Why is it that when I open the paper I see iraq all over the front page but I have turn to the the 5th to read about N. Korea. Why is it that when I turn on the news its 25 minutes of Iraq and 30 secounds of N. Korea. I look at this forum and the majority are on Iraq and the US - Europe relationships because of it but not one on N. Korea. Some super power invading another rogue nation is not something new. Russia did it just a while ago. When a nation ruled by a dictator actually says "we will be testing, using, or selling our nuclear warheads." I think this gets a little bit more priority then some conflict. A war thats already over versus a dictator that is holding aisa hostage. I think the bigger story is the latter.
There are still hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq. Haven’t found WMD, or Saddam yet. War is over but the more important fall out events are just starting to materialize. The “Iraq” story must get more and more attention from the media (it probably won’t because the glitter of war is gone) because unfortunately, America will pay heavily in the future for invading Iraq. We will see that the Iraq war was not just “some conflict”.
Looking for a diplomatic solution. Why do you think we are talking to them? The way I see it we have some options., Ignore them and let them. Test or sell nuclear weapons. This isint a great option. We can buy the nuclear weapons like in 1994 but that didn't really get us anywhere. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We can't attack because we don't know where their nuclear weapons are. They also have artillery over Seoul. The only option i believe is a regime change from inside thier leadership is not that good.
A dilpomatic solution? I hope you are not forgetting that the United States quite possibly precipitated this crisis. Bush announced his policy of preemption and started making plans to attack Iraq. He named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as members of an "Axis of Evil" and examples of countries where preemption may be warranted. And THEN North Korea secretly resumesd it nuclear program. While Bush continued to push for war with Iraq, stressing that they are part of the axis of evil. North Korea stepped forward and said it has nukes. Bush redoubled his efforts to go after Iraq. Why didn’t we do something then? North Korea, hearing the "Axis of Evil" and "preemption" rhetoric sais it would restart it's reactor unless the US signs a non-aggression pact with them. Bush says he won't negotiate. What diplomatic solution? Bush ratcheted up the pressure on Iraq and asked China to help negotiate a settlement with the Koreans so that the US wouldn't lose face. China wanted no part of it, and North Korea started moving plutonium - and Bush pushes harder for war with Iraq, and continues to ignore North Korea. Iran kept hearing the "Axis of Evil" and "preemption" rhetoric and watches how Bush reacted to harmless Iraq, and now North Korea, said it will start enriching uranium "for peaceful use." We have passed up opportunity after opportunity for diplomatic resolution to this issue. :m: Peace.
if bush really wanted to protect the world from rogue nations possessing nukes, then he should have attacked n.korea first. iraq was only in the process of obtaining nukes, while n. korea already has them...and is also selling missile technology to other nations, such as pakistan. i guess the US was hesitant to attack because then it would incur China's wrath.
As far as attacking - Isaac Asimov wrote a line in one of his novels that has always stuck with me: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Certainly there are instances where military action is required, but the United States should most certainly have availed itself of any and all diplomatic options immediately with regards to North Korea. :m: Peace.
i'm saying that if the US was going to attack someone, n.korea would have made a better case than iraq.
I hate to say it but it was about oil. If not, expain to me why the oil refineries have power but the cities don't? Explain to me why the oil ministry building was not hit? Could it not have held a strong hold in the basement for Saddam and his gang to hide? N. Korea-no oil. It's silly in a way. Why worry about something that will be obselete in 20-30 years time? Harness the other sources of energy. The technologies are there. To me, this makes more sense, but I guess that's a minority concept.
One other thing North Korea is a military state in a more proper sense than Iraq. Their military is millions strong, and their devotion comes in part from heritage and in part on behalf of their next meal. Plutarch notes that Marius, pursuing the Teutones to Aix, stated: "There you may have drink, if you will buy it with your blood." According to Markale, - Markale, Jean. The Celts: Uncovering the Mythic and Historic Origins of Western Culture. Rochester: Inner Traditions, 1993. A nuclear-armed, aggressive military state with an insane dictator, no oil, and a massive army that, if it chooses to fight back, can hurt us before they fall. We can see why a nuclear-armed, aggressive republic with a president whose intelligence or sanity is in doubt wouldn't want to engage such astate in conflict for its pursuit of petroleum. If he stands before the American people and says, "The numbers make even less sense than they did in Iraq, and that's only because Iraq had oil," I'll probably even hand him the Iraqi-Bush War in exchange for the progress that could come from such an explanation. _You know, testing the waters to see how badly Americans will react to the costs of being a true empire; setting the devices in motion to condition the American people to this kind of conflict before engaging in the really ugly parts. Yes, I believe Bush is either that sinister or that stupid. Rumsfeld? Cheney? Is there any doubt? Wolfowitz? Perle? Why is it that the soldier (Powell) is the cautious one here? Maybe because he knows something Bush doesn't? Like the value of fighting a war? :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Interestingly it is pressure from China and Russia that has pull North Korea back from further sabre-rattling. China is said to have cut off the North's supply of oil when it last test fired a missile and Russia has declared that it won't oppose sanctions if the North is found to possess a nuclear bomb. Alas, if somebody doesn't start a new conflict soon, sciforums could become boring again. ==== http://www.australiancurrentaffairs.net
Why attack Iraq first, well, cuz it was stopping a future problem that N Korea HAS. Why not attack N Korea?! You smoking crack? The Kimble Dong Ill said it go hostile if we put any more troops at his border. Plus there is only one (not including Russia) country that could actually have a chance at beating the USA and this is China. Now I know you lil Syria freaks will go up in arms over this statement, but even if ALL JIHAD countries of you united and tried to war with us, you'd get bombed to kingdom come, we'd kill and slaughter you, the only Arabs left would be Arab Americans. We would so kill you just b-2 b-52 stealth bomb your ass for weeks then send in troops to mop up. Sorry no heads on pikes all over the middle east, cuz there would be no middle east, just a middle Crater. There would be a new ocean where you are! Israel would become an Island! Besides I dont think N Korea wants war, I think they want a piece of the pie. Now lets say we do attack. We are gonna bomb the shit outta him, and he probably would nuke someone near them, like Japan or S Korea. That would not only piss off China, but a LOT more people too, and I am sure they would blame it on us. Now if China goes up in arms, then we are in some pretty shit. They can nuke us, they have 200,000,000 crazy Chinamen Army(which is a biblical number for the End Times if I remeber correctly ROFL) with guns to storm us. THAT would be WW3. So, why not attack N Korea? Cuz it probably would escalate to WW3 and that means no steak or pie for most of the planet ever again! But lets say that N Korea sub that dissapeared(did they ever find it again?) did plant a Nuke on our soil. WW3 still gonna happen, cuz we would nuke them, China and the rest of the world would get pissed, it be like everyone vs USA/Britian/Israel. I actually think we could win it, but once a nuke goes off, more will come, and keep going and going like that lil Energizer Bunny.
Revolution All that says is that Americans are Sodomites. Whatever. I'll buy it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Korea's too big to handle safly at the moment. We will have to quietly plot their demise through less obvious channels until they collapse under their own weight.
See and thats the bitch , if there would indeed be complete Jihad and you would wipe out countries , you'd still be stuck with your Arab americans (who will commit suicide bombings against you) , black muslims (who will commit suicide bombings against you) , and muslim from Africa to indonesia all across that great new ocean of yourse , and lets not forget all the muslims in Euro Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Were 1B people and growing , just killing 100m or 200m wont work , sorry.......... The big army period is over , the nuclear arms period is over (Im sure it comes back soon enough with NK) , we've reached terrorism baby Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And Im very sorry , but you couldnt ever possibly handle millions of terrorists blowing themselves up all day .
