on Jul 5, 2006 22:18:27 GMT -5
Time for the international community to make a stand and impose sanctions against Norther Korea. Japan and the others must press the issue. We cannot have the US policing the world. Maybe someday the UN may do something in a more timely fashion
|
|
|
korea
Jul 5, 2006 22:47:24 GMT -5
Post by whiplash on Jul 5, 2006 22:47:24 GMT -5
The UN is a corrupt and incompetent entity. It has never really accomplished anything. It's just a dream for the idealistic hopeful.
|
|
|
korea
Jul 6, 2006 2:14:26 GMT -5
Post by Hombre on Jul 6, 2006 2:14:26 GMT -5
The UN are a nuts. They should advise NK asap about that missiles, but maybe Kofi Anan has other stuff, like teach another of his sons for stelaing more cash from the UN.
Thats our world. Then when the USA attack NK, the european presidents will start to talk about how rude are the USA. Its UN job to stop NK, but if they do nothing, they are guilty when USA attack.
|
|
|
korea
Jul 6, 2006 5:52:44 GMT -5
Post by Ellestar on Jul 6, 2006 5:52:44 GMT -5
bleh USA should really get rif of their government (they d if korea had oil resources) it s same bad as taliban - let own people starve to buy weapons. these military dictatorships are really hard to accept but also hard to counter in modern world Nah they're poor but they don't starve. And USA doesn't care about any countries as long as they don't have anything worthy there. Also, people DO starve in Africa in huge numbers and kill each other every day, and yet noone cares at all (say, even you). Well, in Africa in these countries in addition to an absence of oil there is also an absence of WMD (contrary to a North Korea) so it doesn't even worth talking about it, i guess. Anyway, WMD doesn't matter as long as we talk about an invasion. Iraq didn't have any and still they were attacked. So even with WMD Korea is safe from an invasion as long as they don't have oil.
|
|
|
korea
Jul 6, 2006 6:49:05 GMT -5
Post by whiplash on Jul 6, 2006 6:49:05 GMT -5
Ellestar, if you pay attention to the trend in the price of crude oil you might realize how stupid your comments have been.
|
|
|
korea
Jul 7, 2006 2:29:28 GMT -5
Post by Ellestar on Jul 7, 2006 2:29:28 GMT -5
Ellestar, if you pay attention to the trend in the price of crude oil you might realize how stupid your comments have been. OH REALLY .......::Modified Avogadro:::? Now say what's wrong in my statements instead of that bullsh it. ::Sorry Ellestar, I like you and complettely concur with your analysis, but to use the words you called Whip....I cannot allow, your posting priveledges have been suspended for 3 days, come back smart as ever but not so snappy ::
|
|
|
korea
Jul 7, 2006 4:15:21 GMT -5
Post by Elledge on Jul 7, 2006 4:15:21 GMT -5
OH REALLY ........? Now say what's wrong in my statements instead of that bullsh it. A-f**king-men. That is the most base sort of weasel debate in the world. "Oh, well, maybe if you weren't so ignorant, you'd know how dumb that thing you said was!" Give me a break, whiplash.
|
|
|
korea
Jul 7, 2006 5:59:20 GMT -5
Post by tommynt on Jul 7, 2006 5:59:20 GMT -5
es the thread is called korea - not "all this bs in world" so i m talking about korean problems - btw very little in Germna news about korea much more about israelies slaying palestinien people
|
|
|
korea
Jul 7, 2006 6:58:49 GMT -5
Post by whiplash on Jul 7, 2006 6:58:49 GMT -5
Ok, I guess I have to connect the dots for some.
The premise put forth by some here is that the US attacked Iraq for oil. Well, the US was successful in invading Iraq so now have the oil, right? Based upon that the US has increased the oil supply for itself and maybe for the rest of the world depending on the specifics of your theory.
Crude oil is a free market commodity. If the supply increases without a corresponding increase in demand the price drops. There is no way for the price to go up with increasing supply.
When the US invaded Iraq (the second time) crude oil was below $30 per bbl. In the last few days it's been around $75 per bbl. So it's gone up in price 250% since the US "liberated" the Iraqui oil fields.
Since the US is such a huge consumer of petroleum products and imports nearly all of it, the price increase translates to huge wads of cash leaving the country; not an economically healthy situation.
If the US went to war for oil, there is something terribly wrong about the results.
|
|
|
korea
Jul 7, 2006 7:14:43 GMT -5
Post by Ellestar on Jul 7, 2006 7:14:43 GMT -5
Crude oil is a free market commodity. If the supply increases without a corresponding increase in demand the price drops. There is no way for the price to go up with increasing supply. Economy 101: Price can go up with increasing supply if demand increases even faster ;D Price will go up even faster when everyone knows that it's a limited resource and we can't replenish it.
|
|
|
korea
Jul 7, 2006 8:34:56 GMT -5
Post by whiplash on Jul 7, 2006 8:34:56 GMT -5
So you are saying that the demand increased by more than 250% during this period. I'll break this off as it's pointless to debate an issue with someone who resorts to namecalling and obviously obsurd positions. bye!
|
|
|
korea
Jul 7, 2006 9:44:16 GMT -5
Post by whiplash on Jul 7, 2006 9:44:16 GMT -5
PS to Ellestar:
Your insults (Economics 101) and namecalling (not a very nice person) have no effect on me. You are merely displaying how intellectually vapid you are.
::wonders what happened to the usually puritanical forum moderation::
|
|
|
korea
Jul 7, 2006 10:11:56 GMT -5
Post by Avogadro on Jul 7, 2006 10:11:56 GMT -5
The price of oil has gone up because of the political instability caused by the invasion.
|
|