|
Post by bookandsnake on Apr 28, 2005 22:08:44 GMT -5
Can someone from the Right explain to me the difference between North Korea and Iraq and why we shouldn't expect Bush to plan an invasion of that country soon?
He said tonight that he was handling North Korea by getting together with other countries, such as China.
Is there a reason why he didn't pursue this with Iraq? I imagine he did, so why will he be more patient with Northe Korea than he was with Iraq?
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Apr 29, 2005 6:37:23 GMT -5
Maybe because North Korea actually has WMD?
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 29, 2005 11:28:55 GMT -5
Can someone from the Right explain to me the difference between North Korea and Iraq and why we shouldn't expect Bush to plan an invasion of that country soon? He said tonight that he was handling North Korea by getting together with other countries, such as China. Is there a reason why he didn't pursue this with Iraq? I imagine he did, so why will he be more patient with Northe Korea than he was with Iraq? Quite frankly it's because of South Korea, and the region where North Korea is. Kim Jong Il would not hesitate to launch thousands of artillery shells into Seoul if he felt his regime was under attack. His main goal is the survival of his regime. If the US invaded, thousands of South Koreans would perish with the North's response. If an American invasion and subsequent retaliation by the DPRK were to cause war to expand out of the area, more countries; like China, like Japan, could become involved. Korea is a different entity entirely. It has nothing to do with North Korea's WMD. Kim Jong Il does not have the technology to transport and/or target a nuclear bomb/warhead.
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Apr 29, 2005 12:41:58 GMT -5
What a load of crap
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 29, 2005 13:02:56 GMT -5
Here's a little helpful advice for you. Stick to issues that don't exceed your mental capacity and stay away from threads like these that do. Fact of the matter is.... You don't have a clue!
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Apr 29, 2005 13:14:53 GMT -5
BIK, You need to break that suction that exist between your lips and GW's Ass.
IT'S ABOUT OIL!!!!!!!! NORTH KOREA DOESN'T HAVE IT!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 29, 2005 13:17:28 GMT -5
BIK, You need to break that suction that exist between your lips and GW's Ass. IT'S ABOUT OIL!!!!!!!! NORTH KOREA DOESN'T HAVE IT!!!! Lol. As far as you not having a clue.......... I present the above quote as exhibit A.
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Apr 29, 2005 13:32:48 GMT -5
Coming from you BIK, thats F#$ing Hillarious!!
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 29, 2005 15:21:44 GMT -5
Coming from you BIK, thats F#$ing Hillarious!! It's hard for you to get the big picture because you have such a small screen, but hey, we can't all be astute.
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Apr 29, 2005 16:50:05 GMT -5
It's much harder for you to get the big picture because you have your Bush blinders on. You see an extremely narrow portion the picture & no more. Narrow minded, narrow vision & narry a CLUE.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on May 2, 2005 23:47:16 GMT -5
It's much harder for you to get the big picture because you have your Bush blinders on. You see an extremely narrow portion the picture & no more. Narrow minded, narrow vision & narry a CLUE.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on May 2, 2005 23:52:51 GMT -5
BiK, ya oughta try holdin your eyes still and steppin back a bit if ya wanna see da big picture.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on May 7, 2005 17:39:32 GMT -5
I actualy think that BiK's thoughts about protecting South Korea (and even Japan, and others would be at risk) from hostile attacks in the event of a US invation of N. Korea actually are things to consider greatly.
|
|
|
Post by UCSBVball on May 9, 2005 13:15:29 GMT -5
When BiK is correct (and he rarely is) ;D, please give him credit. North Korea is the main threat in the world to peace. China tolerates them because it can not handle the exodus that would take place if the regime collapses.
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on May 10, 2005 21:03:42 GMT -5
As alluded to earlier in the thread, the issue is more than North Korea's ability to produce a nuclear weapon. They already have tested an IRBM (intermediate range ballistic missile) which may have the range to deliver a payload as far away as Japan.
There are some parallels between North Korea and Iraq. The similiarities are that the regimes in both instances have shown, through their doctrine and political rhetoric, to be willing to use such WMDs if they did in fact possess them, to further their own agendas. And both instances were clear threats to the stability in the region.
I think the difference between N Korea and Iraq is that, in N Korea's instance, the possibility for controlling the threat is greater through negotiation, given the composition of the region, and the interests of other nations within the region. In Iraq, there wasn't much possibility of negotiating with an unwilling Saddam, who had shown blatant disregard for world authority via the U.N.
I believe if the regime of Kim Jong Il becomes as uncooperative, or if they make enough technological advances to achieve an ICBM (intercontinental-range ballistic missile) capability that directly puts US targets at risk, there will be alot more interest (and possibly military action) than there is now.
Nuclear proliferation will become an increasingly more important issue over the next several decades. Pakistan/India is another potential hotspot.
During the Cold War, the running joke in NATO was that NATO/United States would never release custody of any nukes to NATO members Turkey and Greece, even though they might be deployed in those countries, since in all likelihood both countries would take the nukes and lob them at each other instead of the Soviet Union. LOL.
|
|