B
belgiumcdn
Ok lets see weapons of mass destruction a oppressive dictator and no oil
No wonder Bush is no where to be found
No wonder Bush is no where to be found
belgiumcdn said:Ok lets see weapons of mass destruction a oppressive dictator and no oil
No wonder Bush is no where to be found
Think it also has something to do with the political science theory..spheres of influence.belgiumcdn said:Ok lets see weapons of mass destruction a oppressive dictator and no oil
No wonder Bush is no where to be found
do you really believe that those nations developed nukes, because of an pre emptive policy of the USA?someone said:Given the Bush doctrine of preemption, I think that you will see more of these states get nuclear weapons. It is impossible for them to defend themselves against the U.S. in a conventional war like Iraq. Thus repressive countries like Iran and Iraq have a real incentive to adopt nuclear weapons to make the cost of invading them prohibitive even for the Americans. The fact that Iraq with no nuclear weapons was invaded and North Korea with nuclear weapons was not, will not be lost on these regimes.
It is even more naive not to recognize that they now have a very strong incentive to put their programs into overdrive. Before it was more a matter of gaining a little international influence and potential insurance. Now they actually have legitimate security concerns. After all, I am sure that you are not arguing that the U.S. went into Iraq rather than North Korea because they really believed that Iraq’s WMDS were more of a threat! Even Bush is not that dumb.langeweile said:do you really believe that those nations developed nukes, because of an pre emptive policy of the USA?
Come on. NK,Iran and others have been working on those way before that. Most likely with help from China, Russia, India and Pakistan.
It is pretty naive to blame that on US policy.
Hmmmmmmmm, I wonder.someone said:It is even more naive not to recognize that they now have a very strong incentive to put their programs into overdrive. Before it was more a matter of gaining a little international influence and potential insurance. Now they actually have legitimate security concerns. After all, I am sure that you are not arguing that the U.S. went into Iraq rather than North Korea because they really believed that Iraq’s WMDS were more of a threat! Even Bush is not that dumb.
Legitimate concerns??? About what? That the USA will invade NK? T what purpose? That is not going to happen, the goal was always to force NK to a diplomatic solutions.someone said:It is even more naive not to recognize that they now have a very strong incentive to put their programs into overdrive. Before it was more a matter of gaining a little international influence and potential insurance. Now they actually have legitimate security concerns. After all, I am sure that you are not arguing that the U.S. went into Iraq rather than North Korea because they really believed that Iraq’s WMDS were more of a threat! Even Bush is not that dumb.
In case you don't recall, there were three countries named by Bush as being part of the “axis of evil”. They were Iraq, Iran and North Korea. To some extend you might be able to argue that North Korea was named in part so he would not sound anti Muslim. Nonetheless, you state: “Let's face it the NK leader is a highly unstable character and can't be trusted. For me he is on the same level as Adolf, Saddam, Stalin and others.” You are effectively admitting that he is far more of a threat than Iraq was. After the first Gulf war, Sadam was effectively confined to oppressing his own people. Thus, why do you think it was that Iraq was invaded and not North Korea?langeweile said:Legitimate concerns??? About what? That the USA will invade NK? T what purpose? That is not going to happen, the goal was always to force NK to a diplomatic solutions.
All the current posturing is an attempt to legitimize their well developed program.
The issue is not so much if they have nukes or not, the issue is much more about who they will sell it to.
Let's face it the NK leader is a highly unstable character and can't be trusted. For me he is on the same level as Adolf, Saddam, Stalin and others.
Don't forget it's also a brutally repressive regime into which freedom should be exported. In my mind, one of the biggest reasons, if not THE biggest reason the U.S. is hooped here is that the North Korean leadership is crazy and would actually fight back with EVERYTHING they have.belgiumcdn said:Ok lets see weapons of mass destruction a oppressive dictator and no oil
No wonder Bush is no where to be found
Actually I don't think that was his point langeweile. I could be wrong but I think his point was, the U.S. used the excuse of W.M.D. to invade Iraq (then subsequently changed the reason later - see many many many other threads). Now you that you have confirmation of a bona fide threat of W.M.D. you would think they would be quick to invade in the same manner. But they aren't! North Korea has given the U.S. the excuse it needs.langeweile said:You can't have it both ways. You can't complain about Americans being overly agressive and cry about the USA not doing anyhting about Korea....
Looks like you are suffering from PMS gain. Boy are you ever cranky.yychobbyist said:And of course Langeweile, you can't have it both way either - your type can't go around saying how evil Saddam was to his own people, how unstable he made his region and what a jerk he was while letting the N. Koreans get away with the same thing. Or can you? Oh, yeah, you can because you guys like to rewrite history - and the present.
AHMMMM...THE WhOLE WORLD (INCLUDING THE UN) BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS WMD'S.Cardinal Fang said:Actually I don't think that was his point langeweile. I could be wrong but I think his point was, the U.S. used the excuse of W.M.D. to invade Iraq (then subsequently changed the reason later - see many many many other threads). Now you that you have confirmation of a bona fide threat of W.M.D. you would think they would be quick to invade in the same manner. But they aren't! North Korea has given the U.S. the excuse it needs.
I agree that diplomatic solutions are the best way to deal with a nut bar like the one running N. Korea. Especially when he does have the power to cause massive casualties. But what if that fails? Then what? At what point does the Global Cop look at N. Korea in the same way they once viewed Iraq?
The U.S. conveniently rationalized the reasons for the war in Iraq. Don’t be so surprised when the rest of the world holds you to those reasons when a similar situation arises. That, I think, is the point he was trying to make. If not then it's my point.
I would not necessarily call your outlook positive. I would rather use the word primitive.langeweile said:Looks like you are suffering from PMS gain. Boy are you ever cranky.
I don't believe that in your eyes(and some others) the USA can ever do anything right. So to argue about NK with you is really a waste of time. You simply don't like the US and you would rather bite your nose off than ever admit, that occasionally we do something right.
My type is a lot more positive on life...while your type just likes to complain about everything.
the whole world did? didn't hans blix the un weapons inspector say there was no evidence of wmdslangeweile said:AHMMMM...THE WhOLE WORLD (INCLUDING THE UN) BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS WMD'S.
The UN passed a resoultion for Saddam to comply six month before we invaded...how can you forget that?
Personally i believe we should stop bailing out other countries, unless there is a profit in it for us.
Why should we waste our precious tax dollars to clean up other peoples mess? It is time for the armchair quarterbacks of the world to step up to the plate. Give all the "whiners" and "Nay sayers" a chance at the big table.
We are powerful enough to protect ourselves.
You wanna deal with NK..go ahead be my guest.I would like nothing more than for Canada to take the lead on this.
Clinton decided to pay this punk off, to keep him quiet.Only for the guy to step up and demand more. Let someone else pay this time..sounds good to me.
i have no problem with people disagreeing, but why get personal? Even you have to refer to personal attacks. Why? because I disagree with you? That makes me automatically primitive?danmand said:I would not necessarily call your outlook positive. I would rather use the word primitive.
If anyone dares to disagree with you, you claim that he not even does not like you, or not even does not like the policy of the current US administration, or not even does not like the president, but you accuse him of not liking the entire USA, all its people and all its landmass.
Has it occurred to you, that he may simply disagree with your opinion?
See now, Langeweile, what I wrote in the previous post was not a personal attack. It was rather an attempt to help you deal with people who disagree with you.langeweile said:i have no problem with people disagreeing, but why get personal? Even you have to refer to personal attacks. Why? because I disagree with you? That makes me automatically primitive?